Argument in favor of DRM

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Sgt.Stubby

Indeed. DRM is a negligible inconvenience for free-loaders, and a very real inconvenience to the paying masses.

The same is true of the checkout in a bookstore. It only inconveniences the people who pay before walking out with a book.

Locking doors thousands of times a year is a significant inconvenience for me, but negligibly inconveniences people who are really good at picking locks. What's different about DRM isn't the inconvenience level for those playing by the rules, but the social class of the lock-pickers. Pickers of physical locks tend to have dropped out of high school. But DRM scofflaws fill the halls of UCLA, Wisconsin, and Harvard.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

The same is true of the checkout in a bookstore. It only inconveniences the people who pay before walking out with a book.

Locking doors thousands of times a year is a significant inconvenience for me, but negligibly inconveniences people who are really good at picking locks. What's different about DRM isn't the inconvenience level for those playing by the rules, but the social class of the lock-pickers. Pickers of physical locks tend to have dropped out of high school. But DRM scofflaws fill the halls of UCLA, Wisconsin, and Harvard.

It's hard to know what your point is here. Are you pointing out that smart people realize that the DRM laws are stupid? If not, what's so bad about breaking DRM encryption to take control of an ebook that you have no intention of distributing? There are already laws out there for protecting copyright and distribution. What's the point of the adding one for breaking encryption? Besides trying to suck money out of people without offering them anything of value.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by rkomar

It's hard to know what your point is here.

See thread title. I made an argument in favor of DRM. My method was to show similarities between DRM and older locking, and anti-shoplifting, mechanisms that almost everyone see as reasonable despite the inconvenience to honest consumers.

Are you pointing out that smart people realize that the DRM laws are stupid?

No. I hope I don't make statements as to which classes of people are smart and stupid.

If not, what's so bad about breaking DRM encryption to take control of an ebook that you have no intention of distributing?

A lot of lock-picking is done without criminal intent. This is true of the picking of physical locks, and true of DRM removal. EDIT: There are big differences between taking control of an eBook because you don't want to pay for it, and taking control of it because you think it would be nice if others could read it for free, and taking control of it because you want to read a Kindle format book on your Nook. In a just world, the first one would be treated just like shoplifting from a physical store, even though, in the real, unjust, world, equal enforcement can be extremely difficult.

There are already laws out there for protecting copyright and distribution. What's the point of the adding one for breaking encryption?

I wasn't arguing about what the law should be. Writing fair laws is quite difficult. I was arguing in favor of eBook DRM.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

A lot of lock-picking is done without criminal intent. This is true of the picking of physical locks, and true of DRM removal. EDIT: There are big differences between taking control of an eBook because you don't want to pay for it, and taking control of it because you think it would be nice if others could read it for free, and taking control of it because you want to read a Kindle format book on your Nook. In a just world, the first one would be treated just like shoplifting from a physical store, even though, in the real, unjust, world, equal enforcement can be extremely difficult.

If it's the distribution that's the problem, then that's the part that should be illegal. You haven't given any justification for why breaking encryption for backup and format shifting should be illegal. There are lots of things we own that can be used for illicit purposes, and acts that are also first steps in illegal activities, but they aren't illegal until that line is crossed.

Here in Canada, breaking encryption is explicitly illegal now. In the time the law was being discussed before it was passed, the government said that it wouldn't go after individuals removing digital locks for personal use, but they refused to remove that part of the law. When asked to explain, they got shifty and evasive. There's something smelly behind it all that they think is better that we don't know about.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by rkomar

If it's the distribution that's the problem, then that's the part that should be illegal. You haven't given any justification for why breaking encryption for backup and format shifting should be illegal.

In another recent thread, some people argued that if you own two different brands of reader, you should buy the book separately for each device, and that by format shifting you are thereby taking income away from publishers and authors.

I really can't agree with that argument. IMHO if you buy a book you should be free to read it on any device you own (but not, of course, to give unauthorised copies of it to anyone else).

