DRM Good or Bad?

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by ApK

I'm not aware of any library illegally lending copyrighted content against the rights holder's wishes, or making copies of books without permission in order to lend to more people simultaneously.

They don't. They do mean though, that if I was on a strict budget, I might never need to buy another book again, I could simply borrow from my local library and read anything and everything I wanted, and the authors wouldn't get anything from me.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by ScalyFreak

They don't. They do mean though, that if I was on a strict budget, I might never need to buy another book again, I could simply borrow from my local library and read anything and everything I wanted, and the authors wouldn't get anything from me.

As I said, it's not just about money.

Anyway, as long as "anything and everything I wanted" only includes what's available at your library, which is far from "anything and everything" unfortunately, then yes. Wonderful. And you'd be doing so while respecting the laws and rules that our society has determined were were fair and appropriate, and that all parties involved have agreed to.
Unlike violating copyright law and acting without the rights-holder's consent, as you'd likely be doing by passing around duplicates of copyrighted ebooks.

ApK

[Synamon]

Originally Posted by ApK

Conversely, if a paperback could be instantly duplicated an infinite number of times, with no cost or effort and instantly distributed across the world like an ebook can, we would likely be having this same debate about paperbacks.

People need to stop pretending that paper books are unicorns or that they can't be pirated. Scan and OCR them and you can send infinite copies anywhere you like. The Harry Potter books were available as ebooks for years. The darknet is full of books that have never been released as ebooks.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Synamon

People need to stop pretending that paper books are unicorns or that they can't be pirated. Scan and OCR them and you can send infinite copies anywhere you like. The Harry Potter books were available as ebooks for years. The darknet is full of books that have never been released as ebooks.

Uh huh....and when was the last time you had a coworker say "hey you want to read the new Stephen King novel? I'll just stay up all night with my book scanner, and OCR it for you (or I'll run to Staples and spend $30 to have it photocopied)?"

I suppose you'd argue that there is no point to banks locking their vaults since anyone can run down to the construction rental place and obtain enough heavy equipment to crack that puppy open in a matter of hours.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

I didn't imply that DRM justified or excused piracy.

I did not say you implied it, or even meant to imply it. Just that I interpreted the words to infer that and I am afraid I still do.

Helen

[Freeshadow]

Fact is, all books I have as a copy are copies of pbooks.
Even the same edition as mine are. I downloaded books I could have digitised myself. Lazy - yes; illegal - disputable.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Freeshadow

Fact is, all books I have as a copy are copies of pbooks.
Even the same edition as mine are. I downloaded books I could have digitised myself. Lazy - yes; illegal - disputable.

And even if we assume for the sake of argument that the people who PUT that copy up there for you to download did so illegally, I think most of us agree that this discussion does not apply to them. No DRM is going to stop them. Make one manuscript and let only one person read it at a time in a sealed room under armed guard, and SOMEONE will memorize it, re-type it, and seed a torrent just to prove they could.

[Synamon]

ApK, you were claiming that ebooks and paper books are different, and they should have different rules. My point was that technology has rendered them identical. Ten years ago it was expensive and difficult to distribute copies of a paper book, but that is no longer the case. Digitizing books is easy for any hobbyist and there are companies that will do it for you for a buck. Locking up ebooks is locking the barn after the horses have left, or the pixels in this case.

Originally Posted by ApK

As has been pointed out before, ebooks and pbooks are different things, with different properties, and so it's not surpising that we'd have different rules for them.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

I did not say you implied it, or even meant to imply it. Just that I interpreted the words to infer that and I am afraid I still do.

Helen

Saying that you interpreted the words to mean that and still interpret the words to mean that is the exact same thing as saying that I implied it.

Lets look at what I said.

"But the more difficult you make it, the more likely that they won't even bother to remove the DRM, but instead simply download the book from pirate sites. Once they are going to pirate sites, they become increasingly likely to download not only books they have already paid for, but to download books that they haven't paid for."

I was simply observing what people will do, not advocating for anything. If I observe that someone might steal your car if you leave the keys in it, that doesn't mean I am justifying auto theft.

