scott <sco### [at] scottcom> writes:

> The question is, if publishers gave an option to remove DRM (for free)
> when you bought the material, would they make as much money?  It seems
> like almost every publisher thinks they wouldn't, which is why they
> don't offer such an offer, and actually *spend* a lot of money to try
> and "improve" the DRM.  Surely they are not all wrong?

That's because many would then share it with others. Which is different
from me removing DRM from what I've bought. 

>>> 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.
>
> It's obvious if you think about it though.  At the extreme when you rent
> a film (or pay-per-view TV or BBC license fee etc) you pay a relatively
> small sum for a product that is limited in the number of times you are
> allowed to view it or the length of time you can watch it for.  It would
> be crazy if it were legal to then use that content forever for any
> personal use.  IANAL but I'm pretty sure you'd get sued for this.

Giving examples does not make it true for all cases. Just because it's
part of many business plans does not make it part of all business
plans. If you want to claim it's true in, say, the fiction publishing
world, you'll need to support that with data - not cite examples from
various industries.

I never suggested no one has a business plan like this. Just that if
you're going to claim it, you need to:

1. Show that it is part of the business plan.
2. Show that they'll lose money if that plan is subverted.

Now, someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but in the US, I'm free to
record for perpetuity that which is broadcast on the airwaves, or even
cable TV. No legal repercussions.

Post a reply to this message