This is completely wrongheaded. We don't want legal characterizations of these transactions to be "licenses". If what we pay money for is a good that we purchased, we get to keep that copy - and sell it if we no longer want it. Who cares if there's DRM on it. There will always be DRM on it. Without DRM there's no way we'd be able to resell the copy that we purchased. Apple recently received a patent on this very topic.
Require companies to use the term "licensing" instead of "buying" with DRM goods
11–20 of 60 posts
Re: Require companies to use the term "licensing" instead of "buying" with DRM goods
#12This soooo needs to happen, but the lobby against such a bill would be so gigantic that it would never pass. The vast majority of people do not realize just how restrictive the digital goods terms of service typically are, and it will take many years and many instances of accounts being locked, hacked, companies shutting down auth servers or going out of business before changes happen.
Re: Require companies to use the term "licensing" instead of "buying" with DRM goods
#13Can any lawyers/legislative types comment on how this would be implemented assuming everyone in congress and the whitehouse supported the petition?
Seems like it doesn't need any legislation: it can just be an FTC rule.
The FTC's power in that area comes from a very small piece of legislation, and is limited to only what that legislation provides.
From 15 USC §45:
> The Commission is hereby empowered and directed to prevent persons, partnerships, or corporations ... from using unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce.
> The Commission shall have no authority under this section or section 57a of this title to declare unlawful an act or practice on the grounds that such act or practice is unfair unless the act or practice causes or is likely to cause substantial injury to consumers which is not reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves and not outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition.
Considering we have decades of clickwrap licenses being enforced in all levels of court, I don't think an FTC memo would be enough to declare software/media arriving with a license agreement illegal. IANAL of course.
Re: Require companies to use the term "licensing" instead of "buying" with DRM goods
#14This is completely wrongheaded. We don't want legal characterizations of these transactions to be "licenses". If what we pay money for is a good that we purchased, we get to keep that copy - and sell it if we no longer want it. Who cares if there's DRM on it. There will always be DRM on it. Without DRM there's no way we'd be able to resell the copy that we purchased. Apple recently received a patent on this very topi…
You miss the point. DRMed digital goods cannot be resold. When you go to Kindle and get an ebook, all of the buttons say buy prominently, yet everything in the license says you are merely renting it for an undetermined amount of time, until the company decides otherwise. How is that not false advertising? They should be forced to change their text.
Re: Require companies to use the term "licensing" instead of "buying" with DRM goods
#15Imagine a country where all decisions are taken by the popularity of the issue....
Yes, and such a country would not be one that I'd want to live in. The tyranny of the majority can, at times, oppress the minority.
Re: Require companies to use the term "licensing" instead of "buying" with DRM goods
#16This is completely wrongheaded. We don't want legal characterizations of these transactions to be "licenses". If what we pay money for is a good that we purchased, we get to keep that copy - and sell it if we no longer want it. Who cares if there's DRM on it. There will always be DRM on it. Without DRM there's no way we'd be able to resell the copy that we purchased. Apple recently received a patent on this very topi…
> Without DRM there's no way we'd be able to resell the copy that we purchased.
It's not clear what you mean by this. We didn't need DRM to resell music, movies, books before computers.
Re: Require companies to use the term "licensing" instead of "buying" with DRM goods
#17In no way is "buy" in and of itself incorrect terminology. One can "buy" or "purchase" goods, services, subscriptions or -- yes -- licenses.
And by the way, when one buys a copy of software, what one really buys is at best a perpetual license to use it; one is not buying the software itself. (This point, of course, is at the heart of considerable open source ideology.)
The petition's authors have a reasonable claim to make that buying an e-book on Amazon should not be portrayed as the equivalent of buying a paper book. But the way they actually worded the redress requested in their petition is not well-supported by the facts.
Re: Require companies to use the term "licensing" instead of "buying" with DRM goods
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would you like to buy (a picture of) my car?
For a mere 60 dollars? Sold.
By paying for the picture, you agree that the picture is for your own use only. You can't show it to anyone else. You can't sell it to anyone else. You can't do anything with it but look at it, and only when you're alone.
And you don't get told that until after you've paid for it.
Re: Require companies to use the term "licensing" instead of "buying" with DRM goods
#19You can buy a ticket to Disney Land for ~$69, but buying Disney Land will probably cost a billion or more.
So....Buy a license to play a game vs. buy a game?
Re: Require companies to use the term "licensing" instead of "buying" with DRM goods
#20In no way is "buy" in and of itself incorrect terminology. One can "buy" or "purchase" goods, services, subscriptions or -- yes -- licenses. And by the way, when one buys a copy of software, what one really buys is at best a perpetual license to use it; one is not buying the software itself. (This point, of course, is at the heart of considerable open source ideology.) The petition's authors have a reasonable claim t…
What aspect of the wording makes the request to change from "purchase/buy" to "license" not well-supported by the facts? The way I read the petition, such requirements would be in place only for products that incorporate DRM, not for any type of software whatsoever.