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

Require companies to use the term "licensing" instead of "buying" with DRM goods

petitions.whitehouse.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 60 posts

Re: Require companies to use the term "licensing" instead of "buying" with DRM goods

#31

Post by zokier »

aspensmonster wrote: post #28
Kerrick wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because whether a product has DRM or not has absolutely no effect on the license, the way you purchase it, or the rights you do or do not get. DRM only enforces the license.

(Insert standard IANAL preface here. What follows are my own non-professional thoughts on the matter) The petition is utilizing the observation that there are certain rights associated with the terminology of "buying" (or "selling") some product that have been developed over hundreds of years with laws regarding physical commodities. Physical objects are relatively simple to understand; the right to resell or repurpo…

I feel you are completely missing the point here. The point was that draconian licensing is draconian with or without enforcement (eg DRM).

> I believe the presence of restrictive DRM could serve as a useful litmus test in gauging where on the scale such "licenses" to intellectual constructs fall and thus whether the term "buy" or "license" would be more appropriate.

This is utterly false. You can't deduce anything about the license from the fact that the license is enforced.

Re: Require companies to use the term "licensing" instead of "buying" with DRM goods

#32

Post by baddox »

azov wrote: post #25

Honestly, I don't give a rat's ass whether they call it buying or licensing . I want to be able to resell my digital goods. This is what needs to be legislated. If a company wants to enjoy legal protection agains someone breaking their DRM, they must provide a way to transfer licenses. This should be the law.

I agree that the current status is a double standard, but I would prefer to resolve it in the other direction: I'd like to see no legal protection against breaking DRM, while allowing companies to sell anything to voluntary buyers under whatever terms they agree on.

Re: Require companies to use the term "licensing" instead of "buying" with DRM goods

#33

Post by baddox »

y1426i wrote: post #9

Imagine a country where all decisions are taken by the popularity of the issue....

Imagine a country where decisions are made by consenting individuals and where the immediate reaction from someone seeing something they don't like isn't "the government should force them to stop doing whatever I don't like."

Re: Require companies to use the term "licensing" instead of "buying" with DRM goods

#34

Post by aspensmonster »

zokier wrote: post #31
aspensmonster wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Insert standard IANAL preface here. What follows are my own non-professional thoughts on the matter) The petition is utilizing the observation that there are certain rights associated with the terminology of "buying" (or "selling") some product that have been developed over hundreds of years with laws regarding physical commodities. Physical objects are relatively simple to understand; the right to resell or repurpo…

I feel you are completely missing the point here. The point was that draconian licensing is draconian with or without enforcement (eg DRM). > I believe the presence of restrictive DRM could serve as a useful litmus test in gauging where on the scale such "licenses" to intellectual constructs fall and thus whether the term "buy" or "license" would be more appropriate. This is utterly false. You can't deduce anything a…

DRM is a set of technical policies: The user may install the software X times. Y users may use the software at once. This video stream will not decode properly without the private key embedded in chip ABC. This DVD will only play in DVD players that have region code Z. This game requires a persistent network connection in order to crunch game logic and stream assets. If these policies are not guaranteed to provide any insight into the arrangements of the license, then how can we say with confidence that the DRM is indeed a license enforcement mechanism at all? If the DRM is designed in such a way as to permit only 1 install ever, and yet a perusing of the legal license finds no such wording, then the DRM is not (accurately) enforcing the license and (so far as I can tell) cannot be said to be enforcing it.

Re: Require companies to use the term "licensing" instead of "buying" with DRM goods

#35

Post by IsTom »

cpa wrote: post #27
azov wrote: post #25

Honestly, I don't give a rat's ass whether they call it buying or licensing . I want to be able to resell my digital goods. This is what needs to be legislated. If a company wants to enjoy legal protection agains someone breaking their DRM, they must provide a way to transfer licenses. This should be the law.

