4 ms·

Keurig is free to do what they want, just as a consumer is free to choose whichever coffee maker they want. Maybe this will blow up in their face, or perhaps g

by giarc 13y ago

Keurig is free to do what they want, just as a consumer is free to choose whichever coffee maker they want. Maybe this will blow up in their face, or perhaps given their market share it will all work out.

HarryHirsch 13y ago
This practice isn't what copyright was intended for when it was written into the constitution. The idea is that copyright is a time-limited monopoly to make money of immaterial property, it mustn't serve to lock out the secondary market for printer cartridges and coffee.
- mikeash 13y ago
  The way it should work is, Keurig should be able to do whatever they want in terms of DRM on their hardware, and other companies should be able to do whatever they want in terms of reverse engineering that DRM to produce compatible products. I don't know if that's how the law actually is, but it sounds like it might be.
  - Consultant32452 13y ago
    With the DMCA it is illegal for competitors to reverse engineer the DRM to produce compatible products.
    - AUmrysh 13y ago
      It's illegal for them to reverse engineer (and reimplement) hardware DRM for interoperability, but software DRM circumvention is protected by DMCA, only for the purpose of interoperability.
  - PeterisP 13y ago
    In my jurisdiction, interoperability is a valid legal reason to ignore copyright restriction. Actually, I believe that none of the current global copyright agreements would prohibit anyone from distributing products that flagrantly circumvent that DRM, there's only the USA-specific DMCA.
- superuser2 13y ago
  There is no indication that copyright is the mechanism here. What copyright was intended for is not remotely relevant.
elliotz 13y ago
> Keurig is free to do what they want, just as a consumer is free to choose whichever coffee maker they want. The issue isn't whether Keurig should be free to add DRM to their product or not. The issue is whether they should be able to use the law to prevent competitors from circumventing that DRM. Printer manufacturers tried a similar stunt with adding DRM to printer cartridges and suing the makers of after-market cartridges for DMCA violations.
kjjw 13y ago
IIRC, the EU took a different view on printers and printer cartridges. Those can no longer be 'DRMed'. I don't see why they would take a different view with coffee machines.
- pasbesoin 13y ago
  To add to this, manufacturing and ultimately disposing of all these units carries costs that are not entirely reflected in their price. (Limited resources, pollution, etc.) Designs that deliberately hinder their performance and perhaps artificially shorten their lifespan, may be viewed as against the public good -- especially if and as this becomes standard practice across a range of products. Society may indeed decide that they are not "free to do as they please", in this respect. Just like your car is required to have adequate passenger restraint systems, and many other conditions that are "imposed".
mcherm 13y ago
Ah, but the question is whether the consumer is free to choose whichever coffee maker REFILL they want. The ethical and legal question is whether there's a good reason why Keurig should be allowed to forbid anyone else from manufacturing compatible refills (if they want to) or forbid customers from buying these refills (if they want to). As far as US law is concerned, do you think that prohibiting the manufacture of these compatible refills will "promote the progress of science and useful arts"? Because that is what Keurig is (effectively) claiming by relying on copyright law in this way.

by giarc 13y ago

HarryHirsch 13y ago

This practice isn't what copyright was intended for when it was written into the constitution. The idea is that copyright is a time-limited monopoly to make money of immaterial property, it mustn't serve to lock out the secondary market for printer cartridges and coffee.

mikeash 13y ago
The way it should work is, Keurig should be able to do whatever they want in terms of DRM on their hardware, and other companies should be able to do whatever they want in terms of reverse engineering that DRM to produce compatible products. I don't know if that's how the law actually is, but it sounds like it might be.
- Consultant32452 13y ago
  With the DMCA it is illegal for competitors to reverse engineer the DRM to produce compatible products.
  - AUmrysh 13y ago
    It's illegal for them to reverse engineer (and reimplement) hardware DRM for interoperability, but software DRM circumvention is protected by DMCA, only for the purpose of interoperability.
- PeterisP 13y ago
  In my jurisdiction, interoperability is a valid legal reason to ignore copyright restriction. Actually, I believe that none of the current global copyright agreements would prohibit anyone from distributing products that flagrantly circumvent that DRM, there's only the USA-specific DMCA.
superuser2 13y ago
There is no indication that copyright is the mechanism here. What copyright was intended for is not remotely relevant.

elliotz 13y ago

> Keurig is free to do what they want, just as a consumer is free to choose whichever coffee maker they want. The issue isn't whether Keurig should be free to add DRM to their product or not. The issue is whether they should be able to use the law to prevent competitors from circumventing that DRM. Printer manufacturers tried a similar stunt with adding DRM to printer cartridges and suing the makers of after-market cartridges for DMCA violations.

kjjw 13y ago

IIRC, the EU took a different view on printers and printer cartridges. Those can no longer be 'DRMed'. I don't see why they would take a different view with coffee machines.

pasbesoin 13y ago
To add to this, manufacturing and ultimately disposing of all these units carries costs that are not entirely reflected in their price. (Limited resources, pollution, etc.) Designs that deliberately hinder their performance and perhaps artificially shorten their lifespan, may be viewed as against the public good -- especially if and as this becomes standard practice across a range of products. Society may indeed decide that they are not "free to do as they please", in this respect. Just like your car is required to have adequate passenger restraint systems, and many other conditions that are "imposed".

mcherm 13y ago

Ah, but the question is whether the consumer is free to choose whichever coffee maker REFILL they want. The ethical and legal question is whether there's a good reason why Keurig should be allowed to forbid anyone else from manufacturing compatible refills (if they want to) or forbid customers from buying these refills (if they want to). As far as US law is concerned, do you think that prohibiting the manufacture of these compatible refills will "promote the progress of science and useful arts"? Because that is what Keurig is (effectively) claiming by relying on copyright law in this way.