Arguments For And Against DRM

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

According to Amazon's terms and conditions, it's against the T&C to format shift an Amazon eBook. Have we all done it? Most of us have. So we've broken the T&C Amazon has laid down. Will we stop doing this? Nope.

All those lost sales; shame on us

Funny how format shifting is condoned and lending is condemned

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by meeera

I'm not talking about trojans or viruses, I'm talking about Adobe itself spying on users, and what's even worse sending all the info in clear text.

So don't use ADE 4. Problem solved.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

So don't use ADE 4. Problem solved.

We did this part of the conversation already.

Yes, being somewhat informed, I've deliberately stuck with a 1.* version of ADE at the moment - but I don't know how long it will be before that stops working. Adobe may have backed down for now on their plan for big changes - weren't they initially slated for implementation around the middle of this year? (from memory) - but I doubt that will last forever.

[leaston]

Originally Posted by HarryT

They aren't "stealing the book", but if, for example, your contract with the bookstore says (as most of them do) that the content is licensed for your personal use only, then your aunt, mum, or friend, are not licensed to read the book. But I very, very seriously doubt that anyone is going to either know or care!

Ahh, but that's my whole point about this issue and the thread in general...I agree, I doubt anyone would care enough to take action against me for something so ridiculous. Yet, there have been any number of arguments back and forth here about exactly this sort of thing. It's bonkers.

@anyone - So, if (by design or accident) an ebook is read by others on one of my devices, I'm possibly acting within the terms of a retailer like Amazon, but could still fall foul of copyright law? How, as a lay person, would I have any clue that Amazon's (insert any other retailer's name here) terms aren't necessarily legal?

What a huge can of worms! I have to wonder why I should care. In the end, if I go on Amazon and click a 'Buy' button for an ebook, as far as I'm concerned, I now own a copy. If I then believe Amazon's terms and happily lend that book to others, should I care or worry that I'm breaking any law?? The problem is far wider than just putting the onus on ME as a customer!

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

All those lost sales; shame on us

Funny how format shifting is condoned and lending is condemned

"Lending" is piracy which (may) result in lost sales.

Format shifting does not result in any loss to anybody.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by leaston

What a huge can of worms! I have to wonder why I should care. In the end, if I go on Amazon and click a 'Buy' button for an ebook, as far as I'm concerned, I now own a copy.

You own a licence which grants you specific rights. You do not own "the book", any more than buying a paper book grants you rights to the contents of the book. All you buy with a paper book is the ink and paper.

If I then believe Amazon's terms and happily lend that book to others, should I care or worry that I'm breaking any law??

Amazon's terms don't permit you to arbitrarily lend the book to others. They allow books to be shared between a very stringently-defined group of related Amazon accounts. Amazon certainly don't grant you the right to make arbitrary copies of the book and give those copies to all and sundry.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Format shifting does not result in any loss to anybody.

I'm sure the publishers--who would love for the DRM to force you to have to rebuy the book in the new format--might not see it that way.

I myself, would dismiss the "loss of a sale" with either scenario (casual lending/format shifting) as entirely speculative (and unlikely). Another thing regarding the "loss of sale" mantra--in regard to lending--is that it ignores any potential (and possibly multiple) future "gain of sales" of an author's other (or future) books that such a lending can generate. Just as subjective/speculative as the "loss of a sale," of course, but still.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I myself, would dismiss the "loss of a sale" with either scenario (casual lending/format shifting) as entirely speculative (and unlikely). Another thing regarding the "loss of sale" mantra--in regard to lending--is that it ignores any potential (and possibly multiple) future "gain of sales" of an author's other (or future) books that such a lending can generate. Just as subjective/speculative as the "loss of a sale," of course, but still.

Why do you think that "lending" - ie giving someone of a copy - of a book is unlikely to result in a lost sale?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by HarryT

"Lending" is piracy which (may) result in lost sales.

Format shifting does not result in any loss to anybody.

It does! Format shifting is against the terms just as much as lending is. If you own a Kindle and a Kobo and wish to read the same book on both devices, publishers fully expect to be paid for both versions. When you convert one of those formats to the other, you've just deprived the publisher of a sale.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Why do you think that lending someone a book is unlikely to result in a lost sale?

