Are DRM infections dying out?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

This is not true.

It is true for trademarks. If a company doesn't protect its trademarks, it can lose the exclusive right to the trademark.

But it does not apply to copyright.

Indeed - I was about to write the same myself. The trademark "Aspirin" was lost in the US through not being defended, for example (it's still a trademark elsewhere), but, as you rightly say, this doesn't apply to copyright.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

This is not true.

It is true for trademarks. If a company doesn't protect its trademarks, it can lose the exclusive right to the trademark.

But it does not apply to copyright.

I'm not willing to risk it. My understanding is that it can affect my ability to protect copyright if I make a statement about "it's okay to do this" if it directly goes against the licensing agreement and the copyright. I see no good reason to grant exceptions.

[EowynCarter]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Even you say that you don't trust your sister with your Amazon password... There are different degrees of trust.

Sharing accounts is a total mess.

I trust my sister not to hand the book to anyone...

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

I'm not willing to risk it. My understanding is that it can affect my ability to protect copyright if I make a statement about "it's okay to do this" if it directly goes against the licensing agreement and the copyright. I see no good reason to grant exceptions.

You, as the copyright holder, can grant permission to copy your work to anyone that you wish. But, as you rightly say, there's absolutely no reason for you to do so unless you wish to. The choice is entirely yours.

[Ken Maltby]

Hmm... I wonder how many authors have sued and "protected" their copyright or recovered any damages from casual file sharers? That must be a matter of public
record somewhere. I don't doubt that some of the proponents of DRM have sued in
the name of authors, as a class, but I wonder if any authors have?

Luck;
Ken

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ken Maltby

Hmm... I wonder how many authors have sued and "protected" their copyright or recovered any damages from casual file sharers? That must be a matter of public
record somewhere. I don't doubt that some of the proponents of DRM have sued in
the name of authors, as a class, but I wonder if any authors have?

Luck;
Ken

Harlan Ellison successfully prosecuted someone who thought it would be a good idea to upload Mr. Ellison's books to Usenet newsgroups.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Harlan Ellison successfully prosecuted someone who thought it would be a good idea to upload Mr. Ellison's books to Usenet newsgroups.

He sued AOL (successfully) over one of his stories being shared on Usenet, is that what you're referring to or was there another instance? Ellison has sued over so many things over the years it's hard to sort through everything.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You, as the copyright holder, can grant permission to copy your work to anyone that you wish. But, as you rightly say, there's absolutely no reason for you to do so unless you wish to. The choice is entirely yours.

Thank you.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

He sued AOL (successfully) over one of his stories being shared on Usenet, is that what you're referring to or was there another instance? Ellison has sued over so many things over the years it's hard to sort through everything.

From Wiki:

On April 24, 2000, Ellison sued Stephen Robertson for posting four stories to the newsgroup "alt.binaries.e-book" without authorization. The other defendants were AOL and RemarQ, internet service providers who owned servers hosting the newsgroup. Ellison alleged that they had failed to halt copyright infringement in accordance with the "Notice and Takedown Procedure" outlined in the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Robertson and RemarQ first settled with Ellison, and then AOL likewise settled with Ellison in June 2004, under conditions that were not made public. Since those settlements Ellison has initiated legal action and/or takedown notices against more than 240 people who have allegedly distributed his writings on the Internet, saying, "If you put your hand in my pocket, you’ll drag back six inches of bloody stump".

He does, as you say, have the reputation of being a fairly litigious person .

[Ken Maltby]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Harlan Ellison successfully prosecuted someone who thought it would be a good idea to upload Mr. Ellison's books to Usenet newsgroups.

Great, that's one, and it's the system working for a change.

It was Mr. Ellison though, and perhaps authors of his standing have more of
an interest in pursuing such a case and more resources to do so. Personally
I think it should have been a criminal case brought by a prosecutor, based
on the author's complaint, and a police investigation (FBI?).

Luck;
Ken

[AnemicOak]

Thanks for the details Harry. I vaguely remembered it happening, but AOL was the only thing that 'stuck' after all this time.

[Fluribus]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The benefit is that the books cannot be passed to any third parties without the knowledge of the original purchaser.

But with Kindles the DRM is keyed to the individual device. If my brother's Kindle is registered to my account, he can easily remove the DRM from every book I own and distribute them without my knowledge.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I think the intent of the "official" lending mechanisms is clear - to allow sharing of books among people living in the same household, and I maintain my view that this is a situation where DRM is beneficial; if you have multiple Kindles registered to the same Amazon account, it's very easy to share your reading material.

Originally Posted by Fluribus

But with Kindles the DRM is keyed to the individual device. If my brother's Kindle is registered to my account, he can easily remove the DRM from every book I own and distribute them without my knowledge.

I think Harry's choice of words is wrong confusing. The thing I would call the "official lending mechanism" is that two-week lend-to-anyone feature that Amazon and other have. That's lending, in my mind, and it is indeed facilitated by DRM. It is not restricted to or intended for sharing only within a household.

Having multiple devices on one account is not lending, it's sharing. The devices on the account have (legitimate) access at the same time. That is not facilitated by DRM.

ApK

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by ApK

I think Harry's choice of words is wrong confusing. The thing I would call the "official lending mechanism" is that two-week lend-to-anyone feature that Amazon and other have. That's lending, in my mind, and it is indeed facilitated by DRM. It is not restricted to or intended for sharing only within a household.

Having multiple devices on one account is not lending, it's sharing. The devices on the account have (legitimate) access at the same time. That is not facilitated by DRM.

ApK

You've expressed it much more clearly than I did - thanks! Yes, I confused matters by talking about two different issues in my post: lending (which DRM facilitates) and sharing (which is does not).

[Fluribus]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You've expressed it much more clearly than I did - thanks! Yes, I confused matters by talking about two different issues in my post: lending (which DRM facilitates) and sharing (which is does not).

Very good. Of course, I never have to worry since I neither share nor lend.

"Neither a borrower nor a lender be.
Take all the gifts that you can get.
Steal what isn't free."