Apple Patent Describes iTunes Reselling and Loaning System 97
An anonymous reader writes "An Apple patent granted on 7 March details a system allowing customers to resell iTunes and iBooks content to other users at a reduced price, or to loan the content temporarily for free. Such a system could pave the way for second hand content being made available on iTunes for a discounted price." (Note: Beware the auto-playing video ad, with sound.)
finally, some good sense (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:finally, some good sense (Score:5, Insightful)
they only patented it to prevent other people from doing it.
Apple patented a system/mechanism for loaning and reselling digital content, not the act of loaning or reselling digital content which is what they'd have to do to prevent others from doing it. Your are free to patent another method to do this. If Apple had patented the loaning or reselling of objects that patent would be discredited faster than you can say 'conspiracy theory'. Humans have been loaning, renting and selling each other objects since somebody invented the stone hand-axe 1.6 million years ago. It's hard to get more prior art than that.
Re: (Score:1)
This is why the patent system is broke.
Because people have atrocious reading comprehension skills?
Re: (Score:3)
Apple patented a system/mechanism for loaning and reselling digital content, not the act of loaning or reselling digital content which is what they'd have to do to prevent others from doing it.
I'm losing patience. On threads like these you always get idiots like you who are nay sayers and go about "oh they only patented a method of doing it".
Have you actually read the patent. It's very short (which should be an indication of quality) and very copy/pasted (another indication).
Basically they've patented a met
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
How fucking generous. I can lend my own virtual property, just like I can lend any physical item I own.
Shove your DRM up cock.
Re: (Score:2)
Because there is no prior art in second-hand sales (even using a computer, internet, mobile device, whatever)
Re:finally, some good sense (Score:4, Funny)
Which is why other people have been doing it for years.
Figuring out a different way to do something that Barnes and Nobles (lending econtent for a short time) or everyone else in the entire world already does (right of resale), is not something worth patenting.
It isn't even worth praise.
It's worth a "Finally you idiots figured out what we've been saying!"
Re: (Score:1)
You clearly don't understand how patents work, then.
People were traveling around for thousands of years. Somebody was still able to patent the inventions that went into building a modern car.
You see, a patent covers a process AND a method for accomplishing that process.
If you come up with a novel way of accomplishing the task of "reselling things," then yes, you can patent it. You can't just patent... "RESELLING MY SHIT."
Re:finally, some good sense (Score:5, Insightful)
They're the ones implementing DRM, they're the ones CREATING the artificial barriers. This patent wouldn't even have use if they didn't try to make things that are not normally scarce into things that are scarce.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought they removed DRM?
Re: (Score:2)
Only on music (and only on recently-purchased music; it's not retroactive). Not on ebooks or on iTunes video. Not sure when you'd have noticed that though, it's only been pointed out on every DRM-related story (and 80% of the Apple-related ones) on Slashdot in the last few years, and Slashdot *never* discusses DRM or Apple...
Re: (Score:1)
Only on music (and only on recently-purchased music; it's not retroactive)....
using itunes-in-the-cloud it will replace your local music files (even old drm'd ones) with drm-free 256kb files. all for free. hope this helps.
Re: (Score:2)
Technically, iTunes Match (the part that does that) will run you $25 per year, but once a track is upgraded, you can download & store it and continue using it even if you never re-up your iTunes Match subscription.
Re: (Score:1)
Re:finally, some good sense (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
a patent on this does still seem very... silly at best.
The silliness of a patent doesn't enter into the equation. It's not about silliness, common sense or reality when it comes to the patents most of these companies seem to try and get. It's more along the lines of patent everything in sight, imaginable or possible. Do this as broadly as possible and then sue the shit out of anyone that steps on their toes. You can also be assured that if Apple allows for reselling through iTunes, they'll be taking a slice of every transaction made.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there are plenty of DR
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, they implement DRM because the content rights holders want them to. Apple fought to be able to remove DRM from the songs they sell, and they convinced the industry to let them remove it some time ago, which is great and hopefully can expand to the other digital content soon.
Yes and no. Specifically, music yes, video generally not(but at least 3rd-party unencrypted video in the correct format will work), ebooks(see video). 'Apps', 100% Apple's show, and locked down harder than anything. At least ipods always played music from 3rd-party sources...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
iOS application DRM is the least of them all. You can run your iOS apps on all devices that run iOS, unlike books or movies, etc., which cannot be used on all devices that can play MP4 video or ePub books.
Re: (Score:3)
Music DRM was mainly removed because the DRM gave Apple full pricing power over the sales of the songs. As long as the labels wanted DRM they were limited to Apple (with their ~80% or more market share). The only way to tap into the iPod market without being limited to a fixed $0.99 price tag per song as Apple demanded, was to sell DRM free.
