DRM Handcuffs

[covingtoncat73]

I do like to share books with my mom, my brother, and my cousin's husband. The only one of these I would lend my Kobo to is Mom. This is doable because I also have a Smart Phone I can read on but ability to lend is an edge pBooks have over eBooks. I have to say, I get anxious about loaning pBooks and have a few I'll never see again (I had to buy new copies, albeit cheap, used ones to replace Good Omens and The Graveyard Book. I also really enjoyed David Liss' The Coffee Trader and don't look to see that again but I have decided not to go through the trouble of replacing it as I am low on shelf space. Anyway, inability to lend can be a GOOD thing. ;?P However, I do remove DRM so that I can have books I have bought on Amazon on my Kobo (sometimes Amazon is cheaper than Kobobooks). I don't share them or anything, though I loved The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet so much, I see if I can get Mom to read it on my Kobo.

[Daveoc64]

Originally Posted by TFeldt

Must admit that I'm rather shocked at anyone calling the removal of DRM unethical or immoral. The basic fact that we have DRM on our products means we've bought the darn thing in the first place, pirates don't have to bother with DRM at all.

You can easily call it unethical if you look at it this way:

When you buy an eBook (with or without DRM) you're entering into a legally binding contract with the seller.

That contract stipulates what you can and can't do with the book. The DRM merely "enforces" some of the terms of that contract.

If you willingly enter into the contract with the intention of breaking those terms, some people would consider that to be unethical or immoral.

Look at it around the other way. You probably wouldn't be pleased if the company selling you the book took your money and didn't give you anything in return.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by afa

Wow. Now that is cautious.


Tell me - when you go to retrieve these ebooks... is a secret handshake involved?

If I told you...

(Besides, Cobras don't have hands...)

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Daveoc64

You can easily call it unethical if you look at it this way:

When you buy an eBook (with or without DRM) you're entering into a legally binding contract with the seller.
...

Sure you can say that, you can say about anything you want. You could also say I paid for a product, it's mine to do with as I please.

[TFeldt]

Originally Posted by Daveoc64

You can easily call it unethical if you look at it this way:

When you buy an eBook (with or without DRM) you're entering into a legally binding contract with the seller.

That contract stipulates what you can and can't do with the book. The DRM merely "enforces" some of the terms of that contract.

If you willingly enter into the contract with the intention of breaking those terms, some people would consider that to be unethical or immoral.

Look at it around the other way. You probably wouldn't be pleased if the company selling you the book took your money and didn't give you anything in return.

Your summary is of course entirely accurate. But it's also blatantly wrong. I'm not sure what the situation is for you brits (or any other country really) but consumers have rights in sweden, and those rights supercede the rights of the companies selling products to us. If I buy something then I can legally do just about anything I want to it, no matter what the company tries to convince me I can and can't do.

The biggest con so far when it comes to "digital contracts" are the EULAs, which to my knowledge hasn't been proven in any european country. Don't even think it's ever been ruled on in USA where the concept originated. It's a scare tactic, pure and simple. They're not worth the digital ink they're written with until a legal precedent has been set for each product category.

A company's EULA has no more legal, moral or ethical value than the rights you as a consumer enjoy. Don't let anyone try to trick you into thinking otherwise. They're companies, not nations.

[cfrizz]

Originally Posted by TFeldt

Your summary is of course entirely accurate. But it's also blatantly wrong. I'm not sure what the situation is for you brits (or any other country really) but consumers have rights in sweden, and those rights supercede the rights of the companies selling products to us. If I buy something then I can legally do just about anything I want to it, no matter what the company tries to convince me I can and can't do.

The biggest con so far when it comes to "digital contracts" are the EULAs, which to my knowledge hasn't been proven in any european country. Don't even think it's ever been ruled on in USA where the concept originated. It's a scare tactic, pure and simple. They're not worth the digital ink they're written with until a legal precedent has been set for each product category.

A company's EULA has no more legal, moral or ethical value than the rights you as a consumer enjoy. Don't let anyone try to trick you into thinking otherwise. They're companies, not nations.

Outstanding post!!!

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by cfrizz

Outstanding post!!!

Yes delayed karma for that one....

[speakingtohe]

A company's EULA has no more legal, moral or ethical value than the rights you as a consumer enjoy. Don't let anyone try to trick you into thinking otherwise. They're companies, not nations.

There are moral and ethical values to most things we do in life. What is right or wrong is not determined by law or what you can do without being arrested or worse.

Because the law says it is wrong does not make it unethical or immoral.

Because you can do it without being sued or arrested does not make it right.

Feeling compelled to justify it on an internet forum does not look good.

Helen

[Cpl Punishment]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

There are moral and ethical values to most things we do in life. What is right or wrong is not determined by law or what you can do without being arrested or worse.

Because the law says it is wrong does not make it unethical or immoral.

Because you can do it without being sued or arrested does not make it right.

Feeling compelled to justify it on an internet forum does not look good.

Helen

Amen

[TFeldt]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

There are moral and ethical values to most things we do in life. What is right or wrong is not determined by law or what you can do without being arrested or worse.

Because the law says it is wrong does not make it unethical or immoral.

Because you can do it without being sued or arrested does not make it right.

Feeling compelled to justify it on an internet forum does not look good.

Helen

Nonsense. A company cannot make up terms that removes consumers' rights, that'd be illegal. Otherwise I could just make an EULA clause that said you sold your children into slavery for my company if you accept the license. Do you think that would be accepted in any court of law? Of course not, because licenses do not override laws and slavery is illegal. Stripping a citizen of his rights is against the law and thus illegal. Period.

I do not have to justify my actions since I have broken no law, nor have I committed any legal offense. My summary of what is actually legal, and what isn't, was a reply to someone who stated that violating illegal clauses in licenses was somehow immoral or unethical. This I find utterly comical since most people would consider breaking the law a lot more immoral and unethical than following it.

[kennyc]

And this is why in most cases EULAs have been held to not apply by courts of law.

[Caroms]

exactly - you make a very good point. Love your quote!!!

[CyGuy]

I like how the thread title is "DRM Handcuffs". If you were handcuffed (literally) and then put in your own home and left alone, the first thing you would do is figure out how to mount a hacksaw so you could get them off. That is what the DRM removal tools are, the hacksaw to remove cuffs that shouldn't be present in the first place...

[monkeyluis]

Originally Posted by Michael Wallace

I published my early books with DRM, but have subsequently released everything without, as I've become more educated on the subject. Of course, no writer wants people stealing his work, but the people who steal won't be bothered by something as trivial as DRM, while legitimate owners of the book can find DRM annoying as they try to move their libraries from one device to another. I don't think you should have to purchase a new copy of something every time you chance devices. (Do you hear that Apple?)

What does apple have to do with anything?

[speakingtohe]

I do not have to justify my actions since I have broken no law, nor have I committed any legal offense. My summary of what is actually legal, and what isn't, was a reply to someone who stated that violating illegal clauses in licenses was somehow immoral or unethical. This I find utterly comical since most people would consider breaking the law a lot more immoral and unethical than following it.

I am having a bit of difficulty making sense of this paragraph?

Helen