# Disturbing trend (DRM discussion)



## Dave Dykema (May 18, 2009)

So I'm at a place yesterday and I brought my Kindle along. After much mocking (from non-readers) I said that they didn't have to have a Kindle to read Kindle books anymore. They could just download them to their PC with the new beta Kindle for PC option.

Someone claimed they didn't need a Kindle to read _*any*_ book. They asked me to name a book and said they could get it.

Knowing Stephen King's "Under the Dome" wasn't coming out as an ebook until Dec. 24, I named that one. I gave him 5 minutes to get it.

Being young, and thinking he's entitled to anything and everything, he opened his lap top and began.

Within three minutes he had the entire book on his screen, absolutely free. Now, of course, what he had was an illegal copy, but still. He managed to find it and download it all within three minutes. And he didn't see anything wrong with that. He said "That's what the Internet's for. Free stuff."

Then he tried to get my book Stalker, and at least he failed at that. Don't know whether to be happy or sad about that development...


----------



## drenee (Nov 11, 2008)

Wow, that is disturbing.
deb


----------



## geoffthomas (Feb 27, 2009)

You know I am more disturbed at his attitude than the fact that he could get a clearly illegal copy of a published book.

This is part and parcel of wrong-headedness.
Marketing people have been telling the public that they "deserve" to own a bmw, so they, stupidly, believe it.
That is how folks got sold into sub-prime loans for houses that their salaries could never pay for.  Because they deserved it.
And this fellow deserves to receive stolen goods because it is there.

I can introduce him to a fellow selling BluRay players out of the trunk of his car for $50.00.
And there will be a policeman right behind him with the handcuffs.

Oh, well, at least he was unable to "steal" your book.
Sorry to hear that he one-upped you technologically though.
If his transaction had been legal he would not have been able to do so, of course.


Just sayin.....


----------



## MINImum (Oct 15, 2009)

That's awful.  I'm sure he has a bright future ahead of him.... in Nigeria.  

On a serious note, and I don't want the details because I don't want to encourage people, but how do they create illegal copies of books?  Movies, I understand; they film them in the theater.  But books?  I just read Under the Dome and it was 1,074 pages.  Does someone actually type the whole thing by hand?

Anyway, that's really sad.  I hope he learns how wrong that is and straightens up.


----------



## modkindle (Feb 17, 2009)

Scanners. I have seen some and they are generally of terrible quality.


----------



## akpak (Mar 5, 2009)

Well, unless they scan the books and then OCR them. A lot of the stuff you can get *ahem* free is just in plain text or easily copy/pasted PDFs.


----------



## higdona (Dec 1, 2009)

I have seen illegal copies of text books floating around for the last few years. The school finally changed calculus books just because there was a widely circulated illegal copy of the solutions manual going around campus. I have a legal copy of the solutions manual that I used to learn how to set up problems with and check my work. I dont think that the majority of students used it for that purpose though. 

Many of the illegal copies of books people get are in bit torrent form. The resolution sucks and you have to deal with viruses. Its a growing trend around my campus though. There are torrent forms of most of the undergrad text books and I see more and more students using them. I understand the cost of text books is high but you can usually find a reasonable priced book online.


----------



## TheSeagull (Oct 25, 2009)

MINImum said:


> That's awful. I'm sure he has a bright future ahead of him.... in Nigeria.
> 
> On a serious note, and I don't want the details because I don't want to encourage people, but how do they create illegal copies of books? Movies, I understand; they film them in the theater. But books? I just read Under the Dome and it was 1,074 pages. Does someone actually type the whole thing by hand?
> 
> Anyway, that's really sad. I hope he learns how wrong that is and straightens up.


This is a guess but I would imagine that originally someone buys a legit copy then distributes it.


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

No doubt about it, you can get almost anything you want on the internet. I still think that a majority of people are basically honest, and will look for a legitimate source first, particularly when things are reasonably priced.

Myself, I just picked up my copy of Under the Dome from Audible.com. I picked it up for one credit on my account, but the purchase price was $52? Are they crazy? I see it is $26.39 on Amazon, which is more reasonable, but still more than I would have paid for it.


----------



## kevindorsey (Mar 4, 2009)

Um...yea, I can probably get almost any book illegally too, but I still like to support authors.  This isn't surprsing.


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

More surprising is that he wanted to read at all sadly.  Or maybe he didn't and just felt like showing you he could get books because he stumbled across them while downloading the Hannah Montana movie or something.


----------



## Chris W (Aug 17, 2009)

higdona said:


> I have seen illegal copies of text books floating around for the last few years. The school finally changed calculus books just because there was a widely circulated illegal copy of the solutions manual going around campus. I have a legal copy of the solutions manual that I used to learn how to set up problems with and check my work. I dont think that the majority of students used it for that purpose though.
> 
> Many of the illegal copies of books people get are in bit torrent form. The resolution sucks and you have to deal with viruses. Its a growing trend around my campus though. There are torrent forms of most of the undergrad text books and I see more and more students using them. I understand the cost of text books is high but you can usually find a reasonable priced book online.


I bought my DX planning to purchase text books as a returning college student. Unfortunately, Amazon's Kindle 'Textbook' store has not been as advertised when the DX was announced. Text books are often available as e-texts in PDF format, and I have purchased many of those. But I was surprised, when searching online for a specific text, the top search query returns were those of 'free' copies on various torrent sites. I consider myself fairly tech savvy, but I would never consider something that is literally theft of intellectual property. It's a shame too many others are willing to do just that.


----------



## higdona (Dec 1, 2009)

Scheherazade said:


> More surprising is that he wanted to read at all sadly. Or maybe he didn't and just felt like showing you he could get books because he stumbled across them while downloading the Hannah Montana movie or something.


