Arguments For And Against DRM

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by tompe

No it does not. It lead people wrong in their thinking and that is what people using the word want. It is basically dishonest to use the word theft for copyright infringement.

Tompe:

Not to inflame this further, but how do you consider it "dishonest?" How, other than a wording difference, do you really see the difference? I'm the first to agree that the various and sundry laws surrounding infringement CALL it infringement; but "conversion" is another phrase (legal) used to cover the ground of "any unauthorized act which deprives an owner of his property permanently, or for an indefinite time. Unauthorized and wrongful exercise of dominion and control over another's personal property, to exclusion of or inconsistent with, the rights of the owner."

I'd say that diverting possible sales income, from an author (owner) who had the rights to it, for his "property," intellectual or otherwise, certainly falls into that arena. And, yes, conversion also applies to "real" goods, not intangible ones, but when you research conversion, in any of various and sundry legal texts, you are further referred to (just for the edification of those who've never poured over such tomes): "See also: Embezzlement; Equitable Conversion; Fraudulent Conversion; involuntary conversion." So...when this happens to personalty, it's certainly criminal, and although "called" conversion, it's still a form of theft. (Unless now, we're all going to get into the legal minutiae, arguing that somehow, embezzlement is NOT "theft," because it's called by some other term???)

And I'd point out--I don't have the citations immediately to hand--but many court cases and some law DO refer to IP as "personal property." When you inherit (or pass) copyrighted material from someone who owns the rights to a devisee or heir, that's considered as personal property being passed. Not some other type of property--it's personalty.

So, again, why? Why is the personal property of IP, somehow different than the personal property that can be physically carried away, from an actual standpoint? And yes: I know the answer: because they cannot be held in the hand.

Nonetheless: if personal property can be converted, or embezzled, and we CLEARLY refer to those things as "theft," (without everyone getting hissy about it, and resisting the use of that word) then refusing to call copyright infringement, which is simply the correct legal term for the "misappropriation" of the Intellectual Property Rights inherent in Intangible, Intellectual Property, "theft," is hair-slitting to the nth.

If Conversion = embezzlement and we all seem to process and parse THAT as "theft," without qualm, then seriously, how can we all argue, with a straight face, that copyright infringement <> "theft?" What, sauce that's good for the goose isn't good for the gander?

It seems to me that everyone who opposes this is simply resistant to the idea because it makes the reality of what's happening quite clear. Sure, the original "copy" isn't being stolen. What's being stolen is potential. As I said in another thread here, a long time ago,

People argue that CI isn't theft, because you didn't break into the author's house and steal his TV set; thus, it's not theft. Nor did you mug him on the way home from the check-cashing place, and steal the money IN his pocket. No, what's happened is that you've prevented him from ever GETTING the royalty check in the first place, by misappropriating/infringing/pirating the funds he MAY have received, before he could either put them in his pocket, or buy that TV with them. Somehow, that's "less emotionally charged?" Like the crimeinfringement never happened? Don't you think that really, that's a lot more dishonest way of looking at it? What, it's "mo' better" to steal the money before he has the chance to know about it?

Seriously not endeavoring to be more inflammatory; I'm simply trying to understand how people THINK. To me, rationalizing an act as "not theft," simply because the laws of the land gave it ANOTHER NAME, another layour of protection, and another route of prosecution, really is awfully hair-splitting and deliberately diversionary. This is what's trotted out every time: It's not theft!

Just because our lawmakers, in their infinite wisdom, decided to call X by the term Y, doesn't mean that the reality of Y is something different to the victim. "Conversion," when it's embezzlement, doesn't make the act one iota less an act of thievery. Nobody ever argues about that; that seems to be widely accepted. And legally speaking, in terms of what word is used where, etc., the case isn't any different than IP Infringement. But the victim of IP Infringement is actually damaged MORE, in many ways, than the victim of Embezzlement, because most times, s/he can't prove what was taken. When that's the case, and s/he can't prove damages, for the very reasons so abundant in this discussion (can't tell how many downloads, nobody will agree how many might have been real sales, etc.) s/he can't sue--or s/he can't sue and win, unlike the victim of the embezzler.

