Apple Must Face Lawsuit for Telling Consumers They Can 'Buy' Movies, TV Shows (hollywoodreporter.com) 130
If possession is nine-tenths of the law, what happens when possession gets slippery? From a report: That's a question for a federal courtroom in Sacramento, California, where Apple is facing a putative class action over the way consumers can "buy" or "rent" movies, TV shows and other content in the iTunes Store. David Andino, the lead plaintiff in this case, argues the distinction is deceptive. He alleges Apple reserves the right to terminate access to what consumers have "purchased," and in fact, has done so on numerous occasions. This week, U.S. District Court Judge John Mendez made clear he isn't ready to buy into Apple's view of consumer expectations in the digital marketplace. "Apple contends that '[n]o reasonable consumer would believe' that purchased content would remain on the iTunes platform indefinitely," writes Mendez. "But in common usage, the term 'buy' means to acquire possession over something. It seems plausible, at least at the motion to dismiss stage, that reasonable consumers would expect their access couldn't be revoked." Apple tried other ways to slip away from claims of false advertising and unfair competition. For example, it tried the time-tested approach of challenging Andino's "injury" to knock his potential standing as a plaintiff.
What a maroon. (Score:4, Funny)
How to simplify things across the board (Score:5, Interesting)
We should have an addendum to all contract law that states that when there is a conflict between marketing presentations and the legalese in the contract, it's implicit bad faith in court. Go full on Napoleonic Law on advertisers here. Guilty until proven innocent. If you use commonly understood terms like "buy content" it implies all traditional rights including the right to hold, move, lend and resell. The only out would be to explicit state "now with Apple you can buy a license to a movie."
Of course, that would have them crapping themselves because the moment honesty in advertising has dire consequences people would start asking pesky questions like "just what is a license for a movie" and then pretty soon no one wants one.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not familiar with US law, but in other common law jurisdictions, sales puffery (nb: puff/puffery is the legal term for it) is permitted to an extent as long as the appropriate weasel words are used. Ultimately though, you can't outright lie, but as long as descriptions stay subjective, the courts will treat it as if no one would really believe those claims.
Personally, I do agree with your sentiment, and all digital distributors should be made to rectify the situation. Classical terms such as straight fo
Seems like a fair point to me. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Buying" something implies that you own it thereafter, in perpetuity.
Owning something, means that you take care of it and can even transfer it to other people - none of that is true with movies you "Buy" from Apple (or anyone else for that matter, at least not for digital movies).
It's that complete lack of transferability that brings the "buy" terminology into question for me.
There is a strong secondary point - through no action of your own, access to any content may be revoked at any time, or content even altered without your permission. That shouldn't be true of anything you "buy".
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
When has buying something always meant "in perpetuity" legally?
That is the common understanding for most things you buy. For instance, the ketchup bottle I have is mine until I discard it - who otherwise has claim to it?
It is the exception, rather than the rule, the buying something has conditions attached. In the example you gave a license to access something I would arguing is not buying anything, but renting - thus the need for the "in perpetuity" clause to define the rental period as unlimited. I don
Re: (Score:3)
That is the common understanding for most things you buy. For instance, the ketchup bottle I have is mine until I discard it - who otherwise has claim to it?
Again when has that ever applied to something that clearly has a contract which spells out terms. I have never bought a ketchup bottle that had a license and contract. You seem to be missing this point. Contracts must spell out an item be perpetual.
It is the exception, rather than the rule, the buying something has conditions attached. In the example you gave a license to access something I would arguing is not buying anything, but renting - thus the need for the "in perpetuity" clause to define the rental period as unlimited. I don't think the IBM license was ever defined as something they "bought".
You are assuming/asserting things like a rental license does not have "in perpetuity" but a purchase license must have it. Please cite the contract. I would guess it does say that. As for purchases, copyrighted content has always been understood to be licensed fr
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Again when has that ever applied to something that clearly has a contract which spells out terms
When has it not?
Contracts must spell out an item be perpetual.
Only for rentals.
The very fact there is a contract at all implies you are not actually buying a thing, nor do you own it if a contract defines terms under which you "own" the thing.
a purchase license must have it.
Now I am afraid, you must prove there is such a thing as a "purchase license".
Re: (Score:2)
When has it not?
