which format will win?

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by TheJohnNewton

"Backing up is not about making a copy. It's about making a copy so that you can restore data."

And then the critical third step is being able to use the data. If you can't do all three steps (backup, restore, use) then the entire process is worthless. DRM (as used on ebooks) won't prevent you from doing the backup or the restore steps but it may prevent you from being able to use the data thus making the backup worthless.

So what was the point of all this debate again?

Exactly...........pertinant word highlighted.

DRM may prevent you from using the data depending upon certain circumstances.

Just like a fire might or a comet strike to earth or alien invasion or your own untimely death. All these things may make your backup worthless. Do they prevent you from making that back up in the first place though?

Cheers,
PKFFW

[BillSmithBooks]

I think the past three pages on this post pretty clearly establishes that whatever ebook format wins "in the future" (as per the original post), it isn't going to be one that comes with DRM since, sure, you can back it up...but reading it? That's going to be a whole other kettle of fish.

Hence, my arguments in favor of open, non-DRMd formats.

[kennyc]

Bill, I'm all for drm-free books as well. I hate DRM and will not knowing buy a book that I can't remove it from, but the industry doesn't currently see it that way and the format that will win will be chosen by them. Epub is already in the position to win, with or without DRM.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Exactly...........pertinant word highlighted.

DRM may prevent you from using the data depending upon certain circumstances.

Yes, and unlike the other things you list it's 100% controllable from your side, and hence in no way comparable to what insurance terms "act of god".

If you screw up and your data was DRM'ed, the insurance company will wipe you on the floor like rag, and rightly, if you tried to claim.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Yes, and unlike the other things you list it's 100% controllable from your side, and hence in no way comparable to what insurance terms "act of god".

My point is that it is as technically correct to say "comet strike, fire or untimely death prevents you from making a backup" as it is to say "DRM prevents you from making a backup".

None of them prevent you from making a backup, they all merely prevent your backup from being usable. There is a difference.

Of course DRM is 100% controllable on your side. You simply remove the DRM. Problem solved. Hence the entire debate is pretty pointless, especially as everyone really knows what the person who originally made the claim meant. They simply didn't express themselves very well! Instead of simply admitting that everyone seems hell bent on arguing that what was claimed is actually correct or not correct!

It's actually quite amusing that many of the same people who constantly admonish kennyc for stating that copyright infringement is theft now themselves seem hell bent on arguing something that is not technically correct either.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[DawnFalcon]

....you're arguing that that dead data is a valid backup.

It's the same thing, arguing something which is just plain unhelpful.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

....you're arguing that that dead data is a valid backup.

Quote please? Did I ever state that dead data is a valid backup? No.

I am arguing that the data is only rendered "dead" if certain circumstances occur. I even stated some examples of circumstances that could render your back up "dead" or useless.

You are arguing the backup is "dead data" regardless of the circumstances if you argue that "DRM prevents you from making a back up". This is clearly incorrect.

Much like stating "copyright is theft" is clearly incorrect as per the legal definition of theft.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Much like stating "copyright is theft" is clearly incorrect as per the legal CURRENT definition of theft.

Now that's a correct statement. Laws can, and do, change/expand as the world evolves.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

Now that's a correct statement. Laws can, and do, change/expand as the world evolves.

Absolutely, couldn't agree more.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Quote please? Did I ever state that dead data is a valid backup? No.

Any competent sysadmin... oh never mind, if you want to play the fool, your choice.

And yep, dmaul, but that dosn't excuse using the wrong terms. Also, I believe it's morally wrong to use the same term for taking with and without causing deprivation, they're simply not the same thing.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Any competent sysadmin... oh never mind, if you want to play the fool, your choice.

Never really takes you too long to attack the poster rather than post.

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

And yep, dmaul, but that dosn't excuse using the wrong terms. Also, I believe it's morally wrong to use the same term for taking with and without causing deprivation, they're simply not the same thing.

No it doesn't.

