DRM poll: How do you deal with it.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Blah blah blah... copyright violation. Close enough... stealing a pbook would be theft but not a copyright violation. Downloading an ebook that you don't have permission to copy is a copyright violation. The result is the same, you took something that didn't belong to you without paying for it. "Theft" in general is close enough. Why must people split these hairs. Does it make you feel better to not call it theft?

Calling it theft is a dishonest rhetorical trick.

The laws are motivated from totally different things. Intellectual property is not the same as physical property for the purpose of motivating what is moral and immoral.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Alisa

It isn't but saying "copyright infringement" over and over gets tiring. I think ethically they're equivalent

I think that ethical they are totally different so you see the problem here. I do not accept the implied premise that you get if you call it theft.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Consider, each book sold represents money that goes to the publisher and the author. Therefore each book that is not sold because of copyright violation is money that has been effectively taken from the author and the publisher. The final result is exactly the same as if you had taken an equivalent amount of money from them.

So if I commit any crime and is put in prison and therefore cannot buy books then the practical effect is that the authors have lost money and therefore the crime was also theft from the author?

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by tompe

So if I commit any crime and is put in prison and therefore cannot buy books then the practical effect is that the authors have lost money and therefore the crime was also theft from the author?

You accuse me of rhetorical tricks in one post and then use this as an argument?

No, it is not theft from the author if you never use, in any way, a work that they have written.

Whether you read it or not, downloading a copyrighted work without the author's permission (which is implicit if you buy a ebook from a legitimate vendor), is making use of something you have no legal right to use.

Morally, you are taking income from them because you are using their labor without giving them fair renumeration for their labor.

--
Bill

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by tompe

I think that ethical they are totally different so you see the problem here. I do not accept the implied premise that you get if you call it theft.

On what basis do you consider it ethically different? Those of us who consider it the ethical equivalent of theft have laid out a clear case for it to be considered so (i.e. the denial of fair payment for the labor the author and publisher have put into producing the book that you are making use of).

The only case you have made is that most of the books you downloaded you wouldn't have bought anyway. Ethically that doesn't stand up, because a thief of a physical items could make the same case. The other argument you made was that you don't read most of what you download, so at most you are only stealing from the authors you actually read, but it doesn't matter because it is just one more of thousands you have downloaded (Kind of circular isn't it?). Ethically that doesn't stand up either because stealing a penny makes one just as guilty of theft as stealing a million dollars.

So, I want to know, what is your ethical justification for downloading the work of others and not paying them for that work?

--
Bill

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Morally, you are taking income from them because you are using their labor without giving them fair renumeration for their labor.

--
Bill

I think that it becomes that at the point at which you actually READ the book, Bill. I don't think that one can say that downloading data which simply sits on a hard disk is taking money away from anybody (although it may well be illegal, depending on where you live).

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

One would like to think that the purpose of DRM is to prevent illegal distribution, but if that were the case, then I should think that the industry would have settled on a standard years ago. The mere fact that Amazon bought Mobipocket and then used it as the basis of Kindle's DRM without allowing the Kindle and Mobipocket devices to inter-operate suggests a different motive.

DRM is about control; content providers want to be able to control your access to the media. By ensuring that Kindle and Mobi DRM don't inter-operate (besides them being essentially identical), Amazon can force you to buy Kindles if you want to read their Kindle Books. Likewise, if you own a Kindle, it makes it harder to read books bought from another source.

Exactly. DRM has nothing to do with preventing lost revenue. DRM is used to artificially restrict consumer's rights in order to generate more revenue.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

..the denial of fair payment for the labor the author and publisher...

That's not theft either.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I think that it becomes that at the point at which you actually READ the book, Bill. I don't think that one can say that downloading data which simply sits on a hard disk is taking money away from anybody (although it may well be illegal, depending on where you live).

Harry,
I guess it depends on how you look at it. The way I look at it is this; I pay to take possession of a book in either paper or electronic form. What I do with that book afterwards (within reason and the bounds of fair use) is up to me. I have books I have purchased but never read (though no ebooks yet.. but I am sure it is a matter of time) and I am sure that is true of many of the people here.

So to that extent, merely taking possession and having the ability to use it are what you pay for, not the use itself (Since books have not yet adopted anything like a pay per view system). Therefore, I don't really see the distinction in claiming that one has not read the book that one downloaded. Sure you might not have read it yet, but it doesn't mean you never will.

It is reasonable, I think, therefore for the author and publisher of a work to expect renumeration from said work upon download, not upon reading.

In any case, this is all splitting hairs. People download from the darknet precisely because they want to get access to works without paying for them; sure they may download 1000 books they never intend to read for every one they do, but they are still downloading books they intend to read and not to pay for.

--
Bill

[Kris777]

What format is more popular - DRM Mobipocket or DRM-free Mobipocket?
How many books available in DRM Mobipocket and DRM-free Mobipocket formats?

What websites you use to download books in DRM-free Mobipocket format?

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

That's not theft either.

So what would you call your boss if he decided to stop paying you for your work?

The problem here is I think is that a bunch of people are splitting legal hairs when in fact many of us here acknowledge serious problems with the law. The real question is what is moral. Call it theft, stealing or scrofula for all I care, taking advantage of someone's labor without their permission and without paying them is just plain wrong (public domain excepted).

--
Bill

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Kris777

What format is more popular - DRM Mobipocket or DRM-free Mobipocket?
How many books available in DRM Mobipocket and DRM-free Mobipocket formats?

What websites you use to download books in DRM-free Mobipocket format?

Most large publisers ebooks will be DRM protected. The excecptions are fictionwise which has its "multi-format" ebooks which are DRM free. Also, author run ebook stores like sci-az.com stevejordanbooks.com. There is is Baen/Webscriptions which are all DRM free. Also, all the public domain and creative commons stuff that you will find at feedbooks.com and right here in the d/l section are of course DRM free.

BOb

[Kris777]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Most large publisers ebooks will be DRM protected. The excecptions are fictionwise which has its "multi-format" ebooks which are DRM free. Also, author run ebook stores like sci-az.com stevejordanbooks.com. There is is Baen/Webscriptions which are all DRM free. Also, all the public domain and creative commons stuff that you will find at feedbooks.com and right here in the d/l section are of course DRM free.

BOb

It means that if I would like to buy newest bestseller in Mobipocket format - it will be 100% DRM protected, correct?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

In any case, this is all splitting hairs. People download from the darknet precisely because they want to get access to works without paying for them; sure they may download 1000 books they never intend to read for every one they do, but they are still downloading books they intend to read and not to pay for.

What about the situation where someone has bought the paper version of a book, wants an e-Book, but there isn't one available to be bought? Eg, I've bought half a dozen different paper versions of "Lord of the Rings" over the years, but there is no legal eBook to buy. I'm certainly breaking the law in download it from the darknet, but am I really doing anything "immoral"? I don't think that I am.

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by Kris777

It means that if I would like to buy newest bestseller in Mobipocket format - it will be 100% DRM protected, correct?

Well, you can never say 100% since the minute you do someone will find an exception but yes you can expect that any best sellers you buy will be DRM protected by the publisher. In addition some pseudo publishers like Amazon may DRM a book the publisher did not.

Dale