You keep starting out with the premise: Since X does not have contract, it has always been this way. What part of "There is a contract" is not clear?
Only for rentals.
No. Your false dichotomy: A rental has a limited time period, therefore all purchases must by default be perpetual. That is flawed logic. Again, what part of "There is a contract that says otherwise" is not clear?
The very fact there is a contract at all implies you are not actually buying a thing
What the hell are you smoking? There are all sorts of contracts that cover purchases. For example if I buy a house, I will normally sign multiple cont
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you are trading securities - you don't 'buy' a contract you enter into one.
Nobody says I bought a contract to have Dave's BBQ cater our events this summer. They'd say I contracted with Daves... or something similar.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Contracts must spell out an item be perpetual.
That's not exactly the case. Good contracts will specify that, bad contracts will survive until there's a dispute and then it will have to be resolved in court if the parties involved can't agree. I would think that if terms such as purchase or buy are used, without a time constraint specified in the contract, then a court would probably side with it being in perpetuity as that would be what is commonly understood by those terms. The goal of a contract is only to define the terms in case there's a dispute a
Re: (Score:2)
The default of contracts is that you cannot assume terms that are not in the contract. His assumption is that all purchases are perpetual by default even though this case is about copyrighted work which by law has already been established to have limits. For example buying a copy of the work does not grant ownership and control of the copyrights. All copyrighted work is understood to be licensed. The problem with DRM on copyrighted work has subject to factors like authentication. For example if you bought a
Re: (Score:2)
It seems, FTFA, that the buyer is complaining that Apple either did not make it clear that a license was purchased, and that for a finite time, possibly with revocation without notice, or that the purchase was specifically for a duration. License v. purchase.
I wonder if Apple marketing promoted the availability, portability, and convenience, neglecting to point out that it was mere license, and could be gone. I wonder further if Apple 'knew or should have known' they could not deliver the purchased goods or
Re: (Score:2)
It seems, FTFA, that the buyer is complaining that Apple either did not make it clear that a license was purchased, and that for a finite time, possibly with revocation without notice, or that the purchase was specifically for a duration. License v. purchase.
"Did not make clear". Is there not a contract? Also by default: Copyrighted work is licensed. You buy a CD; you do not buy the rights to sell digital or physical copies unless the copyright holder grants you that right.
I wonder if Apple marketing promoted the availability, portability, and convenience, neglecting to point out that it was mere license, and could be gone. I wonder further if Apple 'knew or should have known' they could not deliver the purchased goods or services due to licensing or other agreements with the 'actual' owners.
All copyrighted work is licensed. Maybe the average person does not understand that but this is basic Copyright 101. As for goods or services changing, that is also at the whim of the copyright holders. Apple as the authorized agent can only do what the holder wants. For example, people were
Re: Seems like a fair point to me. (Score:2)
Apple contends that '[n]o reasonable consumer would believe' that purchased content would remain on the iTunes platform indefinitely
Bullshit, that's exactly what people expect.
Re: (Score:2)
The point isn't what Apple can or cannot do, it's that what they are advertising doesn't match up with what they're delivering. In this case they're saying you can buy a song when what you are buying is a limited, revokable ability to access a song.
This has always been a problem with DRM in general and not just Apple. Amazon, Google, Microsoft, multiple game studios all do the exact same thing. Are you going to sue them as well?
Bullshit, that's exactly what people expect.
Again this has been why people are against DRM. If you buy DRM content you cannot expect it for function in definitely. For example Microsoft turned off all their PlaysForSure authentication servers a decade ago so people who bought content may not be able to play it today.
Re:Seems like a fair point to me. (Score:4, Funny)
A bowel movement?
Re: (Score:2)
There was no other expectation that it would last forever, or that you’d use it for anything other than it’s intended use (eating it before it started to rot).
Re: (Score:2)
Same for books. Paper should not be presumed to last 'forever'. Nor can you duplicate a book you've purchased, keep the copy. and resell the original. But first sale doctrine in the US does permit you to sell it off to someone.
Re: Seems like a fair point to me. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It lasts as long as you can make it last.
If you're sufficiently resourceful, that can be 1000s of years.
Otherwise 100s.
If you're prone to accidents, maybe years.
Either way, that's nobody's business but yours. The fact is, the publishing company cannot come and take away your access to that book.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
BTY: was an obvious joke to the previous AC, believe it or not you don't have to go SJW political on everything.
