# "Lulu Says Goodbye to DRM"



## morfiction

Goodbye?

I was emailed just now by Lulu. Here I'll quote the email. Sorry if I'm reposting. Plz move this thread to another thread with the same content if that is the case.  




> Lulu was founded on the philosophy of breaking down barriers that prevent talented authors from sharing their knowledge and telling their stories. Our goal is to help authors reach the broadest possible audience by providing tools to create, publish, market and sell their remarkable work. In an ongoing commitment to our founding philosophy, we are making the following changes to our Digital Rights Management (DRM):
> 
> On January 15, 2013 we will remove the option to apply Adobe Digital Rights Management (DRM) to new and revised EPUB and PDF formatted eBooks.
> 
> On March 12, 2013 all remaining DRM-protected eBooks will be set to Private Access, temporarily removing them from the Lulu marketplace until placed back into General or Direct Access by the author.
> 
> If you have a DRM-protected eBook, you must revise and re-publish the title at your earliest convenience, in order to continue offering it on Lulu.com after March 12, 2013. For more detailed information on how this change could affect you or your readers, please see this article: DRM & eBooks Published in the Lulu Marketplace.
> 
> Once this process completes, we believe your readers will enjoy a more integrated shopping, downloading, and reading experience. For more information about why we have changed our DRM policy, please read this blog post by our COO, Tom Bright: Lulu Says Goodbye to DRM.
> 
> Thank you for choosing Lulu to tell your story. We wish you great success in the coming year.
> 
> Your Friends at Lulu


----------



## danr62

Ouch, look at those comments. Some authors need to realize that DRM offers them zero protection and only serves to annoy buyers. How easy is it to crack DRM files?


----------



## JCFarnham

Am I right in thinking that DRM is the kind of protection that stops you from sharing items between your own devices, even going so far as to removing the content after a designated period of time?

Frankly I'm happy someone scrapped DRM, if that's the case (it's late, that's my excuse for not knowing  and I'm sticking to it.)


----------



## Strings

danr62 said:


> Ouch, look at those comments. Some authors need to realize that DRM offers them zero protection and only serves to annoy buyers. How easy is it to crack DRM files?



It's as simple as a google search and a download. DRM is an ill-conceived attempt to impose scarcity on resources that can't remain scarce in a digital world. The best copyright holders can hope for is promoting good-will among non-paying users. A person who wouldn't buy a book, movie, or game in the first place cannot be converted to a sale with DRM. They can, however, be turned in to good word of mouth. That said, obviously people want to profit from their hard work, but DRM just doesn't work. It's about time for a new paradigm.


----------



## Zero Angel

I'm OK with getting rid of DRM if we transition to a communist economic system.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

Zero Angel said:


> I'm OK with getting rid of DRM if we transition to a communist economic system.


I don't think DRM does what you think it does, ZA. 

DRM is easy to break. There is a free plugin for Calibre which does the job.
DRM is legal to break (in the USA, in most cases), thanks to the Library of Congress's 2010 regulations on the DMCA.

Essentially, DRM does two things:
1) It makes it harder for people without tech savvy to move their ebooks from one device to another.
2) It locks less tech savvy people into a specific retailer; for example, once Grampa Joe has bought $1000 work of Amazon ebooks, they are VERY unlikely to ever leave Amazon to buy a new Kobo device - because Joe wouldn't be able to read all those old ebooks on the new device.

The latter reason is why even major publishers are finally beginning to dump DRM. Amazon has been encouraging them to use DRM. Amazon does this because it benefits Amazon by locking readers into their system and discouraging readers from going to other retailers.

DRM doesn't stop piracy because:
1) Anyone skilled enough to give someone else an ebook is also skilled enough to type "crack kindle DRM" into Google and follow a few simple instructions.
2) Even if DRM were not so easy to crack that my six year old could do it, all it would take would be one very skilled hacker to crack a book and upload it - then it would spread to all sites, and the DRM strength would be irrelevant.
3) DRM only functions for a brief time. For computer games, it is OK that the DRM is cracked within a month, because most sales happen in the first week or two. For ebooks, where a single type of DRM must be used for ALL books released by a retailer, once the DRM is cracked, it's cracked for *all* ebooks sold by that retailer.

Piracy is an issue.
DRM does not prevent piracy.


----------



## Zero Angel

Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> I don't think DRM does what you think it does, ZA.
> 
> DRM is easy to break. There is a free plugin for Calibre which does the job.
> DRM is legal to break (in the USA, in most cases), thanks to the Library of Congress's 2010 regulations on the DMCA.
> 
> Essentially, DRM does two things:
> 1) It makes it harder for people without tech savvy to move their ebooks from one device to another.
> 2) It locks less tech savvy people into a specific retailer; for example, once Grampa Joe has bought $1000 work of Amazon ebooks, they are VERY unlikely to ever leave Amazon to buy a new Kobo device - because Joe wouldn't be able to read all those old ebooks on the new device.
> 
> The latter reason is why even major publishers are finally beginning to dump DRM. Amazon has been encouraging them to use DRM. Amazon does this because it benefits Amazon by locking readers into their system and discouraging readers from going to other retailers.
> 
> DRM doesn't stop piracy because:
> 1) Anyone skilled enough to give someone else an ebook is also skilled enough to type "crack kindle DRM" into Google and follow a few simple instructions.
> 2) Even if DRM were not so easy to crack that my six year old could do it, all it would take would be one very skilled hacker to crack a book and upload it - then it would spread to all sites, and the DRM strength would be irrelevant.
> 3) DRM only functions for a brief time. For computer games, it is OK that the DRM is cracked within a month, because most sales happen in the first week or two. For ebooks, where a single type of DRM must be used for ALL books released by a retailer, once the DRM is cracked, it's cracked for *all* ebooks sold by that retailer.
> 
> Piracy is an issue.
> DRM does not prevent piracy.



I'm pretty sure DRM does exactly what I think it does. The issue is that you feel that it is a penalty on people that are less tech savvy, when in reality it is a barrier to piracy in the same way that knowing how to swim can be a barrier to piracy. Also, forcing people to choose to swim in waters that are specified no swimming zones. 

It's easy to jump a turnstile too, but the presence of a turnstile will prevent many people from circumventing it and let people know that they aren't supposed to circumvent it. 

