Developments in DRM

[latepaul]

I think the phrase "open source with caveats" was a way of saying "a bit like open source but not really". It was for people who are used to thinking "open source" = "can see the source". It's not a phrase I would've used but in context it's clear what they mean, mostly because they go on to explain (i.e. keys are not shared, use requires a license (probably commercial?))

[arjaybe]

I understand it to mean that the application is open source software and you can use it like open source software. The fact that it's usefulness is limited without the keys is irrelevant to its open sourceness.

[latepaul]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

So please, no new DRM. Also, we don't want a new DRM that we cannot remove. Getting away from Adobe's DRM means we won't be able to remove it unless someone figures it out and until then we'd be screwed. Better to stick with what works to be removed then something we cannot removed. You don't have to like Adobe. But you do have to let the DRM be so we can remove the DRM.

Who's the "you" in this?

Of course "we" don't want a non-removable DRM but "we" are not the "you" making the decision whether to move on from ADE.

The people who are have the publishers (the big 5 but also a fair proportion, probably even a majority, of the indies) requiring DRM before they'll let them lend their ebooks.

[latepaul]

Originally Posted by arjaybe

I understand it to mean that the application is open source software and you can use it like open source software. The fact that it's usefulness is limited without the keys is irrelevant to its open sourceness.

Most open source licenses don't place any restriction on the type of use. Based on the article mentioning the need for a license to use my guess would be this is dual licensed - a read-only-look-at-the-source license and a license-for-use license. I think that first license is what they're referring to as "open source with caveats".

[GERGE]

Removable DRM isn't a bad thing. It prevents pirates without mens rea. When you learn how to remove it, you also learn what it is and why it exists. Therefore piracy becomes an ethical problem. A choice. That matters.

It prevents our old aunt to share her books on her blog and or send them to her friends. On the topic of our old aunts, mine used to watch movies on the Popcorn Time, after I told her that they are pirated, she stopped. Because she thought it was wrong to continue. Same process is also true for ebooks.

On the topic, there is nothing wrong with open-source cryptology. It is better even, look at the OpenPGP.

[latepaul]

Originally Posted by GERGE

Removable DRM isn't a bad thing. It prevents pirates without mens rea. When you learn how to remove it, you also learn what it is and why it exists. Therefore piracy becomes an ethical problem. A choice. That matters.

Yes but no DRM - even watermarking - is removable by design. It's like a bike lock. Most people know they can be easily removed with the right tools but they create enough of a nuisance, pause for thought to stop the casual bike thief.

So JSWolf's appeal to someone (who?) not to replace ADE with something that can't be removed is like asking someone not to upgrade their bike lock to one that can't be removed. No one selling bike locks is going to advertise their removeability. Same with DRM.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by GERGE

It prevents our old aunt to share her books on her blog and or send them to her friends. On the topic of our old aunts, mine used to watch movies on the Popcorn Time, after I told her that they are pirated, she stopped. Because she thought it was wrong to continue. Same process is also true for ebooks.

I really wish people would stop using "woman of a certain age" as if it means the same thing as "person who knows nothing about technology".

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by GERGE

Removable DRM isn't a bad thing. It prevents pirates without mens rea. When you learn how to remove it, you also learn what it is and why it exists. Therefore piracy becomes an ethical problem. A choice. That matters.

It prevents our old aunt to share her books on her blog and or send them to her friends. On the topic of our old aunts, mine used to watch movies on the Popcorn Time, after I told her that they are pirated, she stopped. Because she thought it was wrong to continue. Same process is also true for ebooks.

On the topic, there is nothing wrong with open-source cryptology. It is better even, look at the OpenPGP.

Not being mean here, but I'm already the old aunt (I'm sure) for my nephews

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by shalym

So you're saying that because a company that once made ereaders stops making them, that there can be no further advances to ebook technology? For how long? 5 years? 10? 20?

