DRM poll: How do you deal with it.

[pilotbob]

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?

For now... but it depends on the publisher. Pan MacMillian is now selling DRM free eBooks.

I think just like music eventually the publishers will see that DRM isn't benefiting them in any way and there will be more DRM free stuff available.

I think only libraries will be using DRM in 10 years.

BOb

[tompe]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

On what basis do you consider it ethically different?

You have pointed out that the motivation for copyright is different from motivation of property right. So since there is a difference you can reason differently ethically. And using for example utilitarism I come to totally different conclusions also about how wrong it is and the reasoning differ.

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).

Here you assume something "fair payment" that is a strange concept. You have to define that in the ethical system you use for the argument to be understandable.

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

I am an utilitarist. So one possible motivation is that the utility on the worlds is increasing.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by tompe

But that is a totally different argument and not the one you made originally. This is an argument that says that because it is illegal it is morally wrong.

The law does have to come into the equation because an author is writing with the expectation that they will have a certain amount of legal control over what they wrote for the term of the copyright. They understand that by publishing, they implicitly agree to let the work enter the public domain at the end of the copyright term. Therefore, to some extent the question resolves around the author's legal rights.

Well, no. I cannot see how I take income from somebody if I download something and then directly throw it away without looking at it for example.

You walk into a book store, take a copy off the shelf and sneak it out of the store without paying for it. As soon as you walk out, you throw it in the trash can. Now make the same argument to the judge?

Further, you have admitted that you don't just throw it out. You might throw out a thousand of the books, but you read some of them (after all, it would be silly in the extreme to just download for the sake of downloading). So, ultimately, you are trying to justify the part of your activity that does deprive the author of income by focusing on the the part that doesn't.

For your position to hold, you have to ethically justify the illegal downloading and reading of any books, at all!

--
Bill

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Further, it is very different than your analogy; harassment and murder are on entirely different planes both legally and ethically. No normal person would equate the two as being equivalent.

So are theft and infringement (granted not as extreme as the two I mentioned).

The main reason society considers theft a criminal offense is not because the individual ends up getting something for free. It's because they are depriving someone else of their rightful property. The act of physically taking something away from another person is what primarily makes theft ethically wrong. If an individual forced someone to let him build an exact copy of their car, nobody would call that theft. There may be other laws violated depending on how the individual forced them to comply, but they're not going to be charged with stealing since both of them end up with copies of the physical object.

The ethics behind copyright infringement are entirely different.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by tompe

You have pointed out that the motivation for copyright is different from motivation of property right. So since there is a difference you can reason differently ethically. And using for example utilitarism I come to totally different conclusions also about how wrong it is and the reasoning differ.

Actually, the motivation is ultimately the same, to protect the public interest.
Having reasonable copyright laws and enforcing them actually is to public benefit just as allowing them to own private property is to the public benefit. In both cases though, the law ultimately defines how the holder of said property or copyright may use them.

That being said, please explain to me how the differences allow you to reason a different ethical conclusion for each. Saying they are different is not enough, you have to give us the whole chain of your reasoning.

Here you assume something "fair payment" that is a strange concept. You have to define that in the ethical system you use for the argument to be understandable.

Fair payment is simple, it is a price agreed upon by both the provider of the service or product and the consumer. The provider's ability to raise the price is essentially limited by the consumer's willingness to pay for it. The consumer's ability to drive down the price is limited by the level at which the provider is no longer willing to provide the service or product in the first place.

For the price to be fair, it has to be accepted by both parties. I.e. Paying $30 for a new book is just as fair as paying $5 for a remaindered one because in each case the seller and the consumer essentially agree on that price.

I am an utilitarist. So one possible motivation is that the utility on the worlds is increasing.

You might be a utilitarian, but being a utilitarian, you should understand that proper utilitarian ethics requires the concept of enlightened self interest. Illegal downloads of books is wrong from a utilitarian perspective because it decreases the motivation of the author and the publisher to produce more books. In the long run it will hurt the downloader as well as the person whose books were downloaded.

--
Bill

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

We had this discussion before and I still think this interpretation is wrong. But even assuming you are right... if you can't create a tool to remove DRM... and you can't share a tool to remove DRM then if you get a tool to remove it then you are "sharing" the tool which violates the DMCA. So, the effective result is the same. Removing DRM violates the DMCA. Unless you have to cort cases to cite a precedent where this was ruled on, that is what I believe.

BOb

It seems that legal scholars disagree. One of the legal luminaries who lectured to us a few years ago still uses this interpretation (but I'd have to dig out my notes to figure out which one).

Overall, it ain't final until the courts rule (which they have yet to do).

On the issue of "sharing" the tool -- you can't provide the tool to me in the US, nor can I pass it on to someone in the US. It's not, however, illegal to possess such a tool, nor is it illegal to acquire the tool; the law forbids providing it to someone else. So you're squeaky-clean-legal wherever you get your DRM-removal tool from. The person who provided it to you, however, has a problem with US law -- I sure hope they're outside US jurisdiction.

As I said before, the DMCA is a really odd bit of legislation.

Xenophon

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

On the issue of "sharing" the tool -- you can't provide the tool to me in the US, nor can I pass it on to someone in the US. It's not, however, illegal to possess such a tool, nor is it illegal to acquire the tool; the law forbids providing it to someone else.

Isn't sharing a two-way street? If I give you a copy of a DRM removal tool... we are BOTH sharing the tool... not just the giver is sharing, the receiver is sharing too.

Sounds like some people that claim that income taxes are not required to be paid because of some outrageous interpretations of the law. All of these arguments have been ruled by the courts as frivolous and the intent of the law is what is important not some nuanced interpretation of it.

