Arguments For And Against DRM

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by ApK

Why is breaking the law to benefit a friend less wrong than breaking the same law to benefit a stranger?

Stealing a car for Aunt Mary and Stealing a car for a chop shop are equally wrong.
Stealing a bike and stealing a luxury car are both equally wrong.
Stealing a $1 is the same as stealing $1000.
Not that the damage or consequences are the same, but I didn't think that's the point under discussion.

Making a copy is not stealing.

Just tell me this, if you're so concerned with legalities: Why is breaking the law to remove DRM from an e-book OK?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by shalym

...Amazon, at least has said that lending someone your Kindle to read an e-book you own is perfectly fine. It seems that they, at least can clearly see the difference.

Shari

But, for eBooks with DRM, amazon does not expect them to have the DRM removed when you lend your Kindle.

But there is nothing Amazon can do about the eBooks that came without DRM.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

Because I'm loaning them the reader with a book/books with the full expectation that they'll be returned when they're finished reading them just like when I loan them a paper book.

But what is to stop the person who has your Kindle from removing any of thee eBooks that do not have DRM and copying them?

[crane3]

I kinda remember B&N allowed reading of any ebooks AT the B&N store; don't know how that worked. Have seen people reading sitting or lounging reading printed books at the club(?) chairs provided. I have made sure that the books I bought was not the front copy and/or that the copy wasn't thumbed thru with evidence that is was a "used" copy.

I do wonder how that worked as B&N isn't an official library(?) & the ebooks were "loaned" to various patrons who will spend time at the store to read a book with DRM?

Perhaps, I'm mistaken that it is the wifi that is free at the store & my recall and/or interpretation is in error. Still, the idea was from when B&N began selling the "1st edition" of their ereader.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes, I'm perfectly serious. What's the difference between giving someone your spare Kindle, and permanently loaning it to them? I have half a dozen spare reading devices: I could easily loan them to friends, each with 1000 books on, without the slightest expectation of ever getting them back again. In what way does that differ from giving those people pirated copies of the books? I see no difference.

So why would you loan a Reader to someone you don't trust to give it back to you? You would not. You would only loan a Reader to someone you do trust to give it back.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

But, for eBooks with DRM, amazon does not expect them to have the DRM removed when you lend your Kindle.

But there is nothing Amazon can do about the eBooks that came without DRM.

I wouldn't lend a Kindle that had books with the DRM removed--If I lend it out, the books on it come directly from my Kindle account with no processing.

Shari

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by shalym

I wouldn't lend a Kindle that had books with the DRM removed--If I lend it out, the books on it come directly from my Kindle account with no processing.

Shari

Even if the eBook originally comes with no DRM?

[crane3]

Just checked the user manual for the Nook. B&N does have "read in store" of any ebook. The restrictions are that 1) only 1 hr/day (works well for short stories); 2) no "reformatting" (?) text?; 3) no bookmarking, highlighting or changing of anything???? Also the ereader must be a registered Nook (or tablet?).

Anyway one can just have their own bookmark on paper & return the next day to start from there.

So would the "read in store" service be considered violating the DRM? or even the "loan" is a violation. Perhaps because it is only for 1 hour that everything is OK? Would that mean the copying of 25 pages per day for someone is OK & within any "terms"? The bookseller did buy the books?! or was it on consignment?

Or booksellers don't have to follow the "rules" or "terms"?

[ApK]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

...lending...

The only aspect of your post I have a problem with is calling the making of an unauthorized duplicate of a copyrighted work, keeping one for yourself and giving the other to someone that has no right to have it "lending." That's what I clarified with Harry while ago. That's the ebook "lending" most folks are talking about.

As for everything else, I agree. What I guess I'm taking a stand on is the idea that for the things involving breaking the rules to be "right" you'd need to start from the idea of knowing they are "wrong" and then having context to justify breaking them, not just rationalizing them by claiming they are not wrong.

Stealing a car for Aunt Mary is the same as stealing a car for a chop shop.
BUT stealing a car because Aunt Mary (or anyone) was injured and had to get to a hospital and there was no other way to get there is not wrong!

Breaking a law because it's unjust might be worthy civil disobedience.
Bending a rule because it intrudes on more important rights and freedoms may also be legitimate justification. Perhaps subjective, but I wouldn't take a black and white stand about that.

