|
After reading this thread and letting it all perk a bit through what passes for a brain these days, I'm going back to the original question posed, and maybe considering it a bit more broadly...
Do I own these? Now, according to lawyers and DRM agreements which most people are largely ignorant of, the answer is "No." However, DRM lawyers do not have the final say, law makers and ultimately judges do. The problem then becomes a question for those who must protect the consumer as well as the originators of copyrighted material.
I most assuredly exchanged money, voluta, credits, for something, which was not merely a transient event, to be present at a concert or performance, or for a similar time limited intangible, and did receive a product of sorts, not unlike software, somewhat ethereal in nature, but it does exist. Therefore, I must either possess the rights commensurate with disposal of that property as I see fit, or there was no transaction and I have every right to demand my money back. Further, I was not sold the right to only experience the copyrighted material for a limited time, so they must make it available to me for at least my lifetime... most would say beyond that as it can easily be reproduced or translated to be viable with future technologies and represents a portion of my estate which I may pass on to others as I see fit.
I think the problem is going to come down about the time institutions like libraries have amassed a large collection and then DRM technology changes and they are told their investments are no longer viable and that the publishers or purveyors feel they have no responsibility to convert their collections to a still viable format... to me that is just about the point where the muck will meet the proverbial fan.
It is my position that as a consumer I purchased something with a reasonable expectation that I should have the right to resell it, or retain it, or dispose of it as I might with other property. Further, I should have the continued right to experience my property irrespective of changes in protection methods the copyright holder or his/her assigns might choose to employ... I think it must be legal for me to translate the format of my personal copy of a work in order to maintain my right to what I purchased if technology changes my ability to do so. I'm not saying the consumer should have any right to distribute copies beyond their own other than in such a way that it puts that document beyond their reach as it would by lending a book, etc., but they should have the right to do with their possession as they like. I'll go a step farther and say that legislation should be enacted to prevent copyright holders and their agents, assigns, or partners from changing DRM methods without providing a translation method or copy if they choose to make that format available for sale to others as there is nearly zero physical cost for them to do so as there would be with a physical delivery system like a record or CD. It might only require a consumer to upload their original file to verify their right to own the file and an automated system to return a newly DRM'd copy. If they choose to force the issue by adopting new DRM methods they should pay the freight for customers who have already purchased the material.
Some may disagree, and say that like software, if the technology changes and you want the same use on a new machine you must pay for it as substantial changes must be made for it to operate under a new platform, OS, etc. However, in the case of an ebook the text or work you purchased would remain the same, only the protection method or distribution format might change -you are not asking for translation into a foreign language, etc.
|