Arguments For And Against DRM

[latepaul]

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.

Of course it's a 2nd copy. The very fact that there's something to delete tells you that.

And the fact that it still exists in your account means you could download a new copy, or read it online.

"Lending" an ebook to someone is not like lending a paper book because once the paper book leaves your hands you no longer have access to it until it's returned.

That's true regardless of what view one takes about the rights and wrongs of the matter. We really need to start recognising that ebooks are a different kind of thing than paper books and that whether or not we want to allow similar types of behaviour (such as lending) is a separate question (and will necessarily be achieved in a different way).

[DiapDealer]

People seem to want to play both ends against the middle in this argument. Is it about perceived "harm" or is it about breaking rules? You can't have it both ways.

Rationalizing being OK with breaking a ToS or removing DRM because it "does no harm" (in one's opinion), yet denying someone else the right to rationalize that their breaking of copyright "does no harm" (in their opinion) seems like the height of hypocrisy to me.

Making an unauthorized copy of an ebook violates copyright, that much is clear. It's not even up for debate. What's not clear is why some people believe so adamantly that their rationalization of "doing no harm"—through their intentional (but conscientious) breaking of the rules—is more righteous than someone else's rationalization of their intentional (but conscientious) breaking of the rules.

If you choose to behave that way, you're a pot calling the kettle black and looking foolish and self-righteous when doing so.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

People seem to want to play both ends against the middle in this argument. Is it about perceived "harm" or is it about breaking rules? You can't have it both ways.

Rationalizing being OK with breaking a ToS or removing DRM because it "does no harm" (in one's opinion), yet denying someone else the right to rationalize that their breaking of copyright "does no harm" (in their opinion) seems like the height of hypocrisy to me.

It's not hypocrisy at all.

If I remove DRM from a book, I know that I'm not doing anybody any harm. I am in complete control of everything that I'm doing.

If you give someone a pirated copy of a book, you have absolutely no idea whether or not that person would have otherwise bought the book themselves (or some other book instead). Moreover, you've lost control of the process: you don't know what the person you give the book to is subsequently going to do with it, or who they are going to give it to. You cannot in all honesty say that you "know" you're doing no harm. You cannot know, because you have no control over what happens to the pirated book after you've given it away.

[BearMountainBooks]

That's true regardless of what view one takes about the rights and wrongs of the matter. We really need to start recognising that ebooks are a different kind of thing than paper books and that whether or not we want to allow similar types of behaviour (such as lending) is a separate question (and will necessarily be achieved in a different way).

This is the heart of it for me. I know lots of people like to say "I always lent paperbacks." Well, technology changed. And so do the rules and reasons for them. Because something is easily possible, and people are mimicking a privilege they enjoyed before, doesn't change that fact that things changed. Lending can hurt author income. Just as secondhand selling hurt authors.

Not that it will stop a lot of people. And as I've mentioned, "hoping" or siting studies that say lending could find new readers for an author, doesn't change the fact that it is illegal in many cases and does hurt the author in at least some cases.

Author income has always been an issue. I know quite a few authors who stopped writing because they had to get jobs--and this was before indies and Kindle. The reality is that writing doesn't pay very much. Books are plentiful and do not hold a high "value" with readers--meaning readers will not pay a lot. Sure, an individual book here and there may hold value--in that a reader will buy a second copy or buy one for a friend. Or keep a pristine copy on the shelf. But by and large, readers look for the cheapest copy available (I do) and discard it or pass it along or forget about it. Ebooks don't change that. It is just easier and worse for the author because multiple copies can be made. The laws and licenses try to protect the income stream, but of course, fail to some degree.

Now I'm not here to lambast anyone; your decisions are your own. I also know it won't change anyone's opinion and that is fine too. I only state it because the quibbling and "reasons" given amuse me. "I did it before" is sort of like the argument "He started it." It really doesn't matter in the long run if the outcome is the same.

The laws often aren't fair or they go too far in one direction or the other.

Bottom line: Making a living writing has always been hard. Ebooks don't change that and while they open opportunities for finding a larger audience, they make it harder in other ways. Also, people will be people.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You cannot in all honesty say that you "know" you're doing no harm. You cannot know.

