Arguments For And Against DRM

[ApK]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

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'm under the impression that there are folks with proper statistical and research knowledge to make such determinations with a high enough degree of certainty to be useful, sans wormhole.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by ApK

I'm under the impression that there are folks with proper statistical and research knowledge to make such determinations with a high enough degree of certainty to be useful, sans wormhole.

It can only be useful if you already agree with the speculative premise/assumption any such research would have to be based upon.

The sale that didn't happen can never be proven to have had to have happened if the past circumstances would have been different.

[DiapDealer]

A question:

IF ebooks are different and we (the readers) need to start recognizing the differences resulting from the fact that the mere lending of a file inherently violates copyright (by the creation of a new copy); then why is it OK for the same laws—which were created at a time when it would have been impossible to violate copyright (either intentionally or accidentally) by the loaning of a legal physical book—to be applied as if these clearly new and different beasties are same?

It seems to me that copyright violation being inherent in the creation of a new ebook file is a bit of a red herring in the "lending is a lost sale" argument. If I concede that the casual lending of an ebook could be seen as a lost sale (which I don't), then the casual lending of a physical book 10/30/400 years ago was a lost sale as well. But it's only an issue now because "copyright violation!"? I don't buy it. An author has never been payed based on the number of copies of their books that are in existence.

[ApK]

Tying sales and money to copyright questions is needless confusion.

You can add in the importance of the cash later, but the copyright issues are not dependent on money, so they should be kept out of the discussion until the copyright part is agreed on.

Copyright law addresses the right to make copies and distribute a work.

If you have permission to use a work in a certain way, and that permission does not include making duplicates and giving them to other people, and you do it anyway then you are infringing on someone's rights.

Need to settle any disagreements on that point first, otherwise talk of lost sales and getting paid is the red herring.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by HarryT

This is incorrect. Amazon's DRM restricts the number of devices the book can simultaneously be loaded onto (typically to 6 devices). ADE achieves the same result by limiting (again to 6) the number of readers that can be registered against the same ADE account.

What happens if you download via USB for more than six Kindles? (I have never actually tried this -- I don't have seven devices -- but once a book is authorized for a device it will always work on that Kindle. When you delete the book from a device, it frees up a spot, yes? So it stands to reason downloading via USB, especially if the device will be kept with the WiFi off, would work as many times as you want.)
How many Nooks can you have signed in at once?

And you still have 5 more people than is acceptable reading the same book...

[DiapDealer]

I agree "lost sale" is a red herring in the lending discussion.

Originally Posted by ApK

If you have permission to use a work in a certain way, and that permission does not include making duplicates and giving them to other people, and you do it anyway then you are infringing on someone's rights.

I can even agree to that.

The part where we run afoul of each other (or maybe not) is that I don't believe the existing laws have the right to extend the same protection to things that were never considered when those laws were enacted. Because of that, I will continue to lend in a manner that causes no more (or less) harm to the rights holder than it did with physical books until such time as the law catches up with the times. The practice may have been made illegal by the media-shift, but the harm is imaginary.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by latepaul

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.

That is their Lending service.

What about their new "Family Library" service?

I don't think that is opt-in/out for publishers...

[crane3]

My personal opinion is that money does get into "lending" as I think that the public libraries have to pay for their copy or copies. And believe the purpose of copyrights is to "protect" the "intellectual property" of the writer or whatever via a payment for use as in singers singing a song for money in public must pay the composer something or otherwise negotiated; I do recall that figure skaters just let their managers do the necessary.

The authors & publishers do miss their cuts in the resale of their books in the used book section. They must be working in trying to get the used book stores to pay them a royalty also.

BUT I wonder if anyone knows why a book's title is not included in the copyright?????? I've been misled by several books at some point where I thought a book for sale was the same book that I've read or have known somewhere! Haven't read all the fine parts of a copyright, but thought that the phrase "all or in part" was in there & a book's title is definitely "in part". Is there a word count for what is being copyrighted or not?

Too bad I cannot think of any books that have the same title now....

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

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

Format shifting does not result in any loss to anybody.

But the Amazon terms & conditions (aka license) says it against their terms & conditions. So why are you saying that lending the eBook on a Reader it wrong yet format shifting is not wrong? Amazon does not say lending is wrong, but they do say format shifting is wrong.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by crane3

BUT I wonder if anyone knows why a book's title is not included in the copyright?????? I've been misled by several books at some point where I thought a book for sale was the same book that I've read or have known somewhere! Haven't read all the fine parts of a copyright, but thought that the phrase "all or in part" was in there & a book's title is definitely "in part". Is there a word count for what is being copyrighted or not?

Too bad I cannot think of any books that have the same title now....

No, a book's title isn't copyright. There are some titles shared by many, many books. Just do a goodreads search for "Unbroken" or "Lost Soul" or "Dust" or "A Moment in Time" or "Grace". Some movie titles are being registered as trademarks, but that's a different set of IP laws altogether.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by crane3

BUT I wonder if anyone knows why a book's title is not included in the copyright??????

This should explain things nicely, at least as far as US law...
http://www.mediabistro.com/galleycat...y-title_b11960

[Jack Torrance]

This seems to be a tough topic to say the least. As I'm sure most people never fully read (or attempt to read) or even partially understand most EULA, TOS or Amazons T&C, when they buy, rent, lease, licence E-books, music or videos.

Though I don't know it to be a fact, somewhere in the T&C when getting an ebook or using a Kindle, stripping the DRM is probably running afoul in Amazon's eyes. But they could probably ask for your first born in the standard EULA/TOS and people would just click right on past it. (There was a case where a company played an April fools joke and included giving away your immortal soul and 7500 people fell for it).

