Arguments For And Against DRM

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Nothing against it personally, but it MAY be against the T&C of the bookstore IF they sell you the book licence for your personal use only.

Personally, I consider any such term in an ebook store's terms and conditions to be unfair (as in UK's Unfair Contract Terms Acts) and ignore it.

(At least, for any current ebook store, where the price of the book is similar to the price of a paper book, and doesn't reflect the additional restriction the retailer is attempting to place on use of the copy.)

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by ApK

Apply a "reasonable person" standard. If the stripper left the stripped file lying around on a public server? Yeah, maybe he's responsible. If it was on their personal machine at home and someone took it without permission? Well, then you might as well claim the author of the book is guilty of piracy because it couldn't have happened if he didn't write it in the first place.

It's not what I'm claiming, it's my understanding of what HarryT has claimed--that the person who paid for the use of the book is responsible for safeguarding it. So if Cousin Pete sits down at my computer to check his e-mail and happens to notice an e-book and e-mails the file to himself, it's my fault if he then distributes it to the world, since I had a duty to protect that file, which I violated in the first place by stripping DRM and thereby making it easy for Pete to get it.

I think that's absurd.

I can make what I think is pretty darn effective fair use case for personal format shifting. Not so much for giving out duplicates.

I can make a case for giving out a duplicate; I've shared physical books with people and now I may want to share an e-book. It's the same behavior but a different way of doing it.

I can't make a case for uploading a book for everyone in the world to access, however.

The point is that different people will draw the lines in different places. Or else regard the TOS and copyright notices as sacrosanct and obey them absolutely--which means no stripping of DRM and no format-shifting whatsoever.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I can make a case for giving out a duplicate; I've shared physical books with people and now I may want to share an e-book. It's the same behavior but a different way of doing it.

When you lent out that physical book, did you first make a photocopy so you could have a copy you could read at the same time it was lent out?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I am against piracy, Jon. "Lending" a book to all your mates is piracy. Format conversion hurts nobody.

Hope that clarifies it for you.

You say it is against T&C to lend an eBook even if it has the DRM and is on the device and the device is also lent. According to Amazon, the T&C says it's not OK to format shift. So both are against terms and conditions. So why is it OK to violate one set of terms and not another? Why is it OK to pick and chose which T&C you will follow?

To me, if Amazon wanted me not to format shift, then sell me ePub directly. But to be honest, format shifting is going on because most eBooks Amazon sells were ePub format shifted to Mobi/KF8.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by ApK

When you lent out that physical book, did you first make a photocopy so you could have a copy you could read at the same time it was lent out?

I have actually done something similar.

I did a photocopy of a book I had borrowed from the library. Then I bought the book when it was available to buy again and later lent the bought book to a friend. I would say that the lending is perfectly legal here.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by tompe

I have actually done something similar.

I did a photocopy of a book I had borrowed from the library. Then I bought the book when it was available to buy again and later lent the bought book to a friend. I would say that the lending is perfectly legal here.

How do you figure making and keeping a copy of the book was legal?

[ApK]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

You say it is against T&C to lend an eBook even if it has the DRM and is on the device and the device is also lent.

I'd find it hard to believe that that was a valid condition in a T&C. Any one have any example of actual terms to that effect?

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by ApK

When you lent out that physical book, did you first make a photocopy so you could have a copy you could read at the same time it was lent out?

First of all, I don't make copies of my e-books to loan out. However, if I were to do so, it would be after I'd read the book and decided I needed to foist it on a friend, so I would not be reading it at the same time; it would already be in my "finished reading" pile. As a practical matter, it would be largely the same as loaning a physical book after I'd read it.

[leaston]

Originally Posted by HarryT

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

In the same way lending someone a crowbar (may) result in a burglary? This argument still doesn't stand up to scrutiny. It's like a scene from Minority Report. You can't legislate for something that may or may not happen.

How could anyone prove, or even rightly assume, that lending my friend a book would cause the loss of a sale?? It's a big, and totally incorrect assumption that they'd have purchased a copy anyway. I go back to my original point that if anything, my lending is more likely to create future sales.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by leaston

How could anyone prove, or even rightly assume, that lending my friend a book would cause the loss of a sale?? It's a big, and totally incorrect assumption that they'd have purchased a copy anyway. I go back to my original point that if anything, my lending is more likely to create future sales.

