Music is DRM free and movie rentals are...well they're rentals. They're supposed to expire.
I don't like DRM either, but to say the iTunes Store is totally useless isn't the complete picture. It has its uses.
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
Music is DRM free and movie rentals are...well they're rentals. They're supposed to expire.
I don't like DRM either, but to say the iTunes Store is totally useless isn't the complete picture. It has its uses.
If you wanted to trade bubble gum cards with your friend, would you be OK paying a fee to Topps?
Their big issue was in the creation of two licenses on the same 'copy' of content without them getting paid something for it.
This system transfers ownership. A signal would presumably go back to the original users devices blocking use of the files as they are no longer authorized and they are would be pulled from the original users history for redownloading etc.
If apple can find a way to do that signal without failure or being cracked within weeks, the publishers might go for it.
Realistically, I don't see Apple letting us sell the content to anyone else. If anything comes of this, they will let you transfer the license/ownership of the content to someone else via Apple ID.
Example, John wants to give Jane his copy of Angry Birds since he doesn't play it anymore. Jane gets the app for free and if John wants to play it again, he'll either a) have to get it back from Jane or someone else or b) buy it again off the App Store.
Edit: a thought just occured to me, as this could be a solution, but maybe not the best solution, for people who have multiple Apple IDs and want to manage all their content under just one.
Example, John wants to give Jane his copy of Angry Birds since he doesn't play it anymore. Jane gets the app for free and if John wants to play it again, he'll either a) have to get it back from Jane or someone else or b) buy it again off the App Store.
Edit: a thought just occured to me, as this could be a solution, but maybe not the best solution, for people who have multiple Apple IDs and want to manage all their content under just one.
If you think that DRM can be used successfully to cause artificial scarcity of information, then you haven't been paying attention over the past 15 or 20 years.
From what I remember there is no DRM on iTunes (music) anyway. Swings and roundabouts. Of course they will need some sort of control over this or people will exploit the system by downloading music from iTunes, pay for it, make a copy of it and then sell the original copy to someone else.
I for one think this is a good compromise, and welcome it. One of the things that has stopped me from purchasing 'digital' media thus far is I am unable to sell it on (the other being the inferior quality of the music compared to CD).
So Apple (and others) create a problem (which everyone loves and doesn't think it's a problem) - now they will "fix" the problem and possibly charge for it - and people will rejoice?
Judging solely from this thread, it would seem that you are 100% correct in your analysis.
So Apple (and others) create a problem (which everyone loves and doesn't think it's a problem) - now they will "fix" the problem and possibly charge for it - and people will rejoice?
As long as the problem is fixed I don't care. And if I sell something to a used book store, for example, I get less than with private sale. So I'm already well accustomed to the idea of someone else taking a cut. Private sale is the one thing missing here in Apple's proposal and maybe someone will figure it out. But I'd rather have something than nothing.
I never said, nor meant to imply that it is useless. The streaming stuff provides a service that many people are willing to pay for, much like the service that Blockbuster and their ilk used to provide.
I can just imagine the mess of resale will be. It will either spam up iTunes further and/or ebay.
As for lending - I already shared my position there. Not a fan of someone else technically owning my purchases and me having to pay for the privilege or donating and/or lending it to someone. A good argument to keep dvd, blu-ray (or whatever physical media is the latest) and the printed work alive forever.
What you described is just two friends buying used content from each other. An actual trade should be free for both people (ie, your cost to gain access to your friend's content would be the loss of access to your own, not the loss of access to your own content + $5).
So Apple (and others) create a problem (which everyone loves and doesn't think it's a problem) - now they will "fix" the problem and possibly charge for it - and people will rejoice?
I'm just curious how you'd both suggest Rovio make money from Angry birds without DRM.
Without an answer to that, what would bring developers to the app store in the first place?
The discussion is about content distributed using digital media, and not computer programs.
How do they make money with Angry Birds now?
I'm not arguing against DRM for Apps and whatnot. Where do you see that. I'm arguing against the potential for paying twice or a % for the privilege of lending/gifting it to someone.
And apps are almost silly to do this will for the most part anyway. I'm not sure any of my friends really would avoid buying an app on recommendation that's .99 - $1.99
Aren't we really talking more books, movies, tv and music?
The article says "iTunes Store Content" which most definitely includes Angry Birds.
If that's not right then MacRumors has reported it incorrectly.
EDIT: The source article at Apple Insider doesn't say it that way, so that language is a MR addition. But even after reading that article I'm not sure it's clear what this covers. One might have to read the actual patent, because the news sites are not really specifying that detail fully.
FSD was created when things where physical. It was deemed not a violation of copyright because no copy was being made.
Not so in the digital world. There's nothing other than DRM stopping me from selling you a digital item and keeping a copy for my continued use. Which is why FSD doesn't work as a defense with digital items since neither of us has the right to make a copy of the item.
Apple and Amazon are trying to find a way to block that making of a copy to make FSD viable from all sides. Rather than let the publishers continue to legally cock block it.
Folks should be happy that Apple is trying rather than just brushing off the desire with a 'too bad, so sad. Nothing we can do'. This could be a first step in many overdue changes in how digital materials are handled.