It sound to me like he just wanted to prove that he was right. I doubt that he dose read on a regular basis. I have seen his kind before and I have to teach a few this semester. Its sad that we are getting more and more kids like him in college now. I even have a few who think that they know more then the book. They try to prove that they are correct and wont listen when I tell them where they went wrong when solving the problem.


----------



## KindleChickie (Oct 24, 2009)

Did any of yall see the 48 hrs special on cheating where the teacher failed kids who cheated on their tests after they were specifically told they would be if they cheated?  Kids today just dont have enough parental leadership to know basic morals of theft, cheating, etc.


----------



## higdona (Dec 1, 2009)

Chris W said:


> I bought my DX planning to purchase text books as a returning college student. Unfortunately, Amazon's Kindle 'Textbook' store has not been as advertised when the DX was announced. Text books are often available as e-texts in PDF format, and I have purchased many of those. But I was surprised, when searching online for a specific text, the top search query returns were those of 'free' copies on various torrent sites. I consider myself fairly tech savvy, but I would never consider something that is literally theft of intellectual property. It's a shame too many others are willing to do just that.


I like the DX because you can actually read PDF's on it . I also buy many e-texts so going with the DX was a no brainer. I am surprised at how many kindle chemistry books there are. I was expecting the basic undergrad ones but there are many that I used in grad classes.


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

higdona said:


> It sound to me like he just wanted to prove that he was right. I doubt that he dose read on a regular basis. I have seen his kind before and I have to teach a few this semester. Its sad that we are getting more and more kids like him in college now. I even have a few who think that they know more then the book. They try to prove that they are correct and wont listen when I tell them where they went wrong when solving the problem.


My professor was talking about this this morning. She apparently had a freshman yelling at her, the head of the department, because his email got lost on a paper he was sending in late and he didn't save a backup of it. She brought it up while saying she might just support the mandatory year in the military thing with the way kids are acting these days, and she's taught for 40 some odd years so it can't just be a "Oh it's like that every generation." thing. Kids really do seem to be getting worse, but as stated in another thread it may be because it's just easier for them to be bad now.


----------



## higdona (Dec 1, 2009)

KindleChickie said:


> Did any of yall see the 48 hrs special on cheating where the teacher failed kids who cheated on their tests after they were specifically told they would be if they cheated? Kids today just dont have enough parental leadership to know basic morals of theft, cheating, etc.


I actually had a student ask if texting KGB is considered cheating!! He got an F on a test because texting a friend during they test. They were told that they would get an F if they used their phones during the test. He kept saying that he was not asking for help but refused to give us the text logs to prove it. He is in big trouble in more then one class right now and I doubt that he will be back next semester.


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

Scheherazade said:


> She apparently had a freshman yelling at her, the head of the department, because his email got lost on a paper he was sending in late and *he didn't save a backup of it*.


This? I don't buy a word of it. He emailed it, then immediately deleted it? Right.


----------



## markel (Oct 11, 2009)

Technology is a wonderful thing, but when it becomes a means to cheat - whether on a school test or a publisher out of a legitimate sale - something is wrong with the way some people are thinking.

(Anyone want to buy my old slide rule?   )


----------



## Chris W (Aug 17, 2009)

markel said:


> Technology is a wonderful thing, but when it becomes a means to cheat - whether on a school test or a publisher out of a legitimate sale - something is wrong with the way some people are thinking.


I do think that younger people do feel that when something is in digital form, it doesn't have an intrinsic value, so they don't have qualms about 'taking' it for personal use. But a digital copy is a copy, and is deserving of protections.


----------



## cloudyvisions (May 21, 2009)

Well, I'm probably going to be the unpopular voice in this thread, so please don't get too upset with me here, but it's definitely becoming along the same lines of illegal music, tv shows, or movies, and yes, it's becoming easier to get these and now e-books from various places online. I'm going to be honest here, I know of a few places where you could probably get almost any copy of a book if it's currently floating around in a PDF/LIT/HTML formatted file...and there are programs that easily convert any formatted file to pretty much anything else, so copies of books aren't any worse to read than what you would get for Kindle...but I buy a couple books every week on a regular basis just about, so even though it's out there, that doesn't mean we're all necessarily going to GO there and quit buying books.

Now, music on the other hand...sure, I am in that "younger person" category, but when music is as overpriced as it is, and I have a $335 monthly car bill, car and health insurance, and college school bills to pay, am I going to pay $10-$20 to download a CD that I may or may not even like on the songs on, or am I going to download it? Sorry, but at this point of time in my life, I'm going to look for a safe, anonymous place to download it. Does that mean I NEVER buy music? No, I just bought Dashboard Confessional's new album 2 weeks ago. And I'd find it a bit hard to believe that EVERY single person on the boards here has never gotten an illegal/shared digital copy of music/etc. at some point of time in his/her life.

I don't really feel the same way about books, but at the same time I can understand where people, especially in my generation who have grown up going to the computer and the internet for answers are coming from and why we do what we do sometimes. Now, I'm *not* condoning or making excuses for the other things that people here have brought up, like texting during exams (and most professors at my college do warn against seeing cell phones before exams are even handed out) electronically sending things that don't come through and trying to get away with not having a hard copy (and professors should, and usually do, demand a hard copy and no excuses. I have some that won't even accept or open e-mails with attachments), but I'm kinda...I don't know, annoyed by the idea of just because we're young we apparently think we're "entitled to anything and everything" because there are plenty of us young people who are not that way.

Sorry, I'm kinda going against what everyone is saying here, but this is how I feel about this topic.


----------



## akpak (Mar 5, 2009)

There is a lot of research out there confirming that piracy of [insert media here] goes way down when the purchasing of said [media] is easy, transferable and affordable. When content publishers (RIAA, MPAA, book publishers) insist on treating everyone like a criminal, it becomes "easier" and "better" to just pirate it.