I am sure that any court would rule that removing DRM with a tool that you did not write but just "acquired" from someone who shared it with you (you didn't share it based on your fuzzy logic) is still a violation of the DMCA. Now, whether the DMCA is constitutional is another question entierly.

BOb

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

So are theft and infringement (granted not as extreme as the two I mentioned).

The main reason society considers theft a criminal offense is not because the individual ends up getting something for free. It's because they are depriving someone else of their rightful property. The act of physically taking something away from another person is what primarily makes theft ethically wrong.

It doesn't have to be taken physically. Someone could divert money from my bank account at it would still be theft.

I see it as theft (or the moral equivalent) if person A gains something from person B that person B would not give freely to person A.

If an individual forced someone to let him build an exact copy of their car, nobody would call that theft. There may be other laws violated depending on how the individual forced them to comply, but they're not going to be charged with stealing since both of them end up with copies of the physical object.

Maybe not theft in the physical sense, but they would call it stealing. Don't claim otherwise if you have ever uttered the phrase "He stole my idea".

The ethics behind copyright infringement are entirely different.

You have shown they are legally different, I have yet to see how they are ethically different.

--
Bill

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

We had this discussion before and I still think this interpretation is wrong. But even assuming you are right... if you can't create a tool to remove DRM... and you can't share a tool to remove DRM then if you get a tool to remove it then you are "sharing" the tool which violates the DMCA. So, the effective result is the same. Removing DRM violates the DMCA. Unless you have to cort cases to cite a precedent where this was ruled on, that is what I believe.

BOb

As he said, the law is written very oddly. What it seems to be saying is that usage and possession is legal. If they catch you creating the tool or distributing it, then it's a DMCA violation. The DMCA has lots of these weird contradictions in it.

My interpretation is the same as Xenophon's. It is not a DMCA violation to use one of those tools on content you have purchased.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

You walk into a book store, take a copy off the shelf and sneak it out of the store without paying for it. As soon as you walk out, you throw it in the trash can. Now make the same argument to the judge?

The thing is, the example using a computer file is not the same as using a physical object. Nobody is losing anything when the file that was downloaded was deleted without being used in any way. When you toss out that pBook, the store looses money, the publisher looses money, and the author looses money. The file was download and that may have been illegal. But the file was deleted and never looked at. So in that case, nobody lost any money at all. Morally, it's ok. Legally, no.

Now what do you think if I download an eBook just to read the first two chapters to decide if I want to purchase it or not. I then read the first two chapters, decide I didn't like it and delete it. I know that's illegal. But it's sampling so I know if I want to purchase this book or not. But this is almost the same thing as my going to the book store and standing there reading the first two chapters. Still morally ok. Legally nope.

And when I do purchase eBooks, I do strip the DRM for my own usage. And given that most DRM schemes allow more then one person to have access, I can legally allow my wife to read it if she wants.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

As I said before, the DMCA is a really odd bit of legislation.

The DMCA contradicts itself and it (IMHO) unfair to the general public. I would have loved to have been at the second presidential debate and asked about the DMCA. Then the issue would have been brought to the public's attention.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

As he said, the law is written very oddly. What it seems to be saying is that usage and possession is legal. If they catch you creating the tool or distributing it, then it's a DMCA violation. The DMCA has lots of these weird contradictions in it.

My interpretation is the same as Xenophon's. It is not a DMCA violation to use one of those tools on content you have purchased.

Also, I can purchase an eBook in MS Reader format and legally strip the DRM because the DRM prevents the read aloud feature. The law doesn't say I have to need to be read to. The law just says that if that is prevented by the DRM, then I can remove the DRM to enable the feature.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

My interpretation is the same as Xenophon's. It is not a DMCA violation to use one of those tools on content you have purchased.

I honestly don't see how the DMCA can be interpreted as saying that. The very opening clause of it: (A)(1)(a) states:

No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

That seems crystal clear that the actual ACT of "circumventing a technological measure" (ie DRM) is not permitted.

The UCLA "Cyberspace Law" department, which presumably contains some pretty smart cookies, says here that the DMCA "Makes it a crime to circumvent anti-piracy measures" and "Outlaws the manufacture, sale, or distribution of code-cracking devices".

Given the above, I'm afraid that I don't see how the DMCA can be interpreted as permitted DRM removal. Could you elaborate on your reasoning?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

You walk into a book store, take a copy off the shelf and sneak it out of the store without paying for it. As soon as you walk out, you throw it in the trash can. Now make the same argument to the judge?

That's a flawed analogy. You're again confusing depriving someone of their property versus making a copy. Yes, in your example above it is obviously theft because even though you just threw it in the trash the store no longer has their book. But, that has nothing to do with downloading.

It's more like you walk into a book store, make a xerox copy of a book, put the original back on the shelf were you found it and take your xerox copy with you without paying for it. As soon as you walk out, you throw the xerox copy in the trash can.

In that case, nobody has been deprived of anything, neither physical object nor income.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I honestly don't see how the DMCA can be interpreted as saying that. The very opening clause of it: (A)(1)(a) states:



That seems crystal clear that the actual ACT of "circumventing a technological measure" (ie DRM) is not permitted.

The UCLA "Cyberspace Law" department, which presumably contains some pretty smart cookies, says here that the DMCA "Makes it a crime to circumvent anti-piracy measures" and "Outlaws the manufacture, sale, or distribution of code-cracking devices".

Given the above, I'm afraid that I don't see how the DMCA can be interpreted as permitted DRM removal. Could you elaborate on your reasoning?

(4) Literary works distributed in ebook format when all existing ebook editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling of the ebook's read-aloud function and that prevent the enabling of screen readers to render the text into a specialized format.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...vzYw5h:e11559: