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

[gmw]

Originally Posted by doreenjoy

I guess I don't see the big issue because I very rarely keep books. I read one, it's entertaining, then I get rid of it. If I was a stockpiler, or a re-reader, I guess I could understand.

I've seen others say much the same thing. I used to read books just once - but was a hoarder anyway (although considering how much I used to move about it wasn't very sensible). Now I re-read many books, some many times. This may help to explain why I don't buy DRM protected books.

[speedlever]

Originally Posted by gmw

As for exactly what you get from Amazon you really need to hassle Amazon. You will get various people's interpretation here, but up-to-date detail that you can rely needs to come from the source. Anything that is not absolutely clear keep hassling them until it becomes clear.

snip

You mean it's not clear what you download? My frame of reference is how it works on the PC.

I know that when I d/l from the library to my PC, I get an acsm file d/l to a location of my choice. But I also get an epub d/l to \My Documents\My Digital Editions (I seem to have no control over where it's d/l to.)

Do I have the option to d/l from Amazon to my PC and then sideload to the K3? Would I then have an archive copy on my PC?

Or if I d/l to the K3, can I copy to the PC for archival purposes?

[gmw]

Originally Posted by speedlever

You mean it's not clear what you download? My frame of reference is how it works on the PC.

I know that when I d/l from the library to my PC, I get an acsm file d/l to a location of my choice. But I also get an epub d/l to \My Documents\My Digital Editions (I seem to have no control over where it's d/l to.)

Do I have the option to d/l from Amazon to my PC and then sideload to the K3? Would I then have an archive copy on my PC?

Or if I d/l to the K3, can I copy to the PC for archival purposes?

I'm sorry, I misunderstood your question. I thought you were asking what the DRM conditions were with your Kindle purchases. I don't own a kindle so I can't help with the more mechanical aspects. I suggest you take your question to the Amazon Kindle forum here - after looking at their sticky items, there seems to be a good collection of information there.

[Worldwalker]

Books are DRM restricted, not DRM protected. Unless, of course, you agree with the publishers that we need our books protected from ourselves.

"Protected" sounds like such a nice, positive word ... who could not want more protection? It makes it seem like DRM is in some way good for the consumer. But no matter how you stand on whether or not DRM is necessary (or even useful) for the seller, it is in no way beneficial to the consumer. It might be more or less hassle, and you can set up scenarios (though they don't fit many people) where it isn't much hassle, but it is never beneficial. It is never better than no DRM. It is not useful, it is not beneficial, and it is not protective. Don't let the publishers choose our vocabulary for us, to their benefit.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by doreenjoy

I guess I don't see the big issue because I very rarely keep books. I read one, it's entertaining, then I get rid of it. If I was a stockpiler, or a re-reader, I guess I could understand.

But do you destroy the book after you've read it, by throwing it in a trash bin or burning it, or hand it to someone else?

For a lot of people, the issue with ebooks isn't "I want to keep this forever and re-read it several times," but "if I'm the only person who's ever allowed to read this book, it's not worth it."

It's selling books like they're movies-in-theaters, instead of DVDs. 1 purchase, 1 user, rather than 1 purchase shared among as many people as the user cares to invite to share.

It's not a nonviable model (we have no problems with 1 movie ticket getting you 1 viewing, at a pre-set time & place, for about the price of a paperback book), but it's not how "books" have been sold in the past. And it's counter-intuitive to have a drastically different set of rights for products sold on the same webpage ("click here to buy the hardcover; click here to buy paperback; click here to buy a used copy... click here to buy the ebook").

It doesn't say "click here to buy this content in a sharable form that you're free to highlight, bookmark & annotate at will; click over here for this content in a limited-user form with limited annotation ability that you can't share."

We expect that different *types* of products to be marketed separately.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

We expect that different *types* of products to be marketed separately.

Elfwreck, I think you make some very good points - although I would be inclined to argue that, in general, there is a price advantage to ebooks that may offset some aspects. I think it is past time that sellers accepted that ebooks are not paper books and began to deal with them more particularly. Part of the problem may be people like myself, software developers, that are used to operating in a particular way and just sort of assume that everyone else understands.

Mind you, you do have to be a little bit careful about what you wish for. For example DVDs are also DRM protected, but people continue to buy them. This Wikipedia article includes a rather disturbing possibility: In principle, this approach allows licensors to "revoke" a given player model (prevent it from playing back future content) by omitting to encrypt future title keys with the player model's key. In practice, however, revoking all players of a particular model is costly, as it causes many users to lose playback capability. ...

[Gwen Morse]

Originally Posted by gmw

You are not being forced to make these purchases - so "robber-barons" seem unwarranted. The old-technology paper-based books are still available (not that, even there, will you get life+70). No one is forcing you to accept DRM, not even I am suggesting you do this. If you don't like the conditions, don't accept them and don't buy the product - you don't have to act dishonourably just because (you believe) the other person does. The old tit-for-tat argument is how generational feuds get started. To say "if the other acts badly then so must I" brings society to the lowest common denominator, I'd rather hoped we were better than that. (Yes, I know that some recent history proves me wrong, but it doesn't stop me hoping.)