I have plenty of DVDs I purchased, where I also "pirated" a digital copy because it was too difficult to rip that DVD to watch on my iPhone.

Or, as comic xkcd puts it:


----------



## cloudyvisions (May 21, 2009)

Hee! Too funny! I think I'm saving this one.


----------



## higdona (Dec 1, 2009)

akjak said:


> There is a lot of research out there confirming that piracy of [insert media here] goes way down when the purchasing of said [media] is easy, transferable and affordable. When content publishers (RIAA, MPAA, book publishers) insist on treating everyone like a criminal, it becomes "easier" and "better" to just pirate it.
> 
> I have plenty of DVDs I purchased, where I also "pirated" a digital copy because it was too difficult to rip that DVD to watch on my iPhone.
> 
> Or, as comic xkcd puts it:


I have never had trouble with my itunes library. I burned copies of each album and was able to play the CD and import the CD into multiple itunes versions. I have had some CD's for 5 years now and they have been transferred to one computer or another with out problems. The proprietary software is no on the CD that I burned.


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

I fixed the downloading music I didn't like problem by getting a Zune and a Zune Pass.  Now most of it I don't ever have to buy if I don't want to and can get the ones I really like for the price of a single album.  I think the only reason people consider digital media okay to steal is because it's so hard to get caught doing it.  If it was this easy to steal physical items from stores you can bet people would do that as well, so I'm not sure it even has anything to do with the intrinsic value or the whole intangible thing.  It's just easy and there's little to no accountability for it.


----------



## TheSeagull (Oct 25, 2009)

cloudyvisions said:


> Well, I'm probably going to be the unpopular voice in this thread, so please don't get too upset with me here, but it's definitely becoming along the same lines of illegal music, tv shows, or movies, and yes, it's becoming easier to get these and now e-books from various places online. I'm going to be honest here, I know of a few places where you could probably get almost any copy of a book if it's currently floating around in a PDF/LIT/HTML formatted file...and there are programs that easily convert any formatted file to pretty much anything else, so copies of books aren't any worse to read than what you would get for Kindle...but I buy a couple books every week on a regular basis just about, so even though it's out there, that doesn't mean we're all necessarily going to GO there and quit buying books.
> 
> Now, music on the other hand...sure, I am in that "younger person" category, but when music is as overpriced as it is, and I have a $335 monthly car bill, car and health insurance, and college school bills to pay, am I going to pay $10-$20 to download a CD that I may or may not even like on the songs on, or am I going to download it? Sorry, but at this point of time in my life, I'm going to look for a safe, anonymous place to download it. Does that mean I NEVER buy music? No, I just bought Dashboard Confessional's new album 2 weeks ago. And I'd find it a bit hard to believe that EVERY single person on the boards here has never gotten an illegal/shared digital copy of music/etc. at some point of time in his/her life.
> 
> ...


I'll admit I have downloaded items illegally but only items that is impossible for me to get in a legit form. Money no object but when a book I want is not available in any digital format it's the publishers own fault, I would happily pay $50 for a legal copy. But when I download a digital copy I buy a paper copy and donate it to my school library, no guilty concience that way.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

TheSeagull said:


> I'll admit I have downloaded items illegally but only items that is impossible for me to get in a legit form. Money no object but when a book I want is not available in any digital format it's the publishers own fault, I would happily pay $50 for a legal copy. But when I download a digital copy I buy a paper copy and donate it to my school library, no guilty concience that way.


So, does that mean that you don't believe that an author or publisher has a right to determine how their intellectual property is distributed?


----------



## TheSeagull (Oct 25, 2009)

Jeff said:


> So, does that mean that you don't believe that an author or publisher has a right to determine how their intellectual property is distributed?


...I'm not getting you, explain.


----------



## Varin (May 12, 2009)

TheSeagull said:


> I'll admit I have downloaded items illegally but only items that is impossible for me to get in a legit form. Money no object but when a book I want is not available in any digital format it's the publishers own fault, I would happily pay $50 for a legal copy. But when I download a digital copy I buy a paper copy and donate it to my school library, no guilty concience that way.


I take it one step further; if there's a book I want not in digital edition, I'll buy the book and convert it myself. That way, the author still gets money and I still get what I want. I've found looking around torrent sites that a large number of things you get from there are of a lesser quality and I know that I can do a better job myself.... though that is not the only reason I buy the book and convert it myself; if I want the book enough to scan and OCR it, then I WANT to support the author by purchasing it.

Also, I only keep the copies I make for my own use, I don't distribute them, and because I use the destructive method of book de-spining, it's really like I have only one copy of the book since the other is rather difficult to read once I'm through with it.

So I don't see a problem with it.


----------



## TheSeagull (Oct 25, 2009)

Anarel said:


> I take it one step further; if there's a book I want not in digital edition, I'll buy the book and convert it myself. That way, the author still gets money and I still get what I want. I've found looking around torrent sites that a large number of things you get from there are of a lesser quality and I know that I can do a better job myself.... though that is not the only reason I buy the book and convert it myself; if I want the book enough to scan and OCR it, then I WANT to support the author by purchasing it.
> 
> Also, I only keep the copies I make for my own use, I don't distribute them, and because I use the destructive method of book de-spining, it's really like I have only one copy of the book since the other is rather difficult to read once I'm through with it.
> 
> So I don't see a problem with it.


Is it actually possible to do it yourself? I imagine an army of monkeys on computers typing up War and Peace.


----------



## Varin (May 12, 2009)

TheSeagull said:


> Is it actually possible to do it yourself? I imagine an army of monkeys on computers typing up War and Peace.


Not only is it possible, but it's quite easy, too.

Lol. You don't need to retype up anything anymore.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

One doesn't type.  One scans and then puts Optical Character Recognition software to use.   And then there's proofing the resulting file which can be quick or not quick depending on how good your OCR software is and how much random weirdness annoys you.   In short, it is time consuming but doable.  And is probably the way many of the classics on the feedbooks and manybooks sites got there.   