But trying rationalize it away by quibbling about what the proper word for the particular transgression is, or by dismissing the idea of following rules or laws as unimportant is a clear sign that you are just unethically trying to get something dishonestly. For Aunt Mary of for the chop shop, a friend or a public server, $1 or $1000, without a justifiable context, is just all the same.

ApK

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

But what is to stop the person who has your Kindle from removing any of thee eBooks that do not have DRM and copying them?

But what's to stop someone I loan a pbook to from copying all or part of it?


To the best of my knowledge no one has ever copied something of the Kindle I borrowed them (they wouldn't know how), but I have had someone copy pbooks lent to them.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Making a copy is not stealing.

Just tell me this, if you're so concerned with legalities[...]

See my last paragraph to DD just above.

Why is breaking the law to remove DRM from an e-book OK?

I'm not convinced removing DRM in and of itself is against the law here. Courts have disagreed and the language of the law is ambiguous and possibly invalid.
If it were unequivocally against the law, then see my second to last paragraph to DD above.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Even if the eBook originally comes with no DRM?

Please read what I said. "I wouldn't lend a Kindle that had books with the DRM removed--If I lend it out, the books on it come directly from my Kindle account with no processing."
In other words, the books are on the Kindle in exactly the same state as they are in Amazon's cloud, because all of the books would come ONLY from Amazon's cloud. SO. If the books don't have DRM on Amazon, then they don't have it on the Kindle I lend out. Again...Amazon has NO problem with people lending out their Kindles with authorized books on them. This means that the Kindle is still registered to a valid account, and therefore is NO DIFFERENT from adding the borrower to your existing Amazon account.

Shari

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by shalym

Since Amazon has already said that "they're happy for anyone to read your books, so long as they do it on an authorised device" it would seem that they are the ones guilty of any copyright infringement, if any actually exists.

Since my memory of a reply from Amazon is being quoted, I thought it best to dig up the original. In response to a back-and-forth between me and Amazon, I got the following official response:

"Hello Mr. Durant,

I am sorry about the confusion caused by my colleagues reply to your query.

In this case, I can confirm that in most cases, Paid Books have on average 6 Licenses and Free books have on average 99 Licenses.

Publishers choose whether they apply digital rights management software (DRM) to their content. There is no limit on the number of times a title can be downloaded to a registered Kindle device or Kindle-compatible device running a Kindle application, but there may be limits on the number of Kindle devices and applications (usually 6) that can simultaneously use a single book. If the limit is less than six Kindles devices or applications for a specific title, you'll see the message "Simultaneous Device usage: Up to X simultaneous devices, per publisher limits" on the website detail page.

This means that your Spouse's, Children's and even your friend's Kindle can be registered to your account and can download and read your books from you Archived items. Provided they do not exceed the limit of licenses.

Therefore, you can buy one copy of a book and have it available to be read on up to six devices (if it is a paid book) and up to 99 devices if it is a free book.

In terms of use, you have purchase a copy of a book with us, and it is your copy. You may authorize any one you wish to read it, but that person's device must be registered to your account to do so."

(bold added)

[mandy314]

The dust has settled?
And Nabodita has had the meeting.

For the number-crunchers it's a no-brainer to check the efficiency of DRM decisions. Lets see:
- for an expected sale of 1.000 ebooks you get under 1 hour;
- for an expected sale of 10.000 ebooks you get around 8 hours;
- for an expected sale of 100.000 ebooks you get around 80 hours
of time to ventilate the pros/cons of DRM. This will balance the time invested by customers to remove the DRM which is estimated at around 3 seconds per item. Data on time spent by customers swearing at and/or wrestling with DRM is missing but may give some headroom when put into the equation. Please remember to divide the time budget with the number of decision makers involved. Always good business practice to use top management resources wisely.

[leaston]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

In terms of use, you have purchase a copy of a book with us, and it is your copy. You may authorize any one you wish to read it, but that person's device must be registered to your account to do so."

Crikey, that's surprising

@everyone - So, presumably B&N, Kobo and other sellers will have different deals with publishers and therefore this will be a different agreement depending on where the book was purchased? In which case, it's up to the buyer to find out whether letting their mates or aunt Mary download a copy is legal or not.