Pan Macmillan: DRM Is Not Evil

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Are you sure the law says "downloads", or does it say something about three counts of copyright infringement. Many news/blog sites use the term "download" all the time, when what they really are talking about is uploading. For instance, you can find articles all over the internet talking about the RIAA suing illegal downloaders, when the reality is that nobody has ever been sued by the RIAA for downloading. It's always uploading. I'd be curious what the law really said, versus what some news/blog story claimed it said.

By the way, last I saw the law was ruled as unconstitutional in France about a month ago and overturned. Has it been passed again?

What I read was that it was indeed downloads. Failed to pass it on the first try because only one third of legislators were present and the remaining ones voted it down. Then a few weeks later it was passed. Haven't heard any new development since.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Doesn't matter. It will still be cracked shortly after being released, and people will strip it and share the un-DRMd versions.

However, if such a system ever exists (which I doubt), it would at least be a step in the right direction.

Sure, it will be cracked. What I mean is that I see few reasonable objections to such DRM. Normal use would not be inhibited, coupled with reasonable prices. Makes the publishers feel better and doesn't hurt users. Those that would then still go for darknet copies are those who would spend any money on legal files, anyway.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

What I read was that it was indeed downloads. Failed to pass it on the first try because only one third of legislators were present and the remaining ones voted it down. Then a few weeks later it was passed. Haven't heard any new development since.

After it passed the french courts ruled it unconstitutional and overthrew it. This was back in mid-June. Last I heard the French president was trying to get another version of it passed again, but I haven't heard that it happened. I've seen sites that said it was for downloading, but like I said, news sites often use the term "downloading" indiscriminately when talking about filesharing. Most of the time, what they technically mean is "uploading". I'd like to see what the law itself said, but my french probably isn't good enough to understand it without a translation.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Sure, it will be cracked. What I mean is that I see few reasonable objections to such DRM. Normal use would not be inhibited, coupled with reasonable prices. Makes the publishers feel better and doesn't hurt users. Those that would then still go for darknet copies are those who would spend any money on legal files, anyway.

What happens if the company goes out of business and then you buy a new device? You can't register a new ID if there is nobody to register with. At that point, you've lost all of your purchased content.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

What happens if the company goes out of business and then you buy a new device? You can't register a new ID if there is nobody to register with. At that point, you've lost all of your purchased content.

There could even be ways around that (like a central industry database or the company is bought by someone else). Well, we could always imagine such scenarios. Like a pbook lost in a fire or more likely, my parrot getting a hold of it and ripping it to shreds. Then you are left out in the cold with a pbook, too.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

There could even be ways around that (like a central industry database or the company is bought by someone else). Well, we could always imagine such scenarios. Like a pbook lost in a fire or more likely, my parrot getting a hold of it and ripping it to shreds. Then you are left out in the cold with a pbook, too.

That's a different scenario. If you delete all your copies of an eBook and don't have backups... then yeah, that's your fault. DRM doesn't come into play with that though.

[Icarusbop]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Maybe not yet in the US (yet being the operative word), but in France, for example, they just passed a new law: three illegal downloads and your internet connection will be cut.

They keep talking about creating a a similar law in the UK.
However; last month our illustrious PM declared that an internet connection is now a fundamental human right (like water) - (I don't think) This would not fit very well with a law that says they can disconnect you (violation of your human rights?), makes me wonder if they have thought about it properly, suince these two laws would seem to conflict.

[Icarusbop]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Copyright law does not make it illegal to receive infringed material, only to distribute it without authorization. Presumably, this is because downloaders are not expected to know whether or not the uploader is authorized. Authorization is the sole responsibility of the uploader.

This is great, how does it fit with the recent Kindle Debacle?
Looks like Amazon had no right to delete those books after all, and; even though they did, it does not absolve them of the crime of infringement....
(if a thief pays me back, he is still a thief and can still be done for it (I think))

(Sorry for the 'off topic, or 'topic crossover')

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Doesn't matter. It will still be cracked shortly after being released, and people will strip it and share the un-DRMd versions.

However, if such a system ever exists (which I doubt), it would at least be a step in the right direction.

Of course, such a system would also have to prevent you copying the entire text of the book sentence by sentence, so you'd need some kind of clipping limit like the Kindle currently has. And if you wanted your books easily searchable (say by Apple's Spotlight) you'd be out of luck - it wouldn't be possible to write a spotlight indexer.

And in numerous other was, the DRM would restrict legitimate fair use of the book. And those restrictions would only affect paying customers, not those who go the cracked copy off the darknet.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Icarusbop

Looks like Amazon had no right to delete those books after all, and; even though they did, it does not absolve them of the crime of infringement....
(if a thief pays me back, he is still a thief and can still be done for it (I think))

That's probably one of the big reasons that Amazon is backtracking and changing their policy to not delete in the future. I'm sure it was done as a way to try and appease the copyright holder so that they wouldn't sue, but you're right, it does not absolve their liability. The copyright infringement occurred, whether or not they try to "undo" it later doesn't matter. The only thing it changes is the likelihood of getting sued, not their guilt/innocence.