I don't think having a rule against piracy is a bad thing, and I'm not opposed to a misguided attempt that does no harm. And I think, although it doesn't affect the type of people that are going to try to break it, just having it does prevent people from trying. I'm planning on taking DRM off my released works and no longer putting it on new works, but I feel that I should be given the option. And if DRM is not as effective as it could be, then I believe that it should be made more effective. 

I suppose I am opposed to DRM locking people from using their content on multiple devices. I do fall in the camp that once you own something, you actually do own it--you're not just renting it. I also am OK with piracy of unavailable content I guess. For instance, video game emulators of defunct systems.


----------



## Steerpike

Zero Angel said:


> I suppose I am opposed to DRM locking people from using their content on multiple devices. I do fall in the camp that once you own something, you actually do own it--you're not just renting it. I also am OK with piracy of unavailable content I guess. For instance, video game emulators of defunct systems.



Electronic works are probably going to continue to move toward a licensing system, so that you don't own it and you're bound by contract to certain terms.

With DRM or any other scheme, though, not everyone has to break it. Once one person does and puts the work on a torrent site, the rest of the people who want to download it illegally will be able to find it even if they couldn't break the DRM themselves.


----------



## Zero Angel

Steerpike said:


> Electronic works are probably going to continue to move toward a licensing system, so that you don't own it and you're bound by contract to certain terms.
> 
> With DRM or any other scheme, though, not everyone has to break it. Once one person does and puts the work on a torrent site, the rest of the people who want to download it illegally will be able to find it even if they couldn't break the DRM themselves.



Yes, as Kevin pointed out, even if it took more than a 6-year old to break it, as soon as it's broke it's worthless and widely available.

I guess my "solution" to DRM would be the same as my solution to most things: better education.


----------



## Steerpike

I'm content to let authors decide for themselves, or their publishers for that matter. I'll buy books I want with or without DRM. So far it has been a non-issue for me as a consumer. Deciding on it from an author standpoint is a different story.


----------



## WyrdMystic

To add - I think people have got to remember that the losses placed on piracy are over estimated, as not all pirates would convert to buying if stopped.

Also, there are three kinds of pirates - those who don't want to pay (boo!), those who can't afford to pay (would you honestly stop someone from reading your book because they have no money - when any other work is available at the local library - for now), and those that are disenchanted by mordern  marketing and prefer the try before you buy paradigm - there's nothing worse than given into the hype and buying something for Â£10 or even Â£20 just to find out you would of been happier flushing it down the toilet.

At the end of the day, even with piracy, firms generate enough income to be profitable. The current action against piracy is because it's 'money left on the table' .

I would be happy with people taking my work under the table safe in the knowledge that there are enough conscientious people out there who would pay and can afford to.

I don't think any type of coding will stop it (DRM) or not - as soon as a new coding mechanism is created, its broken, half the time by the same companies that create it in the first place.

Also, the best way to drive innovation and creativity in the market place is to reduce the profits of large organisations making them more inclined to create something spectacular - at the moment there's too much mass production and 'flat-pack' movies.


----------



## Chilari

I wonder if a "pay what you think it's worth" model in the style of the Humble Indie Bundle game collections would work for novels? Potential readers get info up-front - length, reading level, description and any available reviews, plus perhaps ratings - then pay what they think is the right price, above a minimum threshold. A suitable length of time later, they are asked to rate and/or review the book to help other readers decide what to pay for it. The website that hosts/distributes it takes a percentage cut, or perhaps some sort of minimum threshold (eg, of the customer price threshold is $1, the website take $0.70 then 35% above that or whatever) and this is made clear to the potential buyer too.

This eliminates some of the piracy issues - if you can't afford even $1 for a book that's one thin, but a lot more people will be able to justify paying $1 for a book than a fixed price of $5 or whatever; thus potential pirates who are poor but would otherwise be honest now pay, even if it's not much, while those who have cash to splash and who want to support new authors can pay higher prices.

Then you put a breakdown of prices paid - average paid (mean and median), lowest paid, highest paid, maybe a median range, breakdown by country or browser etc. This will encourage those who can afford it to not be cheap. And maybe offer extra content - a short story, character art etc - for anyone who pays above the average to further encourage higher prices.

To eliminate the "try before you by" piracy crowd you put up samples and offer links to free short stories the author has posted elsewhere previously.

The important thing is to make it very easy to do - no need to register an account before buying, or do it through something like Amazon if they'd be willing to try the business model. Then the easiest way of getting hold of the story is legitimate, allows you to chose how much you pay above the threshold, and enables you to buy a book which is affordable - because you chose what you pay.

Then the only people who would try to pirate the stuff would be those determined not to pay anyway, who would probably not buy the book anyway even if they couldn't pirate it.


----------



## WyrdMystic

I think an honesty system would work well enough, still wouldn't eliminate piracy though - but to be honest, if you are generating enough income (where anything over and above is just a bonus) what does piracy matter? It's only when the piracy rips into your living that it becomes an issue and how often is that threshold really truly broken?

Licensing I think is the next model though. You put your stuff up for free. The company pays you an amount based on the number of downloads or a fixed licensing fee. The end user pays a small subscription for limited or premium for unlimited content. Kind of like amazon's model or Love Film etc.  

That's the way they are going, but it would be good for an Indie consortium to try the model you've suggested, provide competition for the likes of amazon and major publishing houses. I think its got a good chance of growing in the digital age. The runners would take a minor percentage to cover the cost of providing the means and the rest is ditributed to the authors.

Maybe the next evolution of Mythic Scribes?


----------



## Zero Angel

Chilari said:


> I wonder if a "pay what you think it's worth" model in the style of the Humble Indie Bundle game collections would work for novels? Potential readers get info up-front - length, reading level, description and any available reviews, plus perhaps ratings - then pay what they think is the right price, above a minimum threshold. A suitable length of time later, they are asked to rate and/or review the book to help other readers decide what to pay for it. The website that hosts/distributes it takes a percentage cut, or perhaps some sort of minimum threshold (eg, of the customer price threshold is $1, the website take $0.70 then 35% above that or whatever) and this is made clear to the potential buyer too.
> 
> This eliminates some of the piracy issues - if you can't afford even $1 for a book that's one thin, but a lot more people will be able to justify paying $1 for a book than a fixed price of $5 or whatever; thus potential pirates who are poor but would otherwise be honest now pay, even if it's not much, while those who have cash to splash and who want to support new authors can pay higher prices.
> 
> Then you put a breakdown of prices paid - average paid (mean and median), lowest paid, highest paid, maybe a median range, breakdown by country or browser etc. This will encourage those who can afford it to not be cheap. And maybe offer extra content - a short story, character art etc - for anyone who pays above the average to further encourage higher prices.
> 
> To eliminate the "try before you by" piracy crowd you put up samples and offer links to free short stories the author has posted elsewhere previously.
> 
> The important thing is to make it very easy to do - no need to register an account before buying, or do it through something like Amazon if they'd be willing to try the business model. Then the easiest way of getting hold of the story is legitimate, allows you to chose how much you pay above the threshold, and enables you to buy a book which is affordable - because you chose what you pay.
> 
> Then the only people who would try to pirate the stuff would be those determined not to pay anyway, who would probably not buy the book anyway even if they couldn't pirate it.



