I've been thinking about common practices and legal rulings and the like recently when it comes to modern digital stuff. Specifically when it comes to ebooks.
So this thought has crossed my mind. Suppose that you want to sell a digital book, or share it with someone, etc etc. Regardless of the technical limitations (DRM) would you prefer to be in a world where there were specific legal rulings about particular actions? Or would you prefer to "fly under the radar" and let the action remain ambiguous?
The advantage of the prior, a court ruling, is that now the action is well protected in one direction or the other. With precedent there's less legal bullying or threats.
The latter, is the opposite benefit. The claim of poor clarification or challenge means that you get ignored by the big guys and get to keep doing what you're doing.
I'm not entirely sure that the publishing industry wants to see some of these questions ("Can you lend an eBook?", "Can you resell an eBook?") to wind up in a court because as much threat as it is to us, it is to them. If it doesn't go in their favor it's an additional threat to their industry, as well as a whole host of other problems with protecting IP in general.
I kind of feel both ways on the issue, and I'm curious what you guys think.