And are you suggesting it's morally wrong for someone else to use the wrong terms but you can argue whatever floats your boat regardless of the correctness of your terms?

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

My point is that it is as technically correct to say "comet strike, fire or untimely death prevents you from making a backup" as it is to say "DRM prevents you from making a backup".

The fact of the matter, as I'm sure you would agree, is that DRM makes it more difficult to produce a reliable back-up. You either, as I previously stated, need to back up the means to get around the DRM (e.g. backing up licenses and/or applications etc.), or accept that your back-up is vulnerable to this - as it may be vulnerable to certain "acts of god" that are not cost-effective to provide resilience to.

It's actually quite amusing that many of the same people who constantly admonish kennyc for stating that copyright infringement is theft now themselves seem hell bent on arguing something that is not technically correct either.

The debate about the law was (at least in part) a factual one about whether the law categorises copyright infringement as theft, which it currently doesn't. My issue here was different, and was that kenny seemed to be saying that backing up means being able to take a copy and no more. My point was that, in my experience, backing up means ensuring that you can restore - guarding against all the problems that it is cost-effective to guard against. Backing up is there to ensure access to data, not to make copies. Are you saying that this is "technically incorrect"?

I never said that "you can't back up DRM'ed ebooks", rather that DRM makes it harder to back up, and for individuals, the only practical solution is to remove it.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

The fact of the matter, as I'm sure you would agree, is that DRM makes it more difficult to produce a reliable back-up.

If by "more difficult" you mean taking the extra step of removing the DRM then yes I guess it would make it more difficult. How much "more difficult" a few extra mouse clicks really is I would argue is debatable.

DRM still doesn't "prevent useres from backing up their books", which was the original claim. Even if one does not remove the DRM first one is still not prevented from backing it up.

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

The debate about the law was (at least in part) a factual one about whether the law categorises copyright infringement as theft, which it currently doesn't.

Yes exactly. Copyright infringement does not fall under the current legal definition of theft. Just as DRM does not prevent users from backing up their books. Ergo, arguing that copyright infringement does fall under the legal definition of theft or that DRM does prevent users from backing up their books is incorrect. It is humourous to me that some seem to want to argue techincalities on one issue but not the other.

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

My issue here was different, and was that kenny seemed to be saying that backing up means being able to take a copy and no more. My point was that, in my experience, backing up means ensuring that you can restore - guarding against all the problems that it is cost-effective to guard against. Backing up is there to ensure access to data, not to make copies. Are you saying that this is "technically incorrect"?

No, I am saying that claiming "DRM prevent useres from backing up their books" is technically incorrect. It is even technically incorrect if one does not remove the DRM first.

Further, I said all I said in response to the original claim made regarding this issue and not to you personally. It seems you are merely pointing out that DRM makes it more difficult to make a back up and that is arguably perfectly correct. I have no issue with that what-so-ever.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

And are you suggesting it's morally wrong for someone else to use the wrong terms but you can argue whatever floats your boat regardless of the correctness of your terms?

Morally? No, you're making things up I supposedly said to suit your argument again. It's simply arguments which are technically incorrect, and add nothing whatsoever to the discussion. Using terms in ways not generally accepted is confusing and creates - as we can see - tedious arguments about the definitions rather than being able to talk about the issues.

A backup you cannot restore is not a backup, and theft requires deprivation!

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Morally? No, you're making things up I supposedly said to suit your argument again.

No, I was asking if you were suggesting something. That's why I used the words "are you suggesting" and ended with a question mark.

I asked this question because of your remark........

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Also, I believe it's morally wrong to use the same term for taking with and without causing deprivation, they're simply not the same thing.

So I see now that for you, using the "same term for taking with and without causing deprivation" is morally wrong but using the same term(useless backup, dead data etc) for a file that is or isn't useless depending on the circumstances is not morally wrong.

I'm not sure how using the wrong term can be morally wrong when you want it to be but using the wrong term is not morally wrong when you don't want it to be but whatever suits you I guess.

Cheers,
PKFFW