EU forcing DRM interoperability

[Alan]

Originally Posted by msundman

So, if the government has not decided on my behalf that I'm better off without my natural right to copy then I, as the holder of that right, will not give away that right regarding the books I've bought.

You have no such right if the author who sold you that book, did not give it to you. In real life the author will have explicitly forbidden you to make copies of that book. If you don't want to accept those rules, why are buying from such an author? If you don't honor contracts that you freely agreed to, than you are not better than any other scammer out there.

Alan

[astra]

Originally Posted by Alan

Audio CDs are DRM free. That is why people buy so much of them instead of downloading music files illegally from Emule. I guess I do not lock my car in the future. It will only be stolen because I locked it. If I do not lock it, the car theft rate will most certainly dramatically decline. At least if I would follow your "logic".
Alan

We speak about books.
If you missed it, I will repeat - it is a matter of a few clicks to remove drm from LIT file. If DRM was a neccessity to stop piracy then most of books published in LIT format would be out there, on the darknet. However, they are not available on the darknet. Why?
Your logic is faulty.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by Alan

Of course they have. It is far more difficult to copy paper books than ebooks.

That is not protection.

Originally Posted by Alan

Well, actually they have less rights with ebooks. As mentioned before a paper book is a physical good. If you lend it, you are not able to use it anymore until you get it back. You can lend an ebook and still read it yourself. A paper book can only be used once at a time. You cannot divide it or multiply it. Ebooks can usually be used on at least four difference e-reading devices.

You have incorrectly assumed that the world is Mobipocket. It isn't and the norm is not 4 different devices.

Originally Posted by Alan

Quote the law that says I don't have to sell you my car. Can't find it? So that would mean, that I do have to sell it to you. Right?

Car's are not ideas. Cars are handled under property laws. Ideas are not property and, so, are handled in part by copyright laws.

Authors do not own (and have never owned) their stories. That's why their works are protected by copyright laws instead of property laws.

Originally Posted by Alan

If an author sells you a book under the premise that you are not allowed to lend it (just an example), than there is a legal contract between the seller (author) and a buyer (you). If you don't like certain terms in that contract, don't buy the book.

The author then loses his right to complain that people pirate his works electronically.

Originally Posted by Alan

The government has decided nothing.

Copyright, unlike property rights, is a government granted right. So, yes, the government decided.

Originally Posted by Alan

It is the author and publisher who decides what will happen with their books.

The author and publisher are bound by copyright law as well. Once sold, the author and publisher cannot tell anyone what they can/cannot do with the book.

Originally Posted by Alan

If an author don't want to copyright his book, well, that's fine.

The act of putting the book in physical form (like on paper) copyrights it. My grocery list, as soon as I write it down, is copyrighted automatically according to the messed up copyright laws of today.

The author would have to expressly release his work into the public domain if he wants to give up his copyright.

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by astra_lestat

We speak about books.
If you missed it, I will repeat - it is a matter of a few clicks to remove drm from LIT file. If DRM was a neccessity to stop piracy then most of books published in LIT format would be out there, on the darknet. However, they are not available on the darknet. Why?
Your logic is faulty.

Only someone who has purchased the book can remove the DRM on a LIT file using the easily available program. Someone who actually purchased the book is less likely to then give it away.

Dale

[astra]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

Only someone who has purchased the book can remove the DRM on a LIT file using the easily available program. Someone who actually purchased the book is less likely to then give it away.

Dale

I agree

I do not suggest giving ebooks away free, I suggest to sell them, although without DRM!

[msundman]

Originally Posted by Alan

You have no such right if the author who sold you that book, did not give it to you. In real life the author will have explicitly forbidden you to make copies of that book.

Why wouldn't I have the natural right to copy a book if the government hasn't taken that right from me (without my consent)? Or are you finally admitting that the government indeed has decided for the people that the people are better off without their natural rights to copy things (by which I mean that the government has taken that right away from the people, not that it has made it illegal to copy per se)?

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by astra_lestat

I agree

I do not suggest giving ebooks away free, I suggest to sell them, although without DRM!

Many do, but you don't have to convince people in this forum you have to convince publishers so the long discussions here have no effect.

