Slashdot Mirror
Apple Patent Reveals Gift-Giving Platform For NFC-Based iDevices
redletterdave writes "While downloading and storing digital media with online service providers has become commonplace — more so than purchasing DVDs and CDs at physical retail stores — it's not very easy to transfer digital files from one individual to another, usually because of copyright laws. Some digital distributors have systems for limiting usage and distribution of their products from the original purchaser to others, but often times, transferring a copyright-protected file from one device to another can result in the file being unplayable or totally inaccessible. Apple believes it has a solution to this issue: A gift-giving platform where users have a standardized way for buying, sending and receiving media files from a provider (iTunes) between multiple electronic devices (iPhones, iPads). The process is simply called, 'Gifting.'"
I'd feel guilty that the gift giver had funded what Apple is doing in the world. I'd be upset to receive such a gift.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
1) Hack the platform.
2) "Rick roll" every iOwner on the planet.
3) Profit . . .
4) . . . for Rick.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
People have been able to gift through iTunes for ages
That's totally easier than just downloading a DRM-free copy of the work and giving someone a copy via email or even sneakernet...
Oh, right, we're still pretending that there's something morally wrong with copying a bunch of ones and zeros that have no inherent value and convey no rights to the purchaser regarding First-Sale doctrine...
yo yo de iz diz protizzzest tuday fo trayboon martin so yallz muthafuckin niggaz betta get outda here and be muthafuckin marchin bitchez
brutha trayboon RIP
no justice no peace
Reading the story you find that the NFC part of this is merely an optional part of a much broader patent-grab. Other options include email, which is already well established as a gifting mechanism.
The real attempt here is to monopolize a method of transferring licensed media from one person to another. Of course, they require a server to be involved, to validate that the gifted media is removed from one person's account as it is added to another. Nook already had lending of ebooks, and by extension gifting, other than the book publishers would not allow Barnes and Noble to allow gifting, continuing (by edict) to enforce control their property rights after the first sale.
Its questionable whether Apple will be more successful at prying IP holders hands free of this post-sale control than was B&N. Especially with the DOJ looking into their collusion with publishers.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
...on what should in most cases probably be free.
"Gifting" a file is about as silly as "purchasing" one, in my book.
expandfairuse.org
It remains to be seen what actually comes from this, but it may address a central conundrum of ownership and copyright in the digital age. My feeling on the copyright issue is that if I have a book, I have one copy, but it is mine and I can give it or sell it or loan it to anyone I please. The key thing is that if I give my copy away then it is gone. I don't have it, and I can't give it to any more than one person at a time.
This satisfies the idea that the creator has control of the copy number (and hence meaning to the word copyright) and yet I have complete control over my copy including sharing it.
The problem is the digital age is how to transmit a copy to another person in such a way that I lose physical possession. You can think of a lot of complicated ways to do this. What is missing is a simple almost transparent and effortless way to do this. anything else either feels like a DRM trap or allows rampant distribution in violation of the creator's copyright.
If apple can solve this simplicity issue, then it bodes well for the industry and the consumer. Recall the pre 99 cent track days. by introducing that simple distillation it became less of a hassle to buy and share music across all your personal devices, for most people, this was simpler than hassling with trying to find it free somewhere.
I look forward to this to see if they implement it simply and equitably.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
The essence of giving is that I have an item, and freely pass it on to another individual.
What Apple offers is a way to buy something and have it delivered to someone else, al the while keeping it within Apple's steely grip.
Somehow that doesn't feel like "giving".
Three Squirrels
"This 'gifting' of which you speak ... is that anything like 'squirting'"? -- Steve Ballmer
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
"Wherein one agent (e.g a person) transfers an item (the "gift") to another agent..."
Nothing wrong with purchasing one, as long as you are then allowed to do anything at all that you want with it once you have. What is unacceptable is the current state of affairs where the media cartels refuse to clarify if you are buying of licensing, trying to get the best of both worlds
They say it's only a license to do something very specific any time you try to do something else with it (ie they claim it was only licensed for your home computer, and you shouldn't be allowed to move it to an MP3 player for example) and yet if you loose or delete the file, they refuse to let you have another one, because it was a purchase and not a license...
Can't have it both ways...(unless you can afford enough politicians)
This disturbs me in a number of ways...
Shouldn't a patent promote progress in some way... Apple is trying to involve NFC and make the whole gift giving experience a bit more interactive.
Wait, this really seems geared toward making sure that gifts that include DRM are going to work... um, really... Shouldn't DRM be fixed or removed if it's not doing what it should be... why do we need another patented technology just to make it work like it should in the first place.
