Fred011 wroteo the difference in how copyrighted material may be used by the consumer is controlled by the media in which it is recorded. From a legal position, it seems that the media used to record copyrighted material should not change the features of the copyright: ownership and protection. From a practical and marketing position, the media makes a difference in the ability to violate the copyright protection in that electronic media is easier to reproduce and transmit.
If you reduce copyright to it's basic definition, it is the right to make copies. The copyright holder gets to make copies, the buyer of a copy does not. This holds for all physical media, books, art, music, etc. With digital media, given the way computers transfer files, you HAVE to make copies just to be able to use the files. All DRM is doing is limiting the number if copies you get to make. No, it's not perfect. It can be stripped, it limits forward compatibility, it limits the ability to sell media on the secondary market.
If it becomes possible to create a file that does not require copying, that can be transferred from device to device without leaving a copy behind, this would be the solution to the problem. But we're not there yet technologically, to my knowledge. And even if this perfect solution came along, everyone would still be angry, because they wouldn't be able to make a back-up copy.
Regarding pirating:
I do not know of one author who has not found copies of their book being pirated. Not one. There is at least one author who failed to earn out her advance, and got dropped by her publisher because of it, but was a runaway download hit on the pirate sites. If even a fraction of the people who pirated her book had paid for it, she's still have a publisher. Her pirating "fans" effectively ended her writing career. Pirating is a big, big deal.
IMO the solution is not DRM, the solution is stronger laws and the enforcement of those laws. Pirating is theft and we need to start treating it as such. Lots of piraters wouldn't shoplift books from their local bookstore - the law needs to make people see that these things are the same, and punish them the same.
keriflur wrote:Fred011 wroteIf you reduce copyright to it's basic definition, it is the right to make copies. The copyright holder gets to make copies, the buyer of a copy does not. This holds for all physical media, books, art, music, etc. With digital media, given the way computers transfer files, you HAVE to make copies just to be able to use the files. All DRM is doing is limiting the number if copies you get to make. No, it's not perfect. It can be stripped, it limits forward compatibility, it limits the ability to sell media on the secondary market.
If it becomes possible to create a file that does not require copying, that can be transferred from device to device without leaving a copy behind, this would be the solution to the problem. But we're not there yet technologically, to my knowledge. And even if this perfect solution came along, everyone would still be angry, because they wouldn't be able to make a back-up copy.
Regarding pirating:
I do not know of one author who has not found copies of their book being pirated. Not one. There is at least one author who failed to earn out her advance, and got dropped by her publisher because of it, but was a runaway download hit on the pirate sites. If even a fraction of the people who pirated her book had paid for it, she's still have a publisher. Her pirating "fans" effectively ended her writing career. Pirating is a big, big deal.
IMO the solution is not DRM, the solution is stronger laws and the enforcement of those laws. Pirating is theft and we need to start treating it as such. Lots of piraters wouldn't shoplift books from their local bookstore - the law needs to make people see that these things are the same, and punish them the same.
keriflur,
You are absolutely correct that "If you reduce copyright to it's basic definition, it is the right to make copies." However, the real value and legal significance is that the rights protected by copyright are exclusive to the holder of the copyright. So it's not what the copyright allows the copyright holder to do, it is what it "disallows" anyone else to do. It is in the exclusivity of rights that the copyright has its value. For example, uncopyrighted material (material in the public domain) may be copied by anyone totally unrestricted. The copyright holder may, of course, authorize others (e.g., publishers) to do what is protected by the copyright.
As for the pirating issue, I'm sure your anecdotal example shows a real danger of pirating. However, I still contend that a pirated copy of a book that would not have otherwise been purchased offers no tangible loss of income to the author or publisher. Your supposition "If even a fraction of the people who pirated her book had paid for it, she's still have a publisher" is just that, supposition. It would certainly depend on what that fraction was: surely there's a threshold where the author would not have "survived" even with some level of sales. And can you positively state that all of the pirated copies would have been purchased if they were not available as illegal copies?
Don't misunderstand me, I'm not saying piracy is not illegal and expensive to authors and publishers. What I'm trying to say is that the loss amounts that publishers attribute to piracy are only meaningful to the extent that a pirated copy would have been legally purchased and was not because of the availability of pirated copy. So for example, if 1,000 copies of a book are pirated, the publisher can't actually claim a cash loss of the value of 1,000 copies of that book if all 1,000 copies would have been purchased from them if the pirated copies were not available. How can anyone actually know if this is the case with certainty?
I could not agree with you more that theft by piracy is the same as any other theft, perhaps even worse in that the pirate is not in the store trying to stuff a book under his/her jacket, and is not "exposed" during the actual theft. Enforcement and punishment is a big issue, and the way the laws are currently written and the way the DRMs are implemented, strict enforcement could make criminals out of many innocent consumers. If one downloads an eBook from a library to Adobe Digital Editions (ADE), then sideloads it to a Nook, then "returns" the book to the library and "deletes" the book from the PC and the Nook (all via ADE) there is still a copy on the PC. This certainly violates the DRM: is the library patron criminal?
nlstein wrote:
I could be wrong (and I'm sure I'll be told if I am) but DRM doesn't stop me from making a back up and using it if the original fails.
