Apple sued for terminating account with $25k worth of apps and videos • Hacker News Board

Re: Apple sued for terminating account with $25k worth of apps and videos

#351

Post by balls187 » Mon, Apr 26, 2021, 12:58 AM UTC

I actually had beef with Valve for doing something tangentially related.

A while back they updated their service provider agreement to require users of steam agree to arbitration rather than court action.

The problem is that a user could not access their purchased games even in an offline manner until they agreed to the new terms. I was presented with the new terms, and clicked "I disagree" and Steam immediately exited.

I even wrote Gabe about this because I found it fundamentally anti-American.

I'm no lawyer, but I could see that forcing someone to agree to terms by withholding "property" they have legally purchased would not be enforceable.

Re: Apple sued for terminating account with $25k worth of apps and videos

#352

Post by hoppyhoppy2 » Mon, Apr 26, 2021, 1:03 AM UTC

ropable wrote: post #347

Is there a defined "age limit" on iTunes accounts (or any other digital asset account)? I don't know the ToS, but I assume that it's illegal to sell, trade or gift an iTunes account to someone else. Assuming that I continue to maintain such an account for the rest of my natural life, die, and then bequeath the account to someone, will there come a point where Apple says "this account is older than any human, therefor…

Personal computing itself is not yet older than any human and iTunes is only 20, so it'll be a while yet before Apple has to make a decision based on whether an Apple account is older than any human.

It's an interesting question, but I bet the computing, cultural, and even legal landscapes will have changed a lot by the time your premise comes about. There are other scenarios that could happen in the shorter term, like Apple revamping what an "Apple account" is, or getting out of the digital entertainment assets business altogether, or shifting its iTunes platform from the internet to the neuralcloud (which is, of course, not compatible with legacy "merely digital" formats)

Re: Apple sued for terminating account with $25k worth of apps and videos

#353

Post by Dracophoenix » Mon, Apr 26, 2021, 1:18 AM UTC

jdbernard wrote: post #346

Dracophoenix wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>Moreover, DRM prevents copyright content from entering the public domain. In my personal opinion, anything that's not available without DRM shouldn't get copyright - otherwise it subverts the deal at the centre of copyright. Inasmuch as I am sympathetic to the argument, how would a government force DRMless software without attacking encryption itself or violating a company's 1st amendment rights to sell whatever di…

The government doesn't necessarily have to take an offense stance at all. Just removing the legislative protection for DRM schemes would go as long way. You could make it a condition that companies that want to gain legal defense for their DRM'd content must register a DRM-free version with, for example, the Library of Congress.

I agree with removing DMCA protections for circumventing DRM instead of outlawing or creating legislative disincentives for DRM outright (that would be a can of worms). However, it still doesn't sound like a full solution. Registration of the sort you propose, if done correctly, could work for e-books or movies. But what does that kind of registration look like for server- or cloud-based content (e.g. MMOs, subscription-only software) or video games that constantly get constant updates and DLCs?

Re: Apple sued for terminating account with $25k worth of apps and videos

#354

Post by croutonwagon » Mon, Apr 26, 2021, 1:24 AM UTC

plank_time wrote: post #120

I have about 100 movies I’ve bought through iTunes so this is a very pertinent lawsuit for me. And no, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to believe that I would have access to the movies forever.

> And no, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to believe that I would have access to the movies forever.

Agree. However. I should be able to play the files I have downloaded no matter my account status.

I’m not sure if that’s the case with apple downloads (though it’s my primary method of buying music, and I do suspect it is the case. )

Re: Apple sued for terminating account with $25k worth of apps and videos

#355

Post by CamperBob2 » Mon, Apr 26, 2021, 1:27 AM UTC

Dracophoenix wrote: post #292

CamperBob2 wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem comes in when unbreakable DRM is introduced, including DRM that depends on an external server to provide access to licensed content. If the copy protection remains uncrackable after the copyright term expires, or if the server it depends on is no longer available, it amounts to theft from the public domain, pure and simple. Content producers should be forced to choose between legal protection for their co…

One doesn't need DRM to shut down a server and keep the assets/ net code from seeing the light of day. Plenty of MMOs have shut down with years of people's lives down the drain. Even if you were right about how companies with DRM shouldn't obtain copyrights, I don't see how uncrackability of DRM would be a significant limiting factor when an off switch and forgotten source code is just as capable in doing the same. I…

That's a separate question (but equally worth addressing). The point here, though, is that copyright is an explicit bargain with the public domain, and DRM makes it a one-sided one.

Re: Apple sued for terminating account with $25k worth of apps and videos

#356

Post by kmeisthax » Mon, Apr 26, 2021, 1:44 AM UTC

jrockway wrote: post #326

alpaca128 wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love for this to happen, not just for the amusement of seeing all the giant corporations suddenly jumping to DRM free distribution to save tons of money, and Tim Cook explaining for 5 minutes how innovative Apple was with reinventing their content distribution model.

I think Apple killed off DRM on music in the late 2000s and indeed, Steve Jobs was quite pleased with himself when announcing it. (What's old is new again -- Epic is basically doing the same thing to Apple now. It all starts when an entrenched monopolist receives an open letter, apparently.)

