"Lulu Says Goodbye to DRM"

[Zero Angel]

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]

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]

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]

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 £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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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...

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.

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]

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]

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.

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.

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!

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.

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]

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]

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!).