No, it isn't. If you go on "lending" books (ie illegally copying them - it's not "lending" at all), at some point it's absolutely inevitable that you will give someone a book that they would otherwise have bought.

The "it's good publicity for the author" argument is fundamentally flawed. If the author wants to give away free copies of their work, that is their decision to take. You do not have the right to take that decision on their behalf.

[disconnected]

As far as I know, anyone who has asked Amazon about it was told that it is perfectly allowable to loan a Kindle with books on it. The TOS does not, however, allow breaking the DRM for any reason, including format shifting.

Also, as far as I know, US law doesn't address the case of loaning a Kindle, but does prohibit breaking DRM.

For myself, I've decided I'm comfortable with breaking the DRM but I'm not deluding myself that I'm abiding by the TOS rules and US laws.

[leaston]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, it isn't. If you go on "lending" books (ie illegally copying them - it's not "lending" at all), at some point it's absolutely inevitable that you will give someone a book that they would otherwise have bought.

How does lending equate to illegally copying?? I haven't copied anything. Let's say I read a book and then give my copy to someone else to read, electronic or otherwise. Whether or not they return it to me is moot. It's not a 2nd copy of the book, it's the one I bought. If I've read it, I delete it from my ereader.

Secondly, you're again making a huge assumption and foretelling the future by stating that it's inevitable that someone would have bought the book I loaned or gave them. Granted, it may be statistically significant a chance, but it's hardly inevitable and we're back to Minority Report territory again. You can't arrest someone for walking down the street because they may decide to go burgle someone's house. The same way you can't call me on lending or giving a book to someone just in case they may have bought a copy at some point in their life.

Look, I'm picking holes in your argument because it's so deeply flawed. You can't have your cake and eat it.

Originally Posted by HarryT

The "it's good publicity for the author" argument is fundamentally flawed. If the author wants to give away free copies of their work, that is their decision to take. You do not have the right to take that decision on their behalf.

So, the law is that I'm expected to hoard or delete everything I buy because it's illegal to give it away when I'm done? Seriously?

The argument that it hurts sales is also fundamentally flawed and I'm amazed this is the point you seem so reluctant to acknowledge. It doesn't necessarily hurt sales in every case. It may hurt some authors, it may help others. There is no single, definitive answer and the studies quoted elsewhere in this thread support that.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by ApK

How do you figure making and keeping a copy of the book was legal?

I did not say that. I said that the legality of lending the book is not affected by my having a copy or not.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, it isn't. If you go on "lending" books (ie illegally copying them - it's not "lending" at all), at some point it's absolutely inevitable that you will give someone a book that they would otherwise have bought.

The "it's good publicity for the author" argument is fundamentally flawed. If the author wants to give away free copies of their work, that is their decision to take. You do not have the right to take that decision on their behalf.

So now you have changed the argument. It does not matter if anybody is hurt or not. Is this correct?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by leaston

How does lending equate to illegally copying?? I haven't copied anything. Let's say I read a book and then give my copy to someone else to read, electronic or otherwise. Whether or not they return it to me is moot. It's not a 2nd copy of the book, it's the one I bought. If I've read it, I delete it from my ereader.

That is not what people generally mean when they talk about "lending" someone an eBook, and I think you know that as well as I do. When someone says "I've lent Aunt Jane such-and-such an ebook", what they actually mean is that they have made a copy of the book, and given that copy to Aunt Jane, while retaining a copy of the book for themselves. This - unless it is done using a "sharing" mechanism approved by the copyright holder - is piracy, plain and simple.

Secondly, you're again making a huge assumption and foretelling the future by stating that it's inevitable that someone would have bought the book I loaned or gave them.

That is true, but it is not what I actually said. What I said was that if you continue to pirate books, sooner or later one of those pirated books is going to end up in the hands of someone who would have otherwise bought it.

So, the law is that I'm expected to hoard or delete everything I buy because it's illegal to give it away when I'm done? Seriously?

Yes, seriously. Go and look at the copyright law of your country: you don't have to take my word for it.