scott <sco### [at] scottcom> writes:

>> 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

You can point out that their assumptions are questionable. You haven't,
however, demonstrated that harm is done when they remove DRM. 

> 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).

Not always. And even if they were the reasons, it's not at all clear
that removing DRM does harm. 

Most importantly, from the wider context, you need to define what "harm"
is. When I look at these issues, my only concern is maximizing artistic
endeavors. I believe copyright's only role is to enable that, and that
was historically how it all began. People making a livelihood via the
arts is simply not a factor that need be taken into account.

> 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.

Licenses need not be legal. I've owned books that forbade resale. Yet I
have the legal right to resell them, regardless of the license.

>> 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

The publisher does not have absolute rights on this, as the courts have
shown. Their terms have to conform to certain standards. 

It was my choice whether I bought those books. I bought them despite
their forbidding resale. Yet, I had the legal right to thwart their
business model. 

This may not apply to DRM in books, movies, etc. However, the suggestion
that the publisher is free to choose whatever terms they sell their
content under is simply invalid. 

> you are not buying the right to unlimited personal use.  If you were
> then you'd likely have to pay more.

You keep saying that, and while logical, you have not supported
it. There are certainly authors in the wild who believe that fiction
ebooks *should* be sold at the cheap rate (and some want it even cheaper
- under $4), because the publishers will /still/ make a bigger profit
than by charging what they normally charge for physical books. The
claims stem from no assumption that they will resell the book to someone
multiple times. The claim does have quite a bit of validity. Publishers
lose a huge amount of money in producing physical books.

Post a reply to this message