The funny thing is, Apple had an iron grip on the music market because of DRM. If you wanted to license music for digital download, the music industry demanded DRM, and Apple had the only DRM consumers had any faith in. You couldn't use an alternative DRM scheme with iPods; FairPlay was Apple's proprietary technology and it was the only DRM iPods would recognize.

The music industry only caved on DRM specifically because they realized they had written Apple a blank check. Had Apple not had a long and storied history of trademark litigation from The Beatles' record label (also named Apple), they could have started directly signing artists themselves.

The difference between then and now with the Epic lawsuit is that iOS has no sideloading option. Going DRM-free meant you could sell music on iPods without paying Apple. For software, the closest equivalent would be webapps on iOS, but that usually entails rewriting significant parts of your app and losing access to certain functionality. You don't get push notifications, you can't access native UI so all your UI code has to be redeveloped to something worse, and so on.

Re: Apple sued for terminating account with $25k worth of apps and videos

#357

Post by mr_toad » Mon, Apr 26, 2021, 1:48 AM UTC

zelon88 wrote: post #200

Diggsey wrote: post #17

IMO it wouldn't matter if they'd used the word "Rent" or "Licence" instead: it would still be unreasonable. Account termination is entirely at Apple's discretion, meaning the term of your "rental" is not known when you actually pay for the content. For most people the term will be "forever", so that is the expectation. It's simple: if apple want to terminate your account, they need to refund you for any content you l…

I support this. But I do have questions. Hypothetically; what if Apple were to cease to exist? Or wanted to discontinue their streaming services? Assuming Apple were in such a position, their financial outlook would probably not be good. They would likely be financially unable to reimburse that many subscribers. How would winding down such a service work?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsecured_creditor

Re: Apple sued for terminating account with $25k worth of apps and videos

#358

Post by hallway_monitor » Mon, Apr 26, 2021, 2:00 AM UTC

visarga wrote: post #328

cipher_system wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always assumed they would be available as long as Apple or iTunes doesn't go under. Guess i'm not a reasonable consumer but luckily I haven't spent much money on them.

> Guess i'm not a reasonable consumer but luckily I haven't spent much money on them. I used to have an account on which I spent at least $400. After an attempt to change the email address associated to the account I got locked out. It seems the same email address was used to create a different account in the past and the move just destroyed my access and any possible recourse. So I switched to Android and stayed on…

Never had the feeling of being abused but I didn't like having to buy into their closed ecosystem so I've been an Android user and programmer ever since my iPhone 3G.

Re: Apple sued for terminating account with $25k worth of apps and videos

#359

Post by Silhouette » Mon, Apr 26, 2021, 2:00 AM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #276

gpm wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Refunds aren't sufficient, you are owed whatever the replacement cost is. If the good is no longer available except for at 10x or 100x the price, you are owed that. If the good is no longer available at any price, but the person with the liability is capable of making it available, they should be required to do so (or negotiate a contract with you that buys out your rights, but you should be free to decline that or t…

That's unreasonable, wouldn't be practical, and goes against precedent. The analogy here is if you buy a vacuum cleaner from a store and it doesn't work because of a defect. You bring it back and get your money back. The store isn't required to provide you with another working vacuum cleaner. If the vacuum cleaner is no longer manufactured, they're not required to find one in mint condition on eBay that's 10x or 100x…

If you got to consume the media you bought for months/years and you get a full refund, I'd say you have nothing to complain about.

This is why concepts like opportunity cost and consequential loss exist. While your arguments here seem reasonable, it is also reasonable to argue that harm has still been caused to the consumer, if they originally had a choice of vendors to buy from, a bad one they initially chose has refunded (only) their original purchase price, but the current market price is significantly higher.

If the basic principle of awarding compensation for damages is to make someone whole to the extent that this is possible, then the consumer in that scenario does still have something to complain about. This seems particularly relevant with digital products, where copies are entirely fungible and if the consumer has lost access they previously enjoyed then this was the result of the vendor's decisions around the technology, either actively revoking the access or deleting the material somehow, or taking some action like switching off a DRM server that indirectly causes the same end result.

Re: Apple sued for terminating account with $25k worth of apps and videos

#360

Post by Silhouette » Mon, Apr 26, 2021, 2:03 AM UTC

koolba wrote: post #332

gpm wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and goes against precedent. On the contrary, this is with the precedent, damages due to breach of contract, theft, destruction of property, etc are cost to replace not the original cost. And specific performance (i.e. requiring someone perform the action to fulfill the contract) is available if monetary damages aren't calculable (i.e. there is no replacement on the market).

It’s standard to have terms in a contract that limits liability for any warranty to “monies actually received”. That’s in addition to any separate clauses that disclaim any and all explicit warranty. I’ve never signed a contract without such a clause and would bet it’s already a part of all of these terms of service.

It’s standard to have terms in a contract that limits liability for any warranty to “monies actually received”.

And it's standard for statutory consumer protection laws to override any contractual terms and sometimes even make it illegal for vendors to suggest or imply that restrictions on the consumer's legal rights exist, at least in jurisdictions where consumer protection laws have teeth. Otherwise, every vendor (the big guy) could just require every consumer (the little guy) to sign away all their theoretical consumer rights as part of the purchase contract, and the theoretical rights would be worthless in practice.