But...I guess she can take some comfort in the idea that she wasn't actually THIEVED from.

Hitch

[pdurrant]

Why do Marxists only drink herbal teas?

Because all property is theft.

Spoiler:

Do I really need to explain this joke?

Spoiler:

I do?

Spoiler:

Oh, OK then

Spoiler:

property == proper tea

Spoiler:

And yes, it was really coined by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, and Marx came to dislike the phrase, but now we're really too deep for a silly joke.

[Nabodita]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Why do Marxists only drink herbal teas?

Because all property is theft.

Spoiler:

Do I really need to explain this joke?

Spoiler:

I do?

Spoiler:

Oh, OK then

Spoiler:

property == proper tea

Spoiler:

And yes, it was really coined by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, and Marx came to dislike the phrase, but now we're really too deep for a silly joke.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by taustin

That has not been my experience in 53 years of life. Quite the contrary. Pretty much anyone can be tempted by the right circumstances. What you claim is that you live - literally - among saints. And I frankly don't believe you.

Hmmm...I'm sorry you live in such a dark and cynical place, then. In my world, I also believe that an honest person is HONEST, and wouldn't take anything that doesn't belong to them. I believe that my neighbors are honest...actually, I would go so far as to say I KNOW they are, because I don't lock my doors or my car, and I leave my purse in my unlocked car overnight, sitting in my driveway. I wouldn't (and don't) associate with people I don't trust.

Shari

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Baen Books have never had DRM. Tor has moved to DRM-free. Simon & Schuster are starting trials of DRM-free sales.

Tor has been DRM-free for well over a year now. If they had seen any problems from going DRM-free, I'm sure they would have gone back to using DRM.

I suggest that you recommend that the publishers save money by being DRM-free.

If they insist on DRM, try advocating for 'social' DRM, where every copy is tagged with the purchaser's details. Preferably will a pretty Ex-Libris bookplate as I suggest above.

HTH

I agree with this. Right now this seems to be the going trend (or at least test cases they are willing to try). These are good examples you can point to that are not based on worries/various sharing scenarios--and if it's good enough for them, it's probably good enough.

I also agree that ultimately it must be left up to them (that's what I do when/if the discussion starts). Some authors/publishers are more adamant about trying something/anything rather than nothing at all.

[mandy314]

Like this kind of discussions here on mobileread - seeing people from different countries, some involved in the book industry, others mere consumer/readers sharing their views/opinions and information.

I'm a reader pure and simple with various choices: to buy or not to buy ebooks with DRM, ebooks with Adobe DRM or ebooks at all. The use of DRM on the other hand is a choice for authors and publishers to make. They think they can earn more money with DRM (at least the additional money to finance the DRM service)? If so - can't blame them for that.

They sell me "the right to access the text of the ebook on screen" - a typical copyright notice. This right is managed, some say restricted further with various DRM-mechanisms (access on devices/apps registered to your Amazon account or Adobe ID for instance). I can "abuse" the granted right - which is imho the meaning of copyright infringement - and would do something illegal i.e. violating copyright law.
The abuse may start with removing the DRM - to get a AdobeDRM epub on my kindle, no big deal. And - once the DRM is removed - put a copy on hubbies nook, why not. The best friend won't buy the book but will have a look at it later as it is such a good read ... And then you find the book you paid 10 to 20 Euros for downloadable in three seconds for free ...
It all started with the removal of DRM.

Please, don't get me wrong. I'm all for copyright protection.

PS - In Germany circumventing DRM for private use isn't illegal (§ 108b UrhG).
PPS - Please remember that DRM may "spy" on you/the reader (like ADE4 does imho).

