The beginning of the end for DRM?

[ApK]

Originally Posted by CyGuy

No, I never said that or implied that. I clearly said that locks you have on your own property are yours to do with as you please for personal use. You can lock them, unlock them, or remove them altogether. The owner of the item decides, not the manufacture/seller of the product. I simply don't know how to say it any clearer.

OK, seems very clear. So, you agree with Amazon that a copyright holder, as the owner of the intellectual property of an eBook, should be free to lock their IP as they see fit.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by ApK

OK, seems very clear. So, you agree with Amazon that a copyright holder, as the owner of the intellectual property of an eBook, should be free to lock their IP as they see fit.

Right up until the point that I pay for it.

[CyGuy]

Originally Posted by ApK

OK, seems very clear. So, you agree with Amazon that a copyright holder, as the owner of the intellectual property of an eBook, should be free to lock their IP as they see fit.

Amazon would fit into the "seller" category. I am referring to an ebook that you purchase.

[Joykins]

Originally Posted by remasuri

I think the funny thing is that DRM just doesnt wortk. So far I can find any Bestseller as a pirate on the internet even though all of them probably had DRM in the first place. On the other hand at least the original Pottermore(with watermark) ebooks in German are not to be found yet because probably nobady knows where exactly there personal data is stored. When I searched it was easy to find the english Pottermore ebooks though piarated which I can only explain as for the reason that they are available at online libarys.
but anyways for me it seems like this watermark makes way more sense because people are actually afraid of uploading these books but also makes it easier for the people buying the books. all this apart from the fact that it takes me like 30 seconds to remove the DRM of a book which should proof the point that its pretty useless and just prevents my grandma to by an e-reader other than a kindel because everything else would just mean she would have to call me every time she wants a new book on her reader

The Lightweight DRM people acknowledge that any DRM scheme is crackable; they seem fine with trying to use legal recourse against piracy. This is their rationale

1. DRM does discourage “oversharing” (e.g. putting files on a website for anyone to download). Although DRMs will be and are cracked, breaking DRM acts as a “speed bump” that less determined users may judge not to be worth the trouble.

2. Cracking DRM is illegal in many countries, as discussed in more detail below, which puts a damper on the ease of use and availability of cracks to the general public.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by CyGuy

Amazon would fit into the "seller" category. I am referring to an ebook that you purchase.

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Right up until the point that I pay for it.

You pay for the copyright to all the ebooks you read? That must get very expensive, as the rights to popular books can go for millions, but I guess, as the new owner of the IP, you make it up with all those royalty payments you now get.

Or perhaps you just misunderstand--or just stubbornly refuse to acknowledge-- the obvious reality of what it is you are buying. Which is a specific license to use someone ELSE intellectual property.

It's not a paperback, it's not a car, you're not renting or leasing a physical item. You are buying rights to use ephemeral content in certain limited ways.

I cannot understand why people claim to not see the reality of this.

Ask for different and more fair terms in the license? Great. Ask for a reform of the laws concerning intellectual property rights? Great.

But make a argument that you should have certain rights with something for no reason other than you have those right with a totally different thing? That's just foolish, and is unlikely to convince anyone who matters.

You might as well insist you should be able to walk on water, because you can walk on land.


ApK

[JoeD]

I don't think it acts as a speed bump when it comes to piracy as someone else has already dug the speed bump up :P

DRM does not discourage over sharing in the slightest. The files that are "over shared" have already been "freed" by someone and released.

What it might deter is some level of casual piracy for those who don't download from pirate sites but might have shared a copy with close friends or family. At the same time it deters some purchasers who would have bought the books but don't want the hassle of DRM or risk of losing access to your books when you change to a different reading device.

Cracking tools may be illegal, but all that's doing is punishing your legitimate customers by preventing them using the books they bought on future devices or reading them at all. It won't stop someone uploading or sharing an illegal copy of a book and as far as the rest of the pirates are concerned, they don't even need to download the cracking tools, someone has already been there and done that. Mostly the people who do, are the publisher's legitimate customers who bought and continue to buy their books (i.e many of the people on this forum)

DRM is just as flawed as their reasons for still using it. It's getting in the way of legit usage and punishing customers rather than pirates.

Some publishers know this though, see Baen and o'Reilly. Others are waking up to it too and I hope in time more do. The music industry may not have wanted DRM free and in effect were forced into accepting it, ironically due to the high levels of piracy, but now we have it, people can buy music from all over and not worry about losing access in the future, compatibility problems with future devices etc Piracy is still an issue for music, but the industry can go after the sites facilitating it without causing hassles for the rest that buy or rip their music.

[QuantumIguana]

I am paying for the right to read the books that I paid for however I wish. If a license for a book said "You may read this book while sitting on your couch, but not while sitting at your dining room table," I would consider such a license null and void. Any license which says "You may read this book on a Kindle, but not on a Nook" is equally null and void.

[JoeD]

One thing is for sure, the day DRM dies on ebooks, we're all going to need to find something else to argue over

[EowynCarter]

mobi versus epub ?

[HansTWN]

Apparently these licenses have never been tested in court. Not everything that you sign is necessarily binding. Some rights you cannot just sign away. And the big button still says "buy" book, not "licence" book.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

I am paying for the right to read the books that I paid for however I wish. If a license for a book said "You may read this book while sitting on your couch, but not while sitting at your dining room table," I would consider such a license null and void. Any license which says "You may read this book on a Kindle, but not on a Nook" is equally null and void.

As you probably know, underneath what I consider to be poor word choice which reads like it could have come from the manifesto of a sociopathic egomanic, there is a basic sentiment there that I agree with.
I'll add you to the list of of folks who I want to sign my petition, and I'm scratching you off the list of those I want to help me write it. It's all in the marketing.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Apparently these licenses have never been tested in court. Not everything that you sign is necessarily binding. Some rights you cannot just sign away. And the big button still says "buy" book, not "licence" book.

I'm not a lawyer, but I'll bet you a zillion dollars that the 'buy' button argument is utterly irrelevant.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by ApK

I'm not a lawyer, but I'll bet you a zillion dollars that the 'buy' button argument is utterly irrelevant.

Perhaps. Ever bought any videos from Amazon? It says "you own this show". This has been quite a dance of words for the industry. And it is far from certain that, legally, everything is as clear cut as the terms of the licence make it out to be. And words are important when ascertaining what actually goes on during such a sale. Apart from some basic, "inalienable" rights of the consumer.

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by EowynCarter

mobi versus epub ?

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by ApK

As you probably know, underneath what I consider to be poor word choice which reads like it could have come from the manifesto of a sociopathic egomanic, there is a basic sentiment there that I agree with.
I'll add you to the list of of folks who I want to sign my petition, and I'm scratching you off the list of those I want to help me write it. It's all in the marketing.

What poor word choice? What's is sociopathic or egomaniacal about the being able to read what you paid for where you wish?