My perspective on buying books with DRM

[svenlind]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I think you perhaps mean "encrypted", rather than "decrypted"?

Sure thing

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I m simply trying to imagine what kind of objection could possibly be made about watermarking. I haven't heard a convincing reason.

While I'm personally quite happy with the idea of (non-visually-intrusive) watermarking, there is clearly a "reasonable" objection to it. I'm not necessarily saying I agree with the argument, but it is (IMHO) an argument that reasonable people could make.

If the purpose of watermarking is to discourage piracy by identifying the culprits and exposing them to sanctions, then the difficulty of proving that the purchaser identified by the watermark is the one who actually committed the offence means that it could be argued that the watermarking will actually achieve nothing and will even potentially run the risk of blackening the name of innocent purchasers.

/JB

[RobertDDL]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Just delete your non-trivial files. You should probably do that anyway, apparently everyone down there is a thief so they may also be stealing your email/bank/social media/other credentials, which hopefully IS something you care about.

How is someone supposed to do this, if their hardware has broken down? I once had a hard disk that suddenly died on me, and there were some files on it which I hadn't backed up, so I had to hand the drive over to a company who could recover the files from the dead disk. Cost me over 1000 Euros, and I'm more careful with backups now, but I think many of us don't have all their data securely backed up at any given moment, when desaster might strike, do they? And for a non-tech-savvy person, even with the hard disk intact, if their computer failed for whatever reason it would be difficult for them to remove the drive, attach it to a different machine, delete all the critical files, and re-install it in the original broken machine. With a notebook, this might not be possible for a normal user at all, and it might void warranty if they tried.

Originally Posted by eschwartz

As a matter of fact, I have long believed that the world would be a much better place if blatant stupidity was an imprisonable offense.

We all might end up imprisoning each other, I'm afraid...

[gmw]

Originally Posted by RobertDDL

[...] We all might end up imprisoning each other, I'm afraid...

I'm going to lock you both up. eschwartz for having such an unrealistic view of people's computer skills, and for suggesting that a person should "Just delete your non-trivial files" as if there was no such thing as data recovery software; and you, RobertDDL, for being far too reasonable about it.

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by jbjb

While I'm personally quite happy with the idea of (non-visually-intrusive) watermarking, there is clearly a "reasonable" objection to it. I'm not necessarily saying I agree with the argument, but it is (IMHO) an argument that reasonable people could make.

If the purpose of watermarking is to discourage piracy by identifying the culprits and exposing them to sanctions, then the difficulty of proving that the purchaser identified by the watermark is the one who actually committed the offence means that it could be argued that the watermarking will actually achieve nothing and will even potentially run the risk of blackening the name of innocent purchasers.

/JB

It's not just blackening the name of the innocent purchasers. There are already examples of aggressive content owners sending out "fines" to people that they've "identified as violating copyright". The people are faced with paying a hefty fine or paying an even more hefty legal fee with the risk of losing and paying an enormous fine. There is very real potential for abuse here.

I believe that watermarks are much better than encryption based DRM but that doesn't mean there is no reasonable objection to them. If I'm given a choice between a kick to the shin and a knee to the groin, then I don't care if people consider there should be no objection to the shin. I'd select neither.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by jbjb

While I'm personally quite happy with the idea of (non-visually-intrusive) watermarking, there is clearly a "reasonable" objection to it. I'm not necessarily saying I agree with the argument, but it is (IMHO) an argument that reasonable people could make.

If the purpose of watermarking is to discourage piracy by identifying the culprits and exposing them to sanctions, then the difficulty of proving that the purchaser identified by the watermark is the one who actually committed the offence means that it could be argued that the watermarking will actually achieve nothing and will even potentially run the risk of blackening the name of innocent purchasers.

