New version of DRM removal tools ("DeDRM")

[DiapDealer]

No. Not wrong. You just choose not to care that pirates will welcome it. Your choice, of course. But it doesn't change the fact that they will (or that some care that they will).

I must admit I'm a bit confused by your own admission that "of course it will be welcomed by pirates", yet you're claiming that I'm wrong when I said:

to deny that the new features of the tools will not be welcomed/embraced by pirates is to ignore reality.

Perhaps you can clarify just what I was wrong about, since you seem to be agreeing with my premise.

[ZodWallop]

This was a green comment, but the second half seemed to be opinion. If this is arguing with a moderator, I don't mean for it to be.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Also, to deny that the new features of the tools will not be welcomed/embraced by pirates is to ignore reality.

I don't think the new tools will have any impact on piracy. People are going to pirate or they won't. I understand on paper the new tools make the job easier. But I haven't seen any evidence that the previous way prevented piracy.

Was it you that said Alf's blog and the single set of tools were each a bridge too far? That I definitely agree with. I am glad that it is so easy to set up, but if anyone that cares bothers to look into it, I could see immediate shut downs happening.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by hollowpoint

Wrong. It will make DeDRM more accessible to the masses, and make it easier to strip PII, a good thing IMHO.

Why is stripping personal info from an ebook a good thing?

I don't especially care either way, but at least previously, there was a fig leaf if the publishers started complaining. Not sure how effective that fig leaf would be, but still...

[ratinox]

Originally Posted by hollowpoint

Wrong. It will make DeDRM more accessible to the masses, and make it easier to strip PII, a good thing IMHO. It's not automatically sufficient justification to suppress or not use new tech, merely because "it might be used for bad purposes." Of course it will be 'welcomed by pirates.' But it can also be used for people to truly manage and own their files, and use for their own (legimate/legal) purposes while still ensuring that authors get paid.

Please explain how these changes make DeDRM "more accessible" to the masses.

I think the sanitizing of PI argument is a straw-man. If you retain posession of the books you purchased then there is no risk of your PI falling into the hands of others. Therfore there is no need to strip PI. It may be desireable on principle, but it is not a necessary component of rendering the books you legally purchased usable on the devices you own. To wit: I have been using DeDRM for years and I've not once needed to strip PI from the books I purchased from Amazon in order to read them on a succession of iLiad and Kobo devices.

This risk only arises if the purchaser illegally redistributes. Therefore I maintain that this change is primarily to enable illegal redistribution. I'm willing to reconsider if you can provide a reason why sanitizing PI is a necessary and desirable legal use.

[hobnail]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Why is stripping personal info from an ebook a good thing?

Perhaps the usual (to me at least) vague fear that personal information is being disseminated.

[ratinox]

Originally Posted by hobnail

Perhaps the usual (to me at least) vague fear that personal information is being disseminated.

As I wrote in my reply to hollowpoint: if you don't distribute copies of the books with your PI embedded then how is it possible for your PI to be disseminated?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

This was a green comment, but the second half seemed to be opinion. If this is arguing with a moderator, I don't mean for it to be.

No worries. Only the green part was me moderating. The rest was my opinion.

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I don't think the new tools will have any impact on piracy. People are going to pirate or they won't. I understand on paper the new tools make the job easier. But I haven't seen any evidence that the previous way prevented piracy.

A measurable impact? Who knows; maybe not. But I feel that allowing pirates to discard their personal patches for The Tools benefits them more than it does casual users (who have no real need to remove personal information that could tie the purchase back to them if they don't have anything nefarious in mind). It's a speed-bump removed for evil-doers, that has no real practical gain for others. So why do it?

The point of The Tools was never "privacy". The point was to allow users to read their purchases with devices/apps of their choice. And to back up their purchases in case companies went out of business (at least that's how they began). Anonymization/privacy was never a goal. I wish those who have picked up the torch from those who came before would consider that. But it is only my wish. I claim no authority to demand it.

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

Was it you that said Alf's blog and the single set of tools were each a bridge too far? That I definitely agree with. I am glad that it is so easy to set up, but if anyone that cares bothers to look into it, I could see immediate shut downs happening.

Yes, that was me.

[Lynx-lynx]

My understanding is that there's no drm on mp3 music, so how have the powers that be reduced piracy for that medium?
It seems relevant to the question of attribution of a pirate's details in the points raised in various posts above

[ratinox]

Originally Posted by Lynx-lynx

My understanding is that there's no drm on mp3 music, so how have the powers that be reduced piracy for that medium?

Not true at all. There are multiple MP3 encumbering methods. None of them are formally part of the MPEG-1 Layer III specifications but they do exist.

Edited to elaborate: most MP3 DRM schemes don't encrypt the files but they do embed some form of identifier or watermark in the files so that they can be recognized as yours. I'm sure someone has done some kind of encrypted wrapper around MP3 files but I can't name any specifics off the top of my head. Most either went WMA with Microsoft's DRM or Apple's M4A with FairPlay.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

No. Not wrong. You just choose not to care that pirates will welcome it. Your choice, of course. But it doesn't change the fact that they will (or that some care that they will).

I must admit I'm a bit confused by your own admission that "of course it will be welcomed by pirates", yet you're claiming that I'm wrong when I said:

Perhaps you can clarify just what I was wrong about, since you seem to be agreeing with my premise.

DD, you said to DENY that they will NOT be welcomed is to ignore reality. He says they WILL be welcomed!

What you were wrong about was your double negative, obviously....


(At least I think I parsed that correctly....)

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Lynx-lynx

My understanding is that there's no drm on mp3 music, so how have the powers that be reduced piracy for that medium?
It seems relevant to the question of attribution of a pirate's details in the points raised in various posts above

ratinox is correct in that identifying info can easily be included with otherwise unprotected mp3 files, though I don't think of that as DRM. I guess watermarking technically is, but meh.

But to answer the question, the powers that be have NOT reduced piracy by DRM for mp3s, nor ebooks nor movies, nor perhaps even software , though it's been years since I looked into the warez scene.

The reduction/suppression of end-user tools (Napster, Kazaa, etc.) may have reduced casual sharing, but I think what the MP3 powers that be did that helped more than anything was making the music cheaper and more accessible, and keeping the unencrypted mp3 format as the commercial standard. It's less worth the casual user's time and effort to try to pirate something that they can get for use on any device for 99 cents or stream instantly as part of an affordable service.
People who make piracy a hobby (or a livelihood) have not seen their activities reduced at all.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by ApK

DD, you said to DENY that they will NOT be welcomed is to ignore reality. He says they WILL be welcomed!

What you were wrong about was your double negative, obviously....


(At least I think I parsed that correctly....)

My head hurts.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by ApK

What you were wrong about was your double negative, obviously....

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

My head hurts.

"That sounds like a confession to me. In fact the double negative has led to proof positive. I'm afraid you gave yourself away." -Wadsworth (from Clue)

[hobnail]

Originally Posted by ratinox

As I wrote in my reply to hollowpoint: if you don't distribute copies of the books with your PI embedded then how is it possible for your PI to be disseminated?

I agree. That's why I used the word vague, meaning not well thought out.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by ratinox

As I wrote in my reply to hollowpoint: if you don't distribute copies of the books with your PI embedded then how is it possible for your PI to be disseminated?

I believe that one MR member (@ottischwenk) at one time got into some difficulties when his ereader was lost/stolen and ebooks from which he had removed DRM were uploaded to a pirate site.