I disagree. That physical book wont disappear off my nightstand without notice, regardless whats in it and copyrighted.
Last edited:
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 Hit With $5 Billion Class Action Lawsuit Over eBooks Availability
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What does the licensing contract say? That Apple (or whatever company licensing and selling media) can no longer sell such and such media in the future? If that's the contract, then give us consumers a warning that such and such licensing is ending, and give us a chance to download the media.
It's the sneakiness that probably motivated the class action lawsuit. You buy some digital media, but you as consumer don't know that the licensing agreement Apple had was going to end the next day or the next week!?! By being sneaky about this, we consumers will be much more hesitant to purchase. I think the easy solution for Apple and other companies is to simply email us their license is going to end on whatever date and warn us to download it as it won't be available to re-download after the license has ended.
They market that "owning" digital is better by being more convenient and easier to store than physical, but they don't tell us consumers that digital "purchases" can vanish on you at any time. I think the class action lawsuit will focus on how these companies are not being clear, by marketing it as owning and purchasing, when in fact it's more like renting.
It's the sneakiness that probably motivated the class action lawsuit. You buy some digital media, but you as consumer don't know that the licensing agreement Apple had was going to end the next day or the next week!?! By being sneaky about this, we consumers will be much more hesitant to purchase. I think the easy solution for Apple and other companies is to simply email us their license is going to end on whatever date and warn us to download it as it won't be available to re-download after the license has ended.
They market that "owning" digital is better by being more convenient and easier to store than physical, but they don't tell us consumers that digital "purchases" can vanish on you at any time. I think the class action lawsuit will focus on how these companies are not being clear, by marketing it as owning and purchasing, when in fact it's more like renting.
Last edited:
My goodness, download the books and move the epub elsewhere, save them in calibre and sync it back into books by opening it in Finder.
You do get the epub files, albeit DRM protected so they only work with Apple devices, when you buy on a Mac
If I understand this right this, “renting” and not owning digital media, is common. If this lawsuit puts an end to this practice, meaning you pay, you own (unless you expressly rent) then that is a good thing imho.
can the same thing happen with Amazon (kindle)?
And u know that there were folks here on MR reporting that they lost access to movies.
can the same thing happen with Amazon (kindle)?
And u know that there were folks here on MR reporting that they lost access to movies.
All these 'digital purchases' are really just rental and subscription services. You own nothing. Streaming music, video, books, games, all can be lost without warning. I hate this new economy.
And they wonder why folks are doing whatever it takes to retain a copy for themselves.
In the digital realm, the terms are far too skewed in the favor of corporate interest.
Yes but people understand if you pay for things like Apple Music or Spotify for example because of that kind of service
But it should be fundamentally different if you pay for a book or anything online
If it's really just a rental, then they should be upfront and not hide it. But they want to hide it to encourage "digital purchases"
The easy honest upfront solution is to just email us consumers that a license is ending and that you better download or else lose access.
And with movies it's one price to sort of "own" and another price to rent. They should have a warning when you "buy" or "own" that you need to download it to ensure you have access to it. The problem with movies is that they're large files
For me listening to music on a streaming service would constitute me owning that track and I wouldn’t hesitate to download it from pirate bay. Renting music shouldn’t be a thing so in my world it just doesn’t exist.
Hopefully this forces Apple to from now on only buy licenses from publishers that stay valid once sold to existing customers.
As long as we put up with DRM this will always be the case. They (Apple/Amazon/Whoever) can revoke your license on a whim.
That's why the first thing I do after purchasing an eBook is to remove the DRM on my purchase. Fair rights use, just like if I rip--for personal enjoyment--a CD I bought.
The license is for a certain amount of time at which point a new contract is negotiated.
If the two parties can’t agree terms then the licensed content is removed.
Backing up digital storage has been a thing for many decades. Can't really blame anyone else or a company if data "disappears" from an internet-connected device that has built-in sync functionality.
Yeah well Steve Jobs fought for this when it came to digital music purchases from iTunes. But he couldn't get those DRM-less rights for movies or TV shows because those sectors weren't desperate for a deal, or Apple agreed that content needed to be better protected. I imagine the same for books.
I don’t think it is as black and white as that — which I know is not a popular viewpoint in the world. There is a lot of nuance and shades of gray with this whole issue.
On the licensing side, for example, maybe an agreement doesn’t get renewed because a publisher refused to Apple‘s terms demanding a lower price. Maybe Apple is refusing to pay an increase. Maybe it is something else completely. But to absolve one party and put 100% of the blame on the other just doesn’t reflect how contract negotiations work.
Also, the core issue here seems to be that people are under the impression that they own something they bought. For those of us that understand how this works, we know they are mistaken. However, should it be this way? If 95 out of 100* people think they own something they don’t, does that make them all stupid idiots? There’s obviously a reason people believe they own something they spent money on. Is that because we are being misled? Is it because people are conflating their physical books/cds/dvds to their digital equivalents? Maybe it’s something else. At least with streaming there is more clarity about where things stand.
Finally, if any company has power and influence to try to change this, it would be Apple. Steve Jobs single-handedly dragged the music industry into the digital era, and they both have been reaping the rewards ever since.
* i made up 95 out of 100. I don't know what the number is. I would be shocked if it was below 90 and expect it to be closer to 100. Does anyone know if there are any accurate numbers out there?
Couldn't agree more, yet... you don't own your digitally bought stuff.
I can hardly wait for my 29 cent refund, while the lawyers get 4.9 billion.
That is only partially true. Copyright isn’t in perpetuity. Eventually, all music, books and movies, become public domain. That’s true regardless of medium, physical or digital.