I'm not sure about the legality since I haven't examined the agreement closely enough and I do not have the training of say, Steerpike, but I think it would be possible to accomplish this by publishing multiple versions of the same work with the "$0.99 version" or "$2.99 version" added to the title. Although buyers are not able to choose exactly how much to pay, they have options. Additionally, you could just have a donate option setup somewhere on your website. 

In fact, I've already seen some of this in the Android marketplace (Google Play). Some indy games have a free version and a $0.99 version that are identical (not even removing ads or anything). The $0.99 version is marketed as the "support the developer version".


----------



## WyrdMystic

That brings up an interesting model - giving away your work for free but charging others for incover advertising per download. Win win win.


----------



## Zero Angel

WyrdMystic said:


> That brings up an interesting model - giving away your work for free but charging others for incover advertising per download. Win win win.



I'm pretty sure THAT's against most publishing agreements (at least Amazon's).


----------



## WyrdMystic

Zero Angel said:


> I'm pretty sure THAT's against most publishing agreements (at least Amazon's).



Now sure and the big ones too. But this is about future concepts, lets face it 15 years ago you went into a blockbuster to get a video, pick n mix and ice cream and amazon was unheard of. What happens in another 15 years when industry evolves to keep pace?

At the end of the day its the publishers who tap into audiences, authors who have the product. For those willing to try, there is potential to experiment and create a new model. That's the beauty of the modern age. You don't have to go through a major company if you have an alternative way of reaching your audience.

Couple that with the way the industry is already changing...more and more you will see publishers using the success/failure of indie works to screen their signings. For them its less risk to take on an indie who has grown their own audience than it is to take on John or Jane Doe of Obscuria. Well....


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

Zero Angel said:


> I guess my "solution" to DRM would be the same as my solution to most things: better education.



I agree.    For example, you DO know that in the USA, cracking most ebook DRM is legal, right? Provided you are doing it for personal use, and not distributing it? I ask because you used the turnstile example, which is very different (since jumping a turnstile is generally illegal, and cracking ebook DRM usually is not).

Most people don't know that, so DRM serves as a barrier which keeps *honest* (but poorly informed) folks from using their ebooks as they would like; but does not hinder less honest people at all.


----------



## Steerpike

I don't know if that's the case, Kevin. I think most federal circuits have found that DRM breaking is illegal under the DMCA. There was a Fifth Circuit decision a couple of years ago that put a condition on it, but it wasn't one that would avail a person of much in most cases, and wouldn't affect decisions from other circuits.

Or have eBooks been specifically written into the exemptions via rulemaking?


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

Steerpike said:


> I don't know if that's the case, Kevin. I think most federal circuits have found that DRM breaking is illegal under the DMCA. There was a Fifth Circuit decision a couple of years ago that put a condition on it, but it wasn't one that would avail a person of much in most cases, and wouldn't affect decisions from other circuits.
> 
> Or have eBooks been specifically written into the exemptions via rulemaking?



A specific exemption was made for most ebooks in the LOC's 2010 DMCA regulations. Basically, publishers were putting DRM on ebooks that made them unusable for read-aloud or other special types of readers, and the LOC said if an ebook DRM prevented such special use, then cracking it for personal use was legal.

Since almost all ebook DRM in use today does so, it's *almost* a blanket permission.


----------



## Zero Angel

Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> A specific exemption was made for most ebooks in the LOC's 2010 DMCA regulations. Basically, publishers were putting DRM on ebooks that made them unusable for read-aloud or other special types of readers, and the LOC said if an ebook DRM prevented such special use, then cracking it for personal use was legal.
> 
> Since almost all ebook DRM in use today does so, it's *almost* a blanket permission.



My point on education was the idea of moving towards an idealistic utopia-society. And yes, I meant idealistic instead of idyllic, I realize that it's not realistic. Also, when I discuss education, I don't just mean acquiring more facts.

Anyway, I think most people that are doing DRM cracking are not doing it on stuff they've already bought, but rather stuff they are borrowing or stealing. I don't have any statistics on it, but the idea of DRM existing as a way for publishers to say, "Hey, we'd rather you not steal our stuff" seems a perfectly valid reason for existence and how I approach the idea as well.


----------



## Steerpike

Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> A specific exemption was made for most ebooks in the LOC's 2010 DMCA regulations. Basically, publishers were putting DRM on ebooks that made them unusable for read-aloud or other special types of readers, and the LOC said if an ebook DRM prevented such special use, then cracking it for personal use was legal.
> 
> Since almost all ebook DRM in use today does so, it's *almost* a blanket permission.



Ah, yes, I'm familiar with the 2010 rulemaking. Keep in mind, however, that it still only gives permission to circumvent access controls for non-infringing uses. So if you're going to make a copy of the ebook in some way, you ultimately still have to fall back on a Fair Use argument. If you break DRM and make an infringing copy, the LOC rulemaking won't help you.


----------



## Zero Angel

Steerpike said:


> Ah, yes, I'm familiar with the 2010 rulemaking. Keep in mind, however, that it still only gives permission to circumvent access controls for non-infringing uses. So if you're going to make a copy of the ebook in some way, you ultimately still have to fall back on a Fair Use argument. If you break DRM and make an infringing copy, the LOC rulemaking won't help you.



It does call to mind our very idea of "property" as well. No one questions that it is illegal to make a photocopy of a book you own (perhaps so you can have one to keep in your car, in your office, AND in your home), but trying to put the same measures on electronic works (so you can only have it on your home, office, and car Kindles, but not your Nooks for instance) and people are calling foul. No matter if there is DRM or not, it is illegal to make unauthorized copies--that's called copyright; DRM is one (misguided or not) manner to prevent copyright infringement. 

In the Internet world, I always come across this idea that everything should be free. To my eyes, the largest opponents of DRM are also the loudest crying "free! free! free!"

