which format will win?

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by darknova

This is a semantics argument.

Semantics or not.............

Stating "DRM prevents you from making a useable backup" is akin to stating "house fire prevents you from making a usable backup"

Think about it.........if you back up all your files to a second hard drive and then a house fire destroys that second hard drive your back up files will be useless.

Did the house fire prevent you from making a usable backup of your files? No.

Here's an experiment for those that think DRM prevents you from making a usable backup.

Take a DRM'd file on computer A and make a backup copy on computer B. Now take that backup copy from computer B and transfer it to your designated reading device. Can you read the file? If yes then it is obvious that the DRM did not prevent you from making a usable backup.

Now, some things that could prevent your DRM'd backup files from being useful at some point in the future are...
1: Change of reading device
2: Hard disk/motherboard failure
3: DRM provider ceasing business
4: House fire

See?

Now that that is cleared up here's the easy way to move beyond this seemingly never ending argument about whether or not DRM prevents backups......

Why doesn't the person who originally made the claim simply admit they did not express themselves very well and really meant that, depending on the circumstances, DRM could prevent any backup copies from being useful in the future.

It is obvious to all that this is what was meant anyway!

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by kennyc

It doesn't prevent a backup. What is it you don't understand about that statement?

People are using the term "backup" in a different context than you are. Why is it you can't understand that concept?

[clockworkzombie]

I argue that a backup is a backup ONLY if the data can be restored later. Other wise it is wasted space.

edited for spelling.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by clockworkzombie

I argue that a backup is a backup ONLY if the data can be restored later. Other wise it is wasted space.

edited for spelling.

And unless something beyond the DRM itself changes, the backup of the DRM file will be able to be restored later.

It is only if something else changes(the four points I listed in my previous post are some examples) that the data will then become "wasted space".

Hence, technically speaking, it is not the DRM itself that renders the data useless but a combination of circumstances.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

It is only if something else changes(the four points I listed in my previous post are some examples) that the data will then become "wasted space".

Hence, technically speaking, it is not the DRM itself that renders the data useless but a combination of circumstances.

Of the four examples you give, three render the backup useless because of the DRM system. The fourth renders the backup useless because the backup was destroyed.

Off-site backups can solve the problem in your fourth example. Nothing the user can do can fix the problems of the first three.

It seems clear to me that it's the DRM rendering the backup data useless, if the user cannot take any steps to avoid the data becoming useless if certain events occur.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

People are using the term "backup" in a different context than you are. Why is it you can't understand that concept?

It's not me that is misunderstanding, the term backup means just that and nothing else. Those who are confused are attributing other activities to the term.

[John F]

Doesn't CSS on DVDs prevent backup (I CANNOT simply copy files, I must circumvent the DRM to copy the files). Or am I misunderstanding DRM?

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by kennyc

It's not me that is misunderstanding, the term backup means just that and nothing else. Those who are confused are attributing other activities to the term.

My experience of working in IT for over 20 years is that when we talk about "back-up", we include ensuring that we are able to restore, which is the only reason that back-ups are taken. Our back-up teams worry about tape and file formats, database consistency, password access to old data etc. etc. - to ensure that the restored data is not useless. So, my experience as a professional working in IT doesn't conform to your limited definition. Perhaps your experience is different (and there is no "right answer" for the meaning of any term in an absolute sense), but for everyone that I've dealt with professionally, back-up is all about taking a copy that you can restore (and not just sometimes, but in every eventuality that it is cost-effective to guard against).

Looking at DRM in this context, it makes back-up much harder, because you have to "back-up" the unlocking apparatus as well as the data. The only really practical approach for individuals doing back-ups at home, who typically can't afford the time and money to do this, is to strip DRM and back up the raw data.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

My experience of working in IT for over 20 years is that when we talk about "back-up", we include ensuring that we are able to restore, which is the only reason that back-ups are taken. Our back-up teams worry about tape and file formats, database consistency, password access to old data etc. etc. - to ensure that the restored data is not useless. So, my experience as a professional working in IT doesn't conform to your limited definition. Perhaps your experience is different (and there is no "right answer" for the meaning of any term in an absolute sense), but for everyone that I've dealt with professionally, back-up is all about taking a copy that you can restore (and not just sometimes, but in every eventuality that it is cost-effective to guard against).

Looking at DRM in this context, it makes back-up much harder, because you have to "back-up" the unlocking apparatus as well as the data. The only really practical approach for individuals doing back-ups at home, who typically can't afford the time and money to do this, is to strip DRM and back up the raw data.

