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

251–260 of 479 posts

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

#251

Post by Crontab »

I have never liked the term 'buy' on anything with DRM. This isn't really an Apple problem so much as an industry problem. I think 'license' would be a better term.

When it comes to Apple specifically, they really need to let iOS users know that they need to back up DRMed movies, shows, and books. I know some iOS-only users who are under the impression that they will forever be able to redownload these items. In reality, there is no of guarantee of that, as Apple may might not hold distribution rights at some point in the future.

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

#252

Post by mywittyname »

lrvick wrote: post #134
Aardwolf wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have put quite some trust in Steam and hope I won't get disappointed

You will be. Give it a decade.

I've given it two; so far, so good.

Though, I have made the transition to GOG where possible. but with so many games requiring online activation, I've accepted modern games might not have a long shelf life.

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

#253

Post by mortenjorck »

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…

This has happened to me with iTunes, and Apple's contention in the suit has been expressed to me by Apple support.

A few months ago, I was browsing my iTunes cloud library and noticed that an album I had purchased years prior was missing a few songs. I contacted support, and the support agent explained to me that the rights holder had removed the songs from the store, and thus they were now removed from my library. (Inexplicably, the entire album is still available on iTunes, but apparently the version I bought was removed.)

The rep also helpfully recommended that I back up my downloads in the future. While I did in fact have all the songs downloaded on my Mac, I’m not sure what the official solution would be for someone whose primary device is an iPad or an iPhone.

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

#254

Post by wruza »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #205
borepop wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I relate to this energy.

Most users just do not care about "owning" DRM-free files. Most users don't have any clue about how to store, manage, or safeguard their DRM-free digital purchases.

It’s not their fault. We do not have even primitive means to access (except the html part) or participate in the internet, despite FOSS everything. Backups/storage? Dropbox/Google. Send a file to your buddy? Telegram/GDrive. Remote help? TeamViewer. Hosting a site? Facebook/Wix. We failed everything, and only very tech-savvy users can (and have time to) do one of the above without depending on something corporate.

Imagine if every browser had UI->API connection to popular hostings (or a local pc) and could allow users (and businesses) to exchange files, documents, messages, media, etc, and also had established UIs for all of that. All these instagrams, facebooks, google services, dropboxes simply exploited OS shortcomings and stupid complexity of its operation. If a user could just tap to publish a photo, they wouldn’t need a platform/service and a separate app for that. If a user could bypass NAT, they wouldn’t need remote help services. IIRC, the top comment on Dropbox was along the lines of “will not fly, everyone can rsync/email their files for free”. Turned out nobody can. We still use corporate services to send files across the same room, because even simple file sharing still doesn’t fucking work, not to mention media-exchange/play and UIs for that. It’s not “Most users don’t have any clue ...”, it’s “All users don’t ...”.

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

#255

Post by 8bitsrule »

I physically own about 1000 commercial disks (stored in Logic cases) I'll never part with. Ripped to HD, instantly available, no network needed.

Result is quite different from a 'license' to 'stream' since 1984. Solar flare, no worries. House fire, HD backup. Big Tech dies, network gone, meh. Got my tunes.

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

#256

Post by Silhouette »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #133
ziml77 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not every copyright holder is a massive corporation. Artists produce many pieces per year. That would cost them a lot to keep copyrights.

Not for the duration that matters. 5 years for free is plenty of time to make reasonable income on your creations; after that, you're just seeking rent from society. Sure, boost that to 10 or even 20 years if needed[0]. But from then on extension costs should grow exponential - otherwise we risk locking down work for duration longer than a human lifetime. Like it already happens with Disney. -- [0] - 20 years may hav…

5 years for free is plenty of time to make reasonable income on your creations; after that, you're just seeking rent from society.

I strongly dispute this statement, unless your definition of reasonable income does not include at least making back the money you spent on producing the content in the first place. You're ignoring all the small creators who produce new material for niche markets, possibly as a side income rather than their main jobs, and rely on the long tail of sales of that original work to make it financially worthwhile. Not every copyright holder is a Hollywood movie studio, big name record label or international book publisher you've heard of.

Your longer periods might be more realistic in those cases, and even 10 years might not be enough to break even.

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

#257

Post by wang_li »

SketchySeaBeast wrote: post #200
moviuro wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By adding yet another indirection. Compiling the binaries for Linux and just shipping it with a fat "no warranty" label on top would have been 100x better. Even Linux distros do that (GPL: `THERE IS NO WARRANTY FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW.`)

You want them to sell their product with a "if it doesn't work it's not our problem" label? I'm sure there are consumer protection laws against that.

The no particular fitness of purpose clause in nearly every EULA you’ve ever clicked through is literally that.

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

#258

Post by andrewzah »

Digital stores need to update their terminology to reflect that you don't actually -own- what you buy. So many people are confused by this as it's counterintuitive.

And this is why piracy is, and will, always continue. I legally buy movies and then have to deal with DRM and other nasty, annoying things that only affect paying customers! People who pirate have no such limitations to deal with.

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

#259

Post by elliekelly »

BoorishBears wrote: post #213
BruiseLee wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually that is correct in many countries (including US). After a period of inactivity (typically 3-5 years) the bank is required to turn over the money from inactive accounts to the state. This process is called escheatment. I'm not joking.

Only on HN would you need to specify "active account" for such a clear cut analogy. Two replies and both are picking that nit. Apple is admitting regardless of activity, studios can revoke their license to content, removing content from your active account

Threads with analogies are one of my favorite HN idiosyncrasies because they’re almost guaranteed to be followed up with something along the lines of “a better analogy would be $materiallySimilarAnalogy” or “that’s not a good analogy because $immaterialDetail”. Just an endearing quirk of HN users to have a tendency to be overly-precise, I think.

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

#260

Post by ghaff »

sixothree wrote: post #239
ghaff wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to be somewhat skeptical of the convenience claim. A former colleague argued that the attraction of Napster was more about convenience than price which I didn't really buy. But if we look at the popularity of streaming services today versus owning even DRM-free music, that would seem to support the convenience theory. (It hasn't taken off for books to the same degree but I'd guess that's in part because the va…

I have Netflix, Prime, Hulu, Spotify, sometimes Youtube TV, OTA via TIVO. Trust me, TPB is much more convenient.

I can be streaming just about anything purchased/rented a la carte from Amazon in a couple of minutes. It costs more but I don't see how that's less convenient than TPB.
Post reply on HN