I can—and do—say/know it. In the very same way you claim to be able to "know": personal conviction, opinion, and bias.

We're both rule-breakers and you know it. Harm is a read-herring.

Spoiler:

Pun intended.

[leaston]

Originally Posted by latepaul

And the fact that it still exists in your account means you could download a new copy, or read it online.

You could also scan a copy of a pbook you own and then give a copy to someone. It doesn't mean you will.

You're doing the same as HarryT and making assumptions about possible future illegal activities that may or may not happen. How can that be a valid argument?

[shalym]

Originally Posted by leaston

You could also scan a copy of a pbook you own and then give a copy to someone. It doesn't mean you will.

You're doing the same as HarryT and making assumptions about possible future illegal activities that may or may not happen. How can that be a valid argument?

It's a valid argument for both of them, because they both assume that everyone will behave as they do, and behave dishonestly. If someone were to loan me an ebook and ask me to delete when I finished reading it, I would. Anything else is dishonest.
Harry has come right out and admitted that he is dishonest, because he stated that he would NOT delete the book, even if someone asked him to.

Shari

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by shalym

It's a valid argument for both of them, because they both assume that everyone will behave as they do, and behave dishonestly. If someone were to loan me an ebook and ask me to delete when I finished reading it, I would. Anything else is dishonest.

But you've demonstrated your dishonesty by accepting the pirated book in the first place. Do you really expect anyone to believe that you'd delete it when you'd finished reading it? I wouldn't believe you.

[DiapDealer]

Judge and jury. Nice.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Judge and jury. Nice.

Do you believe that pirating books is something that an honest person would do? It is a fundamentally dishonest act: taking something that doesn't belong to you.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by latepaul

Of course it's a 2nd copy. The very fact that there's something to delete tells you that.

And the fact that it still exists in your account means you could download a new copy, or read it online.

"Lending" an ebook to someone is not like lending a paper book because once the paper book leaves your hands you no longer have access to it until it's returned.

That's true regardless of what view one takes about the rights and wrongs of the matter. We really need to start recognising that ebooks are a different kind of thing than paper books and that whether or not we want to allow similar types of behaviour (such as lending) is a separate question (and will necessarily be achieved in a different way).

But that is just a technical issue. The real issue is sharing books with your friends and that sharing is not different in any relevant ways. That you might share ebooks at the same time really do not make it into a different category than sharing paper books.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

This is the heart of it for me. I know lots of people like to say "I always lent paperbacks." Well, technology changed. And so do the rules and reasons for them. Because something is easily possible, and people are mimicking a privilege they enjoyed before, doesn't change that fact that things changed. Lending can hurt author income. Just as secondhand selling hurt authors.

No, it is not a privilege. The natural state is sharing things. The privilege is the copyright laws that gives a time limited monopoly on deciding about certain aspects of the sharing. So letting people restrict that natural state of sharing more is increasing the privilege. So that has to be motivated.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Do you believe that pirating books is something that an honest person would do? It is a fundamentally dishonest act: taking something that doesn't belong to you.

No it is not. In certain countries it is perfectly legal so it cannot be a fundamental dishonest act since then it would not exist any country were it was legal to get a copy.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by tompe

No, it is not a privilege. The natural state is sharing things. The privilege is the copyright laws that gives a time limited monopoly on deciding about certain aspects of the sharing. So letting people restrict that natural state of sharing more is increasing the privilege. So that has to be motivated.

That's easier to believe when it isn't someone taking food out of your garden and declaring it is natural to share. If you grow it and someone else takes it and you need it, you might not feel quite the same way about natural sharing. Don't worry. They determined before they took enough to share, that you still had a copy of the cucumber!!!

Okay. These things always just become circular arguments with the people on the same sides. Believe what you will. I've got work to do so I shall bow out now.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

That's easier to believe when it isn't someone taking food out of your garden and declaring it is natural to share. If you grow it and someone else takes it and you need it, you might not feel quite the same way about natural sharing. Don't worry. They determined before they took enough to share, that you still had a copy of the cucumber!!!

Okay. These things always just become circular arguments with the people on the same sides. Believe what you will. I've got work to do so I shall bow out now.

Did you mis-interpret on purpose or are you really unaware of the argument that the natural state for intellectual properties like ideas is sharing them?