Invisible <voi### [at] devnull> writes:

>> Not always. And even if they were the reasons, it's not at all clear
>> that removing DRM does harm.
>
> It's not removing the DRM itself, it's what you do afterwards (which
> presumably you couldn't do before - or else, why did you bother?)

The context was Jim saying one who purchases it can strip DRM, and
that's fine as long as it's just for personal use. 

I concur.

>> 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
>> endeavours. 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.
>
> Um... in what way do you suppose copyright was supposed to "maximize
> artistic endeavours" other than "people making a livelihood via the
> arts"??

It's not obvious that the two goals are always aligned, and even if they
are or once were, that they always will be.

My point is that if you're going to judge the morality of something
involving copyright, the question to ask is "How does this impact the
production of the arts?" and not "Will people no longer make a living
out of this?"

People will write books even if there is no copyright. Perhaps not as
many, but they still will. Provide legal help if one can increase that
output, but only enough to maximize output - and no more. 

>> The publisher does not have absolute rights on this, as the courts have
>> shown. Their terms have to conform to certain standards.
>
> More to the point, if somebody buys an item, they reasonably *expect* to
> be able to do certain things with it (depending on what the item is).

I've heard that the court opinion that ruled it's OK to resell books said
almost the same thing.

Post a reply to this message