It all depends on the DRM. At heart, yes, you can make a backup of the file (unless the person selling you the file SAYS you can't and I've seen plenty of EULAs that forbid even that).
But, some DRM is so restrictive that the backup is useless if you have to replace/reformat your computer or device. For instance, I believe Amazon ties their locks to a device's serial number so the backup won't work if you get a new Kindle.
Others, like the DRM on DVDs, keeps you from making a good backup at all.
Sadly, the law says that any breaking of DRM (even if you just do it to make a backup, like with DVDs) is against the law all by itself no matter what you do with that backup.
Luckily, the DRM B&N uses is nice and flexible. All you need to know is the credit card number used and you can reload that file over and over and over again on many devices. This whole thread came about because the original poster didn't want to give a NEW number so that B&N could give her a new updated file (which, they were happy to do for free).
Oh, and speaking of DVDs... even though you buy one and have a single physical copy in your hand, you don't "own" it and can't do whatever you want with it. Notice that they all start with "Licensed for private, in home, viewing only."? That $19.99 you plopped down for "Happy Feet, Two" doesn't allow you to setup a projector and have a movie-night at your school. Every so often, you hear about some pre-school getting in trouble for showing videos during snack-time. And... your business can't go buy a CD or even hook up a RADIO (with commericals) and use it as "on-hold" music.
Copyright law is VERY complex and a heck of a lot more restrictive than people think.
I completely agree that it's a mess, please don't get me wrong. But, it is what it is and it's only going to get worse because the companies that have the most money to lose are the ones spending money to lobby for new laws that "protect" them. I'm amazed at the Wikipedia action that stopped the latest bad law... but... I bet we see parts of it passed within a year. 
kamas716 wrote:
The_Nookster wrote:After reading all the posts here, I've come up with a interesting situational question, which is..
If I purchase a "e-book", legally I can't give anyone a copy for them to read.. right? That means whoever I would have given a copy to needs to purchase a copy of their own to download and legally read off of their Nook.
But, I can hand my Nook to any of several people.. and those same people can then legally read the story that I paid for.
So the question is.. "what LEGALLY prevents me from doing so?" NOTHING!!
With this legally being the case, what's the difference then, from having the story read off of my Nook.. or, giving those same "anyones" a copy? The original author or store still isn't going receive any more money either way.
Ahhhhh.. y'all see the point I'm coming from? Interesting.. Yes?
The_Nookster
It's much like a Restraining/Protection order. It doesn't actually stop anyone from doing anything, it just provides consequences if you get caught.
Love your analogy!
nlstein wrote:That is certainly your opinion.
You knew the rules and the law when you bought the nook. If you want to lend your nook to someone to read you're right, you'll be without your nook (although there are some lendable books), but again you knew the rules when you bought your nook. If you didn't, shame on you. Ignorance of the law is never an excuse. If you did know and now don't like it, fight to have the law changed (good luck).
Taking up our time discussing the merits of pirating is a waste of bandwidth.
Again, if you now don't like the rules that you should have knoewn when you bought the nook, fight to change the law - but don't try to convinvce me that it is or should be okay - it isn't and the law says the same thing.
I don't mean to sound nasty. I simple don't agree with the attitude that says pirating is or should be okay. And by the way, thinking that it might be okay is indeed nonsense - there is no better word for it.
First, let me say that you should be informed before you imply or insinuate what someone's position is regarding illegal activities. If you have read any of my posts, you would see that I am NOT in favor of pirating by myself or anyone else. I also AM in favor of changing laws that I feel are overly restrictive or "unfair", just as you yourself have suggested.
Your comment about SOME books being lendable is an example of what some of us are discussing about the restrictions on electronic media that is not present with printed media notwithstanding the same copyright protections. Why only SOME books, and why only ONE lending allowed per book.
As far as knowing the rules, that is exactly what much of this discussion is about - the rules, and if we think they need to be changed or if we would benefit from change.
The idea of "waste of bandwidth" could be applied by anyone who was not interested in, or does not understand ANY topic. The purpose of the forum is to exchange ideas: and yes, that means even ones you don't agree with. Read carefully before you accuse folks of "discussing the merits of pirating." What I believe a lot of us are discussing is the concept of DRM and copyright imposing DIFFERENT controls on electronic media as opposed to printed media, certainly NOT the merits of pirating. One of the issues vis a vis electronic media is that of the very restrictions NOT associated with printed media, and how prevalent the new restrictions are to a burgeoning new media and those restrictions' impact on the consumer's use, access and cost of what might possibly be the prevalent media of the near future. As such, I don't find discussions on the subject to be "a waste of bandwidth."
Your comment "Taking up our time..." seems to me to imply that YOU feel that you have some superior "ownership" of the forum and its bandwidth and time of usage. Shame on me; I never saw that in the terms of usage.
Perhaps you would do well to see what people are actually saying instead of jumping to unfounded conclusions, insulting and falsely accusing people of supporting pirating.
Have a nice day.