[GeoffR]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

The same is true of the checkout in a bookstore. It only inconveniences the people who pay before walking out with a book.

A checkout doesn't inconvenience honest people who pay for the book -- how would honest people pay for the book if there was no checkout? That would be inconvenient.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by rkomar

You haven't given any justification for why breaking encryption for backup and format shifting should be illegal.

That's because I was arguing in favor of DRM, not in favor of laws. While some laws are a necessary evil, I see forcing people to behave morally through laws and punishment as a dire last resort.

Since I see no criminal intent, from my point of view, in breaking encryption for backup and format shifting, a law against digital lock-picking shouldn't apply there.

AFAIK, the only people who get arrested for taking books without paying are physical shoplifters.

We are talking at cross-purposes because I am writing in favor of DRM, which I think does reduce eBook shoplifting some, and you are writing about laws.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by GeoffR

A checkout doesn't inconvenience honest people who pay for the book -- how would honest people pay for the book if there was no checkout? That would be inconvenient.

I've read that some small towns, on low-crime islands, have book stores open 24/7 despite not always being staffed. You pay by putting money in a box, or writing your credit card information on a slip. While check-outs can be more convenient than this if you pay cash and need change made, the example I just gave illustrates how the checkout is more for the retailer being safe against theft than for customer convenience.

A gift economy (example, calibre eBook software) is more convenient than a cash economy. A bookstore could, in theory, also operate by letting customers pay or not pay at their whim. It would show more trust in customers, and be more convenient for customers. But given human nature, it generally will not work.

Book publishers have managed the digital transition without the enormous repeated rounds of layoffs seen in newspapers. DRM could just be one reason for this. Not having pay walls for newspapers is convenient for customers but disastrous for journalist employment.

[shalym]

I think of DRM (ANY DRM) as being like the person that stands at the exit of some stores to check your receipt before you leave the store. It's kind of insulting to the people who aren't stealing, and it really doesn't do anything to stop theft, but it makes the store owner feel good.

Shari

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by HarryT

In another recent thread, some people argued that if you own two different brands of reader, you should buy the book separately for each device, and that by format shifting you are thereby taking income away from publishers and authors.

I really can't agree with that argument. IMHO if you buy a book you should be free to read it on any device you own (but not, of course, to give unauthorised copies of it to anyone else).

IIRC, it was you who said that by inference, as was pointed out to you several times. You obstinately refused to acknowledge your own hypocrisy.

No one else thinks you should buy a copy for each device, we just want to know why YOU don't think so... taking into account your OTHER beliefs.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

IIRC, it was you who said that by inference, as was pointed out to you several times. You obstinately refused to acknowledge your own hypocrisy.

No one else thinks you should buy a copy for each device, we just want to know why YOU don't think so... taking into account your OTHER beliefs.

I'm not going back to review, but as I recall it, Harry stated that format shifting was potentially a violation of some terms of service. I don't think he ever said he thought it was 'morally right' for that to be so, or that he thought it should be that way. Just that it was, in some cases so.

Maybe it would be a good time to recap, 'cus I can't even remember what points I've been trying to make in these last few threads.....

[DiapDealer]

Points?
We don't need no stinking points.

Spoiler:

[mandy314]

I'm here for the fun too ...
Wouldn't accept any kind of DRM on mobileread's discussions though.
For me DRM is like horseflies - not very nice but somehow God's creature too.

My Fav of today
- DiapDialer ^
- real books vs unreal books (https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=248342 / sadly no cats)

[tompe]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

IIRC, it was you who said that by inference, as was pointed out to you several times. You obstinately refused to acknowledge your own hypocrisy.

No one else thinks you should buy a copy for each device, we just want to know why YOU don't think so... taking into account your OTHER beliefs.

Exactly. If lending to family member is lost sale why is the removing of DRM not a lost sale?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

Exactly. If lending to family member is lost sale why is the removing of DRM not a lost sale?

I've already explained why in the other thread. It has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, and I'm not going to repeat myself.