Ars technica article: Landmark study: DRM truly does make pirates out of us all

[zerospinboson]

well, yes. I assume that refers to the fact that fair use has left the building.

Beneficiaries of privileged exceptions who have been prevented from carrying out those permitted acts (because of the employment of DRM) have not used the complaints mechanism set out in UK law.

Amongst respondents of the study, it was found that user representatives were aware of the complaints mechanism but had not tested it, whilst individual respondents were not familiar with it. Certain beneficiaries found it too onerous to utilise the complaints mechanism and other beneficiaries were not aware of its existence. As a result, the UK complaints’ mechanism remains untested in spite of the existence of some problems, with some users finding it too impractical and others being unaware of its existence.

Gee. Citizens (in theory) have a say in this? astonishing. Glad to see it's useless.

Voluntary measures have emerged in the publishing field, but not all content owners are ready to act unless they are told to do so by regulatory authorities.

Understatement of the year.

Anyway, the problem isn't that academicians are not pointing out how copyright/DRM etc. is only in the interest of the owners, the problem is that the politicians don't listen to them anyway. When they lobbied the EC to scrap the copyright extension they were roundly ignored, mostly, I assume, because of corporate shill McCreevy.

[gerraldo]

Originally Posted by John Bailey

If someone can stop you using something you thought was yours, then it isn't yours.

Basically all DRM enabled content is rented, not bought. Conditions may change at any time, and at the discretion of the owner (not you).

If it's tied to the device or tied to an account, then you don't own it. The sooner enough people see this, the sooner it can be done away with.

And the sooner enough people will realize this, the sooner we can bring DRM to it's grave! I will NEVER buy DRMed eBooks or music!!!

When you look at it his way, DRMed eBooks or music are far too pricey:
- you have no material copy, lost data is gone (faulty media, hardware, accidents)
- you can't lend or sell it after use
- you can't use it everywhere and on each device
- etc...

Practically there isn't much difference between your DRMed copy and one you lent from a public library (just without the time limit - so you can read it over and over. but who does?!).

Please avoid buying DRMed content wherever you can and instead tell the publishers why you haven't done so! Buy more CDs and pBooks or lend and swap 'em with your friends after use, don't let them "force" you to break the law...

[sirbruce]

I just want to point out that whether or not DRMed ebooks are really "rented" or "licensed" rather than "bought" is something yet to be litigated in the US. Indeed, there are many reasons to believe such litigation may come down on the "bought" side of the debate, perhaps thereby defanging the teeth of DRM itself.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

I just want to point out that whether or not DRMed ebooks are really "rented" or "licensed" rather than "bought" is something yet to be litigated in the US. Indeed, there are many reasons to believe such litigation may come down on the "bought" side of the debate, perhaps thereby defanging the teeth of DRM itself.

Considering the DMCA, and the claims surrounding the illegality of DVD copying tools (etc), and the fact that that never went to court either, I doubt this will. The only people who would need to would be people who got locked out of their Kindle account (or something similar, perhaps a webshop that was closed), but I doubt many of them will have the money to do something about that.
That said, they will probably win (whoever they would have to sue for that to be meaningful) because of the fact that people expect to buy a copy, rather than a licence, and the other side won't be able to explain satisfactorily why people no longer have a right to own rather than lease a copy, but I doubt this will happen any time soon.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

That said, they will probably win (whoever they would have to sue for that to be meaningful) because of the fact that people expect to buy a copy, rather than a licence, and the other side won't be able to explain satisfactorily why people no longer have a right to own rather than lease a copy, but I doubt this will happen any time soon.

The problem, as I see it, is there are conflicting laws (at least in the US). US courts have already ruled on the "is it a sale or a license" question with regards to software, which is very similar to ebooks, saying that as long as there is no expectation that the customer needs to return the item then it is a sale. However, DRM prevents you from doing things you are supposed to be able to do when the product was sold to you, and the DMCA tries to prevent you from stripping the DRM.

I don't know if that contradiction will ever get resolved. I do know that as far as personal use, I will make my own moral decision. As long as it's personal use, how will the publisher ever know (let alone why should they care).

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

why should they care).

That one's a slam dunk, of course. It affects their bottom line.
I wouldn't know why that consideration should outweigh your right to own something indefinitely though.
Anyway, it may be that software licences are that, but the difference when it comes to books (and lots of other products) is that people have always expected to finally own something they buy, as the button in the Kindle store says "buy" and not "lease" this book/cd/etc.
If they were to change the "buy" on that button to "lease", I expect there would be something of a minor outcry.