Ars technica article: Landmark study: DRM truly does make pirates out of us all

[Ea]

From arstechnica.com:
"Landmark study: DRM truly does make pirates out of us all

A UK researcher has spent years interviewing people about whether DRM has affected their ability to use content in ways ordinarily protected by the law. Surprise! It has, even leading one sight-impaired woman to piracy."

Read more:
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...-of-us-all.ars

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Ea

whether DRM has affected their ability to use content in ways ordinarily protected by the law.

I thought that was the entire purpose of DRM. This is a surprise?

[AlexBell]

Originally Posted by Ea

From arstechnica.com:
"Landmark study: DRM truly does make pirates out of us all

I object to the title of this thread. What right does anyone have to call me a pirate for removing DRM from my own property, to be used only on my ereader, and not given to anyone else?

Regards, Alex

[HarryT]

DRM removal may (depending on where you live) be illegal, but it's certainly not "piracy".

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by AlexBell

I object to the title of this thread. What right does anyone have to call me a pirate for removing DRM from my own property, to be used only on my ereader, and not given to anyone else?

Regards, Alex

It's the title of the article.

The RIAA has claimed that making a digital copy of a CD you've legally bought, is unauthorized copyright infringement. They've also claimed that making a file available for download should be prosecuted as copyright infringement, even if there's no evidence that anyone downloaded it.

What certain rights-holders think is copyright infringement has very little connection to what most of us think is reasonable, ethical use of what we've bought. And what's "legal" is what stands up in court, not what fits a sensible person's reading of the law.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by AlexBell

I object to the title of this thread. What right does anyone have to call me a pirate for removing DRM from my own property, to be used only on my ereader, and not given to anyone else?

That is not what the article says. It says that if bought material has DRM people will download the same material without DRM instead of buying it.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

The RIAA has claimed that making a digital copy of a CD you've legally bought, is unauthorized copyright infringement. They've also claimed that making a file available for download should be prosecuted as copyright infringement, even if there's no evidence that anyone downloaded it.

They've lost both of those arguments in court.

[AlexBell]

Originally Posted by tompe

That is not what the article says. It says that if bought material has DRM people will download the same material without DRM instead of buying it.

I know that, Tompe, and agree with the conclusions drawn from the evidence presented. But I still object to being called a pirate for removing DRM on files I have purchased for my own use only on my own ereader.

Regards, Alex

[John Bailey]

Originally Posted by AlexBell

I object to the title of this thread. What right does anyone have to call me a pirate for removing DRM from my own property, to be used only on my ereader, and not given to anyone else?

Regards, Alex

Where do you get the idea it's your property? DRM means that you can use it as the owner says.

That isn't you. Ain't IP fun

[AlexBell]

Originally Posted by John Bailey

Where do you get the idea it's your property? DRM means that you can use it as the owner says.

That isn't you. Ain't IP fun

Sez who?

Regards, Alex

[Andybaby]

Originally Posted by HarryT

DRM removal may (depending on where you live) be illegal, but it's certainly not "piracy".

Really! NOOOOOOOOOOOO!

look for my ebay auction for my Eyepatch and blunderbuss

ill sell my peg leg on craigslist.

[Andybaby]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

not what fits a sensible person's reading of the law.

its not like a judge is a sensible person. I mean come on... he decided to be a lawyer!

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by John Bailey

DRM means that you can use it as the owner says.

But that's not what copyright means. This is the point of the article. DRM is restricting things that would normally be allowed by copyright. Thus, people have to become "pirates" in order to do what is supposed to be legal.

The main point of DRM is to artificially restrict what would otherwise be consumer rights.

[John Bailey]

Originally Posted by AlexBell

Sez who?

Regards, Alex

Those nice people who can take you to court for stealing something you bought.

Getting serious for a minute.

If someone can stop you using something you thought was yours, then it isn't yours.

Basically all DRM enabled content is rented, not bought. Conditions may change at any time, and at the discretion of the owner (not you).

If it's tied to the device or tied to an account, then you don't own it. The sooner enough people see this, the sooner it can be done away with.

[thibaulthalpern]

Hmmm...how about reading the actual manuscript? Here it is:

http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/faculty-res...ssessment/6286

Or you could read the abstract and recommendations here: http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2009/...al-assessment/

I think the conclusions are worth reading. It much less sensationalises Ars Technica's own title and really gets to actual problems rather than using loosey-goosey phrase such as "makes pirates out of all of us". The conclusions are much more nuanced and meaningful than that.

A key conclusion is that DRM can prevent permissible acts from being executed in the U.K: "Although DRM has not impacted on many acts permitted by law, certain permitted acts are being adversely affected by the use of DRM [emphasis mine]."