DRM, Rentals, DRM-stripping and Morality

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by taming

Wow, you must have one great library in Chicago, or you must be paying for a whole lot of people who do not have to pay taxes there. The cost per resident per year in Toronto is $68.

See: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2147704/

Maybe they pay $800 total in property tax, and not that their portion of tax that is for the library system is $800.

[pidgeon92]

Originally Posted by taming

Wow, you must have one great library in Chicago, or you must be paying for a whole lot of people who do not have to pay taxes there. The cost per resident per year in Toronto is $68.

$800 seems a bit high, unless the property is really something.

I paid a total of ~$7,000 in property taxes on my house last year, and $146 (2.14%) went to the library system.

[Sydney's Mom]

Originally Posted by pidgeon92

$800 seems a bit high, unless the property is really something.

I paid a total of ~$7,000 in property taxes on my house last year, and $146 (2.14%) went to the library system.

Illinois funds schools entirely out of property tax, and we have voted to build 3 new schools in the last 10 years. When I asked about a library card for the Naperville system, they told me it would cost $300, because that was the average property tax assessment that went to the library. We do have a large home, but most of the excess is what I pay for Friends of the Library. I do put my money where my mouth is.

I live in a small village, total population 7000. Assuming 4 to a household, it doesn't leave many property tax assessment to fund the library. There has been talk about shutting the library downdon't want to see us not have a library as most everything in our town is walking distance for anyone living here, Even though it isn't a terrific building, I really don't think people would get in their cars to go to the library the next big town over. We have a lovely children's reading area, which I think is most important.

Most of the pbooks I request come from the bigger libraries, who might order 3 or 5 copies. So long as I can reserve titles, or better yet, check out books in my pjs, I'm happy.

I also set my checkout time to 7 days. Since I am not deleting the book when the 7 days is up, I figure getting it to someone else is the least I can do.

[Paddlin]

doublepost

[Paddlin]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

I guess that is part of why Apple isn't doing much in the way of eBook sales either. iBooks is difficult to get books into (as a author/publisher, and can be potentially said of as an end user wanting to read as well), and you cannot currently get books out of iBooks. Also iBooks is not usable on anything other than a iPhone, iPad, or iPod Touch. Even if you use a Mac, you cannot read books you bought in iBooks on your iOS device. They are known for having some of the most user friendly devices and programs, yet ignored everything they're known for when making iBooks.

I have trouble wrapping my head around this as well. I suppose this was an incident where Apple's commitment to clean design and simple interface ran up against their desire to keep everything in their proprietary walled garden.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

This is immoral. You are stealing, and using the physical/digital distinction to justify your theft. Stop it.

What, exactly, do you think is being stolen?

Now, think before you answer. "Stealing" is an actual word with a real legal definition. Violating a license, for example, is NOT theft. Stripping DRM for private use is NOT illegal, much less "stealing."

You should also take into account that in no instance do I transfer a file to anyone else. If I did, in some situations - but not all - that would be stealing.

Please don't waste your time arguing with me on these things. I'm a lawyer, I've read up on the law in these areas, and these are my conclusions. It would take another lawyer to make a point that would make me need to spend any more time on that, and i doubt you are a lawyer.

But we don't have to go there. Let's stick to general understandings about specific situations.

Here, let me help you:

I rip about half my Netflix DVDs and put them on my iPad. I return the DVD and watch the movie at my convenience. What have I stolen?

I buy ebooks from Amazon, strip the DRM, and read them on my Sony 650. What have I stolen?

I borrow a book from the library, strip the DRM, and read it on my Kindle a year later. What have I stolen?

I don't think you can identify anything that has been stolen.

The only theft that can take place in the digital world is the theft of the right to make money. That is all that copyright law is about. And my point is that what is being bought & sold is not the digital file, it is the service involved in providing convenience. if providers fairly price the convenience they are offering, they will make money. If they try to put arbitrary barriers in place so that they reduce convenience or increase prices, they won't. At least, not from me.

--------

This is a postscript. It is not about legal point, or even a moral one. it's just a thought I have about the nature of intellectual property in a digital environment. I don't think that an author or other creator has ever actually owned the content they create. It's just that in the pre-digital world, the physical problems involved in copying or creating the physical object containing the content, combined with legal rules, made it seem like they owned the content for all practical purposes.

I think that in the digital world, content can no longer be constrained physically, or even by the law. DRM is an attempt to do that, and on the whole DRM is a failure.