I view _losing_ DRM as a concession to the free-crowd (whether that is the case today or not). I don't think it's a slippery-slope, but there is some downward path from no-DRM to everything-free with probably some ledge above everything-free that will catch us as we fall down that path. 

Moving from real-world goods to electronics goods has already got us valuing books at a fraction of their former cost. It's interesting that most people never balked at paying $7.99 for a mass-market paperback. Something that is basically a throw-away item as the very act of reading it causes irreparable damage, and yet a $7.99 price point on an eBook that can exist forever in your cyberspace is overpriced.


----------



## Steerpike

Keep in mind that you have the DMCA, which is an entirely separate law that deals, among other thing, with breaking DRM and other electronic access controls.

The "property" concept is all going to shift to licensing for electronic materials. You won't own the electronic file, you'll buy a license to use it, and then be bound to the contractual terms of the license. That removes a lot of the traditional freedom one might have under fair use or first sale.


----------



## Zero Angel

Steerpike said:


> Keep in mind that you have the DMCA, which is an entirely separate law that deals, among other thing, with breaking DRM and other electronic access controls.
> 
> The "property" concept is all going to shift to licensing for electronic materials. You won't own the electronic file, you'll buy a license to use it, and then be bound to the contractual terms of the license. That removes a lot of the traditional freedom one might have under fair use or first sale.



Right, DMCA extended copyright to the digital realms and criminalized circumventing DRM (except for the exceptions). 

I am not in favor of leasing electronic files, although that's already the model we've moved to for most things digital, isn't it? That's why Amazon can delete your ebooks and how the video game makers are going to get rid of the used video game market. Although, interestingly, I feel that this adds some value to actual books again.

Is this why the cyberpunk genre exists? The only way 20th century minds can comprehend 21st century+ society (or rather, the only way they can rationalize living in the world of technology coupled with our mores and entitlements), is for the characters to be criminals? That would be an interesting thesis to examine.

Edit: I didn't realize that licensing removed fair use also!


----------



## WyrdMystic

Not so sure they will get away with the used video games market, at least not too soon. There is a debate at the moment about value, and some pending court cases where companies use software to allow you to resell digital copies - I think this is fair play as not allowing resale of digital content means what you have purchased loses all value. You could spend Â£200 on a collection that is then worth nothing, whereas if you bought it in a shop it would still have resale value.


----------



## Steerpike

You do lose something, WyrdMystic, but if you bought it knowing it was under license and that you couldn't resell, then that should go into the purchasing decision, right?


----------



## WyrdMystic

The question is though - does the licensing forbid it. Currently that is unclear as the court decisions are still pending. Although the license prevents resale, that is in conflict with the right to resell. The issue is you have the same thing in a different media - why should it be worth something in one medium and nothing in the other.

In fact the EU court has not long ruled that the license attachment is exhausted on its first sale, making it perfectly legal to resell digital content even if the license forbids it.


----------



## ascanius

WyrdMystic said:


> Also, there are three kinds of pirates



I would like to add a third.  Those who pirate based on the principle of the First-sale doctrine and who vehemently oppose EULA's and by default the software to implement it, DRM.  Sadly I will admit they are few.



Zero Angel said:


> It does call to mind our very idea of "property" as well. No one questions that it is illegal to make a photocopy of a book you own (perhaps so you can have one to keep in your car, in your office, AND in your home), but trying to put the same measures on electronic works (so you can only have it on your home, office, and car Kindles, but not your Nooks for instance) and people are calling foul. No matter if there is DRM or not, it is illegal to make unauthorized copies--that's called copyright; DRM is one (misguided or not) manner to prevent copyright infringement.



Under the law it is illegal to make so called "unauthorized" copies even for back up purposes if it removes DRM.  Yet, it is legal to make unauthorized copies of for the purpose of records/backups.  However if someone breaks DRM they get the full force of the law for doing something illegal (breaking DRM) for a legal purpose (backups).  And there are exceptions.



Zero Angel said:


> In the Internet world, I always come across this idea that everything should be free. To my eyes, the largest opponents of DRM are also the loudest crying "free! free! free!"



Yes and no. The free argument comes from the idea that technically everything on the internet is information and that information should be free.  I have mostly heard the free argument for software because frankly the vast majority of the best software is open source, it allows for a lot of innovation.  The others for the free argument I don't know about.



Zero Angel said:


> I view _losing_ DRM as a concession to the free-crowd (whether that is the case today or not). I don't think it's a slippery-slope, but there is some downward path from no-DRM to everything-free with probably some ledge above everything-free that will catch us as we fall down that path.



I view it as the first step in getting rid of EULA's.



Zero Angel said:


> Moving from real-world goods to electronics goods has already got us valuing books at a fraction of their former cost. It's interesting that most people never balked at paying $7.99 for a mass-market paperback. Something that is basically a throw-away item as the very act of reading it causes irreparable damage, and yet a $7.99 price point on an eBook that can exist forever in your cyberspace is overpriced.



True, however tell me what are you actually purchasing when you buy an ebook?  You only have the right to use that software for your own personal use.  Your not actually buying the book your buying the right to read the book and use their software to do it.  Read the Kindle's conditions of use specifically the Copyright part and the License and Access protions.  The money paid has not actually bought you anything but a liscense.  This is one reason why I do not buy ebooks. I will only read those that are in the public domain or 50+ years after the authors death.  I will however purchase a physical book and read it.  A side note, for me books are sacred so the idea of pirating a book is tantamount to drowning myself, same with downloading.  I never got the ebook thing.  Anyway why should someone pay money for nothing.  It's not mine, I don't own it, I have no rights towards it, I cannot lend it to a friend, I cannot put it on another device, I have absolutely no control over it what so ever.  I am not paying money on for the "illusion" that I own it.  Why should people have to pay hard cash for something that doesn't exist, yes it's overpriced, it's very overpriced.



Zero Angel said:


> I am not in favor of leasing electronic files, although that's already the model we've moved to for most things digital, isn't it? That's why Amazon can delete your ebooks and how the video game makers are going to get rid of the used video game market. Although, interestingly, I feel that this adds some value to actual books again.



A physical object will always have more value than bits of binary because you actually own it and resell it.  The even more interesting thing is these EULA's are being used with physical items not just electronic files anymore.




Zero Angel said:


> Edit: I didn't realize that licensing removed fair use also!