Dale

[astra]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

Many do, but you don't have to convince people in this forum you have to convince publishers so the long discussions here have no effect.

Dale

Yeah, you are right. It is just sometimes we get self-righteous people here, so full of pro-DRM stuff. They are preaching here, where majority know the real face of DRM and I am tempted to show some facts into their faces

[Alan]

Originally Posted by astra_lestat

If DRM was a neccessity to stop piracy then most of books published in LIT format would be out there, on the darknet. However, they are not available on the darknet. Why?

Because those books have been transformed into other formats. Because they are available in other formats (with or without DRM). Because nobody really wants those titles. Because... There is a number of reasons. Format has nothing to do with illegal activity because formats can be changed easily.

Originally Posted by rlauzon

That is not protection.

Of course it is. It is not a 100 % protection, but it is a protection to some level. I lock my car. Sure, that is no 100 % protection, since it can get stolen anyway. But it is a level of protection anyway.

You have incorrectly assumed that the world is Mobipocket. It isn't and the norm is not 4 different devices.

But fictionswise and mobipocket are the major sites for ebooks on the internet. Almost all commercial titles are available on these two sites. So I do indeed correctly assume that these sites will cover more than 90 % of all available ebooks. If you, however, buy at another site that will give you less (for the same money), than you should consider changing the store you order from.

Car's are not ideas. Cars are handled under property laws. Ideas are not property and, so, are handled in part by copyright laws.

If I lease a car, the dealer can specifically tell me what to do or not to do with it, because I do not own it, I have leased it. The same with software. The programmer can tell me, what I am allowed to do with the software, how long I might use it and so on. I do no own the software, I have leased it or rather have bought the right to use it in certain ways. And an author can decide how he will sell his books to me, how I might use them, for how long and how many copies (if any) I am allowed to have or create. If I do not like the terms at which the author is offering his book to me, I will not buy it. Period.

The author then loses his right to complain that people pirate his works electronically.

Interesting. Somebody will not sell me something (for whatever reasons) and then I'm free to steal it? Wow, I think we definitely need more criminal prosecution of copyright violators if this is what most of them really think.

Copyright, unlike property rights, is a government granted right. So, yes, the government decided.

Property laws exist in every country. But still it is not the government that grants you those right. They only govern it, put it in law, write it down, so that there is a basis for some jurisdiction. If I make a contract with you, like selling you my car, then it is not the government, that grants you the right to use your new car. It is me. I'm selling it to you. The government only protects the contract we both agreed to. And the government might decide, that if we both don't agree to specific terms in that contract that then some default rules will apply. That is exactly the situation with the copyright laws. Every copyright holder decides about his own right. Only if they do not want to apply specific rules to their work, the default rules will apply, written down in the copyright laws

The author and publisher are bound by copyright law as well. Once sold, the author and publisher cannot tell anyone what they can/cannot do with the book.

Of course not. Contracts cannot be altered by one party alone. Contracts have to be obeyed by both parties.

Originally Posted by msundman

Why wouldn't I have the natural right to copy a book if the government hasn't taken that right from me (without my consent)?

Without your consent? When you buy a book you agree to be bound by the terms of the contract between you and the seller of the book. If he allows you to copy his work so many times - fine - than you can do it. If he forbids you to copy his work, then you know about this restriction before buying the book. And if you did not want to obey these rules in the first place, than you should not have bought the book.

Or are you finally admitting that the government indeed has decided for the people that the people are better off without their natural rights to copy things (by which I mean that the government has taken that right away from the people, not that it has made it illegal to copy per se)?

No, the government does not restrict in any way the contract between you and the author of the book. He can grant you every right he wants. Or he can restrict the use of his work in any way he wants. You agreed to those terms as you bought the book.

Originally Posted by astra_lestat

Yeah, you are right. It is just sometimes we get self-righteous people here, so full of pro-DRM stuff. They are preaching here, where majority know the real face of DRM and I am tempted to show some facts into their faces

I have seen nobody preaching here. But I asked many times about alternatives. DRM is necessary but certainly not a good solution. Please come up with a better solution. Locking the doors of you house might no be the best way to prevent burglary. Burglars are out there anyway. But so far nobody came up with a better solution - beside Brutus, the dog-like killing machine. And you won't actually recommend to leave the doors of your house open, do you?

