DRM: What did you buy? (An Essay.)

[speedlever]

Originally Posted by gmw

That is an interesting problem with regard to ebooks vs paper books, OTOH you certainly could loan him your reader (or perhaps you have multiple authorised devices as permited by some sellers) and still keep faith with your agreement.

snip

The problem I have with this approach is that you are effectively loaning your entire library, not just the one book when you loan out your ereader.

OTOH, from what little I've learned thus far, many (most?) TOS allow for 6 devices or so to share the same account.. which would make all the content legally shareable. But you better trust who you allow on your account.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by gmw

I can only repeat myself. Computers give you the opportunity, DRM attempts to make it more difficult.

A "presumption of guilt", in other words? Doesn't work for me.

that an intellectual property owner is legally obliged to take steps to try and protect their property

We're not talking about trademarks here. There is no obligation to protect your material in any way. Just like a house-owner is not obliged to keep his doors locked, and theft remains a a crime even so.

Simply playing with the numbers doesn't change the difficulty of protecting copyright in the computer-age.

I never said it did. It's important for justifying the legal principle of copyright as such, though. This is not natural law, it's a man-made vehicle.

I'm the first to agree that a new renumeration scheme for authors would be needed. I just don't think Digital Restriction Management helps anyone, not even the ones it's meant to protect. Give the users what they want, at an acceptable price, in good quality. Why bother with the darknet when I can download the same content legally for a few dollars?

The problem right now is that the illegal content is much more attractive in many ways: a format I can use on the device of my choosing, no geo or other restrictions... Yes, it's free, but many people would happily pay for that, too -- were it only available in the same manner. Alas, quote often it's not.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by gmw

There are even potential legal arguments in favour of using DRM: that an intellectual property owner is legally obliged to take steps to try and protect their property if they ever intend to ask for legal remedy

Nonsense, at least as applies to copyright.

It /does/ apply to trademarks. But not to copyright.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

You are taking publishers' side that their making demands of their users is an agreement between them and those users.

Not everyone believes that a unilateral demand constitutes an agreement.

I don't entirely disagree with you - their ability to change rules when they feel like it is something that could be argued to discount their validity. OTOH I think the main point still stands that people do have choices. They don't have to buy ebooks, paper books still exist. Buying and then breaking makes no statement at all (except a poor one about your ability to keep your word), not buying because you don't like their terms makes a statement.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by gmw

some have blatantly said on these forums that they strip DRM in direct contradiction to the agreements they were aware of at the time they made them. So much for trust, so becomes obvious the reasons for trying to find effective DRM. I find such behaviour ... anomalous; inconsistent with my sense of honour and what is right.

It's an oddly circular argument to suggest that the DRM is necessary because publishers don't trust customers because they strip the DRM.

Clearly some publishers don't trust the customers in the first place.

I strip the DRM from any DRMed ebooks I buy. I do not think this is dishonest. I don't consider that I'm bound in honour by any DRM-specific conditions in EULAs. Whether I'm bound in law by them is undecided.

If I have negotiated an agreement on moderately equal terms, I wouldn't dream of breaking it. EULAs are not such agreements.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by gmw

Buying and then breaking makes no statement at all (except a poor one about your ability to keep your word), not buying because you don't like their terms makes a statement.

I can respect your principles. They are not mine. Large corporations are treated entirely too much like people. Corporations do not have any word to keep.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by speedlever

The problem I have with this approach is that you are effectively loaning your entire library, not just the one book when you loan out your ereader.

OTOH, from what little I've learned thus far, many (most?) TOS allow for 6 devices or so to share the same account.. which would make all the content legally shareable. But you better trust who you allow on your account.

Loaning out your only reader full of all your favourite erotic novels to your father could be problematic.

The whole removing DRM so I can loan my ebook like a would a paper book produces an interesting situation. If I've already decided which conditions I care to obey then who's rules will I follow about how many friends I can loan to at once? It reminds me of that old joke: "Don't worry, your secret is safe with me and all my friends."

[gmw]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I can respect your principles. They are not mine. Large corporations are treated entirely too much like people. Corporations do not have any word to keep.

I wondered when this one was going to turn up, I even found myself a suitable Simpsons quote ready:

   -- Homer reads the `So you've decided to steal cable' pamphlet,
      ``Homer vs. Lisa and the 8th Commandment''
   Myth: Cable piracy is wrong.
   Fact: Cable companies are big faceless corporations,
         which makes it okay.

You also said:

It's an oddly circular argument to suggest that the DRM is necessary because publishers don't trust customers because they strip the DRM.

And I agree ... although would be inclined to argue that there is DRM as it is currently implemented vs DRM the concept. The fact that people decide which rules they want to obey is the reason why companies spend so much time and effort looking for effective DRM (as opposed to what they may have right now).

Also you and few others pointed out:

It /does/ apply to trademarks. But not to copyright.

Thanks for the correction.

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by gmw

Buying and then breaking makes no statement at all (except a poor one about your ability to keep your word), not buying because you don't like their terms makes a statement.

I don't break my word.

But that's only when I give it in the first place.

I do not consider a unilateral demand being imposed on me to me by some other party to be the same thing as giving my word. For example, if a mugger says "your money or your life" I do not feel obliged to give him my money if I can find a way out of it just because I chose life. Are you arguing that you would do so?

