Argument in favor of DRM

[DiapDealer]

Your insistence on calling those who buy DRMed materials "dumb" or "foolish" and/or "naive" ignores the fact that some of us do it out of pure apathy and/or fully-informed selfishness. I for one, care absolutely nothing about the silly, childishly-idealistic, self-inflicted hair-shirt you're so proud of wearing and pointing at. I am neither dumb, nor foolish, nor naive, nor uninformed. I simply have no desire to deprive myself of works/authors I enjoy for an "ideal" that doesn't move me--or a hurdle that is easily stepped over if I choose to.

So if you're going to continue calling people like me names, at least cover all the bases.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Sgt.Stubby

It's not conspiracy. It's "capitalism".

Not convinced? Suppose you buy a standard red-book CD, COTS. Over the years it gets scratched up.. no longer plays correctly. Why can't you just exchange your damaged copy for a new one, paying only the 17 cent cost of material? Capitalism. They already have the right to charge you full retail price (secured by an artificial manipulation of pure capitalism called "copyright"), and they can charge you multiple times over, so where's the business interest in being fair? As soon as a CEO tries to be fair to consumers, he's sackable for not working in the shareholders interest.

Oh. Em. Gee. You're right. That is really unfair.

And on that note, I want Toyota to replace my car for the cost of the materials too (stupid cars die after only a decade or so, mus be an evil capitalist plot), oh yeah and my house got hit by a tree, so I deserve a replacement house too... don't even get me started on the average garment which only lasts a year before FALLING APART...

Damn capitalists and their evil manipulations...

(Just for the record, in case anyone wasn't sure -- no I am not serious.)

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Sgt.Stubby

DRM is not just a technological barricade. When combined with the DMCA it becomes a legal tool. DRM introduces encryption, which in turn triggers the DMCA statutes.

Note that encryption need not be strong to trigger the DMCA. There was a company that made barcode scanners that internally rearranged the order of the numbers that were fed to the software. That simple reordering was enough to call it "encryption", enabling the vendor to prosecute someone who wrote their own software.

While I get what you're trying to say, your facts are confused. It's not "encryption" that triggers the anti-circumvention provision of the DMCA, it's ANY technological measure to control access. The definition gives both scrambling and encryption as examples. It could also be merely a piece of wire on a circuit board.

I'll remind folks also that one court decision from the 5th circuit court, one of only a few to refer to the anti-circumvention provision so far, said that merely bypassing the technology was not enough to trigger the provision. There had to copyright infringement involved as well. It's still arguable, but I believe that's the proper interpretation.

BTW, are you referring to the CueCat barcode scanner? I thought that was pre-DMCA, but I'm not sure.

ApK

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Oh. Em. Gee. You're right. That is really unfair.

And on that note, I want Toyota to replace my car for the cost of the materials too (stupid cars die after only a decade or so, mus be an evil capitalist plot), oh yeah and my house got hit by a tree, so I deserve a replacement house too... don't even get me started on the average garment which only lasts a year before FALLING APART...

Damn capitalists and their evil manipulations...

(Just for the record, in case anyone wasn't sure -- no I am not serious.)

Talk about hyperbole. There is a precedant for replacing damaged media. In the 90s almost all software vendors would replace damaged disks for a nominal charge. They would also exchange 3.5" or 5.25" inch floppies (depending) on which you needed basically for the cost of shipping. And, when CDs came out, they began offering those for a nomimal charge. And some children's game publishers (knowing that children would damage the media) also offered replacement CDs at a nominal charge. To me there is a difference between free enterprise and capitalism. Capitalism is when all capital is in the hands of the few. Free enterprise defines itself.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by rcentros

Talk about hyperbole. There is a precedant for replacing damaged media. In the 90s almost all software vendors would replace damaged disks for a nominal charge. They would also exchange 3.5" or 5.25" inch floppies (depending) on which you needed basically for the cost of shipping. And, when CDs came out, they began offering those for a nomimal charge. And some children's game publishers (knowing that children would damage the media) also offered replacement CDs at a nominal charge. To me there is a difference between free enterprise and capitalism. Capitalism is when all capital is in the hands of the few. Free enterprise defines itself.

Then that is a spontaneous gift from the vendor in question.

[Sgt.Stubby]

Originally Posted by ApK

While I get what you're trying to say, your facts are confused. It's not "encryption" that triggers the anti-circumvention provision of the DMCA, it's ANY technological measure to control access.