/JB

I would argue if your ebooks got out there then you were involved. Maybe through criminal negligence, maybe through deliberation. Makes no difference.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by RobertDDL

How is someone supposed to do this, if their hardware has broken down? I once had a hard disk that suddenly died on me, and there were some files on it which I hadn't backed up, so I had to hand the drive over to a company who could recover the files from the dead disk. Cost me over 1000 Euros, and I'm more careful with backups now, but I think many of us don't have all their data securely backed up at any given moment, when desaster might strike, do they? And for a non-tech-savvy person, even with the hard disk intact, if their computer failed for whatever reason it would be difficult for them to remove the drive, attach it to a different machine, delete all the critical files, and re-install it in the original broken machine. With a notebook, this might not be possible for a normal user at all, and it might void warranty if they tried.

Was this company known for stealing customers' files? Ordinarily, I expect a certain professionalism from companies whose job is to work with your private data, but I have been informed in certain shady countries it isn't so clear.

We all might end up imprisoning each other, I'm afraid...

Might be a good idea for that reason alone.

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I would argue if your ebooks got out there then you were involved. Maybe through criminal negligence, maybe through deliberation. Makes no difference.

I think you perhaps underestimate the number of security holes in the average consumer's home computers & network. I think it's more than a tad harsh to hold an ebook purchaser liable to sanction because their network security expertise is a bit lacking.

Do you really think that criminal negligence and deliberate action are the only two possibilities for someone's ebooks "getting out there"?

/JB

[PandathePanda]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I would argue if your ebooks got out there then you were involved. Maybe through criminal negligence, maybe through deliberation. Makes no difference.

So using your analogy, one should be guilty when your car gets stolen and used in a crime or murder?

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by jbjb

I think you perhaps underestimate the number of security holes in the average consumer's home computers & network. I think it's more than a tad harsh to hold an ebook purchaser liable to sanction because their network security expertise is a bit lacking.

Do you really think that criminal negligence and deliberate action are the only two possibilities for someone's ebooks "getting out there"?

/JB

I think you perhaps overestimate the likelihood that any malicious individual with the expertise to remotely access all your files is primarily concerned with uploading your ebook library to the darknet.

Originally Posted by PandathePanda

So using your analogy, one should be guilty when your car gets stolen and used in a crime or murder?

If I thought it was exceedingly unlikely that your car could be stolen without your negligence and that your car directly enabled the thief to commit a crime/murder, or that the presence of your car was viable proof that you committed the crime, neither of which are the case, then absolutely.

Please stop being orthogonal.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Please stop being orthogonal.

Huh?? I'm confused. Are you saying that people who disagree with you about this are at right angles to you? Or are they statistically independent from you? Or maybe at right angles to the world, or maybe statistically independent from the world?

Maybe you're using a different definition than I am?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/orthogonal

Shari

[murg]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I think you perhaps overestimate the likelihood that any malicious individual with the expertise to remotely access all your files is primarily concerned with uploading your ebook library to the darknet.

Clearly, you haven't seen any episodes of CSI Cyber.

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

I think you perhaps overestimate the likelihood that any malicious individual with the expertise to remotely access all your files is primarily concerned with uploading your ebook library to the darknet.

Firstly, it doesn't take much in the way of expertise to remotely access the files of most consumers - there are easily downloadable kits that the relatively unskilled can use to do just that.

Secondly, even if copying your ebook library may not be such an intruder's *primary* concern, that doesn't mean they won't do it anyway while they've got access to your files.

As I asked before - do you really think that criminal negligence and deliberate action are the only two possibilities for someone's ebooks "getting out there"?

/JB

[ForsCream]

I doubt there are many people stripping DRM for piracy, in fact, I believe those ones who like piracy won't even pay for a book. So if he won't pay for a book, how can he strip the DRM?

[gmw]

Originally Posted by ForsCream

I doubt there are many people stripping DRM for piracy, in fact, I believe those ones who like piracy won't even pay for a book. So if he won't pay for a book, how can he strip the DRM?

It's doesn't take many, that's pretty much the point. One does it (however they source the original) and the rest download it.