I've been in computers longer. I am not using a "limited" definition, but standard usage. Backup means being able to make a copy that is all.

You and others are adding additional requirements to the concept.

Additionally we are not talking about computer backups, videos, or your dna.

It's really quite simple. Quit trying to make it more complex and quit just friggin arguing. What is it about some people that brings this out? Sheesh!

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

And unless something beyond the DRM itself changes, the backup of the DRM file will be able to be restored later.

It is only if something else changes...

You won't be restoring it unless "something else changes".

And yes, it IS the DRM causing it, because without the DRM, regardless of the factors involved (short of a nuclear war), the backup would be readable.


kennyc - Well yes, and this is why many computer techs are seen as incompetent. (Because they are, being able to restore after downtime is essential)

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

...


kennyc - Well yes, and this is why many computer techs are seen as incompetent. (Because they are, being able to restore after downtime is essential)

Hmm? I'm not following. You're saying they are seen as incompetent because they can't restore data?

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I've been in computers longer. I am not using a "limited" definition, but standard usage. Backup means being able to make a copy that is all.

And that's not the standard usage that I've encountered. When we worry about back-up, we worry about restore. Your experience seems to have been different, but it doesn't make it standard usage.

You and others are adding additional requirements to the concept.

You and others are limiting it to a ridiculous degree - like saying that you are allowed to post a letter if you're allowed to put it in the box - whether it gets there is irrelevant.

Additionally we are not talking about computer backups, videos, or your dna.

We're talking about backing up ebooks, which are on computers.

It's really quite simple. Quit trying to make it more complex and quit just friggin arguing. What is it about some people that brings this out? Sheesh!

Pot? Kettle?

I agree it's simple, but I simply think that the idea of back-up as exclusively the ability to copy 1s and 0s is bizarre. Do you have any customers who would be happy for you to tell them that you'd "sorted out the back-ups" without having actually sorted out the ability to restore? It's a farce.

The whole point of back-ups is to have a copy that can be restored at need.
And the point on this thread was that DRM interferes with that, which it does.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Hmm? I'm not following. You're saying they are seen as incompetent because they can't restore data?

If they can't, they are incompetent.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

And that's not the standard usage that I've encountered. When we worry about back-up, we worry about restore. Your experience seems to have been different, but it doesn't make it standard usage.
You and others are limiting it to a ridiculous degree - like saying that you are allowed to post a letter if you're allowed to put it in the box - whether it gets there is irrelevant.
We're talking about backing up ebooks, which are on computers.
Pot? Kettle?

I agree it's simple, but I simply think that the idea of back-up as exclusively the ability to copy 1s and 0s is bizarre. Do you have any customers who would be happy for you to tell them that you'd "sorted out the back-ups" without having actually sorted out the ability to restore? It's a farce.

The whole point of back-ups is to have a copy that can be restored at need.
And the point on this thread was that DRM interferes with that, which it does.

I give up. You clearly just want to argue as has been demonstrated in numerous threads so I will henceforth not bother to even attempt to discuss anything with you.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by John F

Doesn't CSS on DVDs prevent backup (I CANNOT simply copy files, I must circumvent the DRM to copy the files). Or am I misunderstanding DRM?

Yes. And they're not meant to be backed up--at least in the US--don't know other countries laws.

Here federal courts have held that you cracking the CSS is against the law, so you can't legally make a back up of a DVD.

With e-books, you can copy the DRM'd file to your computer, flash drive etc. without cracking the DRM, so you can make a back up copy which can be put back on the device it's tied to and read in the future.

And that latter is why I don't get the bickering. I can back up my Kindle DRM books. I can put those files back on my Kindle and read them. Presumably I could put them on another kindle registered to my account (if not a I can download them to the new device from the Kindle Archives of books I've bought--up to a limited number of machines per book) etc.

So they are true back ups--though the number of times they may be restored to new machines may be limited, which is something that needs to change.

But all the bickering over DRM gets old. If you really hate it, then vote with your wallet. Don't buy a Kindle or Sony or Nook or other e-reader tied to a store with it's own DRM. Don't buy DRM books and strip DRM--only buy DRM free books and for every book you want that's only available with DRM write the publisher and tell them they lost a sale to you because of DRM.

Encourage other to do the same. That's the best way to get DRM to go away. Buying a book with DRM and stripping it just sends a message that you're fine with DRM as the publisher got your money--which is all they care about.