Read the EULA, it's all there.  The ereaders have one dictating how, in what way, almost everything besides the time of day that you can use it, along with their rights to do as they please.  Unless it's open source it has a EULA that dictates that you do not OWN the product but are leasing it.



WyrdMystic said:


> The question is though - does the licensing forbid it. Currently that is unclear as the court decisions are still pending. Although the license prevents resale, that is in conflict with the right to resell. The issue is you have the same thing in a different media - why should it be worth something in one medium and nothing in the other.



Has anyone besides me actually read the EULA's?  They are very clear about everything.  According to the EULA they don't actually own it they are licensing it so have no legal right to resell it.  It's the same idea if you lease a car you cannot turn around and sell it because your are "leasing" it.  I am no lawyer so everything I have read on this subject is taken at face value FYI, and I'm a bit behind on my readings.  There was a somewhat similar situation in California, Vernor vs Autodesk inc, 2005 I think.  Vernor purchased copies of Autocad 14, that had been licensed to that company.  Autodesk found out and brought it to court.  The court brief I read five or four years ago, not on wiki, mentioned the fact that there was no termination of the lease.  It was the loop hole for which the court ruled in favor.   Now all EULA have a termination of the lease clause which basically amounts to, if at any time you no longer wish to have the product you must destroy it or something like that.  

Back to DRM I am in full support of getting rid of DRM.  It does absolutely nothing but provide an annoyance and bring home the fact that you have no legal right to what you have bought.  It's very easy to get break, and when it's not someone has cracked or hacked it and posted in on a torrent site for free download.  It is an exercise in futility.

On a side note, the internet is already out of the box and there is no putting it back in.  It used to be downloading was the new thing to do and no one really understood how it worked.  Now, however, everyone does it, especially kids and we know to some extent how it works.  It's the same way everyone has the internet no second thoughts.  Even efforts to restrict access to sites that allow downloading are nothing but an exercise in futility.  It's extremely easy to find ways around it because, well lets face it, such efforts are fighting a battle against the internet users of the entire world.  It's not a fight that can be won unless we want to go the route of China.


----------



## Devor

Steve Jobs, when buying cheap music rights to launch the ipod, was told that music was worthless because you can't compete with free.  He famously replied, "You compete with free by making it easy."  (slightly paraphrased by memory)

In my view he was right, and anything which helps to make piracy complicated and legal easy is a good thing for those of us wanting to produce digital content and to be rewarded for our efforts.  After all, if there's fewer rewards, there'll be fewer efforts.

Whether DRM does that, I think maybe, but somebody else can be the judge of that.


----------



## WyrdMystic

ascanius said:


> Has anyone besides me actually read the EULA's?  They are very clear about everything.  According to the EULA they don't actually own it they are licensing it so have no legal right to resell it.  It's the same idea if you lease a car you cannot turn around and sell it because your are "leasing" it.  I am no lawyer so everything I have read on this subject is taken at face value FYI, and I'm a bit behind on my readings.  There was a somewhat similar situation in California, Vernor vs Autodesk inc, 2005 I think.  Vernor purchased copies of Autocad 14, that had been licensed to that company.  Autodesk found out and brought it to court.  The court brief I read five or four years ago, not on wiki, mentioned the fact that there was no termination of the lease.  It was the loop hole for which the court ruled in favor.   Now all EULA have a termination of the lease clause which basically amounts to, if at any time you no longer wish to have the product you must destroy it or something like that.
> 
> Back to DRM I am in full support of getting rid of DRM.  It does absolutely nothing but provide an annoyance and bring home the fact that you have no legal right to what you have bought.  It's very easy to get break, and when it's not someone has cracked or hacked it and posted in on a torrent site for free download.  It is an exercise in futility.
> 
> On a side note, the internet is already out of the box and there is no putting it back in.  It used to be downloading was the new thing to do and no one really understood how it worked.  Now, however, everyone does it, especially kids and we know to some extent how it works.  It's the same way everyone has the internet no second thoughts.  Even efforts to restrict access to sites that allow downloading are nothing but an exercise in futility.  It's extremely easy to find ways around it because, well lets face it, such efforts are fighting a battle against the internet users of the entire world.  It's not a fight that can be won unless we want to go the route of China.



According to court rulings, the end user has the right to re-sell the license used to lease the software. Hence in Europe at least, it is now legal to re-sell digital content. According to the ruling, the attachments on the EULA's preventing the resale of the license are voided after the first sale. That was my argument.  Admitedly its not the same in other countries/continents yet, but it has opened up space for a second hand digital market over here. The same ruling also applies to any software licenses in Europe.

I would add though that business licenses are probably still have different rules apply.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

Steerpike said:


> Ah, yes, I'm familiar with the 2010 rulemaking. Keep in mind, however, that it still only gives permission to circumvent access controls for non-infringing uses. So if you're going to make a copy of the ebook in some way, you ultimately still have to fall back on a Fair Use argument. If you break DRM and make an infringing copy, the LOC rulemaking won't help you.


Correct. So far, in the USA, courts have supported making copies of DRM protected digital files _for personal use._ Whether that continues to be the case is anyone's guess.

While digital products are presently licensed in the US, rather than purchased, my hunch is that will not remain the case. We are rapidly closing on a point where most media of all forms will be sold via digital download. People will want to own that. Will want to be able to pass that on to descendants. There are going to be a bunch of court battles over the right to pass on ebooks, music collections, and similar content when one dies. They're going to be soon. I'm not sure who's going to win those first cases, but it's going to become a hot button political issue, and I suspect the result will be the law changing to favor the consumer. Politicians coming down on the side of the corporations against consumer interest in this situation probably are going to find themselves looking for new jobs.

It's not a major public issue. Yet. But watch for it.


----------



## ascanius

WyrdMystic said:


> According to court rulings, the end user has the right to re-sell the license used to lease the software. Hence in Europe at least, it is now legal to re-sell digital content. According to the ruling, the attachments on the EULA's preventing the resale of the license are voided after the first sale. That was my argument.  Admitedly its not the same in other countries/continents yet, but it has opened up space for a second hand digital market over here. The same ruling also applies to any software licenses in Europe.



Ok, got ya.  I hope the US at some point comes to the same conclusion, hopefully soon.



Devor said:


> Steve Jobs, when buying cheap music rights to launch the ipod, was told that music was worthless because you can't compete with free.  He famously replied, "You compete with free by making it easy."  (slightly paraphrased by memory)



This is a laugh considering apple took an open source, free OS, and made people pay for it.  Apple is based on the Unix OS and engendered to run specifically and only on apple architecture (the physical apple computer).  True Mr. Jobs didn't do this but I think you can see the humor in it.