Because most of the time when I lend someone a book, it's because the person I'm lending it to has never heard of the author or the book. They wouldn't be buying it at all if I wasn't trying to turn them on to it. And even if you see the fact that I didn't buy a gift copy for them (instead of lending) as a "loss of sale" (again ... highly speculative), it doesn't a take into account the future sales that might be generated if I'm successful in pairing a book/author with a new fan who will very likely buy all of their future works (and in turn introduce others to it--unless the draconian pay "per/read" hopes publishers have for DRM succeeds in stopping altogether the pro bono marketing strategy that has worked well for centuries). I believe lending quite often results in a net gain of sales in the long run.

Of course I can't prove that book lending ultimately "pays it forward" -- any more than anyone can prove it results in lost sales -- but I know in my heart that it does. Probably in buckets if people would just relax and let it (especially if they're any good).

The only authors who would be hurt are the ones readers don't feel very compelled to turn others onto (who probably had no realistic hopes for a solid fanbase in the first place). *shrugs*

[leaston]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Amazon's terms don't permit you to arbitrarily lend the book to others. They allow books to be shared between a very stringently-defined group of related Amazon accounts. Amazon certainly don't grant you the right to make arbitrary copies of the book and give those copies to all and sundry.

I never mentioned anything about lending to anyone arbitrarily, please don't put words into my mouth.

My point was that if 'lending' is against copyright law and yet Amazon 'allow' lending to family members or whoever, then surely Amazon are in the wrong for misleading customers?

[leaston]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Because most of the time when I lend someone a book, it's because the person I'm lending it to has never heard of the author or the book. They wouldn't be buying it at all if I wasn't trying to turn them on to it. And even if you see the fact that I didn't buy a gift copy for them (instead of lending) as a "loss of sale" (again ... highly speculative), it doesn't a take into account the future sales that might be generated if I'm successful in pairing a book/author with a new fan who will very likely buy all of their future works (and in turn introduce others to it

YES!!!!

I can cite any number of personal experiences when I have lent or given away a copy of a book to someone in the hope they'd find a new genre or author to like as a result. And in a number of cases, that's exactly what happened. The reader subsequently went on to not only buy other books from that particular author, but in a wider sense within the genre they hadn't explored before. So, yes I encouraged piracy and yet helped generate sales anyway. Go figure.

[ApK]

The "piracy encourages sales" argument sounds a lot like the school bully who steals a kid's lunch money and says "I did you a favor, bro. Lunch is awful today."

In short: If the copyright owner wanted your help he'd tell you so. You are stealing his control and his right to make those decisions for his own work, in violation of copyright law.

When speaking of copyright issues, which is what DRM is primarily about, there is no comparison or similarity between giving someone a physical book, which fine, legal and proper, and creating an unauthorized duplicate of an ebook and distributing it to someone in express violation of the permissions you were given, which is precisely what copyright law exists to prevent you from doing, and no Machiavellian rationalization about how much people like the pirated copies and what they might do afterwards justifies it.

That being said, there IS important value in sharing books, and nothing I said above changes my conviction that copyright law, DRM systems, licenses and fair use doctrine, SHOULD include fair and unobtrusive mechanisms and policies for sharing and lending.

ApK

[latepaul]

Originally Posted by leaston

My point was that if 'lending' is against copyright law and yet Amazon 'allow' lending to family members or whoever, then surely Amazon are in the wrong for misleading customers?

No because it's not as simple as lending being "against copyright law". Copyright law creates the right to control how and whether a work can be copied. The copyright owner can authorise copies to be made but it's not a simple on/off switch. They can lay down terms under which the copies can be made in a license.

The terms can then be written in such a way as to allow limited copying that looks a lot like lending. But these terms could be varied - number of times a book can be lent, number of lending recipients, length of lending period etc.

Amazon, who are not the copyright owner in most cases, provide a mechanism for lending but crucially not all publishers choose to use it, or use it for all books. Similarly the number of devices one can simultaneously have a book on varies from book to book and is set by the publisher not Amazon. That's also a form of lending.

[DiapDealer]

Make no mistake: I never claimed I was trying (or wanted) to "help" copyright owners. I was simply pointing out how lending could just as likely be construed as being beneficial as it could be harmful (regardless of the medium). Neither can really be quantifiably "proven." Any studies that claim to prove otherwise are flawed. Because the data needed for proof would require time-travel and/or alternate-universe hopping to obtain.

I agree with your last paragraph, ApK. And when the reality of DRM systems and copyright law are in accordance with such sentiments (with regard to ebooks), I will embrace both as being worthy of abiding by.