I think you're misunderstanding what I am saying specifically.
Read my last post.
----------
Well that was exactly my point, wasn't it.
So Apple (and others) create a problem (which everyone loves and doesn't think it's a problem) - now they will "fix" the problem and possibly charge for it - and people will rejoice?
Actually there is a very legit problem that this could fix. Several in fact.
1. Users with multiple IDs.
2. Parents that bought stuff for kids that were under 13 that want to hand over ownership to said kid
3. Someone dies. Divorces etc
And so on.
----------
But that's not a sale that's a gift. I'm gifting you my Stinky Sally card and you are gifting me your Tommy the Turd card.
It sounds like this system allows for gifting which would not have any fees as no money is involved
I can imagine Apple also putting out a "Flea Market" app to facilitate this.
Person A puts digital content in the app with the price they want to sell it for and for how long they're willing to try and sell it. It becomes disabled on their devices while it's in there.
Person B comes along in the "market" to buy their app and the money gets deposited in their iTunes account(can you see them putting it elsewhere?)
A signal gets sent to remove the app from Person A's devices.
Though I just thought of a problem with this scenario. I have apps across devices. Something would have to check each device to see if I have that app on it after I've sold it in whatever way Apple implements. If my iPad is turned off, it would have to check when it's turned on. If I have it on airplane mode, it would never be removed.
Person A puts digital content in the app with the price they want to sell it for and for how long they're willing to try and sell it. It becomes disabled on their devices while it's in there.
Person B comes along in the "market" to buy their app and the money gets deposited in their iTunes account(can you see them putting it elsewhere?)
A signal gets sent to remove the app from Person A's devices.
Though I just thought of a problem with this scenario. I have apps across devices. Something would have to check each device to see if I have that app on it after I've sold it in whatever way Apple implements. If my iPad is turned off, it would have to check when it's turned on. If I have it on airplane mode, it would never be removed.
At the moment I'm not. I find it more secure that my purchasing account is on an Id that no one knows and isn't published anywhere.
But I feel for those that don't have the same opinion and want a single id.
1 and 2 are problems Apple has created for itself. I believe that as long as both accounts can be verified to belong to the same owner - there's no reason not to be able to merge multiple IDs or family "tagged" or "linked". Apple simply never planned or was "innovative" (haha) enough to be proactive in this manner.
Further - *if* Apple plans on charging for lending/gifting - there's no reason why someone should have to pay when merging their own accounts.
As for three - I agree. But also again why I prefer physical media
Dear Apple,
Rather than spending all day worrying about patents how about helping out existing customers of iDevices so they may just continue to buy the next generation? Two suggestions of things that have bugged the S@?* out of me lately:
1: Allow me to block a number, I'm pestered by sales calls at least a dozen times a week, why is it so much trouble to allow me a button that says "Block" to give me a far more peaceful life?
2: Allow me to change the colour balance of my screen since you seem to have lost the ability to make them look nice yourselves. My current one in standard form is piss-yellow tinted. (106% Green, 94% Blue and 81% Red to be precise).
Every other iPhone 5 that I've seen looks this way, some people don't notice, some don't care. For those of us that bought your line about "great colour reproduction" we'd like to be able to make it look that way - I have by jailbreaking and using a non-Apple-approved app, I shouldn't have to and I didn't want to. The screen now looks amazing and makes everyone who compares it to their iPhone 5 with the "standard" colour balance a bit disappointed, we all paid a lot for these top of the range phones to get the best, not slipping Apple standards.
Thank you.
Rather than spending all day worrying about patents how about helping out existing customers of iDevices so they may just continue to buy the next generation? Two suggestions of things that have bugged the S@?* out of me lately:
1: Allow me to block a number, I'm pestered by sales calls at least a dozen times a week, why is it so much trouble to allow me a button that says "Block" to give me a far more peaceful life?
2: Allow me to change the colour balance of my screen since you seem to have lost the ability to make them look nice yourselves. My current one in standard form is piss-yellow tinted. (106% Green, 94% Blue and 81% Red to be precise).
Every other iPhone 5 that I've seen looks this way, some people don't notice, some don't care. For those of us that bought your line about "great colour reproduction" we'd like to be able to make it look that way - I have by jailbreaking and using a non-Apple-approved app, I shouldn't have to and I didn't want to. The screen now looks amazing and makes everyone who compares it to their iPhone 5 with the "standard" colour balance a bit disappointed, we all paid a lot for these top of the range phones to get the best, not slipping Apple standards.
Thank you.
As I understand it, no they can't. This style is apparently what Amazon got a patent for. To go with their current marketplace offerings for used physical items.
Apples would be more in line with their gifting from one id to another where it involves a purchase. So say we're having a talk about Quentin Tarantino, and you mention you have never seen the movie Reservoir Dogs. Right now I can gift you the movie and I pay for it but its on your ID. Under the new system, using presumably the same UI mechanics etc I could give you the copy I bought for film school that I don't need anymore without paying again for it. Any copies I have downloaded would stop working etc. as if I handed you my DVD.
----------
Off topic for the thread and Apple doesn't read this stuff. Go tell them your complaints directly. The feedback page isn't that hard to find if you bother to look