11-06-2012, 05:11 AM | #226 |
Wizard
Posts: 1,068
Karma: 23867385
Join Date: Nov 2011
Device: kindle, fire
|
The problem is that there is a law to protect the muggers and a law to protect the mugged. The law to protect the muggers is easy to enforce and the muggers hang out at the same donut shops as the police. The law to protect the mugged is mostly theoretical and you have to pay a cover charge to get in the donut shop.
The fact that a law has 'fair use' exemptions tells you all you need to know about the fairness of the law and the fact that the fair use exemptions have to be renewed every three years tells you every thing you need to know about the intent of the people who created the law. |
11-06-2012, 05:41 AM | #227 |
what if...?
Posts: 209
Karma: 750870
Join Date: Feb 2011
Device: paper & electrophoretic
|
Maybe, while waiting for more comprehensive solutions to the problem, the viable solution we should all push towards is "social DRM".
Let Amazon (and the other media vendors) embed the identity of the buyer in each file as deeply as they can; and let them sue whoever illegally distributes the files they purchased. But the files must be freely copiable and transferrable among devices (and people, such as within a household or between friends). Just like real books or CDs. In this way people will have the responsibility to look after their own purchases (so that they are not distributed): in fact any unauthorized distribution via P2P will cause problems to the owner of the file, not to the distributor. But people will finally get to own a piece of media, not a license to access a piece of media that is owned by someone else. I strongly suspect that the main reason why social DRM is not much used is that the limitations associated to conventional DRM are a bug for consumers, but a (valuable) feature for media vendors... |
11-07-2012, 09:28 AM | #228 | |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 7,345
Karma: 52398889
Join Date: Oct 2010
Device: Kindle Fire, Kindle Paperwhite, AGPTek Bluetooth Clip
|
Quote:
|
|
11-07-2012, 11:22 AM | #229 | |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 8,560
Karma: 8033155
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: TN, USA
Device: kindle(all), nook, nookcolor, Sony, Kobo, epic, iphone, iPad, pc
|
Quote:
Of course, it'll find "innocent" postings, such as a public file on dropbox you are sharing with a child across the country, which will look the same as a file you are sharing with the world. If the RIAA and other "rights holders" had their way, they'd simply monitor your computer from the OS, so any download would trigger a violation report. |
|
11-07-2012, 12:11 PM | #230 | |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 7,345
Karma: 52398889
Join Date: Oct 2010
Device: Kindle Fire, Kindle Paperwhite, AGPTek Bluetooth Clip
|
Quote:
|
|
11-07-2012, 05:38 PM | #231 | |
Bemused by possibilities
Posts: 58
Karma: 480244
Join Date: Jul 2012
Device: iPad3, Kobo
|
Quote:
I'll bet Amazon is monitoring this.... Last edited by SusanM; 11-07-2012 at 06:37 PM. |
|
11-07-2012, 05:59 PM | #232 |
what if...?
Posts: 209
Karma: 750870
Join Date: Feb 2011
Device: paper & electrophoretic
|
I spent a few minutes thinking about possible policies to separate authorized from unauthorized file sharing practices in the hypothesis that social DRM (i.e., data embedded in a file that identify who purchased it) becomes the standard copy-protection mechanism.
Perhaps something like the following, simple as it is, could work (what do you think?): The owner of a media file (as identified by the data embedded in the file) is considered personally responsible of illegal distribution of that file if and only if it is proved that a person received a copy of the file without being personally identified by the owner of the file. Proving the absence of personal identification by the owner should be trivial, in particular, when a file is published on public web spaces or on P2P networks: which are the main things that media companies say they want to prevent with current DRM schemes. |
11-07-2012, 09:46 PM | #233 |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 5,185
Karma: 25133758
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: SF Bay Area, California, USA
Device: Pocketbook Touch HD3 (Past: Kobo Mini, PEZ, PRS-505, Clié)
|
That would require a drastic change in law. Right now, you're not responsible for the illegal distribution of things you own if they're stolen from you; that phrasing doesn't seem to have an allowance for "college roommate hacked into my computer and copied all the files."
There's also the issue of defining "personally responsible." How do you prosecute someone who *didn't do the act* but is somehow "responsible?" Does that mean the person who did the distributing is off the hook entirely--that if you get an unwitting permission from someone to "borrow some books to read," and then load them to the torrents and fileshare sites, they, not you, are guilty of copyright infringement? And "absence of personal ID by the owner" is also hard to prove. What counts as ID? If I knew it was downloaded by DragonBane381, R33DERG33K, and Fan-of-ebooks, does that count as personally identifying them? |
11-08-2012, 03:00 AM | #234 |
Basculocolpic
Posts: 4,356
Karma: 20181319
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Sweden
Device: Kindle 3 WiFi, Kindle 4SO, Kindle for Android, Sony PRS-350 and PRS-T1
|
I bet you're right. I also bet that they don't care. Amazon was never a proponent of DRM, that was enacted by publishers. Amazon essentially want eBooks to be like iTunes, a $0.99 item that no one is interested in pirating. So as long as you don't resell their books and undermine the market I don't believe they care. But they do monitor, because information is power.
|
11-08-2012, 03:28 AM | #235 | |||||
what if...?
