Quote:
Originally Posted by gmw
I am not saying that every person that buys a book is going to violate the trust of whatever agreement they make. But I am saying that some have blatantly said on these forums that they strip DRM in direct contradiction to the agreements they were aware of at the time they made them. So much for trust, so becomes obvious the reasons for trying to find effective DRM. I find such behaviour ... anomalous; inconsistent with my sense of honour and what is right. No one made them make such agreements in contradiction of their own beliefs, and it's not as if they had no other choice. This is not a A Man for All Seasons sort of situation, they are in no sense doing anything morally right in choosing to break their agreement, the morally right behaviour is to not make that agreement in the first place.
|
Bah! There's no "agreement." There is only a contract containing provisions which you cannot bargain over, and which themselves are an attempt to deprive you of fair use rights which you have under the copyright law.
Where do these sellers get off by trying to keep me from stripping DRM when the law (here in the US) is very carefully crafted to permit stripping by the lawful possessor of the DRMed file? That's the deal - they get to have DRM because they think it's necessary to protect their rights under the copyright laws, but the customer does not lose any of his or her own rights under the copyright laws, including the right to modify the product so long as they don't resell or distribute it. And yet, here come these corporations saying that they have GREATER rights as a result of DMCA, including the right to keep me from doing what the DMCA actually preserves for me.
In short, an "agreement" in which one party dictates all the terms, which is in practice contrary to the purpose and intent of the law itself, and where the other party has no choice but to take it or leave it, is not an agreement. It is an exercise in raw power, unsanctioned by law or by any moral code worthy of the name.