Arguments For And Against DRM

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by ApK

I honestly cannot see how they are different.
One is giving someone an unauthorized copy, the other is giving someone an unauthorized copy. I see no meaningful difference in knowing the someone's name, or in the expected number of someones, other than when it comes time to calculate damages. Unless you think the likelihood of getting in trouble makes a difference? I don't.

Is there a meaningful difference between giving Aunt Mary a key to my house, and leaving the door wide open with a welcome sign and an invitation to all and sundry to take whatever they want?

What if you uploaded to the file sharing site and only Aunt Mary ever happened to download a copy? Now you did nothing wrong?

I said no such thing.

With Harry's cases I can see the difference clearly, starting with the fact that one is illegal and one is arguable at best, based on differing court opinions and ambiguous and untested language in the DMCA, and continuing on to one is clearly not a case of fair use, and the other seems to be, and finally getting down to the more arguably ambiguous moral concerns, which I personally see the same way Harry does.

Seems to me that saying that stripping DRM is just fine and dandy is a rationalization that most of us make, because we want to do it for our own convenience. The whole reason for it, really, is to avoid having to buy multiple copies of books. And THAT impacts book sales, just as surely as copying a book for Aunt Mary does.

Claiming that making a single copy to share with a relative or friend is equivalent to mass distribution and therefore constitutes piracy is just silly; it's an overreach.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by ApK

I expanded on my reasoning since first posting, perhaps you can expand on your rebuttal?

Nope. Nothing you added convinces me that you truly recognize no difference whatsoever between making a copy for Aunt Mary to read and making a copy available for the world to download.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Absolutely. And I've never denied that.

Then please stop invoking license breaking as a reason for people to stop behaviors you do not like. Your other reasons heave to stand on their own.

Originally Posted by HarryT

You're not suggesting that only people who have never broken any rule in their entire lives are entitled to be opposed to ebook piracy, are you? Yes, I format-shift books and remove DRM, which is against the book store's TOS, but causes no harm to anybody. Yes, I am opposed to piracy, which DOES harm authors, and will continue to say so whenever the topic comes up.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by latepaul

First I'm not making the same argument as HarryT in this instance. AFAIUI he's arguing lending of ebooks = illegal copying = loss of sales. I'm simply arguing against your assertion that lending is not illegal copying.

People have been lending pBooks for a long time and nobody is crying foul there.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Stop introducing red herrings into the discussion. We're not talking here about letting someone read a book on your reading device; we're talking about making copies of books and giving those copies to someone else. You know this perfectly well, since in your earlier post you said that you thought it was perfectly OK for someone to give you a book if you promised to delete it when you'd finished it.

Hmmm...actually, in this discussion we have been talking about all manner of lending e-books, and your opinion that it is piracy to lend an ebook to anyone using any method at all...even one such as lending a reader to someone with a book already on it. I am not introducing a red herring into the discussion at all by mentioning it--the discussion of lending out the physical reader started back at post 103 when Tubemonkey mentioned that he lends out his spare reader, and you then came back and said that doing so was piracy.

I also want to mention that you calling me dishonest for accepting a loan from someone and deleting it is slightly silly, since I fulfilled my end of the "contract" in this case. The only contract I have is with the person lending the book to me, and I have no way of knowing whether or not they have permission from the author to do so. In actual fact, I HAVE had books loaned to me under just those terms--either the author, or someone who has permission from the author has loaned me a book with the condition that I delete it when I finish reading it. For the other (few) ebooks that have been loaned to me, the loaner didn't say anything about permissions, and I didn't ask. Before you say that I'm dishonest because I didn't ask, do you check to make sure that the lender has permission for everything that you borrow? Or do you assume that they do? (because if they didn't have permission, they wouldn't be lending it out)

Shari

[Barcey]

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.

I hope the meeting went better then the thread.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Stop introducing red herrings into the discussion. We're not talking here about letting someone read a book on your reading device; we're talking about making copies of books and giving those copies to someone else. You know this perfectly well, since in your earlier post you said that you thought it was perfectly OK for someone to give you a book if you promised to delete it when you'd finished it.

You have explictly condemned letting someone read a book on your reading device as piracy. Vehemently. More than once.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

People have been lending pBooks for a long time and nobody is crying foul there.

That's because it's a completely different thing. "Lending" someone an ebook is the equivalent, in pbook terms, of photocopying the book and giving the photocopy to the other person to permanently keep.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don't believe I've said that. Can you point me to the post where you believe I said it, please? All that I recall saying on the subject of lending someone a reader is that if the content is licensed for your personal use only, then letting someone else read it might well violate the bookstore's TOS. But that's not piracy.

Post #108 in this very thread

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

You have explictly condemned letting someone read a book on your reading device as piracy. Vehemently. More than once.

Depends what you're talking about.

If a friend picks up your reader in your house and reads a few pages of a book, then obviously that's not piracy.

If, on the other hand, you give someone a reader with copies of your books on it, then what would be the distinction between that and giving them the copies of the books to put on their own reader? I struggle to see any difference.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If, on the other hand, you give someone a reader with copies of your books on it, then what would be the distinction between that and giving them the copies of the books to put on their own reader? I struggle to see any difference.

I would get the reader back.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

I would get the reader back.

So you'd make a distinction between a temporary loan of a reader, and a permanent gift of one? I see no practical different between saying "here's a reader to keep", and "here a reader to keep as long as you fancy it. It's a spare, so I'm not using it".

[shalym]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Depends what you're talking about.

If a friend picks up your reader in your house and reads a few pages of a book, then obviously that's not piracy.

If, on the other hand, you give someone a reader with copies of your books on it, then what would be the distinction between that and giving them the copies of the books to put on their own reader? I struggle to see any difference.

...Amazon, at least has said that lending someone your Kindle to read an e-book you own is perfectly fine. It seems that they, at least can clearly see the difference.

Shari

[shalym]

Originally Posted by HarryT

So you'd make a distinction between a temporary loan of a reader, and a permanent gift of one? I see no practical different between saying "here's a reader to keep", and "here a reader to keep as long as you fancy it. It's a spare, so I'm not using it".

Are you serious? So now you're saying that there is no difference between loaning something to someone and giving it to them? I'd hate to be your banker.

Shari

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If, on the other hand, you give someone a reader with copies of your books on it, then what would be the distinction between that and giving them the copies of the books to put on their own reader? I struggle to see any difference.

Because I'm loaning them the reader with a book/books with the full expectation that they'll be returned when they're finished reading them just like when I loan them a paper book.