Quote:
Originally Posted by Sarmat89
If you remove the DRM protection, you are creating copies of copyrighted material. The license you have does not allow you to do that.
|
Which is why the majority of people here - including many of the ones who carry the banner of anti-piracy - do exactly that: remove the DRM. People have seen how Amazon (and others) abuse this so-called "buy a license" scheme. You buy a book, but can't read it later, because "Oops, you didn't really buy the book, you only bought a license to read the book, and now we have revoked that license, without refunding your money of course". That kind of B.S. does not sit well with customers, no matter what some long-winded click-through "terms of sale" fine print says. When you "buy" something, be that an item or some lawyer-speak to only be able to "use" that item, you expect that purchase to be permanent. Otherwise the transaction should be clearly called a "rental" or a "lease" or a "subscription". Not a "buy". People understand "rent/lease/subscribe" to mean "temporary access to". "Buy" implies permanence.
And when the seller tries to be sneaky with lawyer-speak and turn a "buy" from a permanent thing into a temporary thing, then customers are going to totally ignore that lawyer-speak and do what is fair, no matter what the terms of the lawyer-speak say they can and cannot do.
I fully expect some self-righteous fool to come back and ding me for my "unethical" thoughts about this. So I will say in advance, "Thanks for the notification, self-righteous fool, ... but I'll ignore your tongue lashing anyway". I'll continue doing what probably 99% of the people here do (except for the self-righteous fools, and maybe a few normal people who don't want to bother for other reasons), and remove the DRM from books that I buy. Regardless of what the lawyer-speak says. Since I buy books only for my personal consumption, that's perfectly fair and ethical IMHO. And I don't care if the self-righteous fools think differently.