Well, I hope you don't, maybe that's why you are an AC.
Best of luck and be happy.
May you find peace and harmony in your life.
(I've written things after too much coffee too.)
Re: (Score:2)
Shit?
Re: (Score:3)
The fact that you turned it into shit (the kind that comes out of your ass, not the kind that dwells between your ears) is your problem.
You're free to sue your gastrointestinal tract.
If you leave it out, you can try suing the mold.
But if the grocery store comes into your house and repossesses that Apple, that suit you'll actually have some luck with.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? I bought an apple yesterday. I ate it this morning.
What do I own?
The apple, of course. What you did with it afterwards is up to you. You likely kept a portion of it in your body, and then pissed and shat out the rest. You can keep those parts of it in a jar if you'd like, but usually people flush them down the toilet. If you didn't eat it and it went rotten, you can still keep it for as long as you'd like, but most people choose to throw it away.
Either way, it's yours to do with as you choose.
Refund (Score:2)
I only "bought" a few things digitally, on iTunes and Amazon. After time, both services have "cancelled" a couple of my "purchases." For both services, they refunded my original purchase price. So, assuming the plaintiff also received a refund, what damages are the plaintiff alleging?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For the most part, I donâ(TM)t purchase digital content that I canâ(TM)t shift. What this guy is going run up against is that traditionally you have bought a limited license, and that continues to be the case.
Re: (Score:3)
I suspect Apple's gonna whip out the fact that you can download any of your purchases and back that up on your own. At least that got them out of some trouble when they pulled a movie from the catalog and existing licensees couldn't re-download it anymore. (note: I'm really fuzzy on these particular details, clarifications welcome!)
HOWEVER, I actually do agree with clarifying the term 'buy'. Anything that educates the consumer is always a win in my book. Here's an example: When Google Fiber one off
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Can a perpetual license be revoked (Score:2)
In the case of an in-store purchase of an application, this is equivalent to purchasing a perpetual license. But even in the case of a truly irrevocable perpetual license agreement, if the licensee commits a material breach, you may have the right to terminate the agreement. So it depends on what is stipulated in the license agreement and what can be considered a material breach. This will be tested in this particular case and it will probably be difficult to generalize it to all possible types of violation
Re: (Score:2)
The issue is Apple does not market that it is licensed to you, they say you are purchasing outright with no further financial implications for beneficial use. Logically that compares to a VHS tape. DVDs and beyond imposed additional restrictions that I am not aware of being legally tested.
Apple has even touted a their cloud offerings as enhancing this ownership status. I have never had a case of them revoking this ownership status personally, but if done without a refund I agree there is a problem.
Re: (Score:2)
If access is ephemeral... (Score:5, Funny)
then so should the money paid for it.
Problems with terminology (Score:4, Insightful)
The main problem I think is how the terminology is being (ab)used.
Too often, "buy" is meant to say "paid money for", as in "I bought a subscription to Netflix" - obviously you don't "own" the subscription, you paid money for access to that subscription.
No problems with terminology (Score:2)
Apple's subscription service is Apple Music. So there's no misunderstanding that if you stop the subscription, you stop the service. As opposed to clicking the Buy button for content.
Digital Rights (Score:4, Interesting)
I think people are finally starting to wake up to the fact that digital items are just as valuable as their physical counterparts, but consumer rights for digital items are not protected and they need to be.
The closest thing we have right now is the Steam Market, where digital goods from videogames which opt-in can be bought and sold for real money.
But it's still a far cry from an open market since Valve and the game publisher take their own cuts of each sale, and it's a closed ecosystem. But to be fair people use Steam to launder money and I am sure Valve doesn't want to be an accessory to crimes involving such.
If we had a purely open system for exchanging and buying/selling digital items just as we do physical ones, the problem then becomes that, ironically, the big companies are right; these digital items have no value, but not because the big companies are just saying that to try and get away with revoking access to them, but because of the exact opposite; digital items taken out of a closed ecosystem with any DRM stripped can be endlessly copied and redistributed at virtually no cost. Plus for things like video game items you could easily manufacture rare items out of thin air or modify common items into rarer forms trivially.
the longer i own a smartphone (Score:3)
i sure hope phones like the fairphone and other GNU/FOSS designed philosopy type smartphones step in and rescue the consumer phone market from these digital tyrants that Apple and Google has turned into
Implications beyond Apple (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think they would, It's been a while but I always thought it was advertised as a DVD + digital access. Selling "Digital Access" is a much vaguer term that could be argued about rather than buying something.