All that remains for the creator or the provider to make a buck off of is convenient delivery of a product to an audience that might not even be aware it would like something.

Steve Jobs has said that he regards Apple's job to be to produce products that the customer didn't know he wanted until Apple makes them. I think it's the same thing for ebooks. Except that the hard part for content is hooking up with the customer - i.e., the reader. Providers make money off the hooking up, not off the content. The hooking up is a large part of what I have been calling "convenience."

[ApK]

>>Please don't waste your time arguing with me on these things. I'm a lawyer<<

That's the most ridiculous thing I've seen posted in quite some time.

Speaking of no one in particular, but only in the interest of facilitating open forum discussion, I remind the general readership of the following points:

1. Any one can say they are anything. Lying isn't a crime. Don't believe something just because some anonymous strangers says so on the Internet.
2. There are dishonest, irresponsible and incompetent lawyers aplenty.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by ApK

>>Please don't waste your time arguing with me on these things. I'm a lawyer<<

That's the most ridiculous thing I've seen posted in quite some time.

Speaking of no one in particular, but only in the interest of facilitating open forum discussion, I remind the general readership of the following points:

1. Any one can say they are anything. Lying isn't a crime. Don't believe something just because some anonymous strangers says so on the Internet.
2. There are dishonest, irresponsible and incompetent lawyers aplenty.

Yeah, I knew that there would be someone who would see my statement as arrogant, self-important and "ridiculous." But hey! I figured that would be proof that I actually AM a lawyer!

But anyone who takes a minute to search on my posts in Mobileread will conclude that either I'm a lawyer, or a damn good imitation of one.

Now, the full statement, not just the out of context quote you used, is as follows: (I've bolded the important qualification I made which you left out.)

Please don't waste your time arguing with me on these things. I'm a lawyer, I've read up on the law in these areas, and these are my conclusions. It would take another lawyer to make a point that would make me need to spend any more time on that, and i doubt you are a lawyer.

As it happens, I actually am a lawyer, and while it may seem ridiculous to you, there are some times when I don't propose to waste my time arguing with people about what the law really says when I know and they don't.

That's not to say that I might not be wrong in my conclusions. I'm willing to discuss - or argue - those conclusions with someone who has been educated in finding, reading, interpreting and understanding the law. I'm not an IP lawyer, though I've taken a few CLE courses in IP, and if there's an IP lawyer or para-professional who pops up & tells me I don't understand IP law, I will certainly defer to him or her. (And there are even some educated non-professionals on Mobileread who know enough to discuss the law to a certain point. In the course of educating myself on IP law, I've learned from them. But they don't go around labeling things as "stealing" when it is no such thing.)

If you want to argue with me about what the law should be, be my guest. I can tell you what the law

is.

I can tell you what I think the law can and cannot

do

. But my opinion on what the law

should be

in a normative sense, is no better or worse than anyone else's. (At least, if it's better it's not because I'm a lawyer. Maybe if it's worse...)

But if you try to tell me what the law actually is and I have researched the topic enough to conclude that you are wrong, there is hardly any chance at all that you can say anything that will make me change my conclusion, UNLESS you are another lawyer. Don't waste your time. Or mine.

It's no different than if a doctor says that a certain set of symptoms means you have a particular disease. The doctor will admit that this is not always true, but he will not usually care to waste his (unpaid) time discussing the exceptions with anyone but another medical professional.

Professional education actually means something, you know. And even though people can misrepresent themselves on the forum, it doesn't take too long to figure out who is bluffing about what they know, if you care to think about it for a minute.

[cfrizz]

Nice post Harmon.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Stripping DRM for private use is NOT illegal...

I'm a lawyer, I've read up on the law in these areas, and these are my conclusions.

Be careful that someone doesn't take the above as your legal advice.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Be careful that someone doesn't take the above as your legal advice.

Yeah, I should have a disclaimer to the effect that nobody can take this advice unless they have paid me for it!

Just a small convenience fee...

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Harmon

What, exactly, do you think is being stolen?

Royalties from the author, among other things. You stated that "I will not pay for "owning" or "renting" or "borrowing" ebooks" and that you would break DRM if the providers tried to make you pay.

Now, think before you answer. "Stealing" is an actual word with a real legal definition. Violating a license, for example, is NOT theft. Stripping DRM for private use is NOT illegal, much less "stealing."

It is when you strip DRM to avoid paying for the product.