My facts are correct. Encryption does trigger DMCA protections, and there is a prohibition on circumventing it. The fact that other access controls have the same effect was not relevant to my point. You're just muddying the waters here.

Regarding the barcode scanner, I don't recall the players involved. I only recall how loosely the court interprets encryption. Copyright holders are abusing this particular DMCA provision. E.g. Apple used encryption in the Finder app solely to open up the box of DMCA tools to prosecute consumers who would install OS/X on non-Apple hardware (which is legal outside the US). The Finder encryption serves no purpose other than to legally hook in the DMCA. The "encryption" might as well be an XOR operation.

[Sgt.Stubby]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Your insistence on calling those who buy DRMed materials "dumb" or "foolish" and/or "naive" ignores the fact that some of us do it out of pure apathy and/or fully-informed selfishness....So if you're going to continue calling people like me names, at least cover all the bases.

I believe all bases are covered by my characterization. Practicing ethics is an indication of intelligence -- it's one of the attributes that separates humans from non-human animals. Although apathy and deliberate neglect for ethical decision making were not my focus, they happen to be varieties of feeble-mindedness, IMO. Critical thinking is part of being intelligent.

[Dr. Drib]

Originally Posted by Sgt.Stubby

I believe all bases are covered by my characterization. Practicing ethics is an indication of intelligence -- it's one of the attributes that separates humans from non-human animals. Although apathy and deliberate neglect for ethical decision making were not my focus, they happen to be varieties of feeble-mindedness, IMO. Critical thinking is part of being intelligent.

Moderator Notice

Practicing good manners and treating our members with courtesy and respect is required on Mobileread.

Make certain you have read our Posting Guidelines before you continue making any more generalizations about intelligence regarding opinions and conclusions on DRM that may differ from your own.

For your convenience, a link is included in this Moderator Notice:

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/faq...ing_guidelines

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Sgt.Stubby

My facts are correct. Encryption does trigger DMCA protections, and there is a prohibition on circumventing it. The fact that other access controls have the same effect was not relevant to my point. You're just muddying the waters here.

Wow. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt.
Just in case you actually aren't aware, most folks here, even those you call feeble-minded, can see right through the biased self-important opinions you claim are philosophical truths, and the ignorant misstatements you claim are facts.
Just in case you really didn't know, you're not fooling anyone except possibly yourself.

[DiapDealer]

I'm curious what eventually caused DRM's downfall in the music industry. Was it a concerted effort of conscientious consumers to purchase only DRM-free music that made it happen? I'm almost certain it had to be.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'm curious what eventually caused DRM's downfall in the music industry. Was it a concerted effort of conscientious consumers to purchase only DRM-free music that made it happen? I'm almost certain it had to be.

Good question. I've been asking that myself. Could it have been that the DRM was too good on the music? I never bought any encrypted music, so I don't know what kind of effort it took to remove the encryption. It may also have to do with music being something that people want to play over and over again for years (on various devices of varying capabilities). With books, I suspect that most people read them once and then never look at them again.

[gweeks]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'm curious what eventually caused DRM's downfall in the music industry. Was it a concerted effort of conscientious consumers to purchase only DRM-free music that made it happen? I'm almost certain it had to be.

I have no proof for this, but my take from watching it happen was the the music labels realized that Apple's walled DRM garden was the only one that was working economically and realized how much power that gave Apple over them. The decided no DRM was better than dealing with Apple on an exclusive basis and started cutting no DRM deals with other vendors. They then went back and got rid of DRM at Apple.

Greg

[DiapDealer]

So it had nothing to do with smart, moral consumers boycotting the purchase of DRMed music?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by gweeks

I have no proof for this, but my take from watching it happen was the the music labels realized that Apple's walled DRM garden was the only one that was working economically and realized how much power that gave Apple over them. The decided no DRM was better than dealing with Apple on an exclusive basis and started cutting no DRM deals with other vendors. They then went back and got rid of DRM at Apple.

Greg

That's pretty much as I remember it. The music labels agreed to let Amazon start up their mp3 store with no DRM as a counter to Apple, then within a year (don't remember the exact timing), they agreed to let Apple sell no DRM. Apple had been pushing for no DRM for a number of years before the music labels agreed.

DRM for music never made much sense. Anyone and everyone could and did easily rip CD's.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

So it had nothing to do with smart, moral consumers boycotting the purchase of DRMed music?

Don't think so.