Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemurion
The issue I'm seeing is that people are conflating the legal standing of stripping the DRM from one's own property with that of stripping the DRM from someone else's. It's not simply a matter of the legality of stripping DRM, but also the question of property rights.
Do you have the same rights over something that you have borrowed or rented from someone else as you have over something you own?
That's the question that must be answered first.
|
I would never do anything to someone else's "property" that they expected me to return.
Library ebooks are never returned. Even if I had to return it, I could return the DRM'd copy, completely intact, because I have made no changes - done no damage - to their property.
"Stripping" is a misnomer for what we do. We don't touch the file; we read it and in so doing, make a copy that we can read on another device.
Even when we buy an ebook, it is the intellectual property of someone else, and I would say their rights weigh more than the library's. (My librarian is perfectly fine with my stripping DRM to read their books on my Kindle)
So no - I don't see why the library - whose property remains unchanged - should be given more regard than the intellectual property holder I purchased from.
I honestly don't understand the point of straining at such wispy distinctions of whose property it is.
I am given the book for 2-3 weeks to read. I read it within that time period and then I delete it.
Who have I harmed? I could have kept it on my Sony. Instead, I moved a copy to my Kindle. The only person who can tell the difference is me.