Are DRM infections dying out?

[EowynCarter]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's because you're not creating an additional copy of the book when you do that, so copyright law doesn't get involved. When you give someone a copy of an ebook you've created an additional copy of it. There was previously only one copy; now there are two. This is a situation where DRM is beneficial - it can allow legitimate "lending" of ebooks.

Once again, do you think peaple sending copy to a familly member or a frenid is a problem ?
Inseated of passing the physical book you pass the file, the same number of peaple read the book anyway.

Only large scale sharing on internet is a problem, and these opies don't comes from e-book peaple bought...

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by EowynCarter

Once again, do you think peaple sending copy to a familly member or a frenid is a problem ?

Depends how it's done. If it's done by a legitimate method, such as you and your mother having a Kindle registered to the same Amazon account, or an ePub device registered to the same ADE account, then of course it's OK - that's perfectly legitimate. Where it gets dubious, to my mind, is if you give DRM-stripped copies of an ebook to half a dozen of your friends, because you don't know what they will in turn do with them.

It's not a black and white situation.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

or an ePub device registered to the same ADE account, then of course it's OK - that's perfectly legitimate.

Not according to Kobo. They say that legally only the person who bought the ebook is allowed to read it.

I can't see that they'd try to enforce it, but it's ridiculous that that is their official position.

[EowynCarter]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Depends how it's done. If it's done by a legitimate method, such as you and your mother having a Kindle registered to the same Amazon account, or an ePub device registered to the same ADE account, then of course it's OK - that's perfectly legitimate. Where it gets dubious, to my mind, is if you give DRM-stripped copies of an ebook to half a dozen of your friends, because you don't know what they will in turn do with them.

It's not a black and white situation.

The only other e-reading person i know is my sister. She's my sister and all, i trust her, but I won't give her my adobe accont.
Neither would she give me her amazon password.
And while we have a few books in common, it's to much bother to make list to send to each other.

Where it gets dubious, to my mind, is if you give DRM-stripped copies of an ebook to half a dozen of your friends

How many of you book would you have lent if you could ? Most of time, you'll have one or two peaple you know are eventually intersted ? Or would have bought the book otherwise ?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by EowynCarter

The only other e-reading person i know is my stster. She's my sister and all, i trust her, but I won't give her my adobe accont.
Neither would she give me her amazon password.
And while we have a few books in common, it's to much bother to make list to send to each other.

That's for you to decide, of course. I don't personally see any particular problem if it's a close family member, but a court could, in theory, think otherwise. I think the intent of the "official" lending mechanisms is clear - to allow sharing of books among people living in the same household, and I maintain my view that this is a situation where DRM is beneficial; if you have multiple Kindles registered to the same Amazon account, it's very easy to share your reading material.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Not according to Kobo. They say that legally only the person who bought the ebook is allowed to read it.

Whether that's legally enforceable is of course a different matter; it may well fall foul of the "Unfair Contract Terms Act" in the UK. Not that it's ever likely to be tested in court, I suspect.

[EowynCarter]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's for you to decide, of course. I don't personally see any particular problem if it's a close family member, but a court could, in theory, think otherwise.

Yeap, but they're to busy taking care of the real problem (ie sharing website), to bother with such trifle.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by HarryT

to allow sharing of books among people living in the same household, and I maintain my view that this is a situation where DRM is beneficial; if you have multiple Kindles registered to the same Amazon account, it's very easy to share your reading material.

I think it would be more correct to say it's a situation where DRM doesn't screw things up too much, not that it's beneficial.

Sharing among family members would not be any harder without DRM. There's no benefit.

ApK

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by ApK

Sharing among family members would not be any harder without DRM. There's no benefit.

The benefit is that the books cannot be passed to any third parties without the knowledge of the original purchaser.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I must respectfully disagree. DRM is essential to facilitate loaning. Without DRM - to prevent you from reading the book while your friend has it, and to ensure that it times out on your friend's reader - it's not loaning, but piracy, plain and simple. I always advocate removing DRM for personal use, but "personal use" is the key. If you're removing it to facilitate piracy, that's wrong.

Even some public library loaning is being done without DRM so I wouldn't say it's essential. Useful for setting up lending systems that more publishers will actually participate in perhaps, but not essential.


More and more people I know have second (or third) readers now and are loaning friends the device along with the book(s).

[EowynCarter]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The benefit is that the books cannot be passed to any third parties without the knowledge of the original purchaser.

If you don't trust peaple you're lending your books to...

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by EowynCarter

If you don't trust peaple you're lending your books to...

Even you say that you don't trust your sister with your Amazon password... There are different degrees of trust.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by EowynCarter

Once again, do you think peaple sending copy to a familly member or a frenid is a problem ?
Inseated of passing the physical book you pass the file, the same number of peaple read the book anyway.

Only large scale sharing on internet is a problem, and these opies don't comes from e-book peaple bought...

Yes, it is a problem and I can't give permission for any reader to do it. I can't selectively okay any behavior outside of copyright or licensing agreements and then expect to be able to defend that copyright/licensing.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Not according to Kobo. They say that legally only the person who bought the ebook is allowed to read it.

I can't see that they'd try to enforce it, but it's ridiculous that that is their official position.

The thing about positions is that you can't go around making exceptions or it weakens your ability to recover damages in a larger problem (such as pirating the book to a site or reselling it.) For example, in NM if you own land and put up no trespassing, no hunting signs, but then allow people to trespass on a regular basis (say, some kids walk through there to school every morning) you then lose the right to gate it off after a certain time of use. Same thing with the hunting. If you *know* people are hunting and don't report or make moves to stop them, you can lose the right to restrict the area (It's harder to lose your rights with hunting than it is with casual use/trespassing.)

If you state copyright and then don't protect it or you make statements allowing people exceptions, you are effectively making it harder to protect and recover any damages.

Amazon has verbage in the agreements for people on the same account sharing books to various kindles. That is within the agreement. Kobo handles it slightly differently.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

If you state copyright and then don't protect it or you make statements allowing people exceptions, you are effectively making it harder to protect and recover any damages.

This is not true.

It is true for trademarks. If a company doesn't protect its trademarks, it can lose the exclusive right to the trademark.

But it does not apply to copyright.