And with respect to "stealing," I think you are confusing it with the crime of theft. Although even theft has several different definitions, depending on the jurisdiction. "Stealing" is a catch-all term (even when used by courts) that refers to all sorts of impermissible takings.

See, e.g., this statement in Judge Davis's most recent opinion granting remittitur in the Jammie Thomas case: "[A]n award of $1.5 million for stealing and distributing 24 songs for personal use is appalling." Slip op at 29, although he uses stealing in the same sense throughout.

You should also take into account that in no instance do I transfer a file to anyone else. If I did, in some situations - but not all - that would be stealing.

That would also be stealing.

Please don't waste your time arguing with me on these things. I'm a lawyer, I've read up on the law in these areas, and these are my conclusions. It would take another lawyer to make a point that would make me need to spend any more time on that, and i doubt you are a lawyer.

As it turns out, I'm also a lawyer.

But my arguments will either stand or fall on their own merits. If my argument is bad, it doesn't matter that I'm a lawyer. And if my argument is good, it also doesn't matter than I'm a lawyer.

Arguments from authority just aren't very compelling when it's easy enough to explain the rationale. And if I can't explain the rationale, I have no business practicing.

But we don't have to go there. Let's stick to general understandings about specific situations.

Here, let me help you:

I rip about half my Netflix DVDs and put them on my iPad. I return the DVD and watch the movie at my convenience. What have I stolen?

Royalties from people involved in making the movie because you paid a rental price but kept the movie. The same as if you borrowed a movie from redbox, made a copy, and then returned the borrowed movie the next day.

I buy ebooks from Amazon, strip the DRM, and read them on my Sony 650. What have I stolen?

I don't think you have stolen anything in this instance.

I borrow a book from the library, strip the DRM, and read it on my Kindle a year later. What have I stolen?

Royalties from the author that s/he could have otherwise received either because the library would buy additional copies if the book was very popular (my library sometimes buys 300 copies of a new book), or else royalties that the author would have received when you or someone else became fed up with the wait time and bought the book.

I don't think you can identify anything that has been stolen.


The only theft that can take place in the digital world is the theft of the right to make money. That is all that copyright law is about. And my point is that what is being bought & sold is not the digital file, it is the service involved in providing convenience. if providers fairly price the convenience they are offering, they will make money. If they try to put arbitrary barriers in place so that they reduce convenience or increase prices, they won't. At least, not from me.

Most of this is simply a justification for you to do whatever you want.

Theft, in my jurisdiction, and in most jurisdictions, is defined as "exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person, with intent to deprive the other person of any part of its value or use." (A few jurisdictions, including the federal, still keep the older "with intent to deprive the other person of *all* of its value or use.)

The statute further specifies that exerting control is "unauthorized" if it is exercised "in a manner or to an extent other than that to which the other person has consented."


[snip]

[DiapDealer]

Two lawyers enter! One lawyer leaves!
Two lawyers enter! One lawyer leaves!

Ladies And Gentleman, Boys And Girls… Legal Wranglin' Time’s Here.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Royalties from the author, among other things. You stated that "I will not pay for "owning" or "renting" or "borrowing" ebooks" and that you would break DRM if the providers tried to make you pay.

I went back & read my original post. You are right that I did not explicitly say that I pay for digital products. But my examples (Netflix, Kindle, library) all pretty much have to start with a legal acquisition.

But for the record, I always pay for whatever I get in digital format except when the product is not being sold in digital format. Then I buy a paper copy, and take a digital copy wherever I can find it.

It is when you strip DRM to avoid paying for the product.

This does not make any sense to me. I mean, if there's any stealing involved, surely it is if I acquire the product without paying for it, whether or not it has DRM on it.

And with respect to "stealing," I think you are confusing it with the crime of theft. Although even theft has several different definitions, depending on the jurisdiction. "Stealing" is a catch-all term (even when used by courts) that refers to all sorts of impermissible takings.

It appears to me that you are assuming the premise, namely, that the "takings" are impermissible. First, you have to show that anything I've done is "impermissible." Only then do you get to call it "stealing."

See, e.g., this statement in Judge Davis's most recent opinion granting remittitur in the Jammie Thomas case: "[A]n award of $1.5 million for stealing and distributing 24 songs for personal use is appalling." Slip op at 29, although he uses stealing in the same sense throughout.

Well of course she was stealing. She illegally downloaded and distributed the files. That has nothing at all to do with any of this.

As it turns out, I'm also a lawyer.

