2 ms·

I am going to submit a minority opinion here and say that I think publishers should be allowed to sell you a non-transferable license to access a e-book. If Di

I am going to submit a minority opinion here and say that I think publishers should be allowed to sell you a non-transferable license to access a e-book. If Disneyland wants to sell you a non-transferable season pass, I see nothing wrong with that. I'm not proposing that we take away your right to resell, I'm arguing that we allow you to buy something less valuable. A non-transferable license is worth less than a transferable license, and if it does not cost less you should not but it, but that is a pricing issue.

r00fus 12y ago
As long as they are forced to sell you a transferrable version, I'd say that's ok. The danger is the case when only non-transferrable licenses exist for all media due to industry collusion.
- seanflyon 12y ago
  Forcing them to sell you a transferable version seems reasonable, but I still disagree. First, forcing them to sell you something is meaningless unless you force them to sell it to you at a reasonable price, so you plan requires price fixing. Second, collusion is already illegal. Finally, I don't see the danger. This is already quickly becoming the case for video games and has been great for the industry, both developer and consumer.
  - r00fus 12y ago
    > Second, collusion is already illegal. How do you explain region codes and industry-wide DRM? (esp. for videos - non DRM'd digital video is almost nonexistent).
    - seanflyon 12y ago
      Different companies can use the same format without colluding. Are you suggesting that in a competitive environment content companies could not afford to anger their customer buy using DRM? These companies believe that they would lose more sales by not having DRM than by having it. Look at GoG vs Steam. GoG gets some bonus points for not having DRM, but having DRM doesn't seem to costing Steam too many sales.

2 ms·

I am going to submit a minority opinion here and say that I think publishers should be allowed to sell you a non-transferable license to access a e-book. If Di

by seanflyon 12y ago

r00fus 12y ago
As long as they are forced to sell you a transferrable version, I'd say that's ok. The danger is the case when only non-transferrable licenses exist for all media due to industry collusion.
- seanflyon 12y ago
  Forcing them to sell you a transferable version seems reasonable, but I still disagree. First, forcing them to sell you something is meaningless unless you force them to sell it to you at a reasonable price, so you plan requires price fixing. Second, collusion is already illegal. Finally, I don't see the danger. This is already quickly becoming the case for video games and has been great for the industry, both developer and consumer.
  - r00fus 12y ago
    > Second, collusion is already illegal. How do you explain region codes and industry-wide DRM? (esp. for videos - non DRM'd digital video is almost nonexistent).
    - seanflyon 12y ago
      Different companies can use the same format without colluding. Are you suggesting that in a competitive environment content companies could not afford to anger their customer buy using DRM? These companies believe that they would lose more sales by not having DRM than by having it. Look at GoG vs Steam. GoG gets some bonus points for not having DRM, but having DRM doesn't seem to costing Steam too many sales.