The ethics are dabateable:  'cause here we are, debating them.    I can't think of a book I'd want that badly -- too much time and effort for me.  But, I'm also not willing to pay people who do it and then sell the product for their own benefit either, if they don't have the rights to resell it.   (Note, I'm not saying I think anyone here is advocating that -- though, if you are, please don't.   )   I think the authors/publishers who refuse to make their books legally available electronically are shortsighted, 'cause they're being illegally distributed anyway, but that's their decision.  If such a publisher releases a book I want to read, I just have to decide if I want to buy it in paper or if maybe I don't want to read it that badly.


----------



## TheSeagull (Oct 25, 2009)

Ann in Arlington said:


> One doesn't type. One scans and then puts Optical Character Recognition software to use. And then there's proofing the resulting file which can be quick or not quick depending on how good your OCR software is and how much random weirdness annoys you.  In short, it is time consuming but doable. And is probably the way many of the classics on the feedbooks and manybooks sites got there.
> 
> The ethics are dabateable: 'cause here we are, debating them.  I can't think of a book I'd want that badly -- too much time and effort for me. But, I'm also not willing to pay people who do it and then sell the product for their own benefit either, if they don't have the rights to resell it. (Note, I'm not saying I think anyone here is advocating that -- though, if you are, please don't.  ) I think the authors/publishers who refuse to make their books legally available electronically are shortsighted, 'cause they're being illegally distributed anyway, but that's their decision. If such a publisher releases a book I want to read, I just have to decide if I want to buy it in paper or if maybe I don't want to read it that badly.


I would never pay for an illegal file. Despite the fact that it's illegal you don't know who is benefitting from it, could be terrorists or anybody.


----------



## Dave Dykema (May 18, 2009)

cloudyvisions said:


> Now, music on the other hand...sure, I am in that "younger person" category, but when music is as overpriced as it is, and I have a $335 monthly car bill, car and health insurance, and college school bills to pay, am I going to pay $10-$20 to download a CD that I may or may not even like on the songs on, or am I going to download it? Sorry, but at this point of time in my life, I'm going to look for a safe, anonymous place to download it.
> 
> I don't know, annoyed by the idea of just because we're young we apparently think we're "entitled to anything and everything" because there are plenty of us young people who are not that way.


Don't want to poke you with a sharp stick, but you say you don't feel like you're "entitled to anything and everything" and yet you anonymously grab music because it's too expensive. That's sounds like an argument for entitlement to me. Why don't you save up for a couple paychecks and then buy it? Twenty years ago, if you wanted The Police's new album, you either bought it or you didn't. Now an argument could be brought up about taping it from a friend--and yes, I have done that before--but mostly I bought albums.

Someone else said as it got easier and easier to get stuff people felt more and more comfortable doing it. I certainly think that's true, because where I was (I'm in my 40s; everyone else was in their 20s) NO ONE, except me, thought this was wrong at all to get that book. I know not everyone is doing it, but the digital age sure has made it easy to be a crook. And most don't even realize it.

Did the guy read "Under the Dome"? Heck, no. He had no interest in it whatsoever. In fact, he probably deleted it right after he got it. As for quality, I have to say it looked like scanned pages, and pretty good, in fact.


----------



## kevindorsey (Mar 4, 2009)

Illegal stuff is cool


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

Integrity is so old-fashioned!!

It really seems to be related to post-modernism. There is no right or wrong and whatever you're ok with is good.


----------



## Tip10 (Apr 16, 2009)

kevindorsey said:


> Illegal stuff is cool


So you would have no problem with me coming into your house and taking everything you own?
It would be cool....


----------



## pawsplus (Mar 31, 2009)

pidgeon92 said:


> No doubt about it, you can get almost anything you want on the internet. I still think that a majority of people are basically honest, and will look for a legitimate source first, particularly when things are reasonably priced.


Absolutely. Plus, who wants to read a book on their computer?? Not me. Until the Kindle came along I was COMPLETELY anti-Ebook. I need to be cuddled up on my couch in my afghan w/ a cat on my lap, not huddled over a laptop getting eye strain.

And a LOT of people feel that way. I think the Kindle is safe.


----------



## Guest (Dec 8, 2009)

Tip10 said:


> So you would have no problem with me coming into your house and taking everything you own?
> It would be cool....


And herein is the problem. People don't consider "virtual" products real, ergo they don't see the point in paying for it.

They don't realize that all of this illegal downloading has frankly costs thousands of jobs in this country. Entire store chains have gone out of business (Tower Records). People that work in the factories and warehouses that produce and distribute music lose their jobs. Fewer acts get recording contracts because there is less money to go around.

In the music and video industries, people loose site of how much money it costs to actually produce this stuff. We aren't just talking about overpaid actors and rock stars. We are talking about techies and assistants and IT people and production workers and forklift drivers and truck drivers and maintence people and administrative staff and everything else that goes into it. People think it is "cool" to steal from the "rich" but frankly you are stealing from your neighbors or family or friends, because they are the type of people that end up losing their jobs.

Piracy in some ways actually drives UP the salaries of the big name stars at the expense of the unknowns, because producers need to go with commodities that people are willing to pay for. So instead of "hurting" the rich, pirates actually help indirectly make them richer.

Unfortunately, particularly with writers, the creative people themselves encourage piracy by not placing a value on their own work. I firmly believe selling a 200 or 300 page novel for 99 cents or giving it away for free encourages the pirate mentality. Because we don't place a value on our work, and we encourage people to think that writers (and other creatives) should just be happy being read and reinforce the ideal that consumers are entitled to whatever they want for free.