IMHO as large as this community is (225,000 users and fewer are probably active) Its probably a fraction of the number of people that own Ereaders and the DRM subject is probably a moot issue. They buy a Kindle and are content to just buy books for themselves from Amazon and move on.

My feelings are If I buy an Ebook its mine. Yes I know that's not Amazon/Apple/B&N thought --- Its a Lisc blah blah blah...

I should be able to easily move it from device to device, keep it for years in a collection to reread, Give it to a friend to read or resell it like I do a Pbook or just delete if that's my whim. I recall buying recently release books at the local store for 40% off list, reading them and then reselling them on Ebay for more than I paid for it.

Part of the issue is that you pay so close to the cost of the Pbook for a digital Ebook and really have nothing to show for it, and this holds true for a lot of media.

Look at the recent discussion regarding Itunes libraries reverting to Apple when you die, Is this not the same thing? Technically we don't own the books we buy according to Amazon. Is that fair or right? I think a lot of people don't think so, but click on past the EULA anyway.

I think some of it is just being greedy. You bought it and your the only one that can use it so there. (yes I know the family thing)

I understand the issue of one price one copy and that's the topic at hand, and if the publishers can come up with a way to allow me to do what I think is reasonable with something I purchased (see Above) but prevent me from ripping it to give to 10,000 of my closest internet friends without gouging me for it that's fine. Until they can figure a way to do that without making it a royal PITA on the users end, then Piracy and DRM stripping will flourish.

[mandy314]

Originally Posted by ApK

If you have permission to use a work in a certain way, and that permission does not include making duplicates and giving them to other people, and you do it anyway then you are infringing on someone's rights.

Need to settle any disagreements on that point first, otherwise talk of lost sales and getting paid is the red herring.

I second apk's suggestion to discuss the issues layer by layer: copyright laws, DRM, all the T&C-ToS-EULA-PP of parties involved in the consumer reading an ebook. The layers may be inter-linked though.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

The part where we run afoul of each other (or maybe not) is that I don't believe the existing laws have the right to extend the same protection to things that were never considered when those laws were enacted.

Ebooks as digital content have a "higher" degree of copyright protection than pbooks, so I can't see your point. The copyright regulations for the "digital age" (and with all the international conventions and agreements that should be comparable for most countries) have been done in the last 10 to 15 years. In my view it was the clear intention of the legislation to deny "digital files" the status of a physical object. So the selling of an ebook is the granting of the non-transferable right of (digital) access to the content. The selling of an pbook on the other hand is the distributing of content in form of a physical object which can't be denied - in the sense of a free market for products - from lending/re-selling for instance. In Germany the selling of ebooks is regulated in §19a Urhg (copyright law), termed "right to give digital access for the public" which is an extension of §19 Urhg regulating the right of public broadcasts etc.
The whole business model for digital content as a "digital service" is build around this copyright situation. One - and I am - can be unhappy with this (to buy an ebook more comparable to listening to a broadcast than to buying a pbook? - and there are some interesting points of theoretical law concerning the property of digital files).
The lending of ebooks needs additional permission from the copyright holders, (I don't know how Amazon's Family Library will work).
Copyright infringement may be a criminal offence (state prosecution), the violating of granted rights may result in civil law suits (compensation etc).

Now for DRM - the "tools" to enforce copyright. The "hard one" restricts the granted right of access further binding it to selected devices/apps. Such kind of DRM wouldn't be possible with the digital file (ebook) seen as a marketable product. The "soft one" puts personalized data into the files which could bring privacy issues.
DRM has found its way into copyright law. In Germany the removal of DRM needs the permission of the copyright holder but - if you do this for private use - there is at least no state prosecution. Put in the aspect of "fair use" (Privatkopie) and you have a grey area of legal/illegal. All converting/editing of DRMed files happens in this grey area.
As I said before the use of DRM is a choice for authors/publishers to make. But if DRM would really be enforced to the fullest - with civil law suits for removal, blocking of ebook accounts, perhaps even with a lower threshold for criminal offences - I can see the ebook market collapsing.

Finally all the T&C, ToS etc. The publisher's copyright note in most cases only reiterates the copyright law. But with your first ebooks you have to read/understand/accept terms of a good handful of players: vendor of your ebook, DRM service, vendor of your device/app etc. There can be some surprises - ADE4's collecting personalized user/usage data and phoning them home in plaintext comes to mind (and Adobe sees all this as being okay according to their privacy policy).

All in all a complex and from the consumer's pov perhaps not the most favorable situation. My fear is - sadly - that things with ebooks can only get worse.

[crane3]

I didn't know that there is a restriction about "reformatting". Now how is the reformatting defined? Using the ebook "as is"?

I use Aldiko which has a setting about formatting: publisher's or Aldiko's.

A tablet and ereader (?) allows one to change the font size which puts the ebook in a different "format"; same with changing the font type. Are users "allowed" to even use the pinch method to increase/decrease the font size? Are the ebooks "format" accounting for the different tablet/ereader sizes?

What if one has an ereader for books and it the ereader is loaned intact to another person to read at one's residence or otherwise. Also illegal according to some if the book is for personal use only for their lifetime!

If the publishers have already condemned all buyers as criminals so why shouldn't we not make them out as liars as they are? If the buyer is paying a penalty for an uncommitted "crime"; why should the buyer honor the restrictions?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by crane3

I didn't know that there is a restriction about "reformatting". Now how is the reformatting defined? Using the ebook "as is"?

Converting from Kindle to ePub, ePub to Kindle, etc.