You keep talking about honour and promises when it comes to ebooks. You're saying it's dishonourable/breaking your word to strip the DRM from an ebook.

No, it's not. For a fairly simple reason...the very act of making a promise or "giving your word" is ritualized and given weight. There's a ceremony involved. A person doesn't give their word or make a promise every time they open their mouth (or even click on an "accept" link).

There's a reason why kids "pinkie promise" or cross their hearts, and adults "shake on it" or sign contracts. *THAT'S* when someone gives their word (and it can be simplified by saying "I promise", but, the weight is still invested in the moment). Continuing with the references to children, any kid knows if their parents say "I'll think about it"...they probably will get an agreement, but, it's not fixed in stone. The parents *haven't* promised. When the parent backs out later, the kids know no promises were broken.

I'm not giving my word every time I buy a pack of gum from my deli (or a paper book from a regular bookstore). Why would I be giving my word every time I buy an ebook? Buying an ebook is not important enough to me to make any promises. My family, friends, co-workers, etc. They're the ones who are important to me. The bank that holds my mortgage and credits cards are important to me, within the limits of the contracts I've made with them. But, I've taken the time to make a promise to them.

I haven't "promised" anything to Amazon. Nor do I hold them to any promises. Amazon as a company is free to say I've agreed to their not-legally-enforceable Terms and Conditions every time I buy an ebook, but I didn't agree in the first place and they can whistle into the wind. They're free to send a representative to my house, to phone me, or to even email me, and *ask* if I agree, and stop selling me ebooks when I don't. I doubt very highly they will. They want the sales. I'm giving them the sales. That's the limit of our relationship.

All I've done is given them money and bought a pack of gum. No honour was lost in the processing of that transaction.

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

...we have no problems with 1 movie ticket getting you 1 viewing, at a pre-set time & place, for about the price of a paperback book...

Actually, it seems that we do. Look back a generation or two, and movies were a lot more popular than they are today. More people went to movies, and people went to more movies. The stories where kids would spend a Saturday afternoon in the movie house, or teenagers went there for a cheap date, or families went to a movie on impulse, were quite true.

A lot of things have changed. For one, of course, there's the competition. Do you want to see a movie, watch TV, read a book, put on a DVD, play a video game, or just hang out on your computer and chat? Another is the movies themselves. The movie palaces are long gone, replaced by multiplexes with all the charm of a shoebox. A sticky shoebox. You can guarantee that your movie will be interrupted by some wanker who won't shut up. Prices of items like popcorn have gone from high to insane, and their response to people not buying them (remember when everyone had a tub of popcorn?) has been to raise the prices further. In most cases, going to a movie is no longer a pleasant experience in and of itself -- a destination. It's how you get that content before it's out in a more convenient form.

Now, it's down to a question of do you want to go somewhere, find parking, wait in line, pay a ridiculous price (two people can go out for a decent dinner for the price of a questionable movie), and endure an uncomfortable experience in order to see that movie, or do you want to spend a couple of bucks, watch it on your own big-screen TV, throw in some microwave popcorn, and not have to deal with that freaking kid who's kicking you in the kidneys?

It's been years since I've gone to a movie theater, but days since I've seen a movie. The same is true of a lot of people. People do, it seems, have a problem with both the price and the "experience" (I hate that word) of attending a movie in person, and are increasingly choosing to watch it at home. Theaters are struggling and closing, but there's no shortage of DVD sales, streaming downloads, etc. There's a big market for direct-to-DVD movies, and they're not all porn. The town I live in now doesn't even have a movie theater; I think the nearest one is about 20 miles from here. But it has several DVD rental places, Redboxes everywhere, and of course everywhere is within reach of Netflix.

Though I have wondered if there might be a market for a theater where people weren't allowed to talk (ushers used to take care of that, back when there were ushers), kids weren't allowed to kick seats, the screen wasn't increasingly shabby, and it didn't feel like cattle class on a cheap airline?

But as it stands, it seems that those people who do go to movies do it for the social experience -- often groups of teenagers who want to socialize free of parental oversight -- or out of inertia. There aren't any kids spending Saturday afternoon at the matinees anymore, and more and more people are just skipping the whole hassle and buying or renting the DVD.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Gwen Morse

... I haven't "promised" anything to Amazon. Nor do I hold them to any promises. ...

I wasted a little time and went through the account sign-up for Amazon and then for B&N. Pushy sods aren't they? I can certainly understand the argument that their agreements are obscure, and hard to find, fine print (especially fine at B&N). Both could learn a lot by taking a look at the simple and clear sign-up used on this forum, for example.

But then I thought: Amazon and B&N probably already know what it's taken me all this time to understand. That no one reads their agreements, and even if they did they will ultimately decide for themselves what parts they care about. Why put such messy and uninteresting details in the way of customers eager to give them money? If the customer doesn't care about such minor things as what exactly it is they are buying then why should they complicate the process and possibly put them off?

Leaving aside my cynicism about commercial sites for a moment: What about this site? Does the agreement you made to join these forums actually mean anything to you? Or is an adherence to the rules purely coincidental? If you don't believe you have agreed to anything in order to access these forums then does that mean you see those users that break the rules here are not actually doing anything wrong?

