What happens with DRM in the real world

[ApK]

Originally Posted by meeera

I really struggle to think of any way in which at-home DRM-breakage and format-shifting can possibly harm anyone. Unless you stretch a point and try to claim that it's reasonable to make a husband and wife each buy a copy of the same book and that spousal sharing is a criminally harmful "lost sale", or that every time a person changes device brand they should have to re-buy all your books, or they are "harming" an author/publisher who doesn't get to sell them the same book twice simply because two device manufacturers chose two different systems.

And if DRM breakage for home personal use doesn't harm anyone, it shouldn't be illegal.

eta: or, to tl;dr myself: maybe I should just have the right to personally use my digital purchases however I want in the privacy of my own home.

I'm with you. I might only have an issue with the "however I want" part.
I believe copyright has important value, as does rule of law, and both should be respected. I would therefore suggest that "however I want" be replaced with more detail, both to insure that fair and reasonable use is protected, and to prevent wackos from finding a harmful loophole*, which would then cause a backlash of new restrictions.
This is why laws get wordy....

ApK

*for example. You said "personally use" but you also mention sharing between husband and wife. Certainly you meant the rest of the family, too, right? Extended family? Friends you have over for dinner? Friends of friends? How about 100 people from the neighborhood coming in to see a movie? Maybe have them kick in a couple bucks at the door to help defray the cost of clean up after....etc....

[latepaul]

Originally Posted by ApK

Physical property of any kind is not the same as intellectual property and the rights and restrictions concerning each SHOULD NOT be considered analogous.
It's the same point I've repeatedly tried to make elsewhere about not confusing "books" with "ebook" just books someone chose names with 4 letters in common. The rules of one concern the cost, sales and transfer of paper and ink and glue, and it's incorrect to try to equate those rules with digital ephemera. IOW, ebooks shouldn't be thought of like paper books, and if they shouldn't be thought of as paperbooks, they certainly shouldn't be thought of as chickens, etc.

I think the confusion comes not from naming "ebook" similar to "book" it comes from the multiple meanings of "book". We use the word both to mean a physical object and the abstract concept of the contents - as in "I've mislaid my book have you seen it anywhere?" and "Have you read Stephen King's latest book?"

When people talk about wanting the same (or similar) rights with ebooks as with paper books they're usually referring to the rights they have over a physical object (i.e. book(i)) not the IP rights over the text itself (i.e. book(ii)). Indeed we usually actually have less rights over paper books because there's no explicit "you can make X copies for personal use" license terms. We have less rights but more utility - we can lend, give, resell etc - but those things come from the nature of the book as a physical book not because of any difference in IP law. I've pointed out in the past that there is an equivalent of book(ii) - a physical object which we can resell or lend or give away - it's the ereader device! For some reason this never goes down well.

Back on topic. I'm not sure how you make an exception for "DRM-breaking for personal use" that doesn't leave a loophole to break DRM in general.

[sirmaru]

Limited sharing is allowed without DRM removal. Amazon allows all people using the same account to share eBooks. They also allow limited sharing (loans) between different Amazon members if permitted by the publisher.

They also allow reading the same eBook on different devices with apps and a variety of eReaders.

I see no need to remove DRM where one's jurisdiction prohibits its removal.

[ReadTillYouBleed]

Originally Posted by sirmaru

I see no need to remove DRM where one's jurisdiction prohibits its removal.

Either there are no benefits to removing the DRM, or there are some. Their existence does not depend on the legal status of DRM removal, even if the punishment does.

Originally Posted by sirmaru

Amazon allows all people using the same account to share eBooks.

A typical-size family can certainly share an account, and this will cover most of their reading needs. However, in some situations this may not be enough.

Some books are not available on Amazon, but are available as Adobe-encrypted epubs. An Adobe account is easy enough to create, but one would also need another e-ink device besides Kindle to read such books. Doable, but certainly cumbersome.

Perhaps the biggest issue is longer-term preservation of one's ebook collection. Will there be something to read these books on in 30 years?

Ebooks have moved into the mainstream and are no longer a niche item, and given the civilizational importance of books, these issues simply must be sorted out properly.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by sirmaru

Amazon allows all people using the same account to share eBooks. They also allow limited sharing (loans) between different Amazon members if permitted by the publisher.

We haven't all welcomed the Amazon overlord into our lives. This conversation encompasses a whole lot of people buying from a whole lot of different places and reading on a whole lot of different devices.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by sirmaru

I see no need to remove DRM where one's jurisdiction prohibits its removal.

So what happens if someone's trying to make an app to read DRMed ebooks on a platform where no such app is available (like a Kindle app for Linux), and there has to be a way to at least unlock the DRM to allow the book to be read? Or would your answer be for people to simply stick with the "standard" platform?