----------



## Chris W (Aug 17, 2009)

I hope everyone reading and posting in this topic got a chance to read Chris Anderson's "Free: The Future of a Radical Price" which was, ironically, released for free on the Kindle for a limited time. While I agree that digital media has put an entire industry out of business (I grew up near Sacramento, and used to go to the original Tower Records on the weekends), in reality it has transformed an industry. Now artists can avoid major record labels, and promote themselves instead. Then there's work for all the technical people behind the screen for MP3 stores, etc.
You can make money by pricing your product extremely cheaply, or even by making it free, just not in the 'traditional' sense of doing business. The middle men are being cut out of the profit stream, and it's they who are trying to put up roadblocks in the shift of business models. I know that's overly simplistic, and no way the complete answer, but more and more consumers are expecting free and even less than free prices for products. If content providers don't give it to them legitimately, they will find a way to take it for themselves.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

I don't think there is anything wrong with a fair price.

"...make a good pair of shoes and charge a fair price.”  Martin Luther


----------



## higdona (Dec 1, 2009)

bardsandsages said:


> And herein is the problem. People don't consider "virtual" products real, ergo they don't see the point in paying for it.


I love virtual products and I think that they are real. I am not going to sell my itunes CD's or give them away. I make one copy as a back up. I do love how some DVD's now come with a virtual copy. It means that I can have a copy on my computer for those times when I am stuck in the lab with nothing to do but babysit an experiment. Its also good for ipods. People want to be able to put their movies on them and many will make a digital copy if one is not provided with the movie. I dont but I do know of people who do that.


----------



## Sporadic (May 1, 2009)

bardsandsages said:


> And herein is the problem. People don't consider "virtual" products real, ergo they don't see the point in paying for it.
> 
> They don't realize that all of this illegal downloading has frankly costs thousands of jobs in this country. Entire store chains have gone out of business (Tower Records). People that work in the factories and warehouses that produce and distribute music lose their jobs. Fewer acts get recording contracts because there is less money to go around.
> 
> In the music and video industries, people loose site of how much money it costs to actually produce this stuff. We aren't just talking about overpaid actors and rock stars. We are talking about techies and assistants and IT people and production workers and forklift drivers and truck drivers and maintence people and administrative staff and everything else that goes into it. People think it is "cool" to steal from the "rich" but frankly you are stealing from your neighbors or family or friends, because they are the type of people that end up losing their jobs.


Downloading has done nothing of the sort. I know it's hip in the industry to blame piracy for all the world's woes but it can't be blamed for their business model becoming antiquated. That's just the way the world is. Time marches on and new, better things pop up. Evolve or die.

I know it's also cool to say well think about *insert lower job here* and I wish the industry actually believed their own attempt at pulling people's heartstrings. Only thing they care about is making a profit and they don't care about the truck driver or the staff or any of those people you mentioned.


----------



## KindleChickie (Oct 24, 2009)

I have to admit I paid for some illegal copies of books.  I didnt know what I was getting.  I bought some ebooks on eBay.  They came in PDF format.  I was reading them on my computer when I got to about the 3rd or 4th book, it had a piracy notice they had forgotten to take off.  I was under the assumption that if it was on eBay, it must not be pirated because they have rules against that.  


Did I mention in many ways I am kinda sheltered.


----------



## andy_in_virginia (Dec 3, 2009)

If someone is willing to go through what must the most awful job of scanning a 1700 page book with OCR software on a high quality scanner, proofing it and then making it available for download, doesn't that prove there is a demand for that product in an electronic format? Especially as the person doing all the scanning etc. stands to make absolutely nothing for their "work".

If I were an author or a publisher, I would rather see something being sold legally for $5 so I could make _some_ money off it (especially as for downloadable items, there are no overheads once the first e-version has been made), than deciding to charge $15 for the Kindle version and not selling any copies of it at all.

Times are not changing, they have changed already. You no longer need to have a manager, an agent, the backing of a record company and a recording studio to have a hit. Kids can record music using a Mac and distribute it via MySpace, burn CD's for pennies or get their song listed on iTunes. Likewise budding authors don't have to submit their stories to publishers and endure the endless rejections. Now you can self-publish, have hard copies produced on a print-on-demand basis and have them advertised on sites like Lulu or distributed electronically. Every time someone comes up with some new form of DRM, within days (or hours) it has been cracked and the solution is being distributed.

Sorry, but the market for free (or low cost) electronic books, movies, music and TV shows is never going to go away now the genie has been let out of the bottle.


----------



## Scheherazade (Apr 11, 2009)

I still don't think virtual having no value has anything to do with it... at least not as much as folks would have you believe.  A good deal of people would steal from stores if it was as easy and low risk as downloading.  It just isn't.  Why use a the money earned from month of your hard work to buy a television if you could just walk out with it?  Look how people behave in riots... it's the same thing.  People feel like they can't be caught in the huge crowd of others doing it so they loot.


----------



## marianneg (Nov 4, 2008)

I don't think for a minute that it's only young people doing it.  I've seen plenty of older people on the Kindle lists bragging about their illegal downloads.


----------



## hera (Mar 25, 2009)

Scheherazade said:


> I still don't think virtual having no value has anything to do with it... at least not as much as folks would have you believe. A good deal of people would steal from stores if it was as easy and low risk as downloading. It just isn't. Why use a the money earned from month of your hard work to buy a television if you could just walk out with it? Look how people behave in riots... it's the same thing. People feel like they can't be caught in the huge crowd of others doing it so they loot.


+1

I also think the moral outrage at publishers & record labels is just a way to excuse their guilt. Most of the people I know who download media illegally will complain about how corporations stifle true creativity and take advantage of artists...while listening Linkin Park on their way to see 2012 for the third time. And heaven help me if I try to get them to listen to an indie band I just discovered. 