It's simply self-defeating.
Apple fighting for DRM free music is either keeping up appearances, or Apple not understanding (in the beginning at least) the huge market pow
Re:finally, some good sense (Score:4, Interesting)
You have to admit, regardless of your feelings towards apple, this is a step in the direction of breaking down artificial barriers.
Actually, it still reminds me of the first cars: They had no horses (there's no paper in your e-books), but still went to great pains to imitate horse carriages in shape (you can lend your bits and bytes for a limited period, but say no-no to reading them yourself during that period). Breaking down artificial barriers my ass.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to admit, regardless of your feelings towards apple, this is a step in the direction of breaking down artificial barriers.
Sure it is.
Of course, that's only if you ignore the fact that Apple is still in charge of what you can sell, who you can sell it too, and how much you can sell it for.
So really, less a step towards 'breaking down artificial barriers,' and more just a novel approach to erecting them.
Wait - I was always told that if you buy a song on iTunes, it's yours to do with as you please... was that a falsehood?
Re: (Score:1)
Wait - I was always told that if you buy a song on iTunes, it's yours to do with as you please... was that a falsehood?
when you buy a song on itunes, you download a 256kb aac file with no drm. you are free to do what you please with it. hope this helps.
Re: (Score:2)
If that's the case, why would Apple have to be involved in order for you to transfer ownership of that file to someone else, and why would they have any control over the price?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
if you gave me your email address, I could send you any itunes file that I ever bought. there are no barriers. there is no drm. apple is not involved. my understnading from the summary is that the patent is for creating a secondary marketplace where anybody could buy and sell. currently i don't have a marketplace where i could easily sell my songs. perhaps ebay, but i'm not even sure if thats allowed there.
Here's an excerpt from TFA:
The patent explains: "Techniques are provided for managing access to digital content items. In particular, various techniques are described herein to enable an authorised transfer of a digital content item from a current owner of a digital content item (the 'transferor') to a new owner of the digital content item (the 'transferee')...a 'digital content item' is any item that can be stored in a digital format, including but not limited to an ebook, music, movie, game, software application, ringtone, TV show, or audio book."
Every digital download sold by Apple through its iTunes, App and iBooks stores would keep a record of who owns it, giving them the sole right to consume the file. Selling the download to another user would make a change to this embedded information, transferring rights to the second user and preventing the original buyer from accessing the file.
Sounds like the "No-DRM" version of iTunes is about to go the way of the dodo...
Shame, that.
Re: (Score:1)
i'm telling you that as the sitation is right now, dispite your insistace to the contrary and your refusal to see what's plainly visible, there are no barriers to sharing or reselling purchases from the itunes music store. the greatest challenge is finding a marketplace and payment mechanism, which is the exact solution that the patent proposes.
Re: (Score:1)
This approach MAKES A LOT OF SENSE! You have to admit, regardless of your feelings towards apple, this is a step in the direction of breaking down artificial barriers.
Artificial barriers enforced through law are the core premise behind the protection of Intellectual Property. Why the rush to break them down? People like this poster who think artificial barriers are bad either don't understand IP law or would rather live in a world with fewer content creators who earn much less. At leas that would be an honest position.
In our non-utopian world, laws are the only way to protect and encourage the profitability of developing easily replicated items. That's why traditional
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Not the OP. People like you are why i go with +1 ac in my profile. From somebody with the handle "PoolOfThought" I would have expected a silent mod point applied to the "thought" portrayed rather than bitching about the logged in status of the OP.
Re: (Score:3)
Not that you have any control over it, but what would neat (perhaps not "useful", but "neat") is if slashdot would let readers obfuscate author names and toggle them visible as desired. Every AC post would get a new ob
Re: (Score:2)
That's why traditional "used car" analogies don't fit
Blasphemy! Burn the witch!
You can pry my ridiculously inapposite slashdot car analogies from my cold dead fingers.
Re: (Score:2)
This approach MAKES A LOT OF SENSE! You have to admit, regardless of your feelings towards apple, this is a step in the direction of breaking down artificial barriers.
Given that it apparently has enough detail for a patent application, I'm going with 'step in the direction of adding complexity to artificial barriers'. Back in the old days, we had this 'first sale' stuff, by which people who bought things could just resell them if they felt like it! Totally crazy stuff. You just went out and did it. No patent-pending techniques required.
Good money says that any system worth patenting will be a crippled, DRM-laden, 'content-provider' approved, closed store where Apple will
Re: (Score:2)
The actual patent. (Score:2, Insightful)
Techniques are provided for managing access to a digital content item (such as an ebook, music, movie, software application) to be transferred from one user to another.
This doesn't say for "itunes" or "ibooks" or anything of the sort.
I'd say it's a toss up if they even plan on implementing it, or just using it as ammo when another entity tries to.
Re:The actual patent. (Score:5, Insightful)
This! When the next big content company that competes against Apple decides to take a move in the right direction to make their customers happy, Apple will be waiting with this patent, lawyers ready to pounce.
I've given up all hope that Apple actually wants it's users to be happy
Re: (Score:1)
I've given up all hope that Apple actually wants it's users to be happy
Funny... I'm a happy Apple user. I can't say the same thing when I stuck it out with Linux and Microsoft.
Re: (Score:2)
if they don't actually implement it, though, then they'll have some serious antitrust questions to answer.
Re: (Score:3)
I've given up all hope that Apple actually wants it's users to be happy
Apple makes it's users very happy. It's Linux users that are perpetually unhappy with Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
You could have left off the last two words.
Re: (Score:1)
Give OSX snapping windows and we'll talk.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean this?
http://www.irradiatedsoftware.com/cinch/ [irradiatedsoftware.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly like that. Now give OSX snapping windows!
Re: (Score:2)
This! When the next big content company that competes against Apple decides to take a move in the right direction to make their customers happy, Apple will be waiting with this patent, lawyers ready to pounce.
Based on...???
I've given up all hope that Apple actually wants it's users to be happy
For Apple, happy customers is one of their primary driving forces. It's why their products are so wildly popular, in spite of what a handful of butthurt Slashdot-types would have you believe.
Re: (Score:2)
This is why you shouldn't be allowed to patent "as system or method" for something that is not fully implemented and available to customers. I read a great article posted here in the last week or 2 that all patent applications should be submitted with the working code. Thus, any other patent applications for a similar process, using different code could be seen as independently discovered.
Hmmmm.... (Score:2, Insightful)
I thought The Pirate Bay and DRM removal tools had already solved this problem. Funny that Apple's getting a patent for this.
Re:Used content seems a contrived absurdity... (Score:5, Insightful)
"second hand content" ...as in second hand DIGITAL content?
Do explain to me what a used bit looks like, if you will...
It's actually the license contract and viewing rights that are second-hand. The bits of the "content" just come with it.
Re: (Score:3)
Do explain to me what a used bit looks like, if you will...
They get worn a bit at the edges. So instead of 0s and 1s, they turn into 0.0000000001s and 0.9999999999s.
You need to stop using your Pentium 90 machine (Score:2)
That will fix those pesky ragged bit edges.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They won't be marketed as "Used" but as "Pre-Owned".
Re: (Score:2)
Relevant [slashdot.org]
And Apple takes their cut... (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple will naturally take a percentage of every "used book" sale. It is of course the same in the existing market, where a second hand book shop will typically buy a book for about 1/4 cover price and then turn around and sell it at 1/2 cover price. All fine and good, it's a service and you pay for it.
The difference is that Apple will provide the ONLY method through which the used goods can be sold. There is no way to cut out the middle man or even choose a different middle man.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And the tricky part is that you're not (re)selling a book or a music album, you're instead (re)selling a copyright license to that content. And that makes the whole thing much less transparent. After all there is no physical object involved as in traditional sales.
They Patented that? (Score:2)
Let's see if I have this straight:
Apple just got a patent on allowing people to resell or loan digital "content" when it's hosted on a server and managed by client software? Is that really the meaning of the claims, not something narrower?
Hasn't the patent office YET stopped patenting business models consisting of "Doing an existing business model on the Internet using a database"?
Re: (Score:2)
Hasn't the patent office YET stopped patenting business models consisting of "Doing an existing business model on the Internet using a database"?
As long as they get paid for granting patents, this trend will only worsen.
Re: (Score:2)
on the Internet using a database
I think you mean "IN THE CLOUD".
So of course it's new. Because noone else has thought of doing anything obvious like that IN THE CLOUD.
Don't forget the slice for Apple (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Apple's slice is clearly a core feature, as it allows them to stem losses caused by seedy individuals who would otherwise peel away their profit.
Sell it... flac them (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Only when they're considering quitting.
Re: (Score:2)
At $10 per CD I've saved about $280,000 by not paying for music. Woot! I'm rich!
Re: (Score:2)
Check that. Forgot the new collection I haven't yet merged.
Closer to $350,000
I've gotta finish my media librarian application.
bitbay.com (Score:1)
Reduced price? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't read the patent (no intention to) but I bet they will have that covered.
Re: (Score:2)
Suppose I buy an ebook. It becomes valuable due to the limited number of copies that were originally made.
This is one of the reasons i'll never suppoort copyright. Artificial scarity and greed. Supporting creators is good think bud limiting distribution to achieve it is nonsense and causes much more harm then good.