I'm guilty of not reading through the entire patent and I'm no patent system expert, so I may just be off base here... Isn't this all existing techology? wouldn't that make this a business process... I thought business processes were not patent-able...
it was so easy to transfer programs to your friends. just obex them over, several programs came in with built in sharing, no need for internet access either. it's just amazing how much s60 1.2 did better than any of the modern versions, including indeed modern incarnation of s60.
you know why it had to die? appstores and content control - that the operators and manufacturers didn't manage to create unified appstores untill recently doesn't mean they were actively dumping money into it since 2002. and what do you think sms selling etc was? awful when an user can give easily a ringtone to his friend instead of the friend paying five euros for mms delivery of a shitty 20 second fair use lenght clip.
(how was it killed? bullshit reasoning that it's perfect for malware etc etc.. sure it is, if you accept anything from anyone on purpose. see skulls malware for example. funnily enough it was usually reported to be spreading at sports festivals etc. where av company had a booth. always where they had a booth. skulls was pretty hastily put together anyways.)
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
...for every other gift you receive with origins you might disagree with, be it sneakers from overseas or any form of plastic.
Prior Art: See Steam purchase as gift option.
Not paying someone the amount they ask to be compensated for their work sounds silly to me. Nobody is forcing me to use or be entertained by that content, so if I don't want to pay for it, I don't have to purchase it.
Expecting people to keep making you nice things after it no longer provides them a livelihood because you want it without paying for it... that sounds silly to me. But maybe I'm just being naive.
You make a fair (and conventional) point.
;-)
It seems to me that part of the problem is that you have to pay for it before you really know what you're buying. So personally, I feel shafted rather a lot.
But people made lots of art before there was copyright, and currently you'll see a lot of bands promoting themselves on the pirate bay (check their front page) quite voluntarily.
I think you do not realize that there is a box you are thinking inside of
expandfairuse.org
I don't want to get into the rights and lefts of it all, one of my personal frustrations with Apple is that while I've given my granddaughter "songs" any number of times ("gift this song,") when I thought she'd enjoy a funny little application called "The Moron Test," the Apple Store wouldn't let me. Took me days of slow email-like exchanges with Apple for them to finally get back to me and say "It can't be done."
They control the platform, they set the rules, you can do it with a song, why not an app? If they don't want to do it themselves, why are they off patenting it so that nobody else can? Seems pretty dog-in-the-manger...
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Who invented this term "gifting" and what's wrong with just giving?
and yet they won't let you "gift" yourself your own music library if your hard drive fails and it was improperly backed up. I know people who that happened to and honestly, if I used iTunes, I would have purposely not backed up my music because I would have assumed it could be redownloaded later if anything happened to it. Maybe they should implement that feature before they start letting people gift songs to each other. Although, I bring this up because I smell an exploit. Lost your library? Gift all your licenses to someone you know then have them immediately gift it back. You could obviously logically redownload them since they'd be an incoming gift that's not in your library.
Burning a CD from iTunes strips the DRM so why wouldn't people simply "gift" them a CD and keep the original? lol. Knowing them, they'll find a way to DRM that up too.
Good point about them not doing either. Again this is the sort of thing regulation could easily handle.
It is not so much a question of DRM as it is a question of a lack of agreed upon standards and mechanisms. Amazon for example does allow you to download again and again. Apple with applications does. With songs they've stopped using DRM so it has become a purchase.
prior art : in time (2011) , do iphones even have NFC yet ? the only thing apples executives are managing to do is confirming they like good sci-fi , but as for promoting new tech ....... or inovation ..... they seriously missed the train and are holding other on the dock
It has not become a purchase. not until you are allowed to do anything you want with it. something current copyright law doesn't allow.
You want more regulation to stop it. I want less. reduce copyright law and let the free market take care of it. The only reason for the current mess is too much regulation in the first place.
It has not become a purchase. not until you are allowed to do anything you want with it. something current copyright law doesn't allow.
Well wait a minute. Under the copyright system you couldn't do anything you want with a book, at the same time they wouldn't replace a lost / stolen / damaged book free of charge or even for cost of media.
You want more regulation to stop it. I want less. reduce copyright law and let the free market take care of it.
The free market regulates the desirability of contracts between buyers and sellers. The government handles enforcement of contracts. There is nothing to stop a publisher from selling you an unlimited license, if they choose. But since they don't there needs to be a body of law dealing with enforcement for breach of your limited license, copyright law. There is no free market without enforcement of contract.
Why is such true ?