Arguments For And Against DRM

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by shalym

Are you serious? So now you're saying that there is no difference between loaning something to someone and giving it to them? I'd hate to be your banker.

Shari

Yes, I'm perfectly serious. What's the difference between giving someone your spare Kindle, and permanently loaning it to them? I have half a dozen spare reading devices: I could easily loan them to friends, each with 1000 books on, without the slightest expectation of ever getting them back again. In what way does that differ from giving those people pirated copies of the books? I see no difference.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes, I'm perfectly serious. What's the difference between giving someone your spare Kindle, and permanently loaning it to them? I have half a dozen spare reading devices: I could easily loan them to friends, each with 1000 books on, without the slightest expectation of ever getting them back again. In what way does that differ from giving those people pirated copies of the books? I see no difference.

By your reasoning, if someone loans you money, you get to keep it, as there is no difference between lending and giving.

I am completely flabbergasted. I just don't know what to say to this.

Shari

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes, I'm perfectly serious. What's the difference between giving someone your spare Kindle, and permanently loaning it to them? I have half a dozen spare reading devices: I could easily loan them to friends, each with 1000 books on, without the slightest expectation of ever getting them back again. In what way does that differ from giving those people pirated copies of the books? I see no difference.

The difference is that the books have DRM and there is a restriction on how many devices you can have registered just for this case.

So it is only a problem if you have broken the rules and removed the DRM.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by HarryT

So you'd make a distinction between a temporary loan of a reader, and a permanent gift of one? I see no practical different between saying "here's a reader to keep", and "here a reader to keep as long as you fancy it. It's a spare, so I'm not using it".

I'm sorry, but I really must ask, do you ever engage in honest debate?

If I wrote about lending an automobile would you infer that I did not expect it back, and soon?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by shalym

By your reasoning, if someone loans you money, you get to keep it, as there is no difference between lending and giving.

I am completely flabbergasted. I just don't know what to say to this.

Shari

You could try answering the question. I "lend" you my Kindle Touch with 1000 books on it, and I say to you "let me have it back when you've finished the books". Given that it'll take the average person perhaps 20 years to read those books, in what way is my "loan" not in reality a gift?

[shalym]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You could try answering the question. I "lend" you my Kindle Touch with 1000 books on it, and I say to you "let me have it back when you've finished the books". Given that it'll take the average person perhaps 20 years to read those books, in what way is my "loan" not in reality a gift?

Ok...can you point me to where that scenario was ever discussed? The scenario discussed was loading a book onto a spare reader and lending the reader to Aunt Mary. You responded to that specific scenario by saying that it was piracy.

I guess if you explicitly say to someone "let me have it back when you've finished the books" and there are 1000 books on the device, then yes. You probably shouldn't expect to get the reader back any time soon. I'll say it again, though...that specific use case was never discussed. Even if it was, I don't think Amazon would have any more of a problem with it than if you simply added that person to your account...which would also be allowed. Actually, since the Kindle has to be authorized by Amazon in order for it be acceptable through the TOS, you technically did add that person to your account, just by giving them a Kindle that was registered to your account.

Shari

[DiapDealer]

Who cares? Two or two-thousand books? Where's the rights-violating, copyright-infringing, parrot-on-the-shoulder-wearing, new unauthorized copy being created in such an thought-experiment?

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You could try answering the question. I "lend" you my Kindle Touch with 1000 books on it, and I say to you "let me have it back when you've finished the books". Given that it'll take the average person perhaps 20 years to read those books, in what way is my "loan" not in reality a gift?

Most people don't have half a dozen devices.

Most people have far less than 1000 books on each device.

Most people would lend out for the pupose of reading a single book.

Most people would expect a return in a reasonable time.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by shalym

Ok...can you point me to where that scenario was ever discussed? The scenario discussed was loading a book onto a spare reader and lending the reader to Aunt Mary. You responded to that specific scenario by saying that it was piracy.

Unless the "lending" takes place under circumstances permitted by the publisher (eg Amazon have pretty flexible permitted sharing scenarios), I'd say that there's a strong argument to be made that the scenario you describe does constitute copyright infringement. You've given a copy of the book to a person who isn't licensed to read it. The infringement takes place the instant you do that: it doesn't matter how long or short a period of time they retain it for.

I'm sure that not everyone will agree with me (I strongly suspect that you won't), but that's the way it looks to me.

[Red Falcon]

I have read most of the posts in this thread and this is what I think.

1.You should be able to loan your e-book(s) up to 10 times through the store you bought the e-book(s) through to anybody you want to for 21 days, renewable once.You do not have access to the book during that time.

2.Have up to five people in you family share program who can share there purchases.This includes having a copy of the book available to everybody at the same time. Be able to change out the people in the program 5 times and then it is permanent.

3.No DRM at all, just watermarking of the book to track it back to the purchaser if it is shared online.