Ultimately, piracy is going to raise prices for those of us who pay for our books. The publishers and the artists have to make back their fixed costs...including reasonable compensation for the time to took to create and edit the book. If they aren't able to make back the fixed costs at the low price because everyone is pirating the book instead of buying, the logical thing to do is to raise the price and see how many buyers they actually loose. Additionally, since higher prices mean that buyers will be buying fewer items, there will probably be more emphasis on books with widespread appeal. Personally, I would rather not live in a world made only of NYT Best Sellers.

Because it doesn't depend on the traditional sponsors (corporations, the church, the Medici...), digital distribution could lead to a golden age for _all_ forms of art. But if we don't support the artists, the best we are going to get is halfway decent works of art from amateurs. Artists are not going to be willing to spend the time to develop their skills or edit their work if there isn't a decent payoff for the additional effort.


----------



## bigdog5142 (Dec 2, 2009)

It's as simple as this: If you get a "free" e-book, CD, DVD, whatever...it's just like you went into the store, pocketed said item and walked out.  You're STEALING.  There's no way around it and no way to justify it.  

Unfortunately, that's not how most people see it today. I'm a youth pastor and most of my students (and most of the parents for that matter) don't see anything wrong with it.  Very frustrating...

It's stealing...


----------



## Sporadic (May 1, 2009)

bigdog5142 said:


> It's as simple as this: If you get a "free" e-book, CD, DVD, whatever...it's just like you went into the store, pocketed said item and walked out. You're STEALING. There's no way around it and no way to justify it.


It's not.

If you went to a store and pocketed an item, the store would be short one item. They would be forced to eat the loss you caused by taking that item.
This is more like if you had a magic cloning machine and instead of paying for an item, you walked in the store, cloned it and walked out. The store would still have the item and (hypothetically) be out a sale.

You can say piracy is wrong, you can say piracy is immoral but you can not say that it is stealing.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Sporadic said:


> You can say piracy is wrong, you can say piracy is immoral but you can not say that it is stealing.


Fifteen or so years ago, my wife and I decided to start an online business selling software. After a year we had a product that was one of the first software applications to replace what had been a hardware item previously. The business started off briskly but then began dropping off. We also started getting support requests from people who had never bought our software. My wife was in tears for days. The silly woman thought that people were stealing our property.


----------



## Tip10 (Apr 16, 2009)

Sporadic said:


> It's not.
> 
> If you went to a store and pocketed an item, the store would be short one item. They would be forced to eat the loss you caused by taking that item.
> This is more like if you had a magic cloning machine and instead of paying for an item, you walked in the store, cloned it and walked out. The store would still have the item and (hypothetically) be out a sale.
> ...


OH YES YOU CAN -- pure and simple Piracy IS Stealing!
Piracy is taking something that belongs to another without paying for it -- absolutely no different than swiping a CD, book, or any other item from a store. In this case it may simply be the taking of intellectual rights without paying for it but you INDEED are taking something!
If that's not stealing what is?


----------



## marianneg (Nov 4, 2008)

Sporadic said:


> It's not.
> 
> If you went to a store and pocketed an item, the store would be short one item. They would be forced to eat the loss you caused by taking that item.
> This is more like if you had a magic cloning machine and instead of paying for an item, you walked in the store, cloned it and walked out. The store would still have the item and (hypothetically) be out a sale.
> ...


Actually, you stole intellectual property directly from the source instead of stealing both the IP and the physical medium. So, no, there is not a B&M store that has to eat the cost of the CD; just an artist and a whole lot of support staff that has had their hard work stolen. And someone's narcissism has just grown a notch.


----------



## ElaineOK (Jun 5, 2009)

If you think it is right to take the fruits of someone's labor without compensating him for it, I would love to explain the virtue of that to your boss.  Something tells me that you aren't crazy about the prospects of working for free.

Elaine
Norman, Oklahoma


----------



## akpak (Mar 5, 2009)

Is it still theft if the pirate would never have bought the [physical widget] in the first place?

Stealing/theft, in legal terms, implies deprivation.

If I wouldn't have ever payed for [CD X], but I download a copy. No one has lost anything. The store/RIAA/artist did not lose an item, or even a sale.

Now, is it wrong for me to consume/enjoy that media if I didn't pay for it? Yes, but that doesn't make it theft. It makes it some other crime... A DMCA violation. I'll say that again: Piracy is a crime, but not theft.

Is it still "theft" if I make a copy of my friend's [CD X]? This happened ALL THE TIME back in the day, and no one was screaming about piracy and theft THEN.

Is it still "theft" if I pirate an ebook copy of a book I already own in DTB?

Is it still "theft" when many, MANY people rip a digital copy of a CD or DVD and then sell the CD/DVD?

See? It's not quite so simple as just saying "OMG PIRACY IS STEALING!"

There are always going to be some people who will always "acquire" what they want without paying for it, you can't stop it. What you CAN stop is the people who would be genuine paying customers if your pricing and terms were reasonable.

Here's how you stop Average Joe from pirating:

1) Provide free samples of your work, so Joe knows he'll like your creation.
2) Allow Joe to pay a fair and reasonable price.
3) Once he's paid for it, allow Joe to enjoy that creation on any device he chooses and for any amount of time he wants.
4) Don't treat Joe like a pirate/criminal when he wants to be sure that creation is his copy for life.

It's proven time and time again that if you follow those simple rules of digital delivery, Joe will NOT pirate. He will pay and support your artist/author/game designer.


----------



## hera (Mar 25, 2009)

akjak said:


> Is it still theft if the pirate would never have bought the [physical widget] in the first place?
> 
> Stealing/theft, in legal terms, implies deprivation.
> 
> ...


You are right that legally piracy is a copyright infringement not theft. However, unless legal precision is needed, "theft" is as good a description of what is happening as "piracy" or "copyright infringement." Piracy is just as morally wrong as theft and copyright infringement often feels like theft to those who have their (copy)rights violated.

