[TechniSol]

It's all a legal fiction, if you will, a made up thing called a license. You're granted a set of limited rights under the license. Those rights vary with locales and legislation, but mostly you're granted the right to store and read the content, but not reproduce it or distribute it to others. You probably have the right to back it up in order to preserve the right to access the material, but it gets a little murky as does your right to share it with others. At some point one has to realize that practicality dictates that you can share it with others and chance very little in terms of enforcement, but you never know when the wind will blow the other way...

That uncertainty is one of the best reasons to be opposed to DRM in it's current forms.

I just re-read the above, and thought I should clarify share to mean experience together, read together or for another, but not copy and distribute. I have a problem with the idea that one is not allowed to let another person access the book when they are not on the basis that I paid for that access and therefore own the right to access it and should have the right to allow someone else that privilege as long as I am not doing so independently which in theory would require copying and distributing a copy.

I think people would have far less issue with DRM if those promoting it were more realistic and not always attempting to restrict rights beyond the expected basic tenants of the form. In other words, if publishers were realistic about access within a family/friends group instead of trying to extract the last farthing as usual most people would have no problem with it. They violate the basic tenants of fairness and then expect others to play by their rules, in that case is it any wonder they would be opposed?