DRM is necessary and good, stop complaining

[rationalbiker]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Okay, what about the customer's property rights?

First, DRM isn't supposed to protect YOUR property rights. That is a company's way of protecting their rights. They protect theirs, you protect yours. So, it sounds like you are aware of a number of problems with DRM. Thus, your property rights are exercised and protected when you choose not to buy products with DRM.

Should you buy something with DRM and your property rights and/or terms of your contract with that company are violated, then you should seek civil redress in court. The producers on the other hand do not get that option in the vast majority of instances because their property is stolen anonymously over the internet and they can hardly ever find out who to pursue.

So that's what about the customer's property rights.

Each of these incidents affected only customers who legitimately purchased a product. They did not affect the pirates. How exactly did the DRM protect property rights?

The fact that those incidents didn't protect the company's property rights doesn't mean that DRM didn't protect their property rights overall. As I said, if you are against DRM, don't buy DRM products. That is how you protect your property rights.

No company is obliged to produce the product you want the way you want it. Likewise, you are not obliged to buy a company's product if you don't like how it works. That is how a fair, free market works, by means of VOLUNTARY trade.

Now one may argue that in the end, DRM is not the most effective way for the company to protect it's product, and they may be right. But it's the company's right to choose how to protect their investment however they see fit. Knowing that, you can choose your purchases accordingly.

[rationalbiker]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

I think you have just demonstrated mrkai's law.

Yes, I did. I did, because it's true. However, notice that I did not accuse anyone specifically in this thread. But thanks for putting a name to it as if that means anything.

[rationalbiker]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

There's no such thing as "intellectual property."

Intellectual property is a valid concept.

Oh, you mean like publishers who are still printing, under copyright, works where the authors are long dead?

Yes, them too. Did it sound as though I was excluding anyone who was taking something that they had no right to take? I don't think so. Whoever does hold the copyright should seek civil redress against whoever is printing that material.

Oh, yes, these people are not leaching off of the producers.

Sounds to me like they are, or at least they are leeching off whoever does have the copyright.

But "copyright violation" is not "stealing".

I'm afraid we will have to disagree. Taking something that one has not earned, that does not belong to them, which rightfully belongs to another is theft. I know folks like to rationalize that to themselves, but that is what it is, rationalization.

[rationalbiker]

For the user that brought up 'Laws', here's RB's law. In discusions about property rights and DRM, rarely will either side change their minds on the issue.

Given that law, I'm only going to reiterate that I agree with the OP and will not waste any more of my time on the matter.

Go DRM!!!

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

PaperbackDigital went out of business, They used to sell DRMed ebooks. The device authorizations cannot be updated; eventually the customers will lose the ability to read the ebooks they purchased. What about the customer's property rights?

One thing I notice about PaperbackDigital is that they dd not seem to sell a lot of the new eBooks. That right there caused people to go look elsewhere unless they wanted older eBooks.

[slayda]

Originally Posted by JohnClif

If Microsoft has broken the law (and I disagree that it has... if you want to see a monopolistic company look at Airbus, or Apple), then it will be punished. Too many people want to sic the power of the state on Microsoft, though, not because Microsoft has done something wrong but because they've done something right (made products that people want to buy, and that make it hard for other companies to compete).

1. "Something wrong" is not the same as "something illegal".
2. Doing something illegal doesn't always lead to punishment.
3. Stealing other peoples work, whether legally or illegally done is not the same as making products that people want to buy.
4. "Needing to buy, in order to do business" is not the same as "wanting to buy"

[slayda]

Originally Posted by rationalbiker

First, DRM isn't supposed to protect YOUR property rights. That is a company's way of protecting their rights. They protect theirs, you protect yours. So, it sounds like you are aware of a number of problems with DRM. Thus, your property rights are exercised and protected when you choose not to buy products with DRM.

I suppose that if I remove the DRM to protect my property rights then doing so is legitimate?

[slayda]

Originally Posted by rationalbiker

Should you buy something with DRM and your property rights and/or terms of your contract with that company are violated, then you should seek civil redress in court. The producers on the other hand do not get that option in the vast majority of instances because their property is stolen anonymously over the internet and they can hardly ever find out who to pursue.

And who does the customer pursue when the company who sold the ebook goes out of business. Note they do not necessarily go out of business due to financial reasons.

[rationalbiker]

Originally Posted by slayda

I suppose that if I remove the DRM to protect my property rights then doing so is legitimate?

I had intended to depart this discussion, but I will answer your last two questions.

To the question above, it depends on the agreement you made with the producer when you purchased their product KNOWING it had DRM. If that agreement was that the DRM should not be removed or that the content not be altered, then it would not be legitimate'

And who does the customer pursue when the company who sold the ebook goes out of business. Note they do not necessarily go out of business due to financial reasons.

