Quote:
Originally Posted by Harmon
What other reason would there be, except to keep the customer from using the product in any fashion other than that required by DRM, which is the effective elimination of the legal right to fair use? ...
|
Well, that certainly isn't their stated intention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harmon
I'm unaware of any implementation of DRM that fully recognizes fair use. I'm not even sure that there could be one. The essence of DRM is anti-fair use.
|
With most books, I am free to copy portions of the text. I can then quote those portions in a public forum, such as I have done frequently here at MobileRead, for the purpose of public discussion or criticism. That, to me, is the essence of the fair-play clause.
It's true that some authors and publishers don't allow cut and paste copying, but this is merely an inconvenience. It simply means that if you want to quote a certain portion of that book, you must copy it by hand, just as you would have to with a paper book.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harmon
I don't think that what the publishers are doing is protecting is their product. They are protecting their business model, and attempting to expand the zone of profitability by denying customers rights previously associated with their product.
|
I'm not saying that there are no problems with DRM. Obviously, it places an unfair burden upon the consumer, who should be able to enjoy his/her purchase on any device they choose. Another big problem is what would happen if one of these companies like Amazon or B&N who use proprietary DRM schemes should fail? In such a case, all books purchased from them would become useless as soon their particular ereading devices die, and all electronic devices die eventually.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harmon
The internet changes everything. Publishers are going to have to come up with a new business model for their new internet product. Attempting to sell the new product using old methods will work for a while, but eventually someone will figure out how the new business model should work, and everyone will have to move to it.
About the only thing I'm confident of is that the essence of the internet lies in digital copying. So any new business model is going to have to leverage off of copying, not restrict copying.
|
No one's questioning whether the current system is currently in flux. I agree that new models will eventually emerge as consumers and suppliers shuffle about trying to get all of this sorted out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harmon
Yeah, but what we call "piracy: isn't going away. It existed before copyright laws, and will exist after the current ones are obsolete - what we call "piracy" is nothing other than copying. What turns it into piracy is our sense that the author/creator should control the financial benefits and artistic life of his book.
|
I knew it! You're secretly one of those
l-i-b-e-r-a-l socialists who believes in redistribution of wealth!
Hey Harmon, had lunch with Olbermann lately?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harmon
From that perspective seems to me that often, publishers are the real pirates, because they take control of those things for a pittance. Just remember the sad tale of the two kids who came up with Superman. Perversely, copyright law screwed them.
|
Let's face it, publishers who play dirty are nothing new under the sun, just as dirty-dealing recording companies have not always been overly concerned with playing fair with musicians. That, however, does not excuse piracy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HansTWN
LEGAL abundance is impossible with current technology. Free copying hurts the creators and their agents, and thus society. Therefore I think calling it artificial abundance is correct. Just because something is possible doesn't make it right.
Again, I see nothing wrong with coercion by the state when the cause is just and action as to be taken to avoid people's rights being trampled on. What should be wrong with coercion to prevent crime? It should be hoped that it isn't necessary, but that's what law enforcement is for.
Sharing always sounds great. The question is, why share what belongs to others, how can that be right? They have not agreed to let you share it. And few of us here see anything wrong if you break the DRM and do with the ebook you paid for exactly what you had done with a pbook. Share the book and do not keep the original. Actually you are even allowed to hand out 4-6 copies, legally. What is not right is downloading the book without paying and uploading.
|
I couldn't have said it better. Thanks!