As for the "but I wouldn't have bought it anyway" excuse...why are you wasting time listening to music/watching a movie/reading a book that isn't worth paying for?

I have a friend that uses that excuse everytime he downloads a movie. For one movie, he could not find a reasonable quality download and he eventually gave up and purchased the dvd. Obviously that one was worth paying for, but he still tried to pirate it first. I doubt he would have bought every movie and tv show he downloaded, but if he hadn't downloaded any of them, he would have purchased far more than he did. I am sure this is true for almost all of the pirates in developed countries.



> Is it still "theft" if I make a copy of my friend's [CD X]? This happened ALL THE TIME back in the day, and no one was screaming about piracy and theft THEN.


There was screaming. There were lawsuits. At least one, the Betamax case, made it to the Supreme Court. I don't remember all the details, and I'm not going to bother to look them up, but those lawsuits are the reason that the manufacturers of blank tapes and blank "music" cds are required to pay a fee to compensate record companies for the money lost through illegal copying and distribution of media. These are also the lawsuits that established the time & space shifting fair use provisions that the DMCA violates.



> Is it still "theft" if I pirate an ebook copy of a book I already own in DTB?


It is illegal; it is in violation of the fair use provisions. You can, legally and morally, make a digital copy yourself.



> Is it still "theft" when many, MANY people rip a digital copy of a CD or DVD and then sell the CD/DVD?


Yes. According to fair use, you are required to destroy all copies when the original leaves your possession.



> See? It's not quite so simple as just saying "OMG PIRACY IS STEALING!"


I don't see. Those who pirate are taking away profits from the artists and writers they apparently enjoy.



> There are always going to be some people who will always "acquire" what they want without paying for it, you can't stop it. What you CAN stop is the people who would be genuine paying customers if your pricing and terms were reasonable.


To a certain extent you are right. However, if there is a cultural acceptance of piracy, there are going to be far fewer people who are willing to be paying customers at any price. Using the stupidity of the DMCA and of DRM to excuse piracy just increases its cultural acceptance.


----------



## webhill (Feb 12, 2009)

akjak said:


> Is it still "theft" when many, MANY people rip a digital copy of a CD or DVD and then sell the CD/DVD?


Just gotta comment because this recently came up in discussion with my friend... 
She wanted to purge her house of the huge number of children's music CDs that has accumulated since her kids (now 9 and 7) were born, so she packed them all up into boxes. Her husband came home from work and said "what are those boxes," and she said "Oh, those are all the kid CDs, I wanted to make some room for new stuff so I thought I'd donate these to the church." He said "Oh, great. Give me a list of the titles so I can delete them from your hard drive, too." She said "Um, well, I don't want you to delete them," and he said "then you can't give them away, you're going to have to destroy them, or keep them." So, she's keeping them another year or two, until she's 100% sure her younger kid doesn't want to listen to any of it, and then she's going to delete them and give the discs away.

Not EVERYONE is a crook at heart.


----------



## akpak (Mar 5, 2009)

webhill said:


> Not EVERYONE is a crook at heart.


This is exactly my point, but so many of the content "publishers" like to treat us like we are.

Don't misunderstand me in my previous post: I KNOW that piracy is taking money out of the hands of artists. I know it's immoral, but just calling it "stealing" isn't really so cut and dried.


----------



## Tip10 (Apr 16, 2009)

*steal
-verb (used with object)
1. to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force: A pickpocket stole his watch.
2. to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment.*

Question: did you have the right and/or permission to take the intellectual property you took? Answer: No.
Making and/or distributing illegal copies of intellectual property is pure and simply stealing. 
Sugar coat it all you want. 
Defend yourself with semantics all you want. 
Call it whatever you want. 
It is illegal and it is a crime.


----------



## Shastastan (Oct 28, 2009)

Did you ever see the FBI warning at the beginning of a dvd movie?  It says piracy is a crime.  The last time I checked, commiting a criminal act can get you put in jail, fined or both.  It's not a civil matter; It's a criminal matter. Just because a lot of people are making illegal copies doesn't make it okay, IMHO.  If it were okay, there would be no copyright laws.  I must be missing something here because it doesn't seem very complicated to me.  No, I do not have any pirated software, dvds, or ebooks.


----------



## akpak (Mar 5, 2009)

I never said it wasn't a crime, I said it wasn't the same crime to shoplifting a physical object.


----------



## Guest (Dec 10, 2009)

akjak said:


> I never said it wasn't a crime, I said it wasn't the same crime to shoplifting a physical object.


Manslaughter isn't the same crime as murder, but at the end someone is still dead.


----------



## Jesslyn (Oct 29, 2008)

If a book is available in the Kindle store, I buy it; If not available for the Kindle, I purchase and convert;If an ebook isn't available at all, I'll buy physical copy and get electronic version elsewhere.  But whatever method I use, ALL of it gets reformatted so that if I later decide to use it on some new device, then I can.

Before I got the Kindle 1, I was trying to find out what happened to the Rocket ebook reader.  What would have happened to the books I got for THAT device?!  I don't plan on going back to DTB for pleasure reading, but I'll be you-know-whatted before I'll invest another $1000 in books that I already have in electronic format.  I've already re-purchased some book 3 or 4 times - hard cover, paperback, paperback replacement (or 2), and ebook.


----------



## hera (Mar 25, 2009)

Jesslyn said:


> Before I got the Kindle 1, I was trying to find out what happened to the Rocket ebook reader. What would have happened to the books I got for THAT device?! I don't plan on going back to DTB for pleasure reading, but I'll be you-know-whatted before I'll invest another $1000 in books that I already have in electronic format. I've already re-purchased some book 3 or 4 times - hard cover, paperback, paperback replacement (or 2), and ebook.


