STUDY SHOWS: Ditching DRM could reduce piracy, prices

[teh603]

Originally Posted by frahse

Ah my friend tread carefully here!

The AntiDRM Sect is one of absolutes!
There is no philosophy or moral ground to discuss
and the AntiDRM sect doesn't utilize reason or logic
that might be analyzed.

Sure there is. You've just been sticking to the same arguments over and over again, and we've been picking them apart. But I guess if your only tool is a hammer...

[Fbone]

Which has precedence? The "Fair Use" or DMCA? The DMCA is the latest addition to copyright law while "Fair Use" is a doctrine limiting the original Copyright law.

In other words, does one have the ability to negate the other?

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by Fbone

Which has precedence? The "Fair Use" or DMCA? The DMCA is the latest addition to copyright law while "Fair Use" is a doctrine limiting the original Copyright law.

In other words, does one have the ability to negate the other?

In the US, the license agreement you agree to when clicking "I agree, here is my money" trumps everything else and is considered legally binding by any court you take it to. At least that's how it works with video games.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by OtterBooks

Interesting. Do clippings or saved excerpts also have drm? It looks like my saved clippings are a text file, so if I wanted to use a portion of the text for fair use purposes, that isn't restricted.

Dunno. I don't use those esoteric functions. I just read. (EDIT: is there a limit on how much you can clip? If there is, it's Amazon deciding how much fair use to let you have, not you deciding how much you need.)

But I will admit that some resellers have made some effort to ameliorate the effects of DRM.

Amazon is at the stage now that Apple was a few years back, where more than one, but a limited number of, devices can be authorized to access a DRMed file. Apple was crossplatform on that, IIRC, while Amazon is not. (EDIT: actually, it is to some extent - iPads for instance.)

In my view, this is a recognition of the point that I made.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by ScalyFreak

In the US, the license agreement you agree to when clicking "I agree, here is my money" trumps everything else and is considered legally binding by any court you take it to. At least that's how it works with video games.

Why do you say that - are you aware of a court case that says so?

[kennyc]

Yeah, I've heard of more of those shrink-wrap, click-krap agreements being thrown out than being upheld.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Fbone

Which has precedence? The "Fair Use" or DMCA? The DMCA is the latest addition to copyright law while "Fair Use" is a doctrine limiting the original Copyright law.

In other words, does one have the ability to negate the other?

"Fair use" has precedence in theory. But DRM has precedence in operation.

There's nothing in the DMCA that explicitly overrides the fair use doctrine. And there is a whole lot in it that is, in theory, compatible with fair use. Any court facing the question will first attempt to square the DMCA with existing fair use concepts, and if that doesn't work, will - in my view - come down on the side of fair use.

The thing is, though, that any situation in which there is a decent fair use defense will never get to the point of litigation, except by some sort of overweening arrogance on the publishers' side. The lawyers will talk them out of it.

[xg4bx]

Originally Posted by SmokeAndMirrors

Well, when your average user probably frequents Pirate Bay, it doesn't accomplish that either. Furthermore, stripping DRM is well within the tech reach of your average user. Look above - one of our own just did that to share with his wife and it reportedly took "10 seconds."

DRM doesn't stop anything, period. It really doesn't matter where you approach it from, the answer is still the same.

Although I don't get how this addresses DRM-stripping at all, a focal point of my and most other peoples' posts. DRM-stripping has nothing to do with piracy necessarily. It's far more likely to have something to do with... casual sharing. Do try to follow along.

granted there are some books that i haven't been able to break drm on but i'm sure they're only a calibre update away.

i understand the arguments but i simply come down to refusing to be "double dipped" by publishers when i want to share a book with my wife. thats like needing to buy 2 copies of a movie if you want to watch it with a friend.

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Why do you say that - are you aware of a court case that says so?

I am not, unfortunately (or fortunately?). I just know how the gaming industry on average treats its paying customers, since gaming is a big hobby of mine, and most of my games are bought as digital downloads. At the end of each TOU/EULA is a paragraph on "here's how to challenge these terms if you think they're unfair", and each time, it ends up being on how to file a lawsuit. The EULA of an MMO or other video games is a legally binding contract, and it takes care to spell that out if you actually take the time to read the thing.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

...

i understand the arguments but i simply come down to refusing to be "double dipped" by publishers when i want to share a book with my wife. thats like needing to buy 2 copies of a movie if you want to watch it with a friend.

