I don't think Apple wants the DRM, the publishers do. Not everything in the iBookstore is DRMed. I got a book recently that wasn't.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Patent Applications Address User-to-User Resale and Lending of iTunes Store Content
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't think Apple wants the DRM, the publishers do. Not everything in the iBookstore is DRMed. I got a book recently that wasn't.
There was never any contention by copyright holders that libraries were illegally copying their works. No court cases were ever held to decide that question, because the plaintiffs NEVER made any such claim.
Instead, the cases considered the right of exclusive distribution under 17 USC § 106:
Please learn about the history of the First Sale Doctrine before expressing opinions about this, the latest threat by those who want to make even more money by restricting the public's access to information.
----------
You confuse barter with gifting. There are fundamental differences.
Yup, feedback is ignored regardless and I'd just had my 3rd nuisance call of the day. It's annoying having "off topic" things disrupt your day, be it on the phone or in a forum isn't it?!
Apple wants whatever will make money for Wall Street.
If DRM can produce more profits than DRM-free, Apple wants that.
And if DRM-free puts more money into Wall Street's pockets, then Apple wants DRM-free.
Sheesh. This should not be a surprise to anyone. Apple is not some kind of non-profit foundation trying to make a better world. Apple is trying to get as much money transferred out of the pockets of consumers and into the pockets of hedge funds as possible. Apple has no other goal. None whatsoever.
Apple is a business, and not some sort of do-gooder nonprofit. Sheesh.
I never said that there was given that I never said that libraries are photocopying books to hand out to folks. Nor did I say they were buying books at Barnes and Noble and lending them without authorization from the publisher/distributor (which has nothing to do with First Sale Doctrine)
Perhaps you need a lesson in reading comprehension so you can reply to what folks actually say and not what you want to think they said so you can come off as a smarty pants by 'correcting' them.
----------
If that were really true we'd have 100 different iPhone models made in all different combos of size, shape and materials, same with all other lines. Apple would be announcing their plans a year ahead of the release.
And would most definitely not be working on an aftermarket process since it brings in more money to force folks to buy at full cost.,
So...you won't buy from iTunes when there's no DRM (like now), and if they add DRM for trading you won't buy from iTunes. Thanks for the update!
I'm curious, when you sell your books and cars, are you capable of making a 100% identical 'backup copy' first at no cost? That would make this a more interesting analogy.
Why? Just because it's Apple does not mean I have to be positive.
Exactly!
Call it what you want, just remember those items you buy are very likely licensed, not owned.
Only happy if it allows me to transfer content between my accounts. But since they are in different countries this might remain a dream. The above "step 340" will prevent, I'm pessimistically sure.
You may want to double-check your "no DRM now" contention. iStore content is locked down.
Of course I can't do that. But that is irrelevant.
No way. Apple chose the correct path to maximum total profits. Those gimmicks would not generate nearly as much profit in the long term compared with the masterful techniques that Apple has employed.
Your techniques were likely considered by Apple, and more likely rejected as being inferior. Nobody knew how to turn a buck like Steve Jobs.
Wow. This is the best news I've heard all month.
Coincidentally, I was just today desperately trying to hack the iTunes metadata for an app to transfer it to another account.
Hurry up apple, get this rolled out.
Coincidentally, I was just today desperately trying to hack the iTunes metadata for an app to transfer it to another account.
Hurry up apple, get this rolled out.
At first I loved the idea, but on second thought, this is very backward thinking... Publishers should love this however, because digital lending sets the paradigm of "sharing without copying" - and thus disabling a precious digital propriety of easy and cost-less multiplication... I think this is an attempt of really setting the public opinion on uniqueness of digital files, which is simply not true...
One way of embracing this great characteristic is motivating owners of the licensed files not to share illegaly by making them part of the distribution...Imagine following scenario: I buy an album and I make my friend like it. I can copy it for him device to device and he pays for it, but I get a cut... Why? Simply because the publisher's marketing or supply chain didn't move a finger to make that sale. I do their work for them and I should be rewarded... Todays piracy relies often on enthusiast that share their collections... What if the dilemma of making a penny legally out of it occured? Any thoughts?
One way of embracing this great characteristic is motivating owners of the licensed files not to share illegaly by making them part of the distribution...Imagine following scenario: I buy an album and I make my friend like it. I can copy it for him device to device and he pays for it, but I get a cut... Why? Simply because the publisher's marketing or supply chain didn't move a finger to make that sale. I do their work for them and I should be rewarded... Todays piracy relies often on enthusiast that share their collections... What if the dilemma of making a penny legally out of it occured? Any thoughts?
Although I suppose such a move by Apple could be used to provide further credence to the fact that these items are in fact not "licenses," but purchases, which was part of the issue in Vernor v Autodesk. Either way, we all know that the whole licensing thing is a sham.
If you bought, sold or traded through a Topps retail store, you would be expected to pay a fee, yes.
Using iTunes facilities to buy, sell or trade would be no different.
----------
The majority of authors and publishers have no issue with lending libraries, even digital libraries, who purchase the content that they lend, and limit lending to that content. Copying content for redistribution is a problem however.
----------
Very simple.
Patents protect your future ability to do something for your customers without paying someone ELSE a royalty.
You should be happy as an Apple customer that they understand this.
Applying for patents is not impacting their ability to deliver added functionality to their devices. We are not talking about a one man shop here where labor is limited....
Nothing beats buying physical media and avoiding unfair DRM and sale terms altogether. Mp3's are substandard. eBooks cost as much as physical books without the real experience. And who wants to tie up their expensive movie collection in any ecosystem?