[TuxGirl]

Originally Posted by jimmyrules712

It's interesting to think about though...back in the non digital age when you bought something media related (book, music, movie, etc.) you were basically buying the physical medium as much as the right to enjoy that media. But now with how terms are worded that when we buy digital media like ebooks or music we are buying a 'license' to enjoy that media with no physical medium attached to it, wouldn't having that 'license' give us the legal right to use that media regardless of when medium it is on (ereader, PC, printed on paper, etc.)? If I buy an eBook I have the right to read it on an eReader, computer, or printed on paper don't I? Does that not go both ways? (buying the physical book giving the right to read it on paper or scan it and read it electronically). If it does how does the law distinguish (or care) between whether you made the digital copy of the work you bought or used a copy made by someone else (but you still did pay for a copy).

I'm not trying to step on toes here, just interested in having a logical discussion about it.

nope. you actually often don't have the legal right to print it out. You don't have the legal right to do anything that is not allowed by the license.

Now, with the DMCA, there are things that you likely think you should be able to do which you can't actually do (according to my understanding of the law). The DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent DRM regardless of the reason behind the circumvention. If there's DRM on an ebook, you cannot legally convert it to a different format because in so doing you would need to circumvent the DRM.