Alan

[msundman]

Originally Posted by Alan

Without your consent? When you buy a book you agree to be bound by the terms of the contract between you and the seller of the book.

First of all I didn't talk specifically about books, but about copyright in general. Second, when I buy a book I don't draw up a contract. When I get a book from the library I don't draw up a contract (although I might have a contract with the library regarding fines etc., but that's irrelevant to this point). When I buy a used book at a 2nd-hand store I don't draw up a contract. When I pick up a pamphlet on the bus seat next to mine I don't draw up a contract.

Are you getting any of this?

Originally Posted by Alan

No, the government does not restrict in any way the contract between you and the author of the book.

There is no fracking contract between me and the author of the book! There is only copyright, and copyright does not imply a contract.

If I pick up a pamphlet from the bus seat next to me I have not agreed to any contract with the maker of that pamphlet. Yet I don't have the right to make copies of that pamphlet as I see fit. Why? Because the government has decided I'm better off without this natural right of mine.
Now, do you or do you not agree on this point?

Originally Posted by Alan

But I asked many times about alternatives. DRM is necessary but certainly not a good solution. Please come up with a better solution.

I answered. It certainly is neither. I did that.

[Alan]

Originally Posted by msundman

Second, when I buy a book I don't draw up a contract.

Of course you do. Every time you buy something there is a contract between you and the seller. Every time you buy your groceries there is a contract between you and the supermarket. It might no be in writing, but it is certainly a verbal contract.

When I get a book from the library I don't draw up a contract

There is a contract between the author/publisher of a book and the library. As a user of a library you agreed to be bound by certain terms, including copyright. Copyright is either given by the author on specific terms or by default in the law.

When I buy a used book at a 2nd-hand store I don't draw up a contract.

You inherit the terms on which the author released his work to the public. By buying and reading the book you agree to the terms, given on the front pages of each book (where it talks about copyright). If you don't like it, don't buy or read it.

If I pick up a pamphlet from the bus seat next to me I have not agreed to any contract with the maker of that pamphlet. Yet I don't have the right to make copies of that pamphlet as I see fit. Why? Because the government has decided I'm better off without this natural right of mine.

The government only decided about default rules that would apply to that pamphlet. If the author of that pamphlet grants you other rights (more or less), he can freely do so. On many pamphlets (especially about religious topics) you will find a note saying you are free to copy this as often as you want. On press releases you sometimes find a note saying you can use that text in other publications but specimen copies to the original author are required.

So again, the author of any work is free to apply whatever rules to his work he wants.

I answered. It certainly is neither. I did that.

You came up with an answer like: Make cars cost less and they won't be stolen anymore. That is an alternative. My fault. I should have asked for a reasonable alternative.

Alan

[astra]

Originally Posted by Alan

Because those books have been transformed into other formats. Because they are available in other formats (with or without DRM). Because nobody really wants those titles. Because... There is a number of reasons. Format has nothing to do with illegal activity because formats can be changed easily.

Alan

This answer just proves my point.
I am afraid you have no idea what you are talking about. Just compare titles available in LIT/Mobipocket/Kindle formats.
Books published in LIT format are just the same books published in Mobipocket. The latest bestsellers in other words etc. No one strips DRM and upload them to darknet though.

My point is still valid.
People who don't want to pay for ebooks, they don't pay. DRM or no DRM, it doesn't matter.
However, people who do want to pay for ebooks but don't want to deal with DRM buy LIT books but do NOT distribute them illegaly.

So, if tomorrow Mobipocket removes DRM protection, almost nothing is going to change. People who didn't want to pay will continue to use darknet. People who wanted to pay, will pay. Why almost? Because a group of people who want to pay for ebooks but will not buy DRMed books will join in.
And again, people who do not want to pay will not pay. DRM doesn't stop them from scanning books and participating in darknet activities and societies. DRM doesn't stop them, then what is a point of DRM? Honest people would pay anyway?


[EDIT] and I apologise for a bit harsher than neccessary language in my previous post. Sorry a bout it.

