4 ms·

Companies should have the term "buying" forbidden if DRM is involved. (This page http://www.jmanga.com/hoshi-no-samidare-the-lucifer-and-biscuit-hammer/5 http:

by koide 14y ago

Companies should have the term "buying" forbidden if DRM is involved. (This page http://www.jmanga.com/hoshi-no-samidare-the-lucifer-and-biscuit-hammer/5 http://www.jmanga.com/hoshi-no-samidare-the-lucifer-and-bisc... is filled with "buy" this and that)

hga 14y ago
I'm inclined to agree ... but on the other hand, from reading the Anime News Network forum topic it seems very likely the people running the company were operating in good faith and that the rug got pulled out from underneath them. You could effectively ban DRM that depends on active servers or schemes like this where the content is always kept on theirs' by requiring them to post a bond sufficient to refund the customers who've been screwed. Not the full amount, but enough to compensate for value promised but not delivered. It would be essentially declaring it is not in the public interest to allow companies to play these games, but here's a mechanism if you're really determined. Liability of some sort really needs to be established, and it would be wise for the companies playing these games to do something intelligent before extreme DRM becomes too toxic.
- rhizome 14y ago
  At least in the US, the word "buy" should apply only to things subject to the right of first sale.
- polemic 14y ago
  > "...it seems very likely the people running the company were operating in good faith" I don't think that matters. They're not in good faith selling ownership, because they're not selling ownership.
- clinth 14y ago
  Good faith means less when you're selling an ongoing service and accept money. When they promised an ongoing service to host purchases, they laid the rug out and stood on it.
belorn 14y ago
If a product is bought and sold, it should mean that ownership has been transferred. If ownership has changed hands, then the previous owner should not be allowed to retain control over the product. DRM, withholding of root passwords, forced updates, it really shouldn't matter. The owner should be the person of total control, and anyone interfering with that should be sent to court as a thief or intruder. This was after all the economic model in USA before DRM was invented.
- hga 14y ago
  Surely they were depending on representations by the Japanese companies they were fronting for. Although as we've seen in the anime market, those, at least implicit ones, can be very iffy (Pioneer/Geneon, Bandai).
- spc476 14y ago
  I asked a lawyer about this. Well, specifically, about the difference between a physical book and an ebook (Kindle). He basically stated that when you buy a physical book, you are, in fact, obtaining a license to read the contents of said book. While you own the physical object, you do not own the contents. You can transfer this "license" to another party (gift it or sell it) but you, in fact, licensing the contents. It makes a weird kind of sense. I can sell the license to my physical copy of _Neuromancer_, but I cannot sell the contents (or claim to be the author) of _Neuromancer_.
  - belorn 14y ago
    That is actually incorrect. Once you bought the physical book, it is yours. There is no license involved¹, and you may do what ever you want with your property. However, copyright law adds an incursion on top of property rights, which by government law adds a limitation to what the owner of the private property might do. 1) Some books include a legal trick by adding a shrink wrap around the book. The claim is that by breaking such "seal", the owner of the book agrees to a legal binding contract (confusingly called a "License Agreement") with the book publisher. Such practice has a long history of being non-enforceable outside the United States, and a sketchy history within.
WalterBright 14y ago
It always bugged me that dvds would be advertised as "own the movie now!" I wonder how that would play in court.
Wingman4l7 14y ago
There's actually a "We The People" petition on this: "Force companies to change language from "buying" to "licensing" when dealing with DRM-restricted goods." https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/force-companies-change-language-buying-licensing-when-dealing-drm-restricted-goods/myq4rZjX https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/force-companies-ch... Before you derisively dismiss this, you might want to take a look at their response to the cellphone unlocking petition: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking-cell-phones-legal/1g9KhZG7 https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking-cel...
- wuest 14y ago
  This is an awesome petition. Thanks for bringing it to our attention; I've signed it. That being said, I don't view the cellphone response as particularly progressive. The way it parses for me is "we think your phone should be unlocked if you don't have a contract." It didn't address the criminalization of unlocking cellphones while under a contract. Maybe I'm wrong, and I'd love to hear if I am, but I've read it a few times and I can't find another way to read the response.
- Gormo 14y ago
  A petition - especially to the executive branch rather than the legislative - is hardly the way to approach this. How about class-action lawsuits for fraudulent misrepresentations for businesses that use the word "buy" in deliberately deceptive ways?
  - coldtea 14y ago
    >How about class-action lawsuits for fraudulent misrepresentations for businesses that use the word "buy" in deliberately deceptive ways? And then one or two judges declare it "OK", and that's it.
    - Wingman4l7 14y ago
      Yeah, legal precedent is a double-edged sword.
    - 14y ago

