Kindle, Zune DRM Restrictions Coming Into Focus

It's not news that the media you buy for both Kindle and Zune are protected by DRM. Readers are sending in stories of some of the ramifications of that fact. First, Absentminded-Artist notes an account at Gear Diary recounting what an Amazon rep told one user about download limits on Kindle books. "One facet of the Kindle's DRM has reared an ugly head: download limitations. Upgraded your iPhone recently? Bought a new Kindle? You may not be able to reload your entire library. There's an unadvertised flag: 'You mean when you go to buy the book it doesn't say "this book can be downloaded this number of times" even though that limitation is there?' To which [the rep] replied, 'No, I'm very sorry it doesn't.'" Next, reader Rjak writes "DRM is a bad idea, poorly implemented. One of the many many valid reasons to drop Zune and its marketplace is the DRM validation error you see below. The vast majority of the music I had purchased last year is completely gone. There's no refund, the music doesn't exist on the service anymore, the files are just garbage now. Here's the error (screen capture): 'This item is no longer available at Zune Marketplace. Because of this, you can no longer play it or sync it with your Zune. There might be another iteration of it available in Zune Marketplace.'" Update: 06/23 00:28 GMT by KD : The Gear Diary blog has been updated with what may be more definitive information from Amazon on how the Kindle DRM behaves.

Comments

Re:When Will the Average Consumer Learn?

[nine-times]

Sorry, but it doesn't really (technically) work that way. When you buy the CD, you haven't bought any rights to anything. You've just bought the CD. According to copyright, you have no right to copy that CD. Fair use says that you can copy that CD, so long as it's copied in certain ways for for certain purposes.

Where this has gotten confusing is that when you "buy" a song online, what you've really bought it a license to copy that song under additional circumstances not normally granted under fair use. Of course, that license probably has terms in it that say the online store can revoke the license and deny you access to that song at any time for any reason.

For this reason, I think someone should really sue these companies for false advertising or deceptive practices (IANAL, so I don't know what you would technically sue them for). Companies using DRM shouldn't be allowed to advertise that they're "selling" music, and they shouldn't be permitted to use the word "buy". Instead of "buy", they should be forced to use words like "rent" or "license". And the terms of the license should be in simple language and displayed prominently, not just when you first install or run the software.

Update to the Amazon story

[BlackCreek]

Amazon reps got in contact with the guy.... They simply don't a have a clue of what happens, and may try to change policy. Worth a read...

http://www.geardiary.com/2009/06/21/kindlegate-confusion-abounds-regarding-kindle-download-policy/#more-34458

Re:When Will the Average Consumer Learn?$1.9M FINE

[Nom du Keyboard]

Buy it once, use the pirated copy thereafter. After all you're purchasing a "license" and a "service" not a product, so all that matters is the license.

Jamie Thomas just got fined $1.9M for having files on her computer that were never proven to be shared with anyone unauthorized (MediaSentry is a fully authorized download) and owned all the CD's of the songs in question. So just what did she purchase?