Adobe DE 4 spies on users

[hardcastle]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Lending books without DRM is giving books away, not lending them. People can't be trusted to delete books at the end of a loan period. If I were a publisher, I certainly wouldn't lend out books without an expiry mechanism. It's a completely understandable requirement for a publisher to have, and Adobe are not the "bad guys" for providing a mechanism for fulfilling that requirement.

You'll find that I said nothing to disagree with your post. Only to suggest that DRM being a "good thing" for libraries is an odd and debatable position.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by hardcastle

You'll find that I said nothing to disagree with your post. Only to suggest that DRM being a "good thing" for libraries is an odd and debatable position.

Why do you find it odd?

Libraries purchase licences.

Adobe provide a tool for licence management.

Nothing odd in libraries wanting to use a tool which aids them in their licence management.

Happy to debate it with you, but in all seriousness I don't think you can reasonably call it an "odd" viewpoint for me to hold.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I agree, but that's not what I was commenting on. My comment referred to the claim that DRM itself was a "scam" and that we are "being taken for a ride". I really can't agree with this viewpoint.

DRM is marketed for sold books, and is a scam. That it can ALSO be used for libraries does not negate the fundamental scamminess.

This is beside the point that, as stated, not all publishers seem to agree with the need, as evidenced by the Open EPUB offerings, not to mention the trend towards non-DRMed MP3 audiobooks.

You may think it is essentially giving away the book; you may even be right. That doesn't really matter and neither do you -- your personal evaluation does not negate theirs, and you are arguing that DRM is fundamental to library eLoans, which is far more than just saying it is justifiable, and easily proven wrong.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Why do you find it odd?

Libraries purchase licences.

Adobe provide a tool for licence management.

Nothing odd in libraries wanting to use a tool which aids them in their licence management.

Happy to debate it with you, but in all seriousness I don't think you can reasonably call it an "odd" viewpoint for me to hold.

You seem to be forgetting that Amazon sells licenses too. If it was just a matter of those semantics, then why are you limiting yourself to libraries?

[shalym]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Lending books without DRM is giving books away, not lending them. People can't be trusted to delete books at the end of a loan period. If I were a publisher, I certainly wouldn't lend out books without an expiry mechanism. It's a completely understandable requirement for a publisher to have, and Adobe are not the "bad guys" for providing a mechanism for fulfilling that requirement.

Sorry Harry, but if that were true, then openlibrary wouldn't exist, and libraries wouldn't be lending out audiobooks as downloadable mp3.

Shari

[ApK]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Why do you find it odd?

Libraries purchase licences.

Adobe provide a tool for licence management.

Nothing odd in libraries wanting to use a tool which aids them in their licence management.

Except there is evidence (namely that libraries are willing to offer digital loans with OR without DRM) suggesting it is NOT libraries that want it.
It's likely, rather, that some publishers want it.

So the question is still whether the reasons that some publishers want it are valid or not.

There is evidence (namely the success of DRM-free publishers) that they are not valid.

So if DRM is not helping anyone much, and is hurting legitimate users (by increasing support and infrastructure needs, and inhibiting fair use) then it should be done away with, as it would be merely a cash cow for Adobe.

The evidence I've listed is not proof, and I'm open to being shown that DRM really does save publishers lots of money by significantly reducing infringement and protecting sales, in excess of the costs of implementing the DRM, but I have not seen any evidence of such.

ApK

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

Judging from articles that appeared after Nate's in The Digital Reader, it sounds as though ADE's scanning of entire libraries hasn't been verified yet. What has been verified is the transmission of data from books opened with ADE (including non-DRM'd titles).

Aren't metatdata, page numbers and percentages logged by Amazon and Apple as well? If not, then how does your iPad or Kindle library get synchronized across devices and where does that information get saved?

This is a red herring -- Amazon only logs your Amazon purchases. Even if I sideload a book and open it on the Kindle, there is ZERO reason to think Amazon has been made aware of its existence.

We can tell, because in fact your library ISN'T synced. Your PURCHASES are.

(You can also explicitly email Amazon your book and have them add it to your Kindle Cloud, with the option selected on MYK to save it and sync annotations data. In other words, YOU asked THEM.)

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

You seem to be forgetting that Amazon sells licenses too. If it was just a matter of those semantics, then why are you limiting yourself to libraries?

Because I happen to believe that library DRM is a perfectly legitimate use of DRM, whereas bookstore DRM is simply an inconvenience for users.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Because I happen to believe that library DRM is a perfectly legitimate use of DRM, whereas bookstore DRM is simply an inconvenience for users.

That is precisely why I wondered about your "licenses" red herring.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Even if I sideload a book and open it on the Kindle, there is ZERO reason to think Amazon has been made aware of its existence.

We can tell, because in fact your library ISN'T synced. Your PURCHASES are.

That's not really sound logic. It's just as reasonable that Amazon does the same check on all content, and merely chooses not to offer cloud-sync service for some stuff.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, and all that.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

That is precisely why I wondered about your "licenses" red herring.

It's not a red herring. Remember that Amazon too do time-limiting DRM, for their "Kindle Owners' Lending Library", and also for textbook rental. I maintain my view that time-limiting is an entirely legitimate use for the technology, and that Adobe can't be "demonised" for providing a tool to meet that need.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Because I happen to believe that library DRM is a perfectly legitimate use of DRM, whereas bookstore DRM is simply an inconvenience for users.

It's legitimate if it actually adds value. I'm not convinced that it does. There's some evidence it might be tiger repellent.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by ApK

It's legitimate if it actually adds value. I'm not convinced that it does. There's some evidence it might be tiger repellent.

I respectfully disagree. Amazon wouldn't have a textbook rental business without DRM. It clearly adds value for them.

[GeoffR]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'm finding it harder and harder to swallow the "scanning the computer for ebooks outside of ADE's library" portion of the claim (not that I'm excusing the transmission of ANY--clear-text or encrypted--personal data). If not a service, then a separate thread/process would need to running while ADE was open to actively search for ebooks on the computer's hard-drive. Something like that should be trivial to detect.

I don't think ADE scans the whole disk or looks in non-ADE directories for books. However if it is connected to a device that has a directory called "Digital Editions" or "My Digital Editions" containing ADE-style data (Manifest and Annotations entries etc.) then it will scan for the books listed in the manifest.

One issue is that the "Digital Editions" or "My Digital Editions" directory may have manifest entries for books that were never downloaded or opened with ADE, but which were opened/read using an Adobe RMSDK based reader, because such a reader creates Manifest entries for books that it opens even if they are DRM-free and have nothing to do with ADE.

I have no idea whether information about these books is being sent back to Adobe, it is just one way I see that ADE could get to know about non-ADE books on a device.

(My experience is only with ADE 1.7.2, which I use because it is the easiest version to get running in Linux.)

[marshap]

I don't read ShellShock to say that DRM is a scam, only that the Adobe logging is a scam.