Quote:
Originally Posted by PKFFW
My point is that it is as technically correct to say "comet strike, fire or untimely death prevents you from making a backup" as it is to say "DRM prevents you from making a backup".
|
The fact of the matter, as I'm sure you would agree, is that DRM makes it more difficult to produce a reliable back-up. You either, as I previously stated, need to back up the means to get around the DRM (e.g. backing up licenses and/or applications etc.), or accept that your back-up is vulnerable to this - as it may be vulnerable to certain "acts of god" that are not cost-effective to provide resilience to.
Quote:
It's actually quite amusing that many of the same people who constantly admonish kennyc for stating that copyright infringement is theft now themselves seem hell bent on arguing something that is not technically correct either. 
|
The debate about the law was (at least in part) a factual one about whether the law categorises copyright infringement as theft, which it currently doesn't. My issue here was different, and was that kenny seemed to be saying that backing up means being able to take a copy and no more. My point was that, in my experience, backing up means ensuring that you can restore - guarding against all the problems that it is cost-effective to guard against. Backing up is there to ensure access to data, not to make copies. Are you saying that this is "technically incorrect"?
I never said that "you can't back up DRM'ed ebooks", rather that DRM makes it harder to back up, and for individuals, the only practical solution is to remove it.