[msundman]

Originally Posted by Alan

Of course you do. Every time you buy something there is a contract between you and the seller. Every time you buy your groceries there is a contract between you and the supermarket. It might no be in writing, but it is certainly a verbal contract.

That's utter BS. E.g., children can buy stuff, but children can't agree legally on contracts.

I don't believe for a ns that anyone at your grocery has told you what you must and can't do with your groceries that you buy there.

Originally Posted by Alan

You inherit the terms on which the author released his work to the public. By buying and reading the book you agree to the terms, given on the front pages of each book (where it talks about copyright). If you don't like it, don't buy or read it.

More BS. I have never agreed to anything when I've bought any books, yet the book stores have sold the books to me and let me read them. If I were to ask for my contract at that 2nd-hand bookstore I'm sure they would look at me as if I was a complete nutcase. And I would be.

If the government hadn't taken my natural copying-rights away from me then I would be free to copy a book as I see fit if I get my hands on it (unless I have agreed to some anti-copying contract when obtaining it, but I probably wouldn't agree to something like that).

Also, you seem to be under the impression that the "Copyright (C) ..." text on the front pages of a book actually means something significant normally. The reality is that everything non-trivial* is copyrighted (i.e., no need to put a copyright disclaimer on stuff), and even if I put a copyright disclaimer on something trivial* it doesn't make it copyrighted.

(* there are certain rules for what is copyrightable and what is not, and it's not as simple as "trivial/non-trivial", but all that's irrelevant here)

Originally Posted by Alan

The government only decided about default rules that would apply to that pamphlet. If the author of that pamphlet grants you other rights (more or less), he can freely do so.

In other words, the government has taken most of my natural rights from me and given them to the authors. The authors can choose to give a small part of them back to me or they can, and mostly do, choose not to.

Still, the government hasn't taken all my natural copying-rights away from me. I still have some left, in the form of "fair use" (which, of course, many publishers hate and try to circumvent by using DRM).

Originally Posted by Alan

So again, the author of any work is free to apply whatever rules to his work he wants.

Yes, but my point is that it is not the author's right to decide what I can do with the books I've bought (without me agreeing on any special terms). That is, unless the government has specifically taken that right from me and given it to the author to do with it as he pleases (which usually is to give the general public the finger and saying "screw you, I'm not giving you anything the government has stolen from you and given me").

Originally Posted by Alan

You came up with an answer like: Make cars cost less and they won't be stolen anymore.

No, I did not. My answer was more like: "Make cars both cheaper and more expensive so that it fits everyone." Actually it's not very far from how many things are done now. E.g., car manufacturers make one engine design and then sell it for less or for more, depending on the buyer (usually putting in some small crippling system into the ones to be sold cheaper, which, ironically, might make them more expensive to build). Computer CPU/GPU manufacturers do the same thing (usually just disabling a part of the chip and sell those chips cheaper).

I expect authors to get paid more with the system I outlined than if the current system is used for many more years. My system also has the nice feature that good authors are rewarded more, since my system depends on good content and not just good marketing.

Originally Posted by Alan

I should have asked for a reasonable alternative.

You are the one being unreasonable, wanting sellers to have utter dominion over buyers. You are probably also in favor of other monopolies and price-fixing and other anti-consumer stuff. After all, hindering such things is just more government meddling.

Traditionally the buyers have to be completely and utterly dependent on the goodwill of the sellers and more or less have faith in the truthfulness of the marketing. The sellers can dictate almost whatever they want and the buyers can only choose between agreeing on the sellers' awful terms or to get nothing. If there was an infinite diversity among sellers then this would be no problem, since then the buyer could just choose another seller, but in reality the sellers often aren't a very heterogenous bunch.

I can understand that people who have been brought up in this post-industrial world just assume that this is how things are done. But I can't understand how anyone who really thinks about it could actually come to the conclusion that this is ethical and moral, right and just, or even for the good of mankind.

[JohnnyD]

And an author can decide how he will sell his books to me, how I might use them, for how long and how many copies (if any) I am allowed to have or create. If I do not like the terms at which the author is offering his book to me, I will not buy it. Period.