I should mention, by the way, that I don't buy DRM-restricted ebooks. But I argue with publishers' astroturfing at every turn. People who repeat publishers' lies -- "our demands are your agreements" and "copyrights are exactly the same as trademarks" -- are not my friends.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by gmw

I wondered when this one was going to turn up, I even found myself a suitable Simpsons quote ready:

I see a difference between not keeping to unreasonable terms unilaterally imposed upon me, but in a way that does no harm to the other party, and not paying for a service I receive.

But I was probably wrong to bring the "a corporation is not a real person" argument into it. We can leave that for another thread.

Originally Posted by gmw

And I agree ... although would be inclined to argue that there is DRM as it is currently implemented vs DRM the concept. The fact that people decide which rules they want to obey is the reason why companies spend so much time and effort looking for effective DRM (as opposed to what they may have right now).

What a convoluted argument, and just as circular. People circumvent DRM which is why we must use DRM...

As for "effective DRM", in terms of encryption there isn't any. However, I wouldn't object to social DRM that added a (nicely formatted) section or page to the start of an ebook, giving details of when, where, and by whom and for how much it was purchased. Keeping track of where I bought ebooks and how much for is hard — thank goodness for a good email archive.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

I don't break my word.

But that's only when I give it in the first place.

I do not consider a unilateral demand being imposed on me to me by some other party to be the same thing as giving my word. For example, if a mugger says "your money or your life" I do not feel obliged to give him my money if I can find a way out of it just because I chose life. Are you arguing that you would do so?

I should mention, by the way, that I don't buy DRM-restricted ebooks. But I argue with publishers' astroturfing at every turn. People who repeat publishers' lies -- "our demands are your agreements" and "copyrights are exactly the same as trademarks" -- are not my friends.

I stand corrected on copyright.

Who exactly do you suppose is forcing people at gun point to buy books from Amazon (or whoever) ? I still fail to see how a person's choice to buy a book from a certain retailer is somehow puts that retailer in a position demand anything. Repeat after me: Just say No. If enough people actual spoke with their dollars instead of with subterfuge then publishers/sellers may actually start to adapt. At the moment they have little incentive to improve their ways, and who knows some of their silly clauses may pay off one day.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

What a convoluted argument, and just as circular. People circumvent DRM which is why we must use DRM...

I don't think I've ever said "we must use DRM", I've only attempted to explain some of the reasons behind it. If people didn't regularly violate agreements (as they admit to here) then companies wouldn't spend so much time trying to find ways to enforce their agreements. So you're right, it is circular, but I don't see it as that convoluted.

Many people, myself included, state our preference by not purchasing DRM protected books. It's quite simple really. There is no need to act dishonourably or to work yourself up trying to find excuses for saying one thing and doing another. If enough people do it the retailers may even catch on ... eventually.

[Worldwalker]

Right off the top of my head, I can't think of anyone here who has admitted to giving away multiple copies of paid-for books -- i.e., the equivalent of cloning paper books. Who are these people on MR?

[DiapDealer]

DRM: What did you buy?

I bought a book. That may not be what they intended to sell me... but that doesn't really concern me.

I strip the DRM from all my ebooks. I'm not defending the practice... not trying to rationalize it... and not really concerned with the legal, civil, or moral implications.

I'm perfectly comfortable with my own personal decisions concerning DRM. Come to think of it... I'm perfectly comfortable with everyone else's personal decisions concerning the subject, too.

[edembowski]

Originally Posted by gmw

... Most sites selling DRM ebooks have terms-of-use agreement that you are asked to read and accept - and at least some of of those agreements are explicit about the removal of DRM. ...

I often shop at Barnes & Noble for my ebooks. I have a sony reader, so whenever I get a book, I decrypt it and push it down to my reader. At no rime was I ever presented with any statement regarding DRM removal. I went ahead and opened the license for the Nook app on the PC, and found a very interesting paragraph:

6. USE OF CONTENT. Licensee agrees that the use, reproduction, display and/or distribution of any Digital Content, text, graphics or other materials (“Content”) in connection with the use of the Software may be restricted by applicable laws and regulations, including without limitation, copyright laws. Licensee represents and warrants that Licensee has obtained all necessary rights to use, modify, reproduce or distribute any Content in connection with Licensee’s use of the Software. Licensee further represents and warrants that Licensee’s use, reproduction, display and/or distribution of Content in connection with and the use of the Software shall be in compliance with any applicable laws and regulations, including without limitation, copyright laws, and that BN shall have no duty to and shall not investigate or verify Licensee’s use of the Software or right to use any Content. Licensee shall defend, indemnify and hold BN harmless from and against any claims alleging that Licensee’s use, reproduction, display and/or distribution of the Content infringes any third party proprietary rights and/or is not in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations, including copyright laws. Licensee shall not settle or compromise any claim subject to this Section without BN’s prior written approval.

I find the lack of language around DRM to speak volumes.

I also shop at the Sony book store as well. I spent about a half hour looking through their site to find any kind of license agreement stating that I can't strip DRM. I'm not an Amazon ebook customer, so I really can't say anything about that.

Originally Posted by gmw

Am I not as good as my word? I like to think so, but apparently not everyone holds to the same standard.

Am I? I most certainly am. Removal of DRM not does not violate the law, it does not violate any agreement I've entered into. It's rather ignorant to assume that if you buy books from Amazon with one agreement, then all other booksellers must follow the same agreement, and that everyone circumventing digital restrictions must be breaking their word.