On 21/01/2011 11:12 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 20:12:42 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>
>> [graphic "BANG!"]
>
> LOL
>
> That would explain the hearing loss. ;-)
>

What did you say :-P

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 23:26:31 +0000, Stephen wrote:

> On 21/01/2011 11:12 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 20:12:42 +0000, Stephen wrote:
>>
>>> [graphic "BANG!"]
>>
>> LOL
>>
>> That would explain the hearing loss. ;-)
>>
>>
> What did you say :-P

I dunno. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 1/21/2011 12:48 PM, Darren New wrote:
> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> On 1/20/2011 2:10 PM, Darren New wrote:
>>> Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>>> you could, for legit use, photocopy pages out of a book, for a
>>>> classroom, or to show someone, etc., as long as you don't *sell* the
>>>> book, or its pages, to someone else.
>>>
>>> That's not actually the case, and never has been.
>>>
>> Fair use. You mention it yourself soon after.
>
> Yes. But it's not just "if you're not selling it, it's OK." That's a
> common mistake people have. Photocopying an entire article out of a
> magazine and giving it out to your class for free is *not* fair use.
>
>> All well and good, but, in a practical sense, this is meaningless for
>> "digital" content.
>
> Not really. People just get in trouble because they're making copies
> illegally. Show me someone who has been sued for ripping a CD he owns so
> he can listen to it himself, without giving either to anyone else.
>
>>> Yes. That's called "public performance", and it's not one of the legal
>>> rights you get when you purchase the content.
>>>
>> Oddly, reading a book isn't "public performance". Even if you put it
>> under a projector it probably wouldn't be. On the other hand.. plug
>> your iPad into a big display on a wall... Would it?
>
> Note that it's more "public" in question than "performance". Certainly
> getting up on stage in front of a crowd and reading poetry from a book
> is public performance.
>
>>>> They could, in principle, even deny you the right to what you already
>>>> have, if they put in a clause for it, rent it to you (I mean WTF),
>>>> and, more to the point, stop supporting the device, in effect, denying
>>>> your right to ***everything*** you bought that is on it.
>>>
>>> This isn't true, as I understand it. I'm sure there are loopholes and
>>> such, and that it's more complex than either of us are giving credit
>>> for, but the intention isn't to keep you from playing stuff you legally
>>> own.
>>>
>> The biggest "loophole" is, if the software stops working, or the
>> server goes down, even if they promised to let you replace a copy, if
>> you lost the local one, you lose the thing you bought. So, no, I am
>> quite correct in this.
>
> You were talking about something different. I was talking about the
> legality, you're talking about the technology.
>
>> Same with "giving/selling the original". Try that with an eBook...
>
> That's certainly harder without support from the vendor.
>
Let just say that its complex, and the DMCA doesn't address complexity, 
just protections, and as such creates barriers and confusion.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 1/21/2011 12:17 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 09:00:42 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>
>> On 20/01/2011 08:55 PM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>
>>> Yet, even in that case, you could, for legit use, photocopy pages out
>>> of a book, for a classroom, or to show someone, etc., as long as you
>>> don't *sell* the book, or its pages, to someone else. Not so with DRMed
>>> stuff.
>>
>> I'm not sure about the USA, but in the UK you can't photocopy stuff for
>> use in the classroom without the copyright holder's permission. (Wanna
>> guess why school materials cost so much?)
>
> That's the way it is in the US as well.
>
> Jim
Never mind that its almost a necessity, given the cost of school books, 
the limit on which ones may be available, and the lack of money to 
replace them when outdated (or found to contain incorrect information). 
Its not entirely unheard of for people to be using 50 year old books, 
with gross inaccuracies, and have the school unwilling, or unable, to 
supplement/replace them.

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 1/20/2011 8:40 PM, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> 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.
>
Ah, well. "Harm" is the billions and billions lost to people not buying 
the overpriced books, because they are all too stupid to find ways 
around the DRM anyway... You know, those estimates of "loses" which 
never materialized when it went into effect, and in fact seemed to have 
the opposite result in some interpretations. Brought to you by the same 
man that wrote the estimates on how many millions of people are going to 
be waiting in line at the Ark amusement park Canned Ham is still 
planning to build using government money.

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

On 1/21/2011 6:31 AM, scott wrote:
>> Yes, some *companies* do this. And there are laws to prevent it. What
>> I'm saying is that some random dude on the street isn't going to do
>> this. It's far too expensive, for a start.
>
> OK I understand your point.
>
>> No. I mean that it only takes one single person to work out how to
>> defeat DRM (which will happen with probability 1), and your system is
>> broken. You no longer have control over what people do with your data.
>
> But the DRM is not useless in that situation, as not everyone knows how
> to find illegal copies.
>
>> (More to the point, with current DRM systems, it's actually *easier* to
>> use the cracked content than the genuine article. Incentive to pay,
>> much?)
>
> A good example is the adverts before a film on a DVD that you are forced
> to watch. A cracked copy will usually cut out the adverts, and some
> people would say it is doing no harm by doing that themselves for their
> own personal use. But, the fact that the adverts cannot be skipped is
> actually creating income for the publisher, without them they'd need to
> charge more for the DVD in the first place.
>
This is funnier than hell. You do realize that 100% of those 
advertisement are for products *produced* by the same company that you 
bought the DVD from? Who are they losing revenue from if you remove 
them, themselves?

Sure, you "might" see something you want to buy later, but if you own 
everything they are advertising already, or would never buy them in the 
first place... ridiculous!

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> writes:

>>> Surely they are not all wrong?
>>
>> That's a rather weak argument, isn't it?
>
> Well they surely have a lot more information than most of us do on the
> subject, plus they are forced by shareholders to make profit, so it
> seems unlikely they took the decision to invest in and use DRM without
> some thought.

Your argument essentially is: "Smart people. Trust them."

Post a reply to this message

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

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

Neeum Zawan wrote:
> 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.

I don't think that has been addressed. You can record something to watch it 
later, but I never heard of a case that addressed whether you could watch it 
more than once after you record it.

On the other hand, I have *never* heard of someone getting in trouble for 
recording or copying something solely for their own use. It just isn't worth 
the hassle.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message