FWIW, it's the EU's opinion. http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-07/03/digital-softw...

But is it enforceable? I remember some internet drama about it a few months ago, but honestly don't know any place where you could resell license to download games and whatnot.

Re: Require companies to use the term "licensing" instead of "buying" with DRM goods

#36

Post by MrQuincle »

The preoccupation with ownership is a bit awkward for me as European. Considering the tragedies around land ownership in the past of the Americas, I would expect a very sophisticated view on the matter. To "own" something because you "bought" it, is all such a virtual affair. The thing that matters is that the artist or studio that made this possible, is able to survive and will prosper because they make this thing that is liked by their customers. Everything else I consider side-effects (and no I am not an artist myself).

Moreover, I hope these discussion will disappear in the future, because we enter a more and more interconnected world. In the case of Spotify, it is logical that you pay for their service, DRM does not have anything to do with it. The more software is provided to the customer as online services, the more transparent its use can be regulated.

The point of software is often just its functionality, not its physical representation in the form of machine code that can subsequently be copied. Ownership of a car doesn't entail blueprints so you can 3D print another one, or a free subscription to fuel, and even changes to your own car are heavily regulated.

I like reverse engineering stuff, but I don't think we have the right to tell people or companies that hand us over stuff in exchange for money to tell them what this exactly has to entail.

Re: Require companies to use the term "licensing" instead of "buying" with DRM goods

#37

Post by gambiting »

IsTom wrote: post #35
cpa wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, it's the EU's opinion. http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-07/03/digital-softw...

But is it enforceable? I remember some internet drama about it a few months ago, but honestly don't know any place where you could resell license to download games and whatnot.

I personally know some people who make a new Steam account for each game they own and then they just sell the account on Ebay(and thus the game with it). It's against the terms of licence,but it works.

Re: Require companies to use the term "licensing" instead of "buying" with DRM goods

#38

Post by blaabjerg »

MrQuincle wrote: post #36

The preoccupation with ownership is a bit awkward for me as European. Considering the tragedies around land ownership in the past of the Americas, I would expect a very sophisticated view on the matter. To "own" something because you "bought" it, is all such a virtual affair. The thing that matters is that the artist or studio that made this possible, is able to survive and will prosper because they make this thing t…

I would think this petition is in response to the Sim City debacle. When people buy a game they want to be able to play it as much as they like, and EA is not going to keep running their SimCity server infrastructure forever.

To borrow your car example: If I buy a new car and the manufacturer retains full control over how long I'll be able to keep using said car, I'm not really buying it, am I? I'm leasing it.

Spotify doesn't really fit, because you're paying a monthly fee, not a one time lump sum. (This may have been your point.)

Re: Require companies to use the term "licensing" instead of "buying" with DRM goods

#40

Post by snarfy »

MrQuincle wrote: post #36

The preoccupation with ownership is a bit awkward for me as European. Considering the tragedies around land ownership in the past of the Americas, I would expect a very sophisticated view on the matter. To "own" something because you "bought" it, is all such a virtual affair. The thing that matters is that the artist or studio that made this possible, is able to survive and will prosper because they make this thing t…

>I like reverse engineering stuff, but I don't think we have the right to tell people or companies that hand us over stuff in exchange for money to tell them what this exactly has to entail.

Sure we do. That's what regulation is all about. When someone sells me a hotdog, I have the expectation that it does not contain sawdust as a filler. When I buy a beef meat pie, I do not expect it to contain horse meat.

When I buy something which is sold shrink wrapped in a box in a retail store, the expectation is that it is a copy of a copyrighted material, the same as any other media. Instead you are buying into a contractual obligation. Selling contractual obligations is not wrong, but selling them under the guise they are also copyrighted goods is fraudulent at best.

Make people sign the EULA. No more click-throughs. That's the regulation I want. Companies are taking advantage of consumers lack of legal expertise and it's something government is supposed to protect us against.

Post reply on HN