STUDY SHOWS: Ditching DRM could reduce piracy, prices

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by TheSFReader

I don't know if the Supreme Courts may have changed it's stance on the subject since, but to me the following text is quite clear : it doesn't consider theft and copyright infringement as equal.


U.S. Supreme Court
DOWLING v. UNITED STATES, 473 U.S. 207 (1985)

It was changed by Justice Breyer in 2005.

[OtterBooks]

Originally Posted by ScalyFreak

But I can't give the ebook to my husband to read, while still reading another book on my reader, and I think that was the point. Devices can be treated as any other, but we're talking about the book itself here, and that is restricted.

It's no so much restricted as impossible. You literally can not loan your copy to your husband without loaning him your device. To allow him to read it on his own device, a reproduction of your copy needs to be manufactured.

I'm not pro/anti-drm either way. Personally I get it out of the way so I can reformat (I like a little space between paragraphs). Just sayin.

[John F]

Originally Posted by Fbone

It was changed by Justice Breyer in 2005.

Could you give a little more detail (a link, case, ...)?

[TheSFReader]

Originally Posted by Fbone

It was changed by Justice Breyer in 2005.

Would you, by chance, have a reference/link to that decision ?

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by teh603

There you go with that "Rights Holder" business again. Is there some overwhelming reason you can't call yourself an "author" or "writer" ?

They're not the same thing.

A writer can choose to give up their copy rights to someone (like a publisher or movie studio), or in the case of ghost writing they never had the rights to their work in the first place. In the context of this thread/conversation, specifying who holds the copy right of a book actually matters. In this particular case, we have an author who holds full rights to what he writes. That's not standard, and since he knows that, he makes a point of specifying it, since it does make a difference for his arguments. So the overwhelming reason would be, "to avoid misunderstandings". Seems like a pretty good reason to me.

Originally Posted by kennyc

You can if you both have devices on the same Amazon account.

Which is fine, if we're talking about sharing with my husband, since we share a bank account anyway. But if I want to lend a book to a friend or co-worker, I'm not going to let them into my Amazon account. Particularly not the ones who don't even own a Kindle.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by John F

Could you give a little more detail (a link, case, ...)?

Originally Posted by TheSFReader

Would you, by chance, have a reference/link to that decision ?

Well there is this:

In any event, the evidence now available does not, in
my view, make out a sufficiently strong case for
change. To say *961 this is not to doubt the basic
need to protect copyrighted material from
infringement. The Constitution itself stresses the vital
role that copyright plays in advancing the “useful
Arts.” Art. I, § 8, cl. 8. No one disputes that “reward
to the author or artist serves to induce release to the
public of the products of his creative genius.” United
States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131,
158, 68 S.Ct. 915, 92 L.Ed. 1260 (1948). And
deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful
taking of property than garden-variety theft.

here:
http://contiguglia.files.wordpress.c...okster-ltd.pdf


(google really is your friend -- even if Amazon isn't )

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by ScalyFreak

...

Which is fine, if we're talking about sharing with my husband, since we share a bank account anyway. But if I want to lend a book to a friend or co-worker, I'm not going to let them into my Amazon account. Particularly not the ones who don't even own a Kindle.

I know, just saying, and using your example.

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I know, just saying, and using your example.

I think the Nook actually lets you lend books to other Nooks, but I could be remembering wrong... since I don't have one. I do know that my beloved 950 (poor broken thing) doesn't let me lend books from the Sony store to other devices. Not out of the box anyway... ahem.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by ScalyFreak

I think the Nook actually lets you lend books to other Nooks, but I could be remembering wrong... since I don't have one. I do know that my beloved 950 (poor broken thing) doesn't let me lend books from the Sony store to other devices. Not out of the box anyway... ahem.

You can, I believe you can do the same with Kindle now (but I might be wrong). With the Nook it is one time, one loan.

[carpetmojo]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Can we keep on-topic please.

Sorry Kenny - I'm afraid I felt if someone brings up what I knew was a...terminalogical inexactitude .... in support of an argument [and feeling strongly about this hoary old chestnut/urban myth], I was entitled to correct the false impression given to others.

Shall try to restrain meself ........

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by frahse

Yes, you are completely correct.

And you can loan your Kindle and the eBook to as many friends as you wish. You can also sell it.

That would be equivalent to loaning my entire library of a few hundred paper books when all I want to do is loan a single book.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by frahse

Your argument that people do bad things, doesn't mean that we should legalize bad things. That argument is specious at best. I am surprised that you use it.

And your argument is a complete misstatement. Who's talking about legalizing piracy? Do you mean to imply that removing DRM = piracy? That's nonsense. As has been stated over and over, there are perfectly legitimate reasons for removing DRM that have nothing to do with piracy.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Well there is this:

In any event, the evidence now available does not, in
my view, make out a sufficiently strong case for
change. To say *961 this is not to doubt the basic
need to protect copyrighted material from
infringement. The Constitution itself stresses the vital
role that copyright plays in advancing the “useful
Arts.” Art. I, § 8, cl. 8. No one disputes that “reward
to the author or artist serves to induce release to the
public of the products of his creative genius.” United
States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131,
158, 68 S.Ct. 915, 92 L.Ed. 1260 (1948). And
deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful
taking of property than garden-variety theft.

here:
http://contiguglia.files.wordpress.c...okster-ltd.pdf


(google really is your friend -- even if Amazon isn't )

Yes, that's the quote. It's from MGM v Grokster Ltd. (2005)

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...0&invol=04-480

In any event, the evidence now available does not, in my view, make out a sufficiently strong case for change. To say this is not to doubt the basic need to protect copyrighted material from infringement. The Constitution itself stresses the vital role that copyright plays in advancing the "useful Arts." Art. I, §8, cl. 8. No one disputes that "reward to the author or artist serves to induce release to the public of the products of his creative genius." United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U. S. 131, 158 (1948). And deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft. See, e.g., 18 U. S. C. §2319 (criminal copyright infringement); §1961(1)(B) (copyright infringement can be a predicate act under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act); §1956(c)(7)(D) (money laundering includes the receipt of proceeds from copyright infringement). But these highly general principles cannot by themselves tell us how to balance the interests at issue in Sony or whether Sony's standard needs modification. And at certain key points, information is lacking.

