Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple is sued for telling you that you're “buying” movies

nofilmschool.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 479 posts

Re: Apple is sued for telling you that you're “buying” movies

#41

Post by underwater »

makach wrote: post #31

Yes. Hopefully they will do something about it. I have "bought" many movies on iTunes, you may argue that I am part of the problem, but I do because it is so very convenient. I perfectly understand the implicit meaning of "buying" and what I get is a non-transferable license to access the movie from my account. The same problem exists with video-games. It is much closer to a rental than ownership. I believe that all…

Neither the media nor tech companies would want to do that. Media companies get you to buy things multiple times. Tech companies get you locked into their platform.

Re: Apple is sued for telling you that you're “buying” movies

#42

Post by NavinF »

throws23577 wrote: post #38
bajsejohannes wrote: post #2

Somewhat related, I'm confused every time iOS says "Processing Payment" when I download a free app.

Is it possible to download free apps from the App Store without ever giving payment details to Apple? For example, if I don't set up card details during phone set up, can I still download free apps?

Yes. The UI is obtuse, but you can create an Apple ID with the payment method set to "none" and then download free apps

Re: Apple is sued for telling you that you're “buying” movies

#43

Post by newbie578 »

Full support, of course Apple and other similar companies are using all the tools to their advantage.

If I do not "own" the digital goods are paid for, then make them change from "Buy" to "Rent for 10 years", and let's seem them then explain that to elderly parents.

That would be interesting to watch.

Re: Apple is sued for telling you that you're “buying” movies

#44

Post by timc3 »

hyperman1 wrote: post #25
senko wrote: post #6

I've seen the phrase "Own it in {HD/BluRay/4K}" so many times and always cringe. You're just owning a limited license ( extremely limited, in the case of digital goods) to watch. The average HN user can spot the difference and say "of course you don't own it, and in case of streaming, you only have access for as long as the service is around", but that's not what the average consumer sees. "Buy" and "own" have very s…

This 'of course you dont own it' is false. Compare with a book, which you can own. The law makes sure you stil can't distribute limitless copies, even if you own it. But you can inherit a book, lend it out, be sure it stays around after the vendor would rather take it back, even swatting flies as a purposes it wasn't ment for. Licensing, and specifically the EULA, was popularized by Microsoft, to make sure you didn't…

It is not false, just books never had such a problem and so the license wasn't deemed necessary to put anywhere. You own the paper that it's printed on, but you don't own the pictures or the words in the order they are written down.

The protection that a book has against being copied is that the format makes it more difficult to copy it quickly/cost-effectively for most people. You can do what you are saying with a DVD such as inherit it, though it's terrible for killing flies.

But the fact is that you are not allowed distribute a "copy you made" at all of a book without agreement from the copyright holders/owners or to the extent the law dictates.

Re: Apple is sued for telling you that you're “buying” movies

#45

Post by ClumsyPilot »

galad87 wrote: post #27
wiredfool wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So is the core of this issue that if I "buy" a movie on iTunes (say Kenneth Braunah's Henry V), and they lose the right to distribute it (as they did within the last year), I can no longer watch the movie?

If you did not download a copy on your disk, yes you won't be able to download and watch it again.

It is plausible for me to buy Braking Bad today, and for them to loose licence tomorrow. The series is so long it takes multiple days to watch.

What is the legal position in this case?

Re: Apple is sued for telling you that you're “buying” movies

#46

Post by nokya »

senko wrote: post #6

I've seen the phrase "Own it in {HD/BluRay/4K}" so many times and always cringe. You're just owning a limited license ( extremely limited, in the case of digital goods) to watch. The average HN user can spot the difference and say "of course you don't own it, and in case of streaming, you only have access for as long as the service is around", but that's not what the average consumer sees. "Buy" and "own" have very s…

Fully agree with you.

I also sense there is an increasing acceptance by consumers, that it is normal to not be allowed anymore to own a legal copy of a digital work (e.g. picture, movie, music, software, etc.) for personal use. Most of these companies now treat their consumers defensively and as potential copyright infringers who will exploit the first occasion to get rich.

I don't accept that.

So I try to organize my digital consumption on an assumption that I will neither have internet access nor a "subscriber account" at time of consuming (e.g. software, video game, e-book, movie, etc.).

Products like "Spotify", "Netflix" or "Steam", and those "modern" video game consoles that treat you like a cheater if you try to log off and refuse to be constantly transmitting telemetry about you don't have a place in my wallet. I'd prefer

Sadly, I know I am losing the battle, all my friends gladly pay their monthly fees to not own anything anymore. I guess it's just a question of when I will get tired.

EDIT: forgot to mention, the thing I don't mind paying for a "limited access" is going to the cinema/theater and newspapers. Those two activities get quite a lot of attention from my wallet :)

Re: Apple is sued for telling you that you're “buying” movies

#47

Post by ClumsyPilot »

makach wrote: post #31

Yes. Hopefully they will do something about it. I have "bought" many movies on iTunes, you may argue that I am part of the problem, but I do because it is so very convenient. I perfectly understand the implicit meaning of "buying" and what I get is a non-transferable license to access the movie from my account. The same problem exists with video-games. It is much closer to a rental than ownership. I believe that all…

Vudeo games are a bit less infuriating because a 20-year old game may not even run, if multioplyer, it needs online servers and services, etc.

Re: Apple is sued for telling you that you're “buying” movies

#48

Post by ClumsyPilot »

simondotau wrote: post #5

you never really own them Controversial take, but does "buying" explicitly mean owning? You never really "own" a movie you buy on blu-ray either—you own the atoms , but not the content which is merely licensed to you as it is with a legal download. The difference between downloads and physical media is actually less characterised by ownership and more by perpetuity of access. The key benefit of blu-ray is that perpet…

Actually that you gor pointing out that you cannot repair apple eqipment because they actively prevent you from getting access to soare parts, making sure your machine will break, and you will loose your movie. They also refuse to repair old machines or recover user data.

On the contrary, you can buy a replacement bluray player.

Re: Apple is sued for telling you that you're “buying” movies

#49

Post by Retric »

timc3 wrote: post #44
hyperman1 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This 'of course you dont own it' is false. Compare with a book, which you can own. The law makes sure you stil can't distribute limitless copies, even if you own it. But you can inherit a book, lend it out, be sure it stays around after the vendor would rather take it back, even swatting flies as a purposes it wasn't ment for. Licensing, and specifically the EULA, was popularized by Microsoft, to make sure you didn't…

It is not false, just books never had such a problem and so the license wasn't deemed necessary to put anywhere. You own the paper that it's printed on, but you don't own the pictures or the words in the order they are written down. The protection that a book has against being copied is that the format makes it more difficult to copy it quickly/cost-effectively for most people. You can do what you are saying with a D…

The difference is you don’t need to make a copy of a book to use it. That’s what gives EULA’s their power. A copy of Windows on a DVD that you can’t copy to a HDD is at best decorative rather than useful.

A book on the other hand could be read by thousands of people in it’s lifetime.

Re: Apple is sued for telling you that you're “buying” movies

#50

Post by watwut »

hyperman1 wrote: post #13

This seams the core of Apple's defence: Apple contends that '[n]o reasonable consumer would believe' that purchased content would remain on the iTunes platform indefinitely which is a flagrant difference between ownership of physical items and non-cloud items vs cloud items. This strikes at the root of our society's definition of ownership. Clarification should not depend on Apple, or even a court. This should be ens…

Maybe I am unreasonable, but that is exactly what I expect when I purchase content.
Post reply on HN