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Hitch

But the victim of IP Infringement is actually damaged MORE, in many ways, than the victim of Embezzlement, because most times, s/he can't prove what was taken. When that's the case, and s/he can't prove damages, for the very reasons so abundant in this discussion (can't tell how many downloads, nobody will agree how many might have been real sales, etc.) s/he can't sue--or s/he can't sue and win, unlike the victim of the embezzler.

But...I guess she can take some comfort in the idea that she wasn't actually THIEVED from.

So ... the author/publisher are victims because they think they might be, even though they can't prove it? And the less proof they have, the more victimized they are?

Even if one accepts that cockeyed premise, how in the world does DRM help reduce the paranoia when it's so easy to bypass it?

[ApK]

Protecting IP rights on digital media = good

Trying to do it with a system that has negligible effect on protection and measurable effect of interfering with fair use = bad

[Tarana]

My sister has NEVER purchased a book that financially benefited the author. All she does is buy used books. Used books, on average, can be read and given to others for 15-25 reads. I want ebooks (and audiobooks) without DRM so that I can share them among family or even just my personal devices and use whatever I want at the time I want to read now as well as 10 years from now. Some of us have already been burned by publishers going out of business and now cannot access ebooks LEGALLY purchased. Not everybody gets notified that their publisher is going offline so that they have the time to download their stuff. You might be offline due to illness, connection issues, family issues, or simply unable to download. What happens when your device dies. How do you now get access to that stuff you bought especially if the devices available in the walled garden don't meet your specific needs.

Finally, some of what I've purchased is now unavailable to download so that I can print out the pattern to knit the pattern or cook the recipe.

[crane3]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

The id a book is bound to is the id you are logged in as when you redeem the book.

The library itself doesn't require an adobe id.

If you checked it out with OverDrive Media Console, OMC requires an Adobe id to redeem the books, too but you should've been prompted for one. The newer versions I believe use some complicated alias with their servers instead... but that is still a service of the app, not the library.

nit picker. Amazon doesn't require an adobe-id to "purchase" a book; B&N doesn't require adobe-id to "buy" a book; Google Play Store doesn't require an adobe-id to buy a book. I use Aldiko to get the library books directly now as I found that it could; prior to that I used my computer then ftp'ed to my tablet & used Aldiko to get a readable copy.

The library doesn't require an adobe-id to download the "torrent"(?) *.ASCM (acsm?)file which is not readable; the file is used to get the "real" book but requires an adobe-id to do so unless it is done via adobe digital editions.

However, the biggest thing is that ALL ebooks that are DRM'ed should be marked & visually seen explicitly prior to the decision for "purchase". Preferably labeled along with the publisher's & author's name like buyer beware warnings.

The fact still remains that the DRM refuses to let me legitimately read a "purchased" book with the ereader app of my choice at any time. There is a big thing about labeling food stuff as not to contain GMO, so there isn't a reason that it shouldn't it apply to DRM books as well.

[Xanthe]

Originally Posted by shalym

Hmmm...I'm sorry you live in such a dark and cynical place, then. In my world, I also believe that an honest person is HONEST, and wouldn't take anything that doesn't belong to them. I believe that my neighbors are honest...actually, I would go so far as to say I KNOW they are, because I don't lock my doors or my car, and I leave my purse in my unlocked car overnight, sitting in my driveway. I wouldn't (and don't) associate with people I don't trust.

Shari

You obviously don't live in the same neighborhoods that the majority of us probably do...where we don't even know WHO our neighbors are....

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Catlady

So ... the author/publisher are victims because they think they might be, even though they can't prove it? And the less proof they have, the more victimized they are?

Even if one accepts that cockeyed premise, how in the world does DRM help reduce the paranoia when it's so easy to bypass it?

Catlady:

I simply meant, when Author X finds his/her book being discussed as being pirated somewhere, and finds it on a bittorrent site, and thus knows that it's been ripped off...what happens then? Authors with resources can, to some extent, find out how many copies, but many cannot.

And yes, to some extent, if you don't have the resources to investigate "how many," that does, somewhat, in one sense only, make you more of a victim than someone with 10,000 demonstrable copies, simply because you'll never now. The latter would drive me nuttier than the former, but...perhaps that's just me. {shrug}.

