> Most people that I know feel the same way - I bought the (CD, ePub,
> whatever), so if I want to convert it to something more convenient for my
> own personal use, that's my business.

Sure, but in a lot of cases people incorrectly believe they are doing no 
harm by removing the DRM - I hear it all the time.  They feel hard done 
by because they can't use the content on another device, yet fail to 
understand that it's precisely those limitations that has even allowed 
them to get the content in the first place (prime example BBC iPlayer or 
at the extreme hiring DVDs).

> Where it becomes a problem is when I convert it to a format that's
> convenient and then share it with someone who should buy their own copy.

You seem to be under the illusion that if you buy a copy of something it 
gives you the right to use it as often as you want on as many devices as 
you want.  If the license says otherwise that's incorrect.

> The problem, really, is how to draw the line about what's right and wrong
> from an ethical point of view (from the publisher's point of view).  Is
> it ethically right to make people pay multiple times for the same digital
> content?  Maybe yes, maybe no, depending on the circumstances.

That's the publisher's right to choose how they sell their content and 
the business model they use.  It's your choice whether to buy in to it 
or not.  But understand in many cases when you buy DRM protected content 
you are not buying the right to unlimited personal use.  If you were 
then you'd likely have to pay more.

> Just because something's legal doesn't mean it's *right*.  That's with
> civil disobedience is all about.

Sure, and of course I don't agree with all forms of DRM, but publishers 
tend to like to spend a lot of money of lawyers.

Post a reply to this message