True, but you were still sold a specific product in digital access. I'm sure somewhere in the TOCs they said they can end access anytime; it'll be interesting to see how this plays out.
Buy digital is a drug buy (Score:2)
I bought 1 song(Comeback Baby Comeback). Apple stopped licensing the music. iTunes no longer hosted the music to stream. Gone!
My only recourse was to go back two generations on my Mac disks. I paid to have a removed hard drive, fix the electronics and then find a SCSI interface that could down load that one song. That was $122 greenbucks.
Buying something never means Apple is selling possession. It sells tickets. Your ticket allows access. You are given permission to keep a copy but you never own nor is Appl
Physical rules every time (Score:5, Insightful)
This is EXACTLY why I don't buy digital-only things. I want the PHYSICAL item. I don't want to be stuck relying on someone else's "good graces" to provide continuous access to something I purchased and own.
I can watch a physical movie whenever I want, wherever I want. No need for internet. Same thing with books. I can grab a book from my shelf and read it. No electricity or internet required. No batteries to worry about. It's a freaking book.
Re: (Score:2)
Digital is fine, and with regular backups can outlast any physical media. If you own a file in a standard format, you can likely play it until the apocalypse.
The problem is DRM schemes that don't let you actually "own" anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Digital MP3s are fine for me since they don't require Internet to play. Doesn't physical Blu-Ray discs have online DRM?
Re: (Score:2)
They do. Access to your discs can be denied if your playback device isn't connected to the Internet or hasn't had software updates in awhile, and additional content can be dynamically forced upon you (e.g. ideally they just use it to show you newer trailers than what was available when the disc was pressed, but more nefariously they could use it for things like shoving even more unskippable ads/warnings before the main feature).
Honestly, blu-rays are pretty terrible compared to ripping them into a server ap
Re: (Score:2)
Digital-only is fine. DRM-encumbered digital-only is the only problem here.
In my case, everything ends up in Plex. FLAC from Bandcamp or CD, MKV from DVD and blu-ray (via MakeMKV), MP4 from iTunes (via TunesKit), and so on. Doesn't matter what it is, any media I "purchase" gets stripped of DRM and loaded into Plex. If it can't be stripped of DRM, it doesn't get "purchased".
Buy? (Score:2)
Rental until when?
"We don't know"
Well maybe you should remove the buy option altogether.
Or create an option "Rent until [date license expires]"
Honesty is such a lonely word.
There is an obvious solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Physical media for the win. Again. (Score:3)
"Who still uses DVDs nowadays?"
I do. And guess what, I never have to worry about a corporation taking away my ability to watch what I want when I want. I own the physical copy. I can make as many backups as I wish and use them for my own pleasure.
While not everything is available on physical media, those that are should be used to their fullest. You paid for it, you own it. You can't take the sky from me.
Misunderstanding âoeBuyâ (Score:2)
Valid legal argument.... (Score:2)
I think Apple deserves to lose this one, and I usually find I side with Apple on these lawsuits! In this case, it addresses a long-standing problem that many Apple content buyers have dealt with. I bought a number of music tracks in the past from the iTunes store, only to find Apple no longer carried them, years later. They typically got away with pulling them out from under people by making the excuse that, "You still get a local copy downloaded into iTunes on your computer, so it's your responsibility t
I Put Digital Music In Time Capsules For Fun (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Flash wells have a limited life, and are unlikely to last 50-100 years. They'll just find a blank disk. (if the can even find and SD slot.)
Honestly paper is much more likely to survive. Optimal media- mabye,
Pirating isn't forever (Score:2)
Re:It will fall flat. (Score:5, Insightful)
In this context, "rent" means you have a certain, pre-set time limit in which you have access to the content. "Buy" means there is no preset limit, however much like physical media, it is assumed it will not last forever. Everything degrades over time and eventually will become unusable due to physical deterioration, technological obsolesence, or the heat death of the universe - whichever comes sooner.
Neither of which happened in the cases in question.
Apple said "buy". If they regret using that term, well, the $700bn in the bank should cover the costs very easily. They're just being greedy bastards.
Re: (Score:3)
Apple can always use the Tucker Carlson defense. As in "the viewing public was not expected to take those statements as fact."
Re: (Score:2)
LOL!!! :)
Re: (Score:2)
Which is the same as the Russia Madcow defense, that she's an entertainer and not a journalist.
Re:It will fall flat. (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple did use their monopoly power (for good) with the iTunes Store to force the music industry to sell music DRM-free and to this day, we all have a free choice as to whether we buy each track outright without DRM or pay a small fee per month to rent access to every bit of commercially sold music available. It won't be much longer until a big player offers the movie industry the same choice: DRM-free or have future revenue pulled. It probably won't be Apple this time round but at least one big player is going to want to offer "delivery-by-download" as an option for digital equivalency to DVD/Bluray in an attempt to cut down on delivery overheads *cough* Bezos *cough*
Re: (Score:2)
Re: It will fall flat. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It will fall flat. (Score:5, Insightful)
> If you've ever read the fine print on a music or video DVD/CD you only own the physical media.
A contract presented after the sale? That's cute.
Re: It will fall flat. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it's a problem. You simply cannot introduce a contract after money has been exchanged. EULA's and click throughs are toilet paper.
Re: (Score:2)
I bought the CD already, the seller accepted my money so I see no reason to accept this hypothetical contract or return the CD.
The seller at no point said I must return the CD if I don't accept this sneaky hidden hypothetical actually non-existent contract.
And what if this underhanded sneaky hidden hypothetical actually non-existent contract doesn't fit on the CD and is actually on a website and what if the website is no longer functioning, should everyone who buys this CD with a stupid underhanded sneaky h
Re: (Score:2)
That has nothing to do with fine print.
That's just how copyright law works. If the work in the copy is copyrighted, you can't do certain things with it as a matter of law, unless you have permission or there is an applicable exception. If it isn't copyrighted, you can do whatever with it, except other things that break the law. (E.g. if you had antique child porn that was in the public domain, you still couldn't distribute copies)
Re:It will fall flat. (Score:5, Insightful)
I tend to agree. If you've ever read the fine print on a music or video DVD/CD you only own the physical media. You don't own any rights to the content on that media. You don't have the right to back it up or make any other copies to "preserve" your ownership.
That's not the same at all. You own the right to use and enjoy it. Sure, the copyright still exists, but the seller can't just magically make it disappear from your collection.
Apple knew perfectly well what people understand by "buy" and they got valuable business results from it.
Re: (Score:2)
Backup and format shifting are grey areas in the law. It may or may not be fair use, and the may or may not be a DMCA violation, but in practice nobody is going to stop you it it's for personal use.
Re: (Score:2)
Format shifting is explicitly legal and has been for decades.
Re: (Score:2)
Format shifting is not infringing in itself. But circumvention an effective technological protection to do so, is not explicitly allowed.
In practice it might not rise to an actionable cause, but under a current interpretation, it is prohibited under the DMCA.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't they pay a media tax, so they're actually incentivized to do this, in order to break even at a minimum?
Re: It will fall flat. (Score:2)
Re:It will fall flat. (Score:5, Insightful)
I tend to agree. If you've ever read the fine print on a music or video DVD/CD you only own the physical media.
Don't be stupid. Just because I don't obtain copyright, doesn't mean I don't own my copy.
I very much doubt that any actual music CD has any text that says what you claim it does. None of the one's in arm's reach of my keyboard do.
Re: (Score:2)
I tend to agree. If you've ever read the fine print on a music or video DVD/CD you only own the physical media. You don't own any rights to the content on that media. You don't have the right to back it up or make any other copies to "preserve" your ownership.
If that is true, then why exactly am I paying a $10 - 15 premium, for a piece of CD media in a case?
I think I own the right to play that CD and content within, however many times I wish, in front of anyone I choose, and within the legal confines of public broadcast, all day, every day.
And while this is quite dated information (2014), I'm going to assume that similar laws might exist elsewhere by now?
"Copyright law is being changed to allow you to make personal copies of media you have bought for private purposes such as format shifting or backup," said a spokesperson for the UK Government's Intellectual Property Office (IPO), which is responsible for enforcing the Act.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not actually true. You do have the right to back it up. You do not, however, have the right to back it up, then sell either the original or the backup. Nobody in the universe is going to prosecute you for buying a CD and then backing it up to MP3 on your computer. They could sue you if you then sold or forwarded those MP3s or sold the CD and kept the MP3s.