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by ApK

Uh huh....and when was the last time you had a coworker say "hey you want to read the new Stephen King novel? I'll just stay up all night with my book scanner, and OCR it for you (or I'll run to Staples and spend $30 to have it photocopied)?"

"Hey, you want the new Stephen king? I got the file right here if you're interested. Apparently someone at the publisher leaked it." That's how it happens with nearly all video games that hit the "black market" before release day anyway.

As for what's available in local libraries, they can get me anything I want, as long as I'm willing to wait for them to bring it in from where it is available. They did international loans for me when I was in college. It took a while, but it happened.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by ApK

If giving an ebook to friend took it away from you, so you could not read it or give more copies to others, as is the case with a physical item, like a book, (like the Kindle lending program tries to do), we'd probably not be having this debate.

If that's true, why do publishers have the option of not participating in the Kindle lending program? Why not allow people to transfer ownership of their Kindle libraries, transferring the book to someone new?

This debate is not about "only one person at a time is supposed to be able to read a book." It's about publishers trying to implement "one buyer = one reader."

Similarly, as has been pointed out before, no one is trying to stop you from lending your ereader to your friends and family for them to read on. The device's physicality, like a pbook's, imposes sufficient control.

No, Smashwords and some other stores have said it's against their TOS to loan your reader with books on it to another person--including your spouse. You're supposed to buy another copy if a second person is going to read the books, even on the same device.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

No, Smashwords and some other stores have said it's against their TOS to loan your reader with books on it to another person--including your spouse. You're supposed to buy another copy if a second person is going to read the books, even on the same device.

1. Purchased works: As End User, you acknowledge that all Work furnished by Smashwords is licensed for the use of the End Users of the Site and may not be sublicensed or resold. If you purchase a work, you hold a non-exclusive, non-transferable, and non-distributable right of use. In other words, you are free to enjoy it for your own use, but you are not authorized to share, sell, or distribute the work to others.

It doesn't say anything about loaning readers. My spouse owns everything that I own, that reader and book are as much hers as mine. If someone comes over to my house, I can't hand them my Kindle at let them read? I can't see that ever standing up. Yes, restrictions on giving them a copy, certainly. But restricting someone from reading on my device, that's a little shaky.

[frahse]

Most of this is just conjectural nonsense.

DRM helps authors. I bear witness to that.
It helps readers in the long run because authors can eat better and need fewer "day jobs" and can spend more time writing.

To say DRM is ineffective and so should be done away with, is like saying that since someone walking down the street can be strong armed or robbed at gun point or be cheated at the store or in the bank, that laws against these crimes should be repealed.
This is utter foolishness.

Hey, give the authors a break.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

As End User, you acknowledge that all Work furnished by Smashwords is licensed for the use of the End Users of the Site and may not be sublicensed or resold. If you purchase a work, you hold a non-exclusive, non-transferable, and non-distributable right of use. In other words, you are free to enjoy it for your own use, but you are not authorized to share, sell, or distribute the work to others.

It doesn't say anything about loaning readers. My spouse owns everything that I own, that reader and book are as much hers as mine. If someone comes over to my house, I can't hand them my Kindle at let them read? I can't see that ever standing up. Yes, restrictions on giving them a copy, certainly. But restricting someone from reading on my device, that's a little shaky.

The terms in the SW books say "If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each person you share it with." That doesn't say "unless that person is reading it on the same ereader you used." It doesn't even say, "if you would like to GIVE A COPY of this book to another person..." it mentions sharing.

"One reader at a time" is not a strong enough limit for a lot of modern publishers. They want "one reader per purchase."

I can't see it holding up in court either--but the terms at several sites indicate that only the buyer is permitted to read the book at all, regardless of the circumstances under which it is shared. They don't say, "you're only allowed to download this onto your devices;" they say the buyer isn't allowed to share the book under any circumstances.

(No wonder YA ebooks aren't bringing in the money publishers hope for; they can't buy them themselves, and it's almost impossible for anyone to buy books for teenagers.)

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Synamon

My point was that technology has rendered them identical.

'cept it hasn't and they are not. When I can click a button and, at no charge, instantly create and send 1000 copies of a new pbook I just got, then talk to me about how they are identical.