Shari

ADE doesn't support any DRM other than Adobe's DRM. ADE is the most used software to read ePub. So if Overdrive was to switch to this new Sony DRM, there will be many many pissed off people with no way to use Overdrive.

[John F]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

ADE doesn't support any DRM other than Adobe's DRM. ADE is the most used software to read ePub. So if Overdrive was to switch to this new Sony DRM, there will be many many pissed off people with no way to use Overdrive.

They do support watermarking DRM, don't they (like what is used in the pottermore books)?

[darryl]

Unfortunately it is a fact that we cannot have drm limited to borrowed books. Whilst most of us seem to accept drm restrictions on borrowed books the same is not true of books which we consider that we own, whatever license agreements may say. And our wonderful BPH historically has no problems with exploiting authors, readers or anyone else where they can get away with it. They are not to be trusted. On the other hand, the fact that a vibrant book industry still exists despite ineffective drm at the moment is eloquent testimony to the fact that readers as a group are far mpre ethical than the BPH deserve. And there is no reason to believe that this does not apply equally or even more so to borrowed books.

I don't think Jon's post was really appealing to anyone or anything other than common sense. Those who support effective drm to protect borrowed books are ignoring the fact that effective drm cannot be limited just to borrowed books. To support effective drm is to support handing more control to a group of legacy publishers who have proved time and time again they are not to be trusted.

[John F]

Originally Posted by darryl

Unfortunately it is a fact that we cannot have drm limited to borrowed books. Whilst most of us seem to accept drm restrictions on borrowed books the same is not true of books which we consider that we own, whatever license agreements may say. And our wonderful BPH historically has no problems with exploiting authors, readers or anyone else where they can get away with it. They are not to be trusted. On the other hand, the fact that a vibrant book industry still exists despite ineffective drm at the moment is eloquent testimony to the fact that readers as a group are far mpre ethical than the BPH deserve. And there is no reason to believe that this does not apply equally or even more so to borrowed books.

I don't think Jon's post was really appealing to anyone or anything other than common sense. Those who support effective drm to protect borrowed books are ignoring the fact that effective drm cannot be limited just to borrowed books. To support effective drm is to support handing more control to a group of legacy publishers who have proved time and time again they are not to be trusted.

DRM on Tor books (some/all?) is limited to borrowed (library) books, I believe. So it appears that DRM can be limited to borrowed books?

And library books do not have to have DRM, look at the Hugh Howey books (in the US), they are available as Open EPub.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by John F

DRM on Tor books (some/all?) is limited to borrowed (library) books, I believe. So it appears that DRM can be limited to borrowed books?

And library books do not have to have DRM, look at the Hugh Howey books (in the US), they are available as Open EPub.

What I am talking about is an effective drm system. Not whether authors or publishers choose to apply or not apply drm. The point is that we cannot have a drm system that is effective for borrowed books only that would not be equally effective for all books.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by darryl

What I am talking about is an effective drm system. Not whether authors or publishers choose to apply or not apply drm. The point is that we cannot have a drm system that is effective for borrowed books only that would not be equally effective for all books.

For all practical purposes, for a DRM system to be effective, it requires the right people to not wish to crack it. For years, the TIVO encryption was left in place because even though some people knew how to crack it, they did not publicize the crack because they accepted the idea that Tivo allowed access to their platform as long as they were not being sued because pirates were using their platform to pirate video content. Tivo had a very rich hacker community for years.

Sony's LRX was never crack (at least publicly) because for the most part, very few people cared about it.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by latepaul

Most open source licenses don't place any restriction on the type of use. Based on the article mentioning the need for a license to use my guess would be this is dual licensed - a read-only-look-at-the-source license and a license-for-use license. I think that first license is what they're referring to as "open source with caveats".

Does it say the license is required to use the software, or just to get the key? If it is to use the software then it's some mutant form of open source, because the Open Source Initiative specifically says that, "Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code." Although weak when compared to Free Software, open source does give users some freedom. On the other hand, open source has been watered down over time. It doesn't have the resistance to corruption that Free Software has.