DRM poll: How do you deal with it.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

(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:

... and are you honestly saying that that exemption applies to people who do not have a disability which requires them to USE a screen reader?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

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.

That would be true if there were only one copy of the tool at a time. You would both be sharing it with each other. In the sense that sharing is used in this case though, it's similar to using the word distributing. The "sharer" is basically the one that gives you a copy of the tool.

Think of the terminology that is used in "file sharing". It's the uploader aka sharer that is sued for copyright infringement.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

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.

Ok,
I will grant this. But ultimately, I will grant that downloading works and immediately deleting them is probably not morally objectionable. That being said, we know that no one downloads works just to delete them. Because of torrents they might download 1000 books and throw away 999 of them; but they keep the 1000th; so that 1000th is in fact depriving the author of income.

Further, I have serious doubts that the other 999 are actually thrown away; they may not read them now, they may not ever read them, but I suspect many who download the 1000 books to get the one, probably keep the 999 thinking they might read one or more of them someday, thus even more of the books are depriving income from the authors.

--
Bill

[wallcraft]

Originally Posted by HarryT

... and are you honestly saying that that exemption applies to people who do not have a disability which requires them to USE a screen reader?

Yes. Many commentators have noted that the Library of Congress exceptions are confusing and unworkable in practice, but the confusing part about this one is whether it applies to a particular ebook or not. It definitely applies to everyone who purchased the ebook, not just to those who require a screen reader.

What the Library of Congress should do is include a "format shifting for personal use" exception, and not just for ebooks. However, they are largely an arm of the publishing industry and so this is unlikely to happen. For example, they were asked to create an exception for when DRM servers close down - but their response was that the "remedy" for this situation is for the consumer to buy another copy from some other DRM provider.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by wallcraft

Yes. Many commentators have noted that the Library of Congress exceptions are confusing and unworkable in practice, but the confusing part about this one is whether it applies to a particular ebook or not. It definitely applies to everyone who purchased the ebook, not just to those who require a screen reader.

Presumably, however, it would not apply if one could demonstrate that a screen reader worked perfectly well with DRM protected books?

Eg, there is absolutely no difference in functionality between DRM and non-DRM books in the Windows MobiPocket Reader. Screen readers work just fine with both. I happen to know this, because we have a machine at work with a screen reader on it which we use to test our web sites for "accessibility". Out of amusement, one day I tried it with the Mobi Reader and there was no problem.

Can I conclude, therefore, that this exemption does not apply to removing DRM from MobiPocket books?

[Shaggy]

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.

And then it lists all of the exceptions, which include format shifting if the DRM is preventing you from what would otherwise be allowed.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

... and are you honestly saying that that exemption applies to people who do not have a disability which requires them to USE a screen reader?

Where does it say anything about having a disability? Doesn't that exemption equally apply if I want to listen to the book, no matter the reason? My wife buys books on tape all the time, and she's not disabled. Why does a read-a-loud function, or allowing a screen reader to format shift have to be limited to people with disabilities only?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Ok,
I will grant this. But ultimately, I will grant that downloading works and immediately deleting them is probably not morally objectionable. That being said, we know that no one downloads works just to delete them. Because of torrents they might download 1000 books and throw away 999 of them; but they keep the 1000th; so that 1000th is in fact depriving the author of income.

Assuming, of course, that the downloader would have actually bought the book in the first place. Which is a big assumption.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

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.

Actually I strongly believe that in the long run it is better at least if we look at the totality. I believe that the sooner we remove the absurd copyright laws we have now the better since it will stimulate creativity and give rise to thing we cannot predict that will enhance all our lives.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Assuming, of course, that the downloader would have actually bought the book in the first place. Which is a big assumption.

If they make use of the work, they should be willing to pay for that use. Normally this is covered by buying the book, or through taxes or other fees if you read it from a library (which buys legal copies). Ethically, the argument that "I shouldn't have to pay for it because I wouldn't have bought it" holds no water at all. At the very least, such an argument leads to some rather circular reasoning; Its ok to download and use copyrighted material if I would not have bought it anyway but since I can download it, I won't buy it therefore it is ok to download it.

--
Bill

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Assuming, of course, that the downloader would have actually bought the book in the first place. Which is a big assumption.

It can also works another way. I actually bought some paper books I knew I had downloaded copies of just because my goal is to have electronic copies of all books I own. So one reason to download a collection of book it to get copies of books you already own as paper books. I am re-reading a lot of my books now using ebook copies that strictly might not be legal but since I own the paper copy I do not think it is morally wrong.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by tompe

Actually I strongly believe that in the long run it is better at least if we look at the totality. I believe that the sooner we remove the absurd copyright laws we have now the better since it will stimulate creativity and give rise to thing we cannot predict that will enhance all our lives.

And what exactly do you propose we replace the current copyright with? I am all for scaling back copyright to reasonable levels. That being said, ignoring copyrights and depriving living authors of their livelihood deprives the authors of their very incentive for writing in the first place.

I, personally have some very specific ideas on how to overhaul copyright laws, but at the same time, ignoring the current copyright laws is not the answer either.

--
Bill

[tompe]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

If they make use of the work, they should be willing to pay for that use. Normally this is covered by buying the book, or through taxes or other fees if you read it from a library (which buys legal copies).

Not if you borrow a book from a friend. Also you can have lawa that guarantee use of things without somebody being payed. And they are not morally wrong just because you are not paying for something you use (for example "allemansrätten", http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_o...the_wilderness).

Ethically, the argument that "I shouldn't have to pay for it because I wouldn't have bought it" holds no water at all.

That was not the argument. The argument was that lost income cannot be used in an argument to motivate why it is ethically wrong.

You have to use other type of ethical reasoning to try to motivate it.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

And what exactly do you propose we replace the current copyright with? I am all for scaling back copyright to reasonable levels. That being said, ignoring copyrights and depriving living authors of their livelihood deprives the authors of their very incentive for writing in the first place.

If we keep something like copyright I think it should hold a very short time. Five or ten years maybe.

Also as have been pointed out most authors cannot live on the income from their writing. They write because they want to write and the live on something else.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Eg, there is absolutely no difference in functionality between DRM and non-DRM books in the Windows MobiPocket Reader. Screen readers work just fine with both. I happen to know this, because we have a machine at work with a screen reader on it which we use to test our web sites for "accessibility". Out of amusement, one day I tried it with the Mobi Reader and there was no problem.

Can I conclude, therefore, that this exemption does not apply to removing DRM from MobiPocket books?

The end result of using a screen reader to format shift is no different than using DRM removal tools to format shift. If splitting that legal hair becomes an issue, I'm sure it won't take long for somebody to write a screen reader that outputs to a text file.