Despite what the corporations want you to believe, fair use still exists. And copies for your own personal use have ALWAYS been fair use.
Re: (Score:2)
It's been more than a decade since, (so no idea if this has changed), but I actually called the FBI during college for a class project on copyright law. The thing that stuck with me was being told "If your CD collection is stolen then the thief has the legal right to listen to that music and any copies you made for backups are now illegal". Not sure they would ever prosecute you but I'd hope you had the receipts if ever in that situation.
Re: (Score:2)
It's been more than a decade since, (so no idea if this has changed), but I actually called the FBI during college for a class project on copyright law. The thing that stuck with me was being told "If your CD collection is stolen then the thief has the legal right to listen to that music and any copies you made for backups are now illegal". Not sure they would ever prosecute you but I'd hope you had the receipts if ever in that situation.
No matter how many issues of Judge Dredd the FBI read they are still not legislators, judges, or lawyers. Like all law-enforcement organisations they have a very confused view of the law because they have complete faith in themselves ("we know he did it") and almost none in the legal system ("he got off on a technicality"). So you called the wrong people and got a silly answer.
Re: (Score:2)
Untrue. The US laws explicitly allow you to make backups, no matter the fine print says. Fine print does not overrule the law. CD is easy, there's no encryption, so no DMCA crap. DVD is a bit harder, but the wiggle room is there that the protection was so miniscule as to be irrelevant. Blu-Ray you're in a tighter spot and have to rely on being morally and ethically right when making a backup even if the DMCA morons say otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
You have the right to make a backup of your DVD, but the copyright holder has the right to demand statutory damages from you if you break the encryption, whether or not you actually ran afoul of fair-use doctrines.
This means all you really have "the right" to do is to make useless backups.
It's fucking stupid.
No, it's worse than that, but I lack mental access to the swear words required to describe it right now.
Re: (Score:2)
This is actually unclear. Case law has not yet tried fair-use defense for section 1201-A .
Re: (Score:2)
Fair use is a statutory concept, not common law or constitutional.
Fair use, in particular is established in Title 17, Section 107 of the US Code.
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
Title 17, Section 1201-A (the circumvention provision, as you pointed out) reads as such:
(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.
Title 17, Section 1203 sets the statutory damages applicable to violations of Section 1201, including the "Innocent violation" exemptions (which are a very, very, very stripped down version of fair use that does n
Re: (Score:2)
Fair use, while statutory, is also required to make the title constitutional. That is even if these exemptions were not formalized, reason would still dictate they exist.
The case law sets 1201-A, or anti-circumvention as a new right distinct from the ones in 106. (and 1201-B and as ancillary rights to 106). But explicitly avoids determining how it might interact with fair use defenses.
And further 1201-(a)(1)(B-C) lays out that anti-circumvention should not hold where it adversely affects the ability to make
Re: (Score:2)
Fair use, while statutory, is also required to make the title constitutional.
Citation needed.
The case law sets 1201-A, or anti-circumvention as a new right distinct from the ones in 106. (and 1201-B and as ancillary rights to 106). But explicitly avoids determining how it might interact with fair use defenses.
All of section 1201 is a distinct set of rights of the copyright holder, and of the licensee. It has its own set of "Fair Use" exceptions, making:
But explicitly avoids determining how it might interact with fair use defenses.
Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes (decss) specifically evaluated the provisions within 1201 to determine if decss constituted "Fair Use"
They determined that they did not.
You'll note they did not evaluate whether or not it was Fair Use under the Copyright Act.
Further, the Court mused on this very issue:
Less radically, they have raised a legitimate concern about the possible impact on traditional fair use of access control measures in the digital era. Each side is entitled to its views. In our society, however, clashes of competing interests like this are resolved by Congress. For now, at least, Congress has resolved this clash in the DMCA and in plaintiffs' favor. Given the peculiar characteristics of computer programs for circumventing encryption and other access control measures, the DMCA as applied to posting and linking here does not contravene the First Amendment.