Also the ipod worked not because it was easy but a number of other factors also.  The ipod is extremely restrictive, ever try to play the music on your ipod on someone's computer?  You can't, it's locked to a single computer.  What Jobs did was make the ipod, apple, a fashion statement.  Every one bought/buys the ipod even though there are much better MP3 players on the market that cost less and less restrictive.  The itunes store is a logical necessity because there is no other way to get anything on there unless you use itunes or the store.  Either way the device becomes locked to that computer.  It's not really any easier than it was before only you have absolutely no other options.  Apple closed their systems off completely requiring the use of only their hardware and software to use it.    



Devor said:


> In my view he was right, and anything which helps to make piracy complicated and legal easy is a good thing for those of us wanting to produce digital content and to be rewarded for our efforts.



I dissagree.  Just looking at the progression of rooting the android phone, jailbreaking the iphone, file shareing, P2P, DRM breaking sofware, etc.  Every time a company or companies come up with one solution there are hundreds of hacks, cracks, and workarounds in response.



Devor said:


> After all, if there's fewer rewards, there'll be fewer efforts.



This is the point though.  The people who are rooting the latest android update, or removing the DRM on the newest DVD release don't get any rewards, no money, sure as hell no credit for their work.  Yet they are as strong as ever.  Yes you can try to censor the internet like SOPA and PIPI did, and there is another one looming in the distance.  At first it might work, in the long run it won't, someone will find a work around.  Look at what TPB is doing to avoid being shut down.  Even if they block access it's very simple to use a VPN, or proxy to reach the site or find a mirror.  Even where I am TPB is blocked.  It took me two minutes to get on TPB when I learned this.  This is the one area where money cannot win a fight that's why it's so successful. 



Devor said:


> Whether DRM does that, I think maybe, but somebody else can be the judge of that.



DRM does not do that because the people who remove it are not the average Joe.  They are people who break DRM for the shear pleasure of doing it, to make a point, on principles of First-sale, for their loathing of the very essence of EULA's, and lastly because they can.  They don't make money off it, they are doing this on principles.  The average Joe just downloads what they make available.  And the average Joe downloads for their own various reasons that we already went over.

I like playing video games, I played Diablo II, and was a big fan of blizzard, Creative assembly, and Bethseda and many others.  I had no problem paying $50 now $60 for a game.  I will no longer buy games from them.  I love their games, I really do, they are great and I totally support their work.  I will not buy their games now because of the DRM systems that they have implemented.  Diablo III now needs a constant internet connection, so I cannot play the game if I go to my parents house, and what if it's slow or someone else is using the internet.  Diablo III is not an MMORPG, its a single player RPG, WTF.  I was really looking forward to Skyrim, like a LOT, I have not bought it since I learned they are using f****** steam, I hate that 3rd party software almost as much as EULA's.  I am not using a 3rd party program to tell me I bought the game, that I cannot play if steam is not updated, or give control over something I bought to 3rd party software.  They all lost a customer and I know others feel the same way.  I have not played the games and if I could find a way to pay for them without all that DRM crap I would.  I want them to come out with another game, not go out of business!  

However, treat people like criminals and they will begin to act like criminals.  I'm not a criminal, yet I have rooted my phone, as of Jan 26 I am now a criminal according to a broken system.  Why is that, because I wanted to change some features on my phone, use the services I PAID for to their full extent, remove all the bloatware they added, change the back up options.  Yes some criminal.  The more they push DRM to enforce screwed up EULA's, and Copyrights more people are going to become adept circumventing such measures and thus more criminally minded.  And the really funny thing is even people who follow the law with regards to EULA's copyright and fair-use are being attacked as pirates with no recourse.  They, well everyone really, are at the mercy of the copyright holders with no true legal ability to defend themselves.  here is just one example, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/01/copyright-vampires-attempt-suck-lifeblood-out-fair-use-video

DRM's are just digital henchmen of patent holders.  They don't even make it harder because all you have to do is search in internet and someone somewhere has cracked it.


----------



## Zero Angel

ascanius said:


> Yes and no. The free argument comes from the idea that technically everything on the internet is information and that information should be free.  I have mostly heard the free argument for software because frankly the vast majority of the best software is open source, it allows for a lot of innovation.  The others for the free argument I don't know about.


You didn't really disagree with me about anything other than your own opinions, but I do question the "majority of the best software" statement. I would be OK with saying a majority of software is open-source because it seems like that could be feasible. But when I look at the programs that I value above all my other programs (Microsoft Office, Autodesk, Adobe Photoshop, Windows Media Player, Maple, Windows), none of them are open-source! Well, I guess LaTeX, but I don't even use that anymore because Microsoft Office can handle pretty much anything I want it to and is easier for converting into eBooks.



ascanius said:


> I view it as the first step in getting rid of EULA's.


I disagree. I can't imagine a world without EULAs because they will always exist at least to prevent lawsuits to the company. I could see a EULA that doesn't limit the rights of the user except in that they limit the rights of the company except that's the whole idea! If they are not explicitly stated, then the user is going to assume they have all the rights that they want and they will sue (for example) Microsoft Office for not having a shooting game. 



ascanius said:


> A physical object will always have more value than bits of binary because you actually own it and resell it.  The even more interesting thing is these EULA's are being used with physical items not just electronic files anymore.


I disagree. One of the nice things about electronic files, as long as no one tampers with them, they are immortal. What physical object could last so long? It makes sense that companies would want to limit transferring immortal objects.



Devor said:


> Steve Jobs, when buying cheap music rights to launch the ipod, was told that music was worthless because you can't compete with free.  He famously replied, "You compete with free by making it easy."  (slightly paraphrased by memory)
> 
> In my view he was right, and anything which helps to make piracy complicated and legal easy is a good thing for those of us wanting to produce digital content and to be rewarded for our efforts.  After all, if there's fewer rewards, there'll be fewer efforts.
> 
> Whether DRM does that, I think maybe, but somebody else can be the judge of that.


Totally agree. 
...although I dislike Steve Jobs in general.


----------



## Zero Angel

ascanius said:


> I dissagree.  Just looking at the progression of rooting the android phone, jailbreaking the iphone, file shareing, P2P, DRM breaking sofware, etc.  Every time a company or companies come up with one solution there are hundreds of hacks, cracks, and workarounds in response.


