[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

I agree with this basic premise: DRM is not evil.

Some implementations of DRM are evil. Making DRM so that you can only read it on a certain device is evil. Making DRM so that you don't want to distribute it, isn't.

the problem is, i cannot think of a single current implementation of drm which functions in this way. i am not convinced that an "acceptable" form of drm will *ever* be adopted by publishers, because i think they are promoting a much more rapacious agenda of one book per person and per device (more the rental / licence model than the sales model). they don't want to you be able to read it on whichever device you choose, and they don't want you to be able to lend it (within reason) to friends / family. given this, i really am not convinced that drm can be a good thing.

While I agree with Moejoe, an encrypted file will always attract hacker, you can make it harder for the non-hacker to distribute a file, especially if you encrypt it with personal data. As long as you can read it on any reader you want, most people won't complain.

if you are talking about watermarking a file or "social drm" that is perhaps the exception ; the only form of drm which doesn't pose the same moral problem, because it doesn't limit the use of the file at all (you can read it on any device you like, you can lend it to friends, etc., you just don't want to diffuse it on internet to a lot of strangers). however, i even have hesitation about that ; i wouldn't want any drm using my credit card number for encryption, for instance, because what happens if i were to lose / have stolen my liseuse ??? or even a usb key or portable computer with ebooks on them ? depending on who finds / steals them that could have really bad consequences for me. so even then frankly, i am not really convinced.

again, the point is, drm does not prevent copying (for those who really want to copy), and absence of drm is not a guarantee that the file will be copied. it's really this last assumption that makes me angry.

Originally Posted by LazyScot

For the technically literate, most drm schemes can probably be circumvented. Often the point is not whether or not you *can* circumvent them, but that you *have* to do something to circumvent them. I've had discussions with some people that go something along the lines of "well, I could do it so it must be legal." For many people, if the device says, no, you can't create an instant, zero-cost, globally usable copy of the book, that is fine.

this is a valid point (the people who say "if i *can* do it, it must be legal", simply because they don't know any better) but i still think it would be much better to try to act against this with an effort of education rather than ineffective, pointless, costly and very annoying (to legitimate customers only !) drm.

However, as mentioned, the issue with DRM is that the "honest" use should be no problem. Unfortunately, many of today's DRM-schemes are, shall we say, draconian? And I take that as one of the points of the article. A wish that the world would sort out a more reasonable DRM scheme.

yes, "draconian" seems apt. but can "a more reasonable drm scheme" exist ? what would it look like ? how would it work ? perhaps a social drm / watermarking scheme, but even then, as i said, i have some reserves simply because you never know what could happen which is beyond your control. i would be interested to hear some ideas or concrete suggestions though. perhaps there is something obvious which i haven't thought of.