|
|
|
|
|
|
by biogene
1013 days ago
|
|
|
>Whether they can legally do it is a currently pending issue (see Andino v. Apple) but the main point is that even if they could, it's still wrong. This is incorrect. There is absolutely no question at all about the legality of copyright or of the rights afforded to the owner by it. This lawsuit is over the use of the word "buy" and about terms of service on a specific content platform. >Their (and my) point is that the practice of trying to put DRM (and licensing terms in general) into consumer products and IP goods that are meant to be experienced/viewed is a predatory and unethical practice. Copyright law allows for a balanced level of control over the works at issue, but the companies want more than that so they lock them behind contracts of dubious enforceability and essentially try to remove the rights consumers traditionally held over copies of media they purchased. Thankfully, there are tens of thousands of talented artists all over the world who will take your money and create artworks for you. This continues to be the case, so what rights of yours have been taken away; Its not clear to me. |
|
|
That does not negate the fact that most popular culture nowadays is locked behind DRM and terms that are on top of the normal copyright protection Congress devised for rightsholders.
According to most content and software production/distribution companies, people shouldn't even own individual copies, but licenses to those. This is even in the case where the average consumer would ordinarily see it as a purchase of a copy outright. There's a very clear line between a subscription service that provides access to movies on a time-limited basis in exchange for a monthly payment and a virtual store "selling" digital goods, using terminology on its UI that deceives consumers, such as "Buy" buttons.