STUDY SHOWS: Ditching DRM could reduce piracy, prices

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

You guys ought to stop! You know you have no business doing legal things with ebooks that you purchased with your own hard earned money! It's more than obvious that only publishers and the like know what's really going on in your head, you thief you! They already know that your real plan is to do something they don't want you to. So stop it!

I'm sorry. I'll stop right away.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by stonetools

... don't understand that storeowners should never take precautions to protect their property, because that would be branding the customers as potential thieves.

but that's what you got wrong in your brain. DRM does nothing to protect intellectual property. The only thing it does is make it difficult or impossible for legitimate purchasers to use as they wish what they paid for.

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by kennyc

but that's what you got wrong in your brain. DRM does nothing to protect intellectual property. The only thing it does is make it difficult or impossible for legitimate purchasers to use as they wish what they paid for.

DRM would be the equivalent of the store owner following you around and monitoring every your move to make sure that you don't handle your purchased item in any other way than the way they want. Slightly different from them watching you to make sure you don't steal in the store.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by frahse

I don't profess Faustian insight, but I do see self deception at work here, many, many
incarnations of Mephistopheles seeking to satisfy all and willing to help twist logic,
truth and virtue for that purpose.

Yeah... DRM discussions are good like that. And unless you happen to be Daniel Webster, there's little point in trying to debate the subject.

[ekster]

Originally Posted by ScalyFreak

DRM would be the equivalent of the store owner following you around and monitoring every your move to make sure that you don't handle your purchased item in any other way than the way they want. Slightly different from them watching you to make sure you don't steal in the store.

I think DRM is more the equivalent on that annoying, impossible to open special anti-theft wrapping plastic they started putting on DVDs and CDs (at least in this part of the world). If a person buys the damn thing, they have to spend half an hour trying to open it... but if someone wants to steal it? They just grab the case with all its fancy special plastic and steal it, not one bit harder than before. Sure, opening it afterwards might be an extra effort afterwards, but it's pointless at that point.

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by ekster

I think DRM is more the equivalent on that annoying, impossible to open special anti-theft wrapping plastic they started putting on DVDs and CDs (at least in this part of the world). If a person buys the damn thing, they have to spend half an hour trying to open it... but if someone wants to steal it? They just grab the case with all its fancy special plastic and steal it, not one bit harder than before. Sure, opening it afterwards might be an extra effort afterwards, but it's pointless at that point.

Psssh. Like any DRM, that's easily stripped with the right tool.

[ekster]

They are! And I couldn't believe when I saw HMV, of all the stores, selling those tiny sharp things the size of a quarter specifically to open remove the plastic easily.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Yeah... DRM discussions are good like that. And unless you happen to be Daniel Webster, there's little point in trying to debate the subject.

Oh Steve, Steve.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by ekster

They are! And I couldn't believe when I saw HMV, of all the stores, selling those tiny sharp things the size of a quarter specifically to open remove the plastic easily.

What? You have QUARTERS in Canada????

[ekster]

Originally Posted by kennyc

What? You have QUARTERS in Canada????

Yes. Sharp ones, that are worth $1.

[MrsJoseph]

I love it, though. Cause the argument goes like this:

Reader & purchaser: Hi! I just bought this new ebook and I want to read this book in any way I please.
Most publishers & Authors: Sorry, you can't do that cause some people steal.
Reader & purchaser: But I didn't steal. I bought it and now I want to read it.
Most publishers & Authors: Sorry, you can't do that cause some people steal. Plus, you might decide to steal, too.
Reader & purchaser: BUT I DIDN'T STEAL ANYTHING. And I supported YOU. Why do you now treat me like this?
Most publishers & Authors: Cause some people steal. How am I to know you aren't a thief, too?! You keep wanting this no DRM thing. Thief.
Reader & purchaser: You know I'm not a thief cause I BOUGHT it.
Most publishers & Authors: Not good enough. Just the fact that you want to do what you want with the ebook you bought from us shows that you have intentions of stealing. Or entering the godforsaken second hand market. That's stealing, too! Thief!
Reader & purchaser: Fine! I won't buy your products again. Go screw yourself.



Most publishers & Authors: Hey, we have a new ebook/book out! Come give us all your money!



*cricket* *cricket*



Most publishers & Authors: Seeee! No one is buying our stuff! It's the thieves and their thievery! Let's add more DRM, that will show them.

[frahse]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Yeah... DRM discussions are good like that. And unless you happen to be Daniel Webster, there's little point in trying to debate the subject.

Yes, good point!

