Arguments For And Against DRM

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

But Tubemonkey said he/she loaned the entire reader. From that I assumed that he had the copy of the book on that reader (not that he loaded it on twenty different readers). FWIW, Amazon already licenses one copy of a book to a "family of readers" so long as they are on the same account.

And I know you know all this. And the point remains that we have to try to be "fair." Writing and reading a book is a partnership/purchase between two parties. It's a constant dance trying to make the whole thing work. Not everyone is trying, of course, which is why DRM exists in the first place.

Absolutely. And, as you say, companies like Amazon do provide legitimate ways of sharing content between family members. If Aunt Mary is on your Amazon account, she can read all your books (and you can read hers).

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Still dubious, TM. Let's take it to extremes, and see how it looks: a school buys 50 readers, buys one copy of a book needed for a particular subject, strips the DRM, and loads it onto all 50 readers which it then lends out to all the pupils who are studying the subject. Fair use? I don't think so.

What is your point?

Tubemonkey's scenario does not involve DRM stripping and yours does. How is your scenario an argument in favor of DRM, since it was not even effective?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

What is your point?

That lending someone your entire reader does not avoid piracy: it is itself a form of piracy if you lend outside the terms permitted by the bookstore, which is generally intended to be your immediate family.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But they are committing piracy. This is a matter of educating the public: that creating a COPY of a book is not the same as LENDING a physical book, because you're creating extra copies. If you give a copy to Aunt Mary, and Aunt Mary gives a copy to Cousin Pete, THREE people now have the book, but only one copy has been bought. It's this type of "casual piracy" that's at the root of the problem, and it's this that DRM really does help to prevent.

When I was a kid, a friend and I used to take turns buying LPs, then use a tape recorder to make a copy so we'd each have one. I've also copied physical books at a library Xerox machine. I guess it's a good thing that the statute of limitations has run out.

Maybe I delete my copy when I pass it on to Aunt Mary, and maybe she deletes it when she gives it to Cousin Pete. So there is still only one copy.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Still dubious, TM. Let's take it to extremes, and see how it looks: a school buys 50 readers, buys one copy of a book needed for a particular subject, strips the DRM, and loads it onto all 50 readers which it then lends out to all the pupils who are studying the subject. Fair use? I don't think so.

I didn't strip the DRM. I loan her my only spare ereader with the book loaded. While that book is out, I don't read it. This is no different than the olden days when I'd loan out a paperback.

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

But Tubemonkey said he/she loaned the entire reader. From that I assumed that he had the copy of the book on that reader (not that he loaded it on twenty different readers). FWIW, Amazon already licenses one copy of a book to a "family of readers" so long as they are on the same account.

That's exactly what I do; and I do it less than 10 times a year. What I'm attempting to do is to get them to get onboard with this new (to them) technology. Several of them loved it and then bought their own ereaders. New converts = more ebook sales. Oh, I are a "he"

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That lending someone your entire reader does not avoid piracy: it is itself a form of piracy if you lend outside the terms permitted by the bookstore, which is generally intended to be your immediate family.

I don't know of any prohibition against lending out physical ereaders and doubt that such would be valid.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

I don't know of any prohibition against lending out physical ereaders and doubt that such would be valid.

If the contract that you've entered into with the bookstore (ie their T&Cs) says, for example, that the content is licensed for your personal use only (and that, for example, is what Baen's says), then lending the content - on your reader - to another person probably constitutes a breach of contract.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

I don't know of any prohibition against lending out physical ereaders and doubt that such would be valid.

That would be an interesting court case, but I don't think it would ever happen. It would probably be laughed out of court.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Oh, I are a "he"

I thought so but didn't want to presume.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But they are committing piracy. This is a matter of educating the public: that creating a COPY of a book is not the same as LENDING a physical book, because you're creating extra copies. If you give a copy to Aunt Mary, and Aunt Mary gives a copy to Cousin Pete, THREE people now have the book, but only one copy has been bought. It's this type of "casual piracy" that's at the root of the problem, and it's this that DRM really does help to prevent.

And this is perfectly legal in a lot of countries. You are allowed to give copies to family and and similar.

So please specify which country you are talking about.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If the contract that you've entered into with the bookstore (ie their T&Cs) says, for example, that the content is licensed for your personal use only (and that, for example, is what Baen's says), then lending the content - on your reader - to another person probably constitutes a breach of contract.

Has any legal action ever been taken against anyone for lending out a physical ereader?

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

No. I do not think my paying customers are crooks. I do not add DRM for them. I add it for the casual "Giving it to my friend."

That's what you feel. Do you know what your readers feel?

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But they are committing piracy. This is a matter of educating the public: that creating a COPY of a book is not the same as LENDING a physical book, because you're creating extra copies. If you give a copy to Aunt Mary, and Aunt Mary gives a copy to Cousin Pete, THREE people now have the book, but only one copy has been bought. It's this type of "casual piracy" that's at the root of the problem, and it's this that DRM really does help to prevent.

Why should authors expect everyone who reads their book to pay for it?

BTW. Piracy? Coming over the rail with a cutlass in their teeth? Bah!

[twowheels]

Originally Posted by Terisa de morgan

How does anybody copy your books in your files without your consent? Hacking into your hard drive, your cloud...? Or sharing computer?

or....

a guest using your computer, the fix-it-guy at the local computer store, the person who finds your lost e-reader, a not-security-wiped hard drive on a used computer, etc, etc, etc...

[twowheels]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I would say that it's your responsibility to take reasonable precautions against anyone copying your books without consent. Eg, if you have a computer which is physically accessible to other people, make sure that you use a password to protect it.

Insufficient. Given physical access to the typical password protected computer I could extract every file quite trivially.

At the very least, full drive encryption must be added to that, and FEW people do that.