Which basically means "We recognize
Re: (Score:2)
> Citation
- Preliminary research show 107 was derived from existing case/common law of the time.
https://scholarship.law.wm.edu... [wm.edu]
>Universal
The universal case, if I recall correctly, was about the tool itself, and about the anti-trafficking provision in 1201-a. The tool itself was a violation, even if there were fair uses (but sense no specific fair use was raised as a defense, and distribution had not been limited to those uses it wasn't examined too deeply).
But it was ultimately a phryic victory, and
Re: (Score:2)
- Preliminary research show 107 was derived from existing case/common law of the time.
https://scholarship.law.wm.edu... [law.wm.edu] [wm.edu]
That link also outlines exactly why Fair Use is not a constitutional requirement, in that it points out specifically where the Constitution allows copyright statutes with no mention of "Fair Use"
The article you linked then goes on to say that Congress made "Fair Use" statutory because previously it was mired in confusion and handled by Judges from the perspective of the First Amendment, and each Judge's individual opinion.
Either way, the article does not refute my claim that: "Fair use is a statutory con
Re: (Score:2)
>You've got it backwards. The Blizzard case found that (contrary to Chamberlain Group, Inc. v. Skylink Technologies, Inc.) that Section 1201 is not contingent on infringement whatsoever (well, at least upon appeal where the 9th Circuit Said: "were we to follow Chamberlain in imposing an infringement nexus requirement, we would have to disregard the plain language of the statute")
You need the read the decision a little closer, they rule that 1201 provides three distinct causes of action. One of which is c
Re: (Score:2)
You need the read the decision a little closer, they rule that 1201 provides three distinct causes of action. One of which is contingent on copyright
Unsure if we're talking past each other here or not.
The decision holds that 1201(b) is distinct, but every violation of (b) is a violation of (a). The reverse is not true, that every violation of (b) is a violation of (a).
(b) creates an additional violation of violating (a) for the purpose of violating copyright rights.
It further notes that the Senate Judiciary Committee even gives a reason for this: 1201(b) need not contain in itself a prohibition, since infringement itself is already prohibited.
This m
Re: (Score:2)
You don't own any rights to the content on that media.
That's patently false, though. I have read the DVD CCA license agreement.
You own the license that you got with the media: which is the right to use to content of the media, in the way the media was meant to be accessed (As well as any rights you may have granted by statute, as in fair-use)
This doesn't mean that you own the ability to play this content on anything in the future (by their license) but it does mean you own the right to play this content
Re: (Score:2)
I tend to agree. If you've ever read the fine print on a music or video DVD/CD you only own the physical media. You don't own any rights to the content on that media. You don't have the right to back it up or make any other copies to "preserve" your ownership.
It's been well established that regardless of what the fine print says you do have a right to back it up/ convert it to mp3 so you can listen to it from a device etc.
Re: (Score:2)
"Buy" means there is no preset limit, however much like physical media, it is assumed it will not last forever.
In this case, due to it being a digital product, "Buy" does assume it will last forever. The catch is that you have to save it forever and make certain it does not get deleted. Apple is under no requirement that they retain a copy for you to download in the future. So if you save a copy on the Apple cloud, be prepared to pay for the storage like it were any other sort of data. Re-downloading the media from the Apple media store might not work in the future.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: It will fall flat. (Score:2)
Re: It will fall flat. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In this context, "rent" means you have a certain, pre-set time limit in which you have access to the content. "Buy" means there is no preset limit, however much like physical media, it is assumed it will not last forever. Everything degrades over time and eventually will become unusable due to physical deterioration, technological obsolesence, or the heat death of the universe - whichever comes sooner.
Much as I don't like silly lawsuits and much as I like asking people "did you read the EULA?", they've got a point here.
When I buy a physical object, I know that may deteriorate. If it does, that's often because of my actions. If I leave a car outside or dive it on salty roads, we have a reasonable expectation it won't be a perfect car later. If I keep it in a climate controlled garage, that car might be perfectly drivable 50 years from now. I can buy a 400 year old Rembrandt and it still looks fantastic.
Wh
Re: (Score:2)
However, there is one distinction that needs to be shouted from the rooftops:
In this situation where they have sold you the cylinder, they can shut down your Edison player at any point in time, just for you, without any legal protection for you.
This means they can shut it down because you gave them a bad review.
This really can't stand.
Abuses of the freedom on the part of the music-player-providers have been limited, but they're increasing.
The more comforta