This question would be best answered by an attorney. However, I suspect that the owners of the now defunct business would be who you sue next.

The best advice I can give you is that if you don't like DRM content, don't buy it. Send DRM producers the message that they will not get your consumer money unless they produce products that meet your approval. Money talks, BS walks.

Now, from this point on I'm outta this thread. That gives all those who disagree with me the last word.

[hacker]

Originally Posted by JohnClif

Stealing is stealing, and stealing is wrong. Microsoft's property rights are not linked to the size of its bank account, and neither are peoples' ethics.

I see this all the time, about how we're "stealing" from the corporations if we breach DRM to be able to use the data on our device.

Please correct your erroneous assumptions: Piracy is NOT stealing.

If I "steal" you bicycle, I now have possession of it, while you do not. I have deprived you of your bicycle.

If however, I take a series of high-quality digital scans of your bicycle, and recreate the exact same bicycle in my basement, have I stolen your bicycle? Are you no longer able to ride your bicycle?

The RIAA/MPAA/etc. have shoved this down our throats for a long time, to the point of forcing us to watch the 2-minute mini-movie at the beginning of full-length feature films, about piracy...

"You wouldn't steal a car!"
"You wouldn't steal a television set!"
"You wouldn't steal a DVD!"
"Downloading pirated movies is STEALING!"

When in fact, it isn't.

Now, what I've written above is in no way defending piracy or copyright violations. I abhor the industry's garbage and would rather see them rot out on their own vine, than contribute to their inertia. I support artists directly and film and movie studios directly.

They're already stealing enough from us every day, by applying their tariffs on recordable media, players and other devices.

If I buy a spool of CDRs and DVD+RW media that I use to burn Linux ISO images for my Linux User Group every month, and a portion of the cost of that recordable media goes into the pockets of the MUSIC or MOVIE industry... is that stealing? YES, you're damn right it is.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by rationalbiker

Intellectual property is a valid concept.

Then you should be able to explain how it's possible to own an idea.

Originally Posted by rationalbiker

Yes, them too. Did it sound as though I was excluding anyone who was taking something that they had no right to take? I don't think so. Whoever does hold the copyright should seek civil redress against whoever is printing that material.

Then justify why someone who did not write the book should be able to own it long after the author is dead.

Originally Posted by rationalbiker

Sounds to me like they are, or at least they are leeching off whoever does have the copyright.

There's an old saying:
It's not wrong to steal from a thief. It's certainly not wrong to take your own property from a thief.

Originally Posted by rationalbiker

I'm afraid we will have to disagree.

Then you disagree with the law.

[hacker]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

There's an old saying:
It's not wrong to steal from a thief. It's certainly not wrong to take your own property from a thief.

It may not be "wrong" in some moral view, but it is illegal, and you will be arrested and prosecuted for doing so.

[JSWolf]

There is DRM and then there is DRM. Look at DVD DRM. I can take my legally purchased DVDs and play them in any DVD player. Not a problem. If my DVD player breaks, I can purchase another and my DVDs will work. I don't have to worry which DVD player I purchase. If Phillips stopped making them, I can get a unit from another company. It's that easy.

Now, if my 505 breaks beyond repair, my eBooks purchased from Sony won't work on a Gen3 or even a new 505 unless I register it and redownload. So if my 505 broke, I cannot go out and get a Kindle or a gen3 as they won't work. So if I have unread eBooks purchased from Sony, I either have to purchase another 505 or give up on the eBooks purchased from Sony. This is NOT a good way to handle DRM. That is part of why I am purchasing most of my eBooks in a form that I can take with me to a different platform should I ever want to.

[hacker]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

There is DRM and then there is DRM. Look at DVD DRM. I can take my legally purchased DVDs and play them in any DVD player. Not a problem. If my DVD player breaks, I can purchase another and my DVDs will work.

Unless you live outside the US, or are playing a DVD that was designed for another country. Try playing some anime DVD you bought in Japan on your US region DVD player. It won't work. Likewise, try bringing your US region encoded DVDs to another country and try to play it on their players. They won't work either.

I don't have to worry which DVD player I purchase. If Phillips stopped making them, I can get a unit from another company. It's that easy.

Not quite. Unless you're changing the region-encoding on your player every time you play a DVD from a non-US country (which you can only do 7 times, iirc), you're going to run up against a limit.

[AnemicOak]

Region coding has pretty much been rendered meaningless to anyone who wants to view DVDs from another region. Region free players are quite easy to buy & don't really cost anymore than most other decent players. Anyone in the US who wants to view a DVD from another region (like Japan) generally knows it will only work on a region free player and it's not a problem.