by koide 14y ago

hga 14y ago

I'm inclined to agree ... but on the other hand, from reading the Anime News Network forum topic it seems very likely the people running the company were operating in good faith and that the rug got pulled out from underneath them. You could effectively ban DRM that depends on active servers or schemes like this where the content is always kept on theirs' by requiring them to post a bond sufficient to refund the customers who've been screwed. Not the full amount, but enough to compensate for value promised but not delivered. It would be essentially declaring it is not in the public interest to allow companies to play these games, but here's a mechanism if you're really determined. Liability of some sort really needs to be established, and it would be wise for the companies playing these games to do something intelligent before extreme DRM becomes too toxic.

rhizome 14y ago
At least in the US, the word "buy" should apply only to things subject to the right of first sale.
polemic 14y ago
> "...it seems very likely the people running the company were operating in good faith" I don't think that matters. They're not in good faith selling ownership, because they're not selling ownership.
clinth 14y ago
Good faith means less when you're selling an ongoing service and accept money. When they promised an ongoing service to host purchases, they laid the rug out and stood on it.

belorn 14y ago

If a product is bought and sold, it should mean that ownership has been transferred. If ownership has changed hands, then the previous owner should not be allowed to retain control over the product. DRM, withholding of root passwords, forced updates, it really shouldn't matter. The owner should be the person of total control, and anyone interfering with that should be sent to court as a thief or intruder. This was after all the economic model in USA before DRM was invented.

hga 14y ago
Surely they were depending on representations by the Japanese companies they were fronting for. Although as we've seen in the anime market, those, at least implicit ones, can be very iffy (Pioneer/Geneon, Bandai).
spc476 14y ago
I asked a lawyer about this. Well, specifically, about the difference between a physical book and an ebook (Kindle). He basically stated that when you buy a physical book, you are, in fact, obtaining a license to read the contents of said book. While you own the physical object, you do not own the contents. You can transfer this "license" to another party (gift it or sell it) but you, in fact, licensing the contents. It makes a weird kind of sense. I can sell the license to my physical copy of _Neuromancer_, but I cannot sell the contents (or claim to be the author) of _Neuromancer_.
- belorn 14y ago
  That is actually incorrect. Once you bought the physical book, it is yours. There is no license involved¹, and you may do what ever you want with your property. However, copyright law adds an incursion on top of property rights, which by government law adds a limitation to what the owner of the private property might do. 1) Some books include a legal trick by adding a shrink wrap around the book. The claim is that by breaking such "seal", the owner of the book agrees to a legal binding contract (confusingly called a "License Agreement") with the book publisher. Such practice has a long history of being non-enforceable outside the United States, and a sketchy history within.

WalterBright 14y ago

It always bugged me that dvds would be advertised as "own the movie now!" I wonder how that would play in court.

Wingman4l7 14y ago

There's actually a "We The People" petition on this: "Force companies to change language from "buying" to "licensing" when dealing with DRM-restricted goods." https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/force-companies-change-language-buying-licensing-when-dealing-drm-restricted-goods/myq4rZjX https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/force-companies-ch... Before you derisively dismiss this, you might want to take a look at their response to the cellphone unlocking petition: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking-cell-phones-legal/1g9KhZG7 https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/make-unlocking-cel...

wuest 14y ago
This is an awesome petition. Thanks for bringing it to our attention; I've signed it. That being said, I don't view the cellphone response as particularly progressive. The way it parses for me is "we think your phone should be unlocked if you don't have a contract." It didn't address the criminalization of unlocking cellphones while under a contract. Maybe I'm wrong, and I'd love to hear if I am, but I've read it a few times and I can't find another way to read the response.
Gormo 14y ago
A petition - especially to the executive branch rather than the legislative - is hardly the way to approach this. How about class-action lawsuits for fraudulent misrepresentations for businesses that use the word "buy" in deliberately deceptive ways?
- coldtea 14y ago
  >How about class-action lawsuits for fraudulent misrepresentations for businesses that use the word "buy" in deliberately deceptive ways? And then one or two judges declare it "OK", and that's it.
  - Wingman4l7 14y ago
    Yeah, legal precedent is a double-edged sword.
  - 14y ago