But my arguments will either stand or fall on their own merits. If my argument is bad, it doesn't matter that I'm a lawyer. And if my argument is good, it also doesn't matter than I'm a lawyer.

Sorry. I didn't recognize a lawyer making a moral argument.

The point is not whether your argument is good or not. The point is that someone who is not legally trained is not in a position to decide if your argument is good or not. That is why judges give juries trial instructions. It's not that laymen are not smart - they are plenty smart as any lawyer who serves on a jury finds out. It is that an opinion formed by a lawyer about what the law means is not very likely to be changed by someone who is not him or herself a lawyer.

Arguments from authority just aren't very compelling when it's easy enough to explain the rationale. And if I can't explain the rationale, I have no business practicing.

When I say that I am a lawyer and have formed a legal opinion about a subject I have done some research on, I am NOT committing the logical fallacy of making "the argument from authority." I am giving my informed opinion based on my knowledge and training. If it is otherwise with you, you have no basis for charging legal fees to your clients.

Royalties from people involved in making the movie because you paid a rental price but kept the movie. The same as if you borrowed a movie from redbox, made a copy, and then returned the borrowed movie the next day.

(This is the situation where I get the movie from Netflix and rip it) Ah, I see. You are assuming that I keep the movies. Nope. Any movie I want to keep, I acquire on DVDs. Same for classical music, actually. But then I rip them.

As for rentals, I get them, rip them, return them and watch them, in that order, about half the time. And then I trash them.

Still think that's stealing?

I don't think you have stolen anything in this instance.

(This is where I buy a Kindle book & strip the DRM to read it on my Sony.) Why not?

Royalties from the author that s/he could have otherwise received either because the library would buy additional copies if the book was very popular (my library sometimes buys 300 copies of a new book), or else royalties that the author would have received when you or someone else became fed up with the wait time and bought the book.

(This is where I get the book from the library, strip it, return it, & read it later.) Now this is interesting. What you are saying is that if I keep the ebook checked out for a year it's not theft but if I make a copy and return the book, then, it is theft. Sounds a little...backwards.

But actually, I don't get ebooks from the library. Maybe they self-destruct after three weeks on my ereader. So what you are saying is that I have an obligation to read the book within the 3 week time frame, or check it out again. And that by allowing the library to lend the book out again when I am secretly reading my bootleg copy, I am stealing a hypotetical sale that the publisher would otherwise make to an impatient library patron.

I think that the publishers agree with you. They apparently are moving to a model where they don't actually sell the library an ebook. They sell the right to lend the book a certain number of times. So when I borrow the book, it makes no difference whether I read it, or not, or when I read it if I do. The publisher gets his money no matter what.

Now note closely what this means: the publishers have awakened to the idea that they are selling/renting convenience, not a book.

Which is precisely the point I was making in my original post.

Most of this is simply a justification for you to do whatever you want.

That's an ad hominem if there ever was one.

Theft, in my jurisdiction, and in most jurisdictions, is defined as "exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person, with intent to deprive the other person of any part of its value or use." (A few jurisdictions, including the federal, still keep the older "with intent to deprive the other person of *all* of its value or use.)

The statute further specifies that exerting control is "unauthorized" if it is exercised "in a manner or to an extent other than that to which the other person has consented."

Now we descend into the murky law of federal preemption. For the non-lawyers, the doctrine of preemption basically says that where Congress has "occupied the field" by passing a law, the state can't pass its own law. That's why Arizona can't have its own immigration law.

First level response: federal copyright law and the DMCA preempt state statutes involving theft. You aren't going to convict anyone for theft because he or she copies a file & strips the DRM.

Second level response: let's assume that preemption doesn't apply. How do you prove the element of loss of "value or use?" It seems to me that you must be claiming that the loss of a hypothetical sale - not the loss of an actual sale - constitutes theft. Good luck on convincing a jury of that. In fact, good luck on surviving my motion for a directed verdict.

Third level and somewhat unfair response: You started off by saying I missunderstood "stealing" to mean "theft." Now you argue "theft." What did I missunderstand, after all?

But now, we need a judge. Any judges lurking? Oh well, you don't get to be a judge by being dumb enough to out yourself as a lawyer on an internet forum...

[CRussel]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Two lawyers enter! One lawyer leaves!
Two lawyers enter! One lawyer leaves!

Ladies And Gentleman, Boys And Girls… Legal Wranglin' Time’s Here.

There goes the neighbourhood. Sigh.