The Encounter Suit gives a modicum of protection and builds confidence, but I shouldn't be careless. There are always more souls at risk than a Jabez Stone's, as indeed Daniel Webster realized.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by ScalyFreak

DRM would be the equivalent of the store owner following you around and monitoring every your move to make sure that you don't handle your purchased item in any other way than the way they want. Slightly different from them watching you to make sure you don't steal in the store.

Actually, its to prevent the non-tech user from copying and distributing the product-something it does well.
You can't actually copy and distribute the product until you acquire it . And although people make jokes about it, there are quite a few products where the law regulates what you do with the product after you buy it -guns, for example.

But then, why am I getting into this again. Nah go ahead,-continue to believe that ebooks are the only product where the law is concerned with what you do with the product after you buy it, and its all a dastardly plot of the publishing industry. That's simple and easy to believe , and fits the prevailing narrative.

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by frahse

"To lock the door is to accuse me falsely."
"Keeping thy bosom well buttoned is a blight imposed upon my character."
"You watch me like I am a thief?"
"Why measure the precious?"

"Shame on you, it is your fault that I am this way!"

This seems to be the recurrent theme of this thread.

It only seems like a delusional persecution complex until you go back and look at some older posts here where people in favor of stronger DRM have actually stated that the majority of people are just thieves waiting for an opportunity. This sentiment is echoed frequently out in the "real world" when defending DRM. Ironically, this almost gets there:

Originally Posted by stonetools

This site is full of that. DRM is a copyright protection scheme. Some people remove DRM for entirely innocent purposes. Many more do because they intend to violate copyright. The law is aimed at the second group, and cares little about the first.

(Emphasis mine.)

And this is where, in my opinion, things always get turned around backwards. This makes no sense to me. Think about this for a second - in terms of numbers, "Many more do (remove DRM) because they intend to violate copyright" simply isn't logical. First consider the supply chain we're talking about - digital files, stripped of any DRM, copied and distributed freely. Where digital good differ from physical goods is in their ability to be copied EXACTLY and to a potentially unlimited degree at lightning speed. Technically, it only takes one acquisition of a legitimate copy to fill the supply for any given book. Practically, the number is probably "a handful".

Most of the "violat(ing) copyright" going on is not taking the form of buying and stripping DRM from content. There's no need, because in most cases, someone's already done it. The overwhelming majority of those who care nothing for copyright (or just want to get everything for free) are never touching the legitimate supply chain.

DRM is not the equivalent of anti-theft devices and security guards. It may sometimes attempt to do the same job, but it's an entirely different animal. The bank security guard doesn't follow me home to make sure I'm not depositing the cash I've withdrawn into a competitor's bank. Most physical anti-theft devices are removed or deactivated by the retailer at the time of purchase. I just got a funny image in my head of a device on white shoes that allows them to only be worn between Memorial Day and Labor Day.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by stonetools

This site is full of that. DRM is a copyright protection scheme. Some people remove DRM for entirely innocent purposes. Many more do because they intend to violate copyright. The law is aimed at the second group, and cares little about the first.

You are seriously saying that the majority of people who remove DRM do so in order to distribute illegal copies? Seriously? More people are UPLOADING to file-sharing sites than are simply stripping DRM because it interferes with their personal use of material they purchased?

On what grounds do you make such an outlandish claim? Back it up, please.

Hard to understand why the first group gets so outraged over the very idea that they may be considered as being bundled in with the second .

Let's call it profiling. I'm being eyed with deep suspicion not because of anything I've done, but simply by virtue of my membership in a class called "book buyer."

When I go to a bank, I understand that the security guard is there to stop the bank robber, and that the bank does not view me, their customer, as a potential thief.

When I leave the bank, the security guard does not follow me around to make sure I don't do anything "bad" with my money. I can spend it in riotous living if I like. It's mine.

I don't get the vapors when the RFID detectors go off when I walk out of a store after making a legit purchase, even though it (momentarily) brands me as a potential shoplifter. I understand why some stores keep small, valuable items in closed displays, (although I would prefer that I freely handle them) and don't get mad at the storekeepers for taking precautions, even though it shows a lack of trust in me as a potential customer. Maybe I'm just thick-skinned, and don't understand that storeowners should never take precautions to protect their property, because that would be branding the customers as potential thieves.

I guess you've never been a teenager, or worn a bulky coat, or been a member of a minority group, such that you aroused the suspicions of the store personnel the second you walked into the store. Because if you had, you would know how demeaning it is to be treated like a potential criminal.

In any case, your analogies aren't on point. The store is taking precautions to make sure you bought the merchandise; once it's paid for, that's the end of the store's interest. DRM is something that inhibits the customer after the sale is concluded--after the customer has fulfilled his or her obligation to the seller.