So it's been made more complicated, which is what Devor was saying...




ascanius said:


> This is the point though.  The people who are rooting the latest android update, or removing the DRM on the newest DVD release don't get any rewards, no money, sure as hell no credit for their work.  Yet they are as strong as ever.  Yes you can try to censor the internet like SOPA and PIPI did, and there is another one looming in the distance.  At first it might work, in the long run it won't, someone will find a work around.  Look at what TPB is doing to avoid being shut down.  Even if they block access it's very simple to use a VPN, or proxy to reach the site or find a mirror.  Even where I am TPB is blocked.  It took me two minutes to get on TPB when I learned this.  This is the one area where money cannot win a fight that's why it's so successful.


Frequently, pirates do get monetary gain. I know people that buy pirated movies and distribute them as well. Even if they're not getting financial gain, there is some popularity gain in having all the movies. You're approaching this from the POV of the pirate, we are saying that, for instance, if I can't make money writing books, then I won't be able to write books anymore. Eventually, only rich people will be able to afford to create art, and then only as a hobby--not as something that might keep them in their socioeconomic status.



ascanius said:


> DRM does not do that because the people who remove it are not the average Joe.  They are people who break DRM for the shear pleasure of doing it, to make a point, on principles of First-sale, for their loathing of the very essence of EULA's, and lastly because they can.  They don't make money off it, they are doing this on principles.  The average Joe just downloads what they make available.  And the average Joe downloads for their own various reasons that we already went over.
> 
> I like playing video games, I played Diablo II, and was a big fan of blizzard, Creative assembly, and Bethseda and many others.  I had no problem paying $50 now $60 for a game.  I will no longer buy games from them.  I love their games, I really do, they are great and I totally support their work.  I will not buy their games now because of the DRM systems that they have implemented.  Diablo III now needs a constant internet connection, so I cannot play the game if I go to my parents house, and what if it's slow or someone else is using the internet.  Diablo III is not an MMORPG, its a single player RPG, WTF.  I was really looking forward to Skyrim, like a LOT, I have not bought it since I learned they are using f****** steam, I hate that 3rd party software almost as much as EULA's.  I am not using a 3rd party program to tell me I bought the game, that I cannot play if steam is not updated, or give control over something I bought to 3rd party software.  They all lost a customer and I know others feel the same way.  I have not played the games and if I could find a way to pay for them without all that DRM crap I would.  I want them to come out with another game, not go out of business!
> 
> However, treat people like criminals and they will begin to act like criminals.  I'm not a criminal, yet I have rooted my phone, as of Jan 26 I am now a criminal according to a broken system.  Why is that, because I wanted to change some features on my phone, use the services I PAID for to their full extent, remove all the bloatware they added, change the back up options.  Yes some criminal.  The more they push DRM to enforce screwed up EULA's, and Copyrights more people are going to become adept circumventing such measures and thus more criminally minded.  And the really funny thing is even people who follow the law with regards to EULA's copyright and fair-use are being attacked as pirates with no recourse.  They, well everyone really, are at the mercy of the copyright holders with no true legal ability to defend themselves.  here is just one example, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/01/copyright-vampires-attempt-suck-lifeblood-out-fair-use-video
> 
> DRM's are just digital henchmen of patent holders.  They don't even make it harder because all you have to do is search in internet and someone somewhere has cracked it.


I can't buy games that are always on because I don't have a reliable Internet connection. Does this bother me? Yes. Although I really don't have the time or money to buy and play those things anyway. I love my non-jail-broke Android phone. It does everything I could want it to, and I just don't click on the bloatware apps and they leave me alone as well. 

Also, if we want to talk about effectiveness of DRM and similar measures, then you've made the case for us. The "average Joe" does not break DRM or find workarounds, the "average Joe" is the one that buys the good and enjoys the service or art that they paid for without bemoaning that it's not perfect or that they're not granted unlimited rights.


----------



## ascanius

Kevin O. McLaughlin said:


> Correct. So far, in the USA, courts have supported making copies of DRM protected digital files _for personal use._ Whether that continues to be the case is anyone's guess.
> 
> While digital products are presently licensed in the US, rather than purchased, my hunch is that will not remain the case. We are rapidly closing on a point where most media of all forms will be sold via digital download. People will want to own that. Will want to be able to pass that on to descendants. There are going to be a bunch of court battles over the right to pass on ebooks, music collections, and similar content when one dies. They're going to be soon. I'm not sure who's going to win those first cases, but it's going to become a hot button political issue, and I suspect the result will be the law changing to favor the consumer. Politicians coming down on the side of the corporations against consumer interest in this situation probably are going to find themselves looking for new jobs.
> 
> It's not a major public issue. Yet. But watch for it.



I don't really know if I agree with you.  From what I have read so far I am willing to bet the opposite, even the government is is using underhanded tactics and using EULA's for their own purposes.  Are you aware that some senators want mandatory data retention, they can do this because you agreed to the EULA, they don't even need a warrant in most cases any more.  Another thing is EULA's are no longer only in the realm of the digital world, check this out.  https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080118/094515.shtml, [url=http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/26/eveningnews/main4048288.shtml]Agricultural Giant Battles Small Farmers - CBS News[/URL]   or https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110927/01185716104/monsanto-wins-patent-dispute-against-farmer-who-bought-legal-seeds.shtml   There are actually a lot of stories like these and money is very effective at winning these fights.  If they try to change these EULA's and what they mean it's no longer about a movie or ebook.  It will be Non profits and internet industries like Google (though they are not much better) and others  going up against agricultural giants like Monsanto and Dupont, plus the entire entertainment industry altogether worth hundreds of billions of dollars.  Changing these EULA will affect much more than a simple string of binary.

Also even though SOPA and PIPA were defeated there are already similar bills being pushed to fight piracy, and government security, and are far worse.  Worse than SOPA: New bill CISPA could even shut Wikileaks | Firstpost,  With SOPA shelved, anti-piracy advocates take new approaches - CNN.com.  however the bills that protect internet users rights are few and fare between.  The point is when it comes to the internet and digital information the rights of the individual of little concern to businesses, rights-holders and the government.  There are those who do fight for those rights though and they are making progress, even if slowly.


----------



## ascanius

Zero Angel said:


> You didn't really disagree with me about anything other than your own opinions, but I do question the "majority of the best software" statement



Yeah I know, it's just one of the reasons I've heard for why it should be free.  just a comment nothing more.  The majority of the best software statement iI'm using a different set of standards than you so I see your point on what you said.  That being said I still think it has merit but I see your point.




