41–50 of 60 posts
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.
License, buy, these are really hard terms to nail down in the physical space let alone the digital space. Does "Buy SimCity Today" mean they are selling the entire company, source code, single executable, dvd or a digital download?
I don't see that changing anytime soon, and requiring more legalspeek is going to just hurt all of us. What really is drm, can you say with confidence a particular bit of software is 20% DRM or DRM free like you could with sodium or dietary fiber?
Then there is the argument about whether or not the government should even be involved. SimCity isn't a necessary good, it isn't water/food/clothing/shelter, why are we forcing a business model that the consumers seem generally indifferent about (they still buy it, even though they complain about it). Shouldn't we be pushing individuals to 'speak with their wallets' and not purchase SimCity? Isn't that the solution to everything these days?
Here's what I think:
I hope these companies eat themselves to death. They'll keep pushing new and creative ways to use DRM and every time they do they'll alienate 1% of their consumer base. Their software isn't perfect, some innocent consumers will get locked out of the system and they'll become rabid-anti-consumers.
I also hope that the indie game movement grows like the micro-brew industry has over the last decade. I want to see more games, more companies and more ideas: Machinarium, Zeno Clash, Minecraft, Limbo, Super Meat Boy, World of Goo and the Kerbal Space Program. You may not like some of the creators of these games, you may not like the games themselves but the variety all but guarantees that you'll find something to like.
tl,td; Spend less time worry about wording, more time investing in indie game devs.
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…
Oddly enough, as a European (EU), you enjoy far more protections for ownership of products, including digital and reselling DRM-limited products, than any North American.
What about requiring no DRM when using the term "buying"? I think they got it backwards.
If you are required to use the term "license" when your software contains DRM, then you aren't allowed to use the term "buy" when your software contains DRM. Therefore, this petition disallows the use of DRM when using the term "buy".
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 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Of course DRM-enabled goods can be digitally resold. It depends on the type of DRM being used. That would be one reason to have DRM. As I said, Apple is working on this now.
It does implement technological and other measures to guarantee the security of the whole blockchain.
(yes, it is a strained analogy, however one you would have to go up against in making new law or changing old laws)
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.
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.
How about we reduce the number of laws? Perhaps repeal the anticircumvention clause of the DMCA as a start...
I don't see much of a difference between having a law to make something legal and having no law to make it illegal.
I suppose the difference might be that having a law keeps them (unspecified person/company) from doing something outrageous and then just saying 'well there isn't a law against it!'