[sirmaru]

Originally Posted by teh603

So what happens if someone's trying to make an app to read DRMed ebooks on a platform where no such app is available (like a Kindle app for Linux), and there has to be a way to at least unlock the DRM to allow the book to be read? Or would your answer be for people to simply stick with the "standard" platform?

The best way would be to find some publishers who would give you written permission to use their files to develop the app. Maybe one or more of them would even send you DRM free files for work purposes.

Everyone should honor the ownership rights of others or anarchy could prevail.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by sirmaru

The best way would be to find some publishers who would give you written permission to use their files to develop the app. Maybe one or more of them would even send you DRM free files for work purposes.

Everyone should honor the ownership rights of others or anarchy could prevail.

There are many DRM free files, in places like Project Gutenberg for example. The DRM issue is not about developing the app, it is about reading the books you own.

Why you persist in your hatred of DRM removal, I don't know, but perhaps you should stop discussing it, as you have yet to add anything new, in multiple threads. Spare us the bile, please.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by sirmaru

eBook DRM does not change our eBook or PC operating systems to the best of my knowledge. If it did, it would be intrusive and unacceptable and may violate other laws. [...]

From the linked article:

For example, in 2005, Sony-BMG music shipped a DRM called the "Sony Rootkit" on 51m audio CDs. When one of these CDs was inserted into a PC, it automatically and undetectably changed the operating system so that it could no longer see files or programs that started with "$SYS$." The rootkit infected millions of computers, including over 200,000 US military and government networks, before its existence became public. However, various large and respected security organisations say they knew about the Sony Rootkit months before the disclosure, but did not publish because they feared punishment under the DMCA. Meanwhile, virus-writers immediately began renaming their programs to begin with $SYS$, because these files would be invisible to virus-checkers if they landed on a computer that had been compromised by Sony.

ETA: But the problem faced by DRM providers is that without this sort of intrusive behaviour they will always be fighting a losing battle against those that want to circumvent it.

ETA again: Okay, so this was not ebook DRM, and it is an extreme example. But, other DRM, including ebook DRM, can still be intrusive into your system. The weaknesses these introduce may not be as obvious but they may still be there - and the legal implications of investigating it (as various experts do with any other sort of software) are not helping us to keep our systems secure.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by gmw

From the linked article:


ETA: But the problem faced by DRM providers is that without this sort of intrusive behaviour they will always be fighting a losing battle against those that want to circumvent it.

Well, that's besides the fact that we don't actually KNOW they aren't doing the same thing as well. Can't see the source code, can we?

[QuantumIguana]

Pirates don't need to strip DRM. They just download the files. Anarchy won't prevail if people strip DRM on the books that they paid for. I paid for the book and I don't distribute it, that's how I respect the rights of the copyright holder.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Pirates don't need to strip DRM. They just download the files. Anarchy won't prevail if people strip DRM on the books that they paid for. I paid for the book and I don't distribute it, that's how I respect the rights of the copyright holder.

Right, the focus should be on distribution. Even if a digital file is not DRMed, an individual has no inherent right to distribute it if it's under copyright.

[FacebookVirus]

Originally Posted by meeera

Or... I dunno. I give up. Use your common sense.

Which prejudices acquired before the age of 18 would those be?

DRM is evil IMO. I'm just playing devil's advocate.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Right, the focus should be on distribution. Even if a digital file is not DRMed, an individual has no inherent right to distribute it if it's under copyright.

Speaking of Devil's Advocacy: The first couple centuries of copyright law were indeed all about this. Making an unauthorized copy of a book for most of that time meant, if not manual transcription, then an expensive, hot and heavy session with a xerox machine at best, so saying "this is illegal" was usually enough to stop John Q. Public from making the investment.

Now, it's so much faster, easier and cheaper, it is quite possible for an average John Q. Interweb to ACCIDENTALLY distribute millions of perfect duplicates of someone's IP. It's not hard to see why rights owners would want some technological protection.

ApK

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by ApK

Speaking of Devil's Advocacy: The first couple centuries of copyright law were indeed all about this. Making an unauthorized copy of a book for most of that time meant, if not manual transcription, then an expensive, hot and heavy session with a xerox machine at best, so saying "this is illegal" was usually enough to stop John Q. Public from making the investment.

Now, it's so much faster, easier and cheaper, it is quite possible for an average John Q. Interweb to ACCIDENTALLY distribute millions of perfect duplicates of someone's IP. It's not hard to see why rights owners would want some technological protection.

ApK

I don't see how anyone can accidentally distribute a large number of copies. If I post a download link to the file, that's not an accident, though I may not realize how many copies will get downloaded.

And in any case, DRM does not stop distribution because it doesn't offer any real protection. It's just an annoyance to the least technologically capable people; people who just want to change devices or share with a family member.