Arguments For And Against DRM

[taustin]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The UK now says that format shifting is legal, but Amazon says it's against their T&C. Who's right and who's wrong?

Some rights can't be give up, even if you sign a contract that says you do. You can sign a contract that lets the other person kill you and eat your body, but that doesn't make it in any way legal. That's why publishers stopped putting in contract language prohibiting the lending of paper books in an attempt to stop libraries a century or more ago; the rights under the first sale doctrine cannot be given up (if it's a sale, not a lease).

Where the format shifting rights in the UK fall, I have no idea.

[crane3]

A huge problem with DRM is one cannot even "share" the ebook between ereader apps. I decided to DeDRM because I tried to read a book using the Moon Reader; the book is in the Aldiko ereader app which was "registered" with Adobe; the Moon Reader didn't (still) don't have an Adobe setting. The ebook is in the Aldiko library directory; notice that the book location wasn't changed or even copied to another directory, but the Moon Reader was not able to read the book.

The DRM disables the ability of a person wanting to check the capabilities of another or any other ebook reader app. So it is definitely a LIE that Adobe DRM is for a "device" as the book is on the same physical device.

Another problem I had was the use of the registration. My public library had a different reg than the erader/tablet. There was a claim that I can have more than one Adobe ID; sometimes it is true but seem to be disabled. Anyway one of my Adobe IDs had to be changed in order to read a book from the public library; I elected to change the library adobe-id as I wasn't successfully able to get any adobe-id verification to allow me to read the library book.

My reasons for doing away with the DRM is valid as it violated its own specs since it didn't let me read a DRM'ed book with a reader app of my choice. Having a tablet or ereader be adobe-id'ed is not an option nor desirable; especially when one has to go thru the process again with another tablet & possibly a different adobe-id as adobe doesn't really allow multiple id's.

[eschwartz]

The id a book is bound to is the id you are logged in as when you redeem the book.

The library itself doesn't require an adobe id.

If you checked it out with OverDrive Media Console, OMC requires an Adobe id to redeem the books, too but you should've been prompted for one. The newer versions I believe use some complicated alias with their servers instead... but that is still a service of the app, not the library.

[Xanthe]

I am against all forms of DRM. I don't want any purchases of mine watermarked, encrypted or whatever, and I will remove them on principle.

That's my two cents in this discussion.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Xanthe

I am against all forms of DRM. I don't want any purchases of mine watermarked, encrypted or whatever, and I will remove them on principle.

That's my two cents in this discussion.

What is this principle, that so violently disagrees with something non-invasive like a watermark?

[Fluribus]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If my carelessness results in a loss to someone, I'm struggling to understand how I could be considered not to be responsible for that loss. The fact that I didn't do it maliciously, in no way changes the outcome of the event.

You seem to be arguing that you don't want the source of pirated books to be trackable, for fear of being held accountable for your actions?

I don't care about the watermarking. Copyright law requires that I not intentionally distribute copies. As I understand the law, it does not impose any care and custody duties upon me with regard to copyrighted material. My understanding is that absent such duties, I will not be liable for any negligence in losing my Kindle. I am saying that no such requirement should be implemented.

If you stick a USB drive in my unattended computer and copy my files. You are in breach, not I. I am not required to take measures to prevent your breach. You may wish that I was so required, but that does not seem to be the case.

If any such duty were implemented, it ought to apply to paper as well. If I leave my paperback on the bus, anyone could come along and toss it on a scanner. I ought to be required to keep my bookshelves locked at all times.

[disconnected]

Amazon does not require or even suggest that only family members share an account and has said that it is perfectly fine to loan out ebooks as long as you loan them on a Kindle device.

Everyone here seems to have given this general topic a lot of thought. And yet, almost everyone who has posted has a different version of what they think is or is not legal, TOC compliant, morally justifiable, responsible, etc.

At least one poster thinks that loaning an ebook on a Kindle is piracy but stripping DRM for format shifting is ok, while other posters mention that Amazon permits sharing books on Kindles but that stripping DRM is illegal (and that format shifting deprives the author/publisher of income because otherwise each format would have to be bought separately). And I don't think anyone has even mentioned geo restrictions yet.