This is all very well, but there is one crucial point in which a book differs from other articles: a book is not a device to do work, like a car, but a container for a story. An author can (presumably) tell me, what I can do with the container, but he can't tell me what to do with his story. As soon as I've read it, his story is copied into my brain. It won't go away as soon as the lease periode has expired. At least, not as far as I know...

This may sound trivial, but it is the basis on which books are sold. An author has a great idea for a story and writes it down. A publisher is willing to "clean it up", put it in a container (a book) and sell it to an audiance. Both the author and the publicer have done actual work for the book so both should get paid. But there is no reason why they should be paid twice if I want to switch from one e-reader to another. Their work is done, they've been paid, I only want the story in another format. This means that when I have paid for the story and the container, I am free to do what I want with the story and the container. Of course, it wouldn't be fair to resell the story to somebody else, acting as if it was my story. That's why there is something like copyright.

Drm is only there, because we (and the book industry) mistake the container for the story, but basically that's not right: you want to pay for the story, not for the container (although you may be willing to spend some extra money if it's a very nice container, like a hard-cover).

Those are my 2c$

[Alan]

Originally Posted by msundman

That's utter BS. E.g., children can buy stuff, but children can't agree legally on contracts.

Children can agree on contracts but with a restricting condition: If the parents do not approve, the contract was invalid from the beginning. If they do approve it is valid. And of course, every time you buy or sell something, you make a contract with the other person, be it in writing or by verbal communication. You agree to take the item, the seller agrees to give it to you und you agree to give him an certain amount of money. Having done all this, you are the legal owner of the transferred item.

I don't believe for a ns that anyone at your grocery has told you what you must and can't do with your groceries that you buy there.

At the supermarket? No, perhaps not. But in a shop where they sell cell phone plans? Yes, there I am being told what I can do or not do with my phone. Likewise a car dealer, who sells me a car lease will tell me, what I am allowed to do with my car (how many miles I can drive per year, how I have to service my car and so on). When I buy software, I am being specifically told how and how long I can use the software.

More BS. I have never agreed to anything when I've bought any books, yet the book stores have sold the books to me and let me read them.

You made an verbal contract (or a written if mail ordered) with the book seller. Furthermore you were told on the first pages of that book, what you are allowed to do with the text in the book.

If I were to ask for my contract at that 2nd-hand bookstore I'm sure they would look at me as if I was a complete nutcase. And I would be.

You made a verbal contract. I recommend you to read these two articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_contract

Ups, the correct term would be oral contract. I hope you excuse the incorrect term I used. I'm not a native English speaker.

If the government hadn't taken my natural copying-rights away from me then I would be free to copy a book as I see fit if I get my hands on it (unless I have agreed to some anti-copying contract when obtaining it, but I probably wouldn't agree to something like that).

If there would be no default law, every book would be preceded by 100 pages of EULA. You would agree to be bound by those rules when buying the book. But there is a default law. The publisher or author will notify you about the rights he deserves to his work at the beginning of each book.

The authors can choose to give a small part of them back to me or they can, and mostly do, choose not to.

Exactly, the author of a book decides which rights he wants to reserve to his work. It is his decision. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

Yes, but my point is that it is not the author's right to decide what I can do with the books I've bought (without me agreeing on any special terms).

The authors can indeed decide for themselves. Only if they chose to not offer specific terms on the front pages of their books, the default law will apply. In not giving other terms on the front pages, the author has already decided for the default rules - the law.

No, I did not. My answer was more like: "Make cars both cheaper and more expensive so that it fits everyone."

That and: Do not lock cars, for they can be stolen anyway and it will only bother me as the owner of the car if I have to use a key.

You are the one being unreasonable, wanting sellers to have utter dominion over buyers. You are probably also in favor of other monopolies and price-fixing and other anti-consumer stuff. After all, hindering such things is just more government meddling.

Authors don't have a monopoly. If you don't like the prices or rules or whatever that one author is offering, go to another. That's market economy. If I don't like the prices at one supermarket, I'll go to another. Eventually the prices at the first market have to come down or the market will go out of business.

but in reality the sellers often aren't a very heterogenous bunch.

That might be true for certain markets (energy, water, and very few more) but certainly not for the music or book branch. If you don't like one author or musician, you can buy from another. Eventually the others have to adopt in order to stay in business.

Alan