Zero Angel said:


> I disagree. One of the nice things about electronic files, as long as no one tampers with them, they are immortal. What physical object could last so long? It makes sense that companies would want to limit transferring immortal objects.



My point was with a physical book you are actually buying something.  It's yours, it has actual value, you can rip it up, sell it, make it a palimpsest, it can be signed by the author increasing it's value.  Hundreds of years down the line that book can be worth more money than what it was bought for.  In a way it can be seen as an investment even if any returns are very unlikely.  Your actually buying something tangible.  Digital media has no actual intrinsic value save for what people attribute to it.  Digital media is only a sting of one and zeros.  When you get an ebook you don't actually have anything but a bunch of ones and zeros.  What is the actual intrinsic value of a bunch of ones and zeros, not the value of what they mean and represent but the numbers themselves.



Zero Angel said:


> Frequently, pirates do get monetary gain. I know people that buy pirated movies and distribute them as well. Even if they're not getting financial gain, there is some popularity gain in having all the movies. You're approaching this from the POV of the pirate, we are saying that, for instance, if I can't make money writing books, then I won't be able to write books anymore. Eventually, only rich people will be able to afford to create art, and then only as a hobby--not as something that might keep them in their socioeconomic status.



No I am taking it from both points of view, Like I said about the games I don't want the publishers to go out of business!  



Zero Angel said:


> I can't buy games that are always on because I don't have a reliable Internet connection. Does this bother me? Yes. Although I really don't have the time or money to buy and play those things anyway. I love my non-jail-broke Android phone. It does everything I could want it to, and I just don't click on the bloatware apps and they leave me alone as well.



This is the point I'm trying to make.  DRM and by default EULA's are restrictive and dictates what you cannot do and what you can, you don't get any say in the rules or options if you have technical difficulties.  You just have to take whatever they send your way without question.  with DRM you cannot play games, listen to your music on a friends computer, you cannot read an ebook on a different medium.  What if ebooks had a DRM that required a constant internet connection that is being used for games?  Or what about Microsoft office.

Well I like my rooted phone because it is very useful besides just as a phone and something to check email.  You know that flashlight app.  That app is possible because at first people had to root their phones to do it.  Many smart phone apps originated because people rooted their phones so they could develop those apps that are actually useful.  Meaning they broke the law so people could have a flashlight on their phone, you see the stupidity to the whole thing.



Zero Angel said:


> Also, if we want to talk about effectiveness of DRM and similar measures, then you've made the case for us. The "average Joe" does not break DRM or find workarounds, the "average Joe" is the one that buys the good and enjoys the service or art that they paid for without bemoaning that it's not perfect or that they're not granted unlimited rights.



First my point was the average Joe is the one who wants something and goes and downloads it.  Someone else breaks DRM then average Joe uses it.  How many people on this forum download music I wonder?  I bet quite a bit probably the majority depending on the average age of the members.  I don't know any one in high-school who doesn't download, nor have I heard of any.  The majority of adults I would guess are the same.  They don't need to break DRM it's already been done for them and available online.  If they do need to the tools are readily available online and simple to use.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

ascanius said:


> I don't really know if I agree with you.  From what I have read so far I am willing to bet the opposite, even the government is is using underhanded tactics and using EULA's for their own purposes.



OK, right now, breaching a EULA is a serious offense. A EULA on a digital product is NOT covered by simple contract law. The DMCA elevates it to potentially a felony level offense.

Note that last: the DMCA elevates it.

The Library of Congress issues regulations on the DMCA. Those regulations then effectively become rules for courts to follow in how they interpret that law. So when the LOC issues a ruling saying "you may break DRM under such and such conditions", it generates an exception in the DMCA (because it regulates how the DMCA is to be adjudicated).

Yes, violating a EULA which says "do not break this DRM" is usually very, very bad.
The exception exists where the LOC has created regulation specifically allowing the DRM to be broken.

Hope this clarifies the mess a little. And it IS a mess.


----------



## Steerpike

Kevin:

The question, then, is whether you can still be subject to a breach of contract claim. In general, you can contract away rights that you would otherwise enjoy. 

Also, my reading of the rules is that your purpose for breaking encryption still has to  be a fair use.


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

ascanius said:


> First my point was the average Joe is the one who wants something and goes and downloads it.  Someone else breaks DRM then average Joe uses it.  How many people on this forum download music I wonder?  I bet quite a bit probably the majority depending on the average age of the members.  I don't know any one in high-school who doesn't download, nor have I heard of any.  The majority of adults I would guess are the same.  They don't need to break DRM it's already been done for them and available online.  If they do need to the tools are readily available online and simple to use.



I actually make a point of *never* illegally downloading anything. I'm a writer. I want to make money from my work. It would be poor form for me to deprive someone else of their livelihood. For me, it's a "money where my mouth is" thing. I'd like to see our culture become one where DRM was unnecessary. If I go talking about how DRM is bad on the one hand, and go downloading things illegally on the other...well, hypocrisy sucks. 

Someone downloading an already stripped file isn't breaking the EULA (the original user might have done, depending on whether that clause of the EULA was legally binding or not - see my post above on Library of Congress exemptions and how they impact the DMCA). Both the person who allowed the file to be shared and the person who downloaded it illegally are in violation of copyright law, however; and that carries a maximum penalty of $150,000 + 5 years in jail per offense. Download a couple hundred songs illegally, and if the court ever elected to throw the book at you...phew! (In practice, that doesn't happen - the fines are much less. But they're still significant.)

We DO need to penalize people who break the law. Otherwise, we end up with a society where copyright violation becomes the norm, and we'll lose an enormous chunk of culture as artists are forced to find something else to do with their time and effort (ideally, something they can actually make a living doing!).


----------



## Kevin O. McLaughlin

Steerpike said:


> Kevin:
> 
> The question, then, is whether you can still be subject to a breach of contract claim. In general, you can contract away rights that you would otherwise enjoy.
> 
> Also, my reading of the rules is that your purpose for breaking encryption still has to  be a fair use.



Yes. So far - and this has only been tested in cases of computer software, as far as I know - breaking DRM to create backup copies for your own private use has been considered fair by the courts (in the USA). Even though doing so violated both EULA and DMCA, and there was no Library of Congress exemption, the courts still sided with the person breaking the DRM. Breaking DRM so you can give copies to other people has been consistently penalized by the courts.


----------