I don’t see how anyone would expect the average casual ebook buyer to have a clear understanding of any of this – or even to have heard of most of it. I’m willing to do the work required to maintain my Calibre library of stripped and converted books, but it does take some time and effort. If authors who worry about casual sharing insist on “educating” readers on all the restrictions and possible inconveniences that ebooks involve I think they risk losing most of their sales.

As for prominent watermarking (especially with “gentle” reminders to not be a thief), I think I would find it even more irritating than the FBI warnings at the beginning of DVD movies.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by disconnected

As for prominent watermarking (especially with “gentle” reminders to not be a thief), I think I would find it even more irritating than the FBI warnings at the beginning of DVD movies.

I think by "prominent watermarking", we meant a nice Ex Libris with your name and an inscription, maybe the author's digitized signature... what would be irritating about that?

Not that anyone would see it unless they looked for it, since it would likely be after the SRL, and anyway we are pretty good at glossing over the copyright page.

There is already a reminder (not exactly gentle) against theft. But it was so not-irritating you appear to have forgotten about it.

[Akshayy]

DRM, its just business as usual.

[Fluribus]

Originally Posted by disconnected

I don’t see how anyone would expect the average casual ebook buyer to have a clear understanding of any of this – or even to have heard of most of it.

"Ignorance of the law is no excuse." Unless you happen to be tasked with writing, enacting, or enforcing those laws.

I tend to think that the laws are so complicated and wide-ranging that, in many cases, it ought to be a valid excuse. Especially for those not tasked with writing, enacting, or enforcing those laws.

[disconnected]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

There is already a reminder (not exactly gentle) against theft. But it was so not-irritating you appear to have forgotten about it.

You're right. I do actually look at all the copyright info so I can store the originally-published date in Calibre but I apparently manage to completely tune out the warning part.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by taustin

Arguing about what word to use to describe it distracts from the fact that it is illegal, regardless of what it's called.

And while "theft" is incorrect in a technical, legal sense, it works just fine for casual conversation.

No it does not. It lead people wrong in their thinking and that is what people using the word want. It is basically dishonest to use the word theft for copyright infringement.

[Nabodita]

Ahem. Ladies, Gentlemen. Could we all please take a breath?

This discussion is really interesting but my meeting with the publishers is today. And I still don't know whether I should encourage them to use DRM or not.

I would love to come back from my meeting and debate the finer points of piracy / theft, lost sales, sales due to 'discovery' and so forth but really, all I want right now is to recommend / discourage DRM to the publisher keeping in mind their best interests.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Nabodita

Ahem. Ladies, Gentlemen. Could we all please take a breath?

This discussion is really interesting but my meeting with the publishers is today. And I still don't know whether I should encourage them to use DRM or not.

I would love to come back from my meeting and debate the finer points of piracy / theft, lost sales, sales due to 'discovery' and so forth but really, all I want right now is to recommend / discourage DRM to the publisher keeping in mind their best interests.

Baen Books have never had DRM. Tor has moved to DRM-free. Simon & Schuster are starting trials of DRM-free sales.

Tor has been DRM-free for well over a year now. If they had seen any problems from going DRM-free, I'm sure they would have gone back to using DRM.

I suggest that you recommend that the publishers save money by being DRM-free.

If they insist on DRM, try advocating for 'social' DRM, where every copy is tagged with the purchaser's details. Preferably will a pretty Ex-Libris bookplate as I suggest above.

HTH

[Nabodita]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Baen Books have never had DRM. Tor has moved to DRM-free. Simon & Schuster are starting trials of DRM-free sales.

Tor has been DRM-free for well over a year now. If they had seen any problems from going DRM-free, I'm sure they would have gone back to using DRM.

I suggest that you recommend that the publishers save money by being DRM-free.

If they insist on DRM, try advocating for 'social' DRM, where every copy is tagged with the purchaser's details. Preferably will a pretty Ex-Libris bookplate as I suggest above.

HTH

A suggestion that makes sense. Thank you.