4.Format shifting being legal for you own personal use.You must do the format shifting yourself of course.

5.Strict legal sanctions including fines and or jail time for anybody knowingly sharing copyright materials online.

This is my idea of a fair use license for e-books and I would pay more for the book if this was the case.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Unless the "lending" takes place under circumstances permitted by the publisher (eg Amazon have pretty flexible permitted sharing scenarios), I'd say that there's a strong argument to be made that the scenario you describe does constitute copyright infringement. You've given a copy of the book to a person who isn't licensed to read it. The infringement takes place the instant you do that: it doesn't matter how long or short a period of time they retain it for.

I'm sure that not everyone will agree with me (I strongly suspect that you won't), but that's the way it looks to me.

Since Amazon has already said that "they're happy for anyone to read your books, so long as they do it on an authorised device" it would seem that they are the ones guilty of any copyright infringement, if any actually exists.

Shari

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Is there a meaningful difference between giving Aunt Mary a key to my house, and leaving the door wide open with a welcome sign and an invitation to all and sundry to take whatever they want?

In terms of stupidity? Sure. In terms of right and wrong? None at all. You are free to give YOUR key to anyone you like and lock or unlock YOUR house as you choose. You are equally right in both cases.

Substitute YOUR key for your employer's "do not duplicate" key that you have been entrusted with, and then just as with the copyright violation, you would be wrong in both cases, the only difference being I'd assume you trust Aunt Mary not to rat you out.

I said no such thing.

Didn't say you did. I asked you the question.

Claiming that making a single copy to share with a relative or friend is equivalent to mass distribution and therefore constitutes piracy is just silly; it's an overreach.

Why is breaking the law to benefit a friend less wrong than breaking the same law to benefit a stranger?


Stealing a car for Aunt Mary and Stealing a car for a chop shop are equally wrong.
Stealing a bike and stealing a luxury car are both equally wrong.
Stealing a $1 is the same as stealing $1000.
Not that the damage or consequences are the same, but I didn't think that's the point under discussion.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Nope. Nothing you added convinces me that you truly recognize no difference whatsoever between making a copy for Aunt Mary to read and making a copy available for the world to download.

Because this is coming from you, I'm trying to understand the disconnect here.

I am not being deliberately obtuse. I think you know my posting style well enough to believe that I would not do that unless I was trying to make some sort of point, not just to stonewall.

Certainly there are MYRIAD differences, but none that pertain to why one of them would be wrong and the other not, and that's what I thought we were talking about.
So what is this difference that should be apparent? Maybe I'm not acknowledging it because I think we're talking about something else?

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Nabodita

Ahem. Ladies, Gentlemen. Could we all please take a breath?

This discussion is really interesting but my meeting with the publishers is today. And I still don't know whether I should encourage them to use DRM or not.

I would love to come back from my meeting and debate the finer points of piracy / theft, lost sales, sales due to 'discovery' and so forth but really, all I want right now is to recommend / discourage DRM to the publisher keeping in mind their best interests.

If the publisher is not insisting on traditional DRM, then you should not encourage them to use it. It has no proven value, and while there are a few who will get angry and boycott you if you DO use DRM, absolutely no one will think badly of you if you don't.

The ONLY proven reason to use traditional DRM is if the publisher insists on it.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by ApK

Because this is coming from you, I'm trying to understand the disconnect here.

I am not being deliberately obtuse. I think you know my posting style well enough to believe that I would not do that unless I was trying to make some sort of point, not just to stonewall.

Certainly there are MYRIAD differences, but none that pertain to why one of them would be wrong and the other not, and that's what I thought we were talking about.

So what is this difference that should be apparent? Maybe I'm not acknowledging it because I think we're talking about something else?

I'm not even certain I care about some kind of perceived notion of a back/white "wrong/right" distinction with regard to this lending-is-piracy issue—in fact I'm certain I don't. We don't live in a world where such a delineation is possible; and even more rarely ... useful. Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but it seems crystal clear to me as a reader and a lover of books that there is an inherent and vast difference in someone (hypothetically) loaning a close friend an ebook by an author they hoped to inspire an appreciation of, and someone uploading an ebook to a website so hundreds or thousands of people could steal it for free.

I mean sure, if someone were coming at it as an exercise in legal terminology, or letter-of-the-law mental exercises, perhaps there is no difference, but why would a reader be coming at it from that perspective? Or at the very least, why wouldn't someone acknowledge their particular vantage point from which they judge right/wrong isn't the only valid vantage point there is?

Is involuntary manslaughter different from murder, or are they both just flat-assed "wrong" and that's that? End of story?

I don't really care if someone thinks loaning Aunt Jane an ebook is "wrong." I care that someone thinks it's "wrong-er" than their own rationalized and self-excused violation of rules based on some definition of "harm" that they've cherry-picked.