Originally Posted by BoldlyDubious
My "social DRM" proposal doesn't ask you to trust people, or to take risks. It's your choice. The "zero risk" option is always available: don't share the media you buy with anyone.
It seems to me that you want to be able to share (i.e. to choose who can get a copy of your media), but you don't accept the risks and responsibilities which are associated to choice.
No. I don't actively share my files with anyone. But your scheme would make me potentially liable if someone copies my files without my knowing, and it would do this without giving me any added benefit to offset the risk.
Right now, I can easily convert file formats to read the book on any device I choose. There is no actual legal risk to me. Under your scheme, I am open to potential legal action for copyright infringement and illegal distribution the rest of my life, even if I never do anything wrong myself. Years down the road, someone may get hold of a file with my identification on it and make my life miserable. And for this potential legal liability, what exactly do I get in exchange? The right to do something I already can do--convert files for my personal use?
DRM is silly and useless, but your proposal is much worse.