Posts: 209
Karma: 750870
Join Date: Feb 2011
Device: paper & electrophoretic
|
Excellent points, Elfwreck.
Quote:
1) if you have notified to the police a theft of property which included items usable to access your media library before the illegal distribution occurs, you cannot be held responsible for distribution of media purchased before the notification date. Quote:
If you gave your computer's password to your idiot roommate and your files end up on some torrent site, you have a responsibility in that. However, here is a second modification: 2) both of the owner of the file and of the actual distributor are responsible if illegal distribution of that file occurs. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
3) A media publisher finds online a file owned by BoldlyDubious, and distributed by someone nicknamed DragonBane381. They call the police, and the police sends to BoldlyDubious an official note saying that within 15 days they expect the real name and surname of the person associated to the nickname DragonBane381 to be provided to them. If such person confirms to be DragonBane381, BoldlyDubious is off the hook (but DragonBane381 isn't). If the person does not confirm to be DragonBane381, BoldlyDubious is prosecutable. If the person contacted by the police does not confirm its identity as DragonBane381, two cases are possible: (i) the person actually wasn't DragonBane381, so BoldlyDubious gave the file to someone without knowing her/his identity and deserves prosecution; (ii) the person really was DragonBane381 but did not admit it, so BoldlyDubious is responsible for giving the file to someone inclined to do something unlawful with it, and deserves prosecution. What do you think? Last edited by BoldlyDubious; 11-08-2012 at 03:32 AM. |
|||||
11-08-2012, 10:20 AM | #236 |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 7,345
Karma: 52398889
Join Date: Oct 2010
Device: Kindle Fire, Kindle Paperwhite, AGPTek Bluetooth Clip
|
BoldlyDubious, I think that the source of the file is irrelevant. The person who uploads the file to a torrent or a file-sharing site is the one responsible; who cares where that person got the file in the first place?
An uploaded file has to be associated with some account; go after the person who owns that account. |
11-08-2012, 02:55 PM | #237 | |
what if...?
Posts: 209
Karma: 750870
Join Date: Feb 2011
Device: paper & electrophoretic
|
Quote:
Given that the current type of DRM can easily be removed, the system does not damage illegal uploaders; while it certainly creates absurd difficulties to users behaving correctly. My proposal for "social DRM" (I don't think I have been especially original, certainly someone else already proposed something similar) aims at changing this. This is done by giving to media purchasers both the freedom to do whatever they want with the files they bought, and the responsibility to choose wisely what they do with them. One of the key points is that consumers would get to own media, not licenses. Therefore, many reasonable things that are now difficult and/or prohibited would become easy and possible. To name just a few: backing up, lending to friends and family, changing reading device, leaving your media library to your sons and daughters when you die, ... |
|
11-08-2012, 06:01 PM | #238 | |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 7,345
Karma: 52398889
Join Date: Oct 2010
Device: Kindle Fire, Kindle Paperwhite, AGPTek Bluetooth Clip
|
Quote:
I don't like it, but I think the current DRM is much preferable to any system that attempts to identify the source of a file, because that system would be too open to mistakes and abuse and violations of privacy. The people who engage in illegal distribution now will find a way around it, and the rest of us might suffer for it. What's to stop a pirate from attaching the name of an innocent person to the file, and thereby creating all sorts of difficulties for that person? |
|
11-09-2012, 01:19 AM | #239 | ||
what if...?
Posts: 209
Karma: 750870
Join Date: Feb 2011
Device: paper & electrophoretic
|
Quote:
In fact, only people with a minimum of technical knowledge can apply DRM removal tools, so the current DRM system leaves most people with crippled media libraries. Quote:
Moreover, I don't think that "pirates" (who are not getting a profit from uploading) will find the will and the time to set up complex re-encoding of the files with fake data, knowing that these can be quickly identified as such. Of course, if you can strip identification information from a file you get back to today's situation where -after DRM removal- the file bears no identifier. My basic assumption is that it is possible to devise systems for embedding identification information in a file that make removing such information a bit of a hassle. |
||
11-09-2012, 01:26 AM | #240 |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 7,345
Karma: 52398889
Join Date: Oct 2010
Device: Kindle Fire, Kindle Paperwhite, AGPTek Bluetooth Clip
|
Who's going to catch you violating the TOS by removing DRM?
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Kobo Touch User Guide Updated | Thasaidon | Kobo Reader | 3 | 01-12-2012 12:20 PM |
Wish Amazon would post the KFire User Guide | jswinden | Kindle Fire | 9 | 11-14-2011 03:21 PM |
How can an international user buy and use Amazon Kindle? | Over | Amazon Kindle | 16 | 10-29-2009 06:17 PM |
Petition Started to Stop Amazon from Remotely Deleting eBooks from the kindle | eReaderPlanet | News | 14 | 08-06-2009 03:10 PM |