[frahse]

Originally Posted by ScalyFreak

I'm not. If that's how my posts read, then obviously I will need to rephrase my arguments a bit.

I'm not saying we should make piracy legal. I'm not a writer, musician, game developer or movie maker, so my entire interest in the DRM debate is as a consumer. And as a consumer, I want the people who spend their time developing my entertainment to be compensated for their work. If you didn't get paid for what you write you would lose a great incentive to keep writing and make what you write available to the public, and that would suck. Hard. I don't want that to happen, I want new entertainment to keep coming my way, so I can stay sane, and I want the ones who provide it to be able to pay their mortgage. Also, I genuinely believe that creative talent deserves to be rewarded.

So as a consumer, I am entirely against the kind of piracy that is all about obtaining free entertainment without the creator's permission.

Now, that out of the way, here's the point I wanted to make, a bit rephrased:

Unlicensed distribution of copyrighted material happens whether we want it to or not. That has always been the case, long before ebooks were invented, in the form of a buyer giving the book to someone. Heck, library books get stolen all the time. One can even argue that libraries are a form of "piracy" since the author gets royalties only when the library purchases the book, but not every time someone borrows it.

So piracy exists, that's an established fact. It's also an established fact that DRM can do nothing to stop it. Ask the video game developers about this one, they'll tell you that the more "ingenius" their DRM, the quicker it gets broken. Mass Effect has already been mentioned, the Spore fiasco is another good example.

So since DRM can do nothing to prevent piracy, it makes no sense to spend money on adding it to a product. It makes even less sense to include it if it's the kind of DRM that actually inconveniences the paying customer. (See the Mass Effect example again.) From my consumer-centric point of view, DRM-free is the only logical alternative. I'm all for making that mandatory. Until that pipe-dream of mine becomes reality, I buy DRM-free whenever I can, strip the DRM when that's not an option, and when all else fails, I get a pirated copy of the digital content I have purchased. I am, as I said before, an honest pirate. Everything on my computer has been paid for, one way or another.

So my argument is not that we should "legalize bad things", not only because I'm not sure how we'd make pirating content legal, but rather that we stop inconveniencing a paying customer with something that doesn't stop the pirates anyway.

As my sarcastic post earlier in this thread tried to point out, the DRM is only necessary if we assume that all paying customers are dishonest and plan to distribute what they paid for to as many people as they can, as quickly as possible. I find that assumption a bit insulting. After all, the fact I was willing to pay for the book says otherwise, doesn't it? Doesn't it? *listens to crickets and sees blank stares from the music industry and book publishers*

You can always recognize a writer, particularly a book author. They always write a lot. It is hard to stop them once they get going. I am that way, and I think you might be a writer also, or you at least have that nature.

Scaly (wish you had a more endearing name) besides being a writer (of non fiction as well as fiction) I am also an engineer by education and practice. We set up control systems for processes, and machines and a part of designing a good control system is observing how it works, and adjusting the mechanisms by "feedback."

Now the book industry isn't an engineering or industrial platform but it uses defacto engineering principles as all life does.

If I analyze DRM, its use, its effect, its acceptance by all the groups, I would say that it is a damper (or a partial brake). It stops piracy by the general public, slows it by people that might, say, be on this forum, makes (what do we say here) the suits up in corporate feel good. It also has the effect of presenting a tantalizing target and goal for a few people whose whole life is organized around getting things for free or doing things that glorify their prowess as rule breakers. [This last group are the ones who break the codes, and distribute the methods.]
DRM also causes a lot of consternation for honest people and that is being constantly worked on by the eReader people. For example allowing lending, allowing use at the library, these kinds of things.

And finally for we always summarize and wax a bit if we are doing our thing, DRM is another imperfect system in an imperfect world.

[ScalyFreak]

Originally Posted by frahse

You can always recognize a writer, particularly a book author. They always write a lot. It is hard to stop them once they get going. I am that way, and I think you might be a writer also, or you at least have that nature.

I do, very much so. I don't call myself a writer only because no one pays me to do it, but I spend a lot of my free time writing whatever comes to mind. It's just something I enjoy doing.

As for names, I usually go by Freak, since I consider myself one of those as well. In the most positive sense of the word.

Originally Posted by frahse

If I analyze DRM, its use, its effect, its acceptance by all the groups, I would say that it is a damper (or a partial brake). It stops piracy by the general public, slows it by people that might, say, be on this forum, makes (what do we say here) the suits up in corporate feel good.

The problem I have with that reasoning is that what some consider "piracy by the general public" said general public might think of as perfectly legitimate use of the content they've purchased. Making a back-up of a movie, copying CDs to tapes so they can play in the car, or reading an ebook in an independent app on their phone are all things that fit the legal definition of piracy, but that Joe Average User might well expect to be able to do with the content he spent money on.

And if Joe gets angry enough that he can't do what he fully and completely expected to be able to do (he's among the 90% of users who didn't know of or notice the DRM until now) he will either learn how to strip DRM or get himself a pirate copy of the content, and he may well decide to boycott the legitimate store he bought his music/movie/book from. Publishers today think that's a risk worth taking though.