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by gmw

I was not speaking about the law, I was speaking about an agreement. 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. Okay so I have not signed the agreement, does that make breaking it any better on my reputation? Am I not as good as my word? I like to think so, but apparently not everyone holds to the same standard.

I think you are making a category error.

You want to talk about this outside the context of the law, as if your "agreement" is with another person. But your agreement is NOT with another person - it's with a "seller" and you are a "buyer." When you shift the matter to the personal context, YOU are the only participant playing by the "personal" rules. The business is not. You are confusing the category of "personal relationships" with that of "business relationships."

Further, your copyright/drm relationship with the business entity exists ONLY as a function of the law. There's an agreement underlying copyright law which large business entities are trying hard to eliminate. That agreement concerns the rights of the customer, and these so-called "agreements" you want to honor are in fact a cynical and deliberate attempt to narrow the rights you have under the copyright agreement.

This is not to say that your concern for your reputation is not important. And certainly there are times when the business sphere overlaps the personal sphere, as when you are dealing with a "mom & pop" business - with whom you can negotiate in the business context, incidentally.

When it comes to corporate entities, I do not regard myself as bound by any rules other than the law. And there's a lot that these corporations want you to think is the law, when it ain't.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by gmw

I am not saying that every person that buys a book is going to violate the trust of whatever agreement they make. But I am saying that 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. No one made them make such agreements in contradiction of their own beliefs, and it's not as if they had no other choice. This is not a A Man for All Seasons sort of situation, they are in no sense doing anything morally right in choosing to break their agreement, the morally right behaviour is to not make that agreement in the first place.

Bah! There's no "agreement." There is only a contract containing provisions which you cannot bargain over, and which themselves are an attempt to deprive you of fair use rights which you have under the copyright law.

Where do these sellers get off by trying to keep me from stripping DRM when the law (here in the US) is very carefully crafted to permit stripping by the lawful possessor of the DRMed file? That's the deal - they get to have DRM because they think it's necessary to protect their rights under the copyright laws, but the customer does not lose any of his or her own rights under the copyright laws, including the right to modify the product so long as they don't resell or distribute it. And yet, here come these corporations saying that they have GREATER rights as a result of DMCA, including the right to keep me from doing what the DMCA actually preserves for me.

In short, an "agreement" in which one party dictates all the terms, which is in practice contrary to the purpose and intent of the law itself, and where the other party has no choice but to take it or leave it, is not an agreement. It is an exercise in raw power, unsanctioned by law or by any moral code worthy of the name.

[DiapDealer]

The Purple Guy's got serious chops!

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Harmon

In short, an "agreement" in which one party dictates all the terms, which is in practice contrary to the purpose and intent of the law itself, and where the other party has no choice but to take it or leave it, is not an agreement. It is an exercise in raw power, unsanctioned by law or by any moral code worthy of the name.

As most answers in this thread show, it is only an attempt to exercise raw power, most people don't accept arbitrary, one sided, unfair rules. In the end, I don't blame the sellers like Amazon, they were probably forced to write up those "rules" by the publishers and their own legal departments. And if Amazon itself felt everybody would follow those rules, why even have their own DRM?

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Harmon

... And yet, here come these corporations saying that they have GREATER rights as a result of DMCA, including the right to keep me from doing what the DMCA actually preserves for me. ...

Most of the rest of your post(s) I have provided my opinion of in one way or another already ... but the DMCA stuff: I think you are reading way more into that act (as relates to your benefit) than actually exists at this time.

According to Wikipedia (I have not read the original), the DMCA "also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself." There are however exemptions, but these may change every three years. I would not look to the DMCA for "protection" in this instance - actual cases gone to court may offer you better hope. If you have links to more up-to-date detail or interpretation than offered by Wikipedia then I would be grateful if you shared.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Harmon

In short, an "agreement" in which one party dictates all the terms, which is in practice contrary to the purpose and intent of the law itself, and where the other party has no choice but to take it or leave it, is not an agreement. It is an exercise in raw power, unsanctioned by law or by any moral code worthy of the name.

Yes.

And it would be acceptable... if the sites didn't work very, very hard to *hide* those agreements, publish them in obscure corners in small grey text with large sections in all caps, to discourage people from reading and understanding them.

They encourage people to believe "this is a normal sale, just like at the supermarket, with a few extra details because it's digital, like we need your credit card info." They work hard to hide anything that's drastically different from that, and they're not fond of answer questions to clarify the details.

They're also prone to including "terms could change at any time" phrases, despite those being unenforceable (and possibly fraudulent) in some districts. (Does anyone believe they could get away with adding a term of "all previous customers owe us an extra $500 this month, and we'll be charging their credit cards immediately?" According to the current phrasing, they could add that.)

I can tolerate "these are the terms for doing business with us; take 'em or leave 'em." I won't accept "the terms for doing business with us will be described for 1500 words in tiny type and written in obscure lawyerese, but please, just click YES already and buy your stuff because we know you don't actually care what those terms are."

I haven't agreed to those terms. I've agreed that I saw they existed.