Considering that in EITHER case, the author is extraordinarily unlikely to have any success whatsoever in recovering ANY monies, for the "copyright infringement," regardless of what can/may be demonstrated as number of copies downloaded, then they're both victims. Unless you think that they are not entitled to that type of recovery and compensation, either?

Hitch

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Considering that in EITHER case, the author is extraordinarily unlikely to have any success whatsoever in recovering ANY monies, for the "copyright infringement," regardless of what can/may be demonstrated as number of copies downloaded, then they're both victims. Unless you think that they are not entitled to that type of recovery and compensation, either?

I've said repeatedly that the culprits who should be targeted are the major players--the file-sharing sites and the people who share vast amounts of materials. They are not deterred by DRM. They would be deterred by legal action.

Since files are going to be shared casually because books have long been shared, the publisher should simply figure out how to take that into account when pricing the book--i.e., consider the advantage of extra visibility versus the disadvantage of possible lost sales when setting a price.

Earlier I mused on whether buyers, given a choice between a DRM and non-DRM version of the same book, would pay extra for the non-DRM version. If the latest Harlan Coben title, say, was $12.99 with DRM, and $13.99 without, I'd pay the extra buck to not have to bother fussing with it. The higher price would help offset the potential lost revenue.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by crane3

nit picker. Amazon doesn't require an adobe-id to "purchase" a book; B&N doesn't require adobe-id to "buy" a book; Google Play Store doesn't require an adobe-id to buy a book. I use Aldiko to get the library books directly now as I found that it could; prior to that I used my computer then ftp'ed to my tablet & used Aldiko to get a readable copy.

The library doesn't require an adobe-id to download the "torrent"(?) *.ASCM (acsm?)file which is not readable; the file is used to get the "real" book but requires an adobe-id to do so unless it is done via adobe digital editions.

However, the biggest thing is that ALL ebooks that are DRM'ed should be marked & visually seen explicitly prior to the decision for "purchase". Preferably labeled along with the publisher's & author's name like buyer beware warnings.

The fact still remains that the DRM refuses to let me legitimately read a "purchased" book with the ereader app of my choice at any time. There is a big thing about labeling food stuff as not to contain GMO, so there isn't a reason that it shouldn't it apply to DRM books as well.

It is not nits at all.

The book should work fine in any reader that implements ADE, unless you have been using two ids. As I said, the ADE ID is bound to the book when you redeem it. It is entirely under your control which ID you are signed in as when you redeem the book. Your problem seems to be that you redeemed the book with an ADE/RMSDK installation signed into one ADE ID, and then tried to rea it using an installation signed into another ADE ID.

You said something about a "library adobe-id", which I corrected, since there is no such thing. That part of what I said had nothing to do with the rest so why I should be accused of nitpicking is beyond me.

Regarding your totally off-topic rant about how DRMed books shouldn't be, I agree with you* I just don't see why you are complaining to me.

* -- actually, if we are talking about ibrary books, I don't agree. I consider library DRM to be entirely understandable and to be expected.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Tarana

My sister has NEVER purchased a book that financially benefited the author. All she does is buy used books.

I'm not sure this is totally different from what happens to the author when you buy a new book.

Most trade authors get all their authorial income from advances. So buying a brand new book usually does nothing directly for the author. True, it may help the author get more money for their next book, but that's also true of a used sale:

If I buy a used book, I get the cheapest copy at www.bookfinder.com. After I buy it, the cheapest available copy is now more expensive. And that makes a new copy more likely to be purchased, and at a higher price. It's just like how high resale value makes new cars of that brand sell for more.

There are exceptions. It you purchased a used American Motors car in 1988, you didn't financially benefit AMC because, I believe, they stopped making cars in 1987. Somewhat similarly, it the author won't be writing any more books, buying a book, new or used, is unlikely to help the author.

There are similar considerations with library borrowing.