In Music, DRM Is Back While Ownership Is Going Away

[maddz]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

EPUB e-readers mostly implement Adobe DRM, but to be able to switch from one to the other, you'll have to use ADE, and register stuff, and get the books into ADE itself, and so on; there DRM is much more intrusive. (FairPlay, a DRM-standard for music, was comparable. Does it even see any use today?)

Still on iBooks I'm afraid. I had to resort to a pdf to get a version of a book that I could convert to a different format (I wasn't going to pay $25 for a shareware program to crack a single file and pretty well all my music is off CDs).

[latepaul]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Yes, it's a red herring. You are trying to argue philosophy, but for the most part, in real life, everyone knows exactly what you are buying.

I'm really not. I'm asking you to define your terms. What have you bought? What laws cover it and what rights do they give you?

To use your example, a digital copy of The Shining. You have the right to watch that digital copy whenever you feel like it. There is no difference between that and a copy that's on a VHS tape.

Mostly true. There's the matter of the tape itself.

The vendor can't restrict you to watching it only from 5 pm to 10 pm on a Saturday or Sunday, regardless of what their assertion is, unless of course, the only way to watch it is to stream it from their site.

They could do that, they probably just couldn't enforce it. The truth is that you gain a right to have a copy of the movie based on the terms the copyright holder dictates. I can imagine it would be possible to write terms that are legally unenforceable but I believe they would be more niche than even your example.

Once again, a company can assert all they want. Doesn't mean it will be upheld by a jury.

True but you say "assert" as if everyone knows what buying an intangible thing like a digital download is and the company have flouted it. It's not like buying a physical object. I've given an explanation based on copyright law - which equates to licensing. If you have a different one explain it, tell me what it's based on. If it doesn't involve licensing then it won't involve copyright.

There is a reason that in iTunes you have a choice between renting (i.e. your licensing) and buying. Buying is more expensive, but you get to keep the movie.

Two different forms of licensing. Two different sets of terms. One gives you a short-term license the other indefinite.

What is it that you are keeping? You accuse me of arguing philosophy, my counter-argument is that you're not being concrete enough. You're handwaving - "everybody knows" etc.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by maddz

Still on iBooks I'm afraid. I had to resort to a pdf to get a version of a book that I could convert to a different format (I wasn't going to pay $25 for a shareware program to crack a single file and pretty well all my music is off CDs).

I'm not sure what program you are talking about, but the program I use isn't shareware, it's a normal software vendor that sells professionally done software to format shift iTunes ebooks, audiobooks and movies. There are actually a couple of them. Pretty nice also, they regularly update the program and it works quite well.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by latepaul

I'm really not. I'm asking you to define your terms. What have you bought? What laws cover it and what rights do they give you?



Mostly true. There's the matter of the tape itself.



They could do that, they probably just couldn't enforce it. The truth is that you gain a right to have a copy of the movie based on the terms the copyright holder dictates. I can imagine it would be possible to write terms that are legally unenforceable but I believe they would be more niche than even your example.



True but you say "assert" as if everyone knows what buying an intangible thing like a digital download is and the company have flouted it. It's not like buying a physical object. I've given an explanation based on copyright law - which equates to licensing. If you have a different one explain it, tell me what it's based on. If it doesn't involve licensing then it won't involve copyright.



Two different forms of licensing. Two different sets of terms. One gives you a short-term license the other indefinite.

What is it that you are keeping? You accuse me of arguing philosophy, my counter-argument is that you're not being concrete enough. You're handwaving - "everybody knows" etc.

There is a big difference between what a company asserts, and what stands up in court. The head of Disney once asserted that fast forwarding through commercials is stealing from Disney. Doesn't make it true and the statement is totally contrary to court findings.

Licensing and buying are two different concepts. You don't license a big mac and fries when you go to McDonalds. Claiming that it's licensed doesn't make it so. There is no hand waving going on. You are the one asserting that the sky is green and grass is blue. I'm the one saying when the button say buy, then I've bought it, not licensed it. Renting is a lot closer to the idea of licensing. You get use of something for a set period of time. One can either lease a car for a set period of time, or buy it. That's why I pointed out that both Apple and Amazon will either rent (license) or sell (buy).

Common expectation is a very sound legal doctrine, especially in contract law. If I buy a ticket to see the new Star Wars movie, then I didn't buy a piece of paper, I bought the right to sit through one showing of the new Star Wars movie. Selling someone a ticket and saying "sorry, you just bought a piece of paper" is generally considered fraud.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Licensing and buying are two different concepts. You don't license a big mac and fries when you go to McDonalds. Claiming that it's licensed doesn't make it so. There is no hand waving going on. You are the one asserting that the sky is green and grass is blue. I'm the one saying when the button say buy, then I've bought it, not licensed it.

When the store tells you in black and white, though, there's certainly no hand-waving.

E.g., from Amazon UK

Kindle Content is licensed, not sold, to you by the Content Provider.

That seems pretty clear and unambiguous to me. Hit "Buy" and you're buying a licence.