Yep, that's the Dramazon Bookcase (or videoplayer )

[OtterBooks]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Dunno. I don't use those esoteric functions. I just read. (EDIT: is there a limit on how much you can clip? If there is, it's Amazon deciding how much fair use to let you have, not you deciding how much you need.)

Not sure if there's a limit. I've only used it a few times, and for no more than a couple sentences.

[HansTWN]

And I refuse to buy a second copy to be able to read my Amazon books on my Irex reader, too.

[allinhi/]

Originally Posted by Harmon

The thing that needs to be remembered is that copyright is not some sort of natural right. It is a statutory right created by law. It can be abolished tomorrow.
N
More precisely, copyright law represents a contractual agreement between the publishing industry (authors, publishers, resellers) and the general public, assigning most (but not all) of the right to economically exploit the value, if any, of creative work over a limited period of time. The public retains some of that right, included under the general umbrella of "fair use."

DRM must be considered in terms of whether it supports that contractual agreement, or not.

Now, the publishing industry would have us believe that the purpose of DRM is to prevent people from getting around copyright. But there are facts that show that it is actually being used for other purposes.

First, it is a fact that DRM, as implemented, diminishes the public's right to fair use. It does this on a preemptive basis, and it permits publishers to restrict legal fair use of the creative work.

Second, all the risk surrounding the definition of fair use is placed on the public, because the publishing industry is not punished if it oversteps the bounds, but the end user is.

In other words, it is being used by the publishing industry to violate the contractual agreement embodied in copyright law.

Further, the publishing industry is using DRM for an unauthorized purposes. One is to restrict competition.

But another is to force people into making multiple purchases in order to use the same content on different platforms. This is an abuse of the law. If you want to read the latest Thriller Book on your Sony and your Kindle, you must buy two copies of the same book because of DRM (unless you are sophisticated enough to strip DRM, which is not prohibited by the DRM law. What is prohibited is selling the necessary tools.)

The burden should be on the publishing industry to implement DRM in a fashion that does not violate the public's rights. It has not done this.

It does not matter that DRM might prevent theft of the content if, at the same time, it violates rights that the end user has under fair use. If DRM cannot be implemented without violating those rights, then it is DRM that must go, not the public's rights.

This is what I find frustrating, the position by DRM advocates that anyone who has concerns with DRM is just a thief. It is time a less draconian copyright protection process is pursued, one that considers legitimate concerns of end use consumers and addresses some of the abuses you have detailed.

[markbot]

Originally Posted by ScalyFreak

How is that even coherent?

Think of DRM like a condom. DRM is meant to protect content from piracy. Condoms are meant to protect against stds and pregnancy.

The OP has a title that implies that ditching the protection can actually be more effective than implementing the protection, which is absurd. Hence the fact that you don't get my post sorta proves my point.

Get it?

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by markbot

Think of DRM like a condom. DRM is meant to protect content from piracy. Condoms are meant to protect against stds and pregnancy.

The OP has a title that implies that ditching the protection can actually be more effective than implementing the protection, which is absurd. Hence the fact that you don't get my post sorta proves my point.

Get it?

Not at all, no. But that is probably because your analogy is flawed from the start.

I don't use a condom with my husband, because after ten years together, neither of us feels we need to (we use another form of birth control). Your condom analogy makes sense only if I out of nowhere suddenly decide that the man who's been mine and only mine for a decade has cheated on me. It would not be good for our marriage if I wasn't willing to give him the benefit of doubt. After all, he's spent over ten years earning that benefit, by earning my trust. And yes, I refuse to believe he'd cheat on me. He's neither stupid or suicidal.

Back to your post, it makes no sense whatsoever. Not only because DRM doesn't work, while condoms do. It makes no sense because condoms are things we use because we have to, DRM is there because others force us to endure it. So to equate DRM to condom use is flat out stupid. It's not even close to relevant.