Breaking DRM is not piracy.

Under the DMCA, breaking a DRM is illegal. However, DRM interferes with fair use, and supposedly the DMCA is not able restrict fair use rights (like reading your Rocket ebooks on your Kindle). As far as I know, court decisions have side-stepped the DMCA fair use contradiction by more or less claiming that the primary reason anyone would break DRM is so they can pirate the work. 

We shouldn't have to buy 15 different formats of the same book/song/movie. But as piracy becomes more prevalent, it is going to be less likely that a court will decide against DRM and in favor of our fair use rights. That leaves waiting for the corporations to come to their senses, and I'm not holding my breath for that.


----------



## funkyj (Nov 26, 2009)

higdona said:


> I have seen illegal copies of text books floating around for the last few years. The school finally changed calculus books just because there was a widely circulated illegal copy of the solutions manual going around campus.


I have as much sympathy for text book publishers as I have for the AIG execs we absolutely had to bailout. I mean really, how much as math teaching methodology and first year calculus advanced over the last 20 years?

I don't approve of the original poster's book pirate but text book racketeers deserve the piracy they get. TANGENT: MIT has been developing public domain textbooks...

As for folks cheating on their calc homework using the solution guide ... what is it you are paying tuition for? If you simply want a diploma you can buy one on the interwebz.


----------



## Dave Dykema (May 18, 2009)

geoffthomas said:


> Oh, well, at least he was unable to "steal" your book.
> Sorry to hear that he one-upped you technologically though.


That's probably only because my books aren't popular enough...yet! But gee, is that what we have to look forward to if we ever make it? I suppose so.


----------



## Guest (Dec 11, 2009)

funkyj said:


> I have as much sympathy for text book publishers as I have for the AIG execs we absolutely had to bailout. I mean really, how much as math teaching methodology and first year calculus advanced over the last 20 years?


A lot, apparently. Granted, I was never good at math, but when I was looking at my niece's algebra book one day (it was an accident, I swear) it looked NOTHING like what I remembered.  They all do that "new math" now...which is why cashiers can't figure out change when the register breaks down. But I digress.

Reminds me of when my English professor expected me to spend $100 on The Complete Works of Shakespeare for a class. But I already owned all the Shakespeare works. It isn't like he's written anything NEW. I told her I was not buying a new book when I already owned them all.

"But how are you going to follow along in class without having the same page numbers as everyone else?" she had said.

"I guess by actually READING the plays."

I won the argument.  And got an A in the class.


----------



## TheSeagull (Oct 25, 2009)

Just thought I'd ask here. Is it illegal to download for free an ebook when I already have paid for the DTV?


----------



## BTackitt (Dec 15, 2008)

Technically yes, but if you were to scan said DTB, run it through an OCR program, and use that as your ebook, it would not be.. it would fall under fair use.


----------



## TheSeagull (Oct 25, 2009)

Cobbie said:


> I've always stomped my foot and vowed that technology...would...not...leave me behind but apparently that ship has sailed.
> 
> If the ebook is free why would that be illegal?


I was referring to downloading something that you already own for free, not a free title on Amazon


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

cloudyvisions said:


> I'd find it a bit hard to believe that EVERY single person on the boards here has never gotten an illegal/shared digital copy of music/etc. at some point of time in his/her life.


I used to download stolen music from audiogalaxy before they were forced to stop. I felt comfortable with it because I was comfortable downloading from them and because I knew that there was nothing at all wrong with my wanting to make informed decisions with the music that I purchased. It's not coincidence that the period of time where I bought most of the music CD's I own today were bought during the period of time in which I could find an album recommendation on a music board, and then listen to it without investing money. Content I didn't like was erased and forgotten, what I liked was replaced with legally purchased copies.

Since then I haven't downloaded any illegal music, I've had several burnt music CD's given to me, most of those I ended up tossing. There was one music CD that I had someone else "locate" and burn for me. I didn't pay anything for it but I didn't feel comfortable with having a stolen music CD, I purchased a legal MP3 of the album from Amazon.

In between places like myspace and youtube I'm pretty content with my ability to try out music before purchasing anything, and without having to steal.

As far as e-books go. I've been contemplating switching from the Kindle proprietary format to ePub for some time, as part of that I've looked into ways of moving my books. One of the solutions I considered was via illegal download. My test book, The Lord of the Rings.

The first time I stole a copy the file was scanned as having a virus, deleted it of course. Some months later, this month to be more precise, I tried again, managed to get two files that scanned cleanly, but they were torrent files, which couldn't be opened without whatever software is needed to open them. I concluded that the risks and discomfort was not worth an e-book that would be in a file format that I absolutely hate, and I absolutely hate PDF's... I'll keep my Kindles to have access to my Amazon books and hope that they are pressured into switching over to ePub with the Adobe DRM solution, or better yet, get rid of the DRM entirely so people can legally use their files on their devices.

As for movies and TV shows. I'm quite content to purchase them legally, not to mention that my netflix account gives me a good legal cheap way of watching them. I did have an illegal copy of Step Brothers (borrowed a burned copy so I was easily able to get my own copy of it), watched it (no different than borrowing a legal copy), and then deleted it after a couple of days as I felt uncomfortable with having it.

What it comes down to is this. If everyone downloaded illegal files there would be no content to steal as nobody would be able to make content that they don't get their money back from. I try my best to not be in that group that doesn't care where these companies are supposed to get money to fund future projects. If I don't have money to buy something and I surely didn't have any money to take advantage of the Black Friday sales, then I wait until I do have money.


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

Jeff said:


> So, does that mean that you don't believe that an author or publisher has a right to determine how their intellectual property is distributed?


I surely don't care. I'm not talking about illegal downloads either, I'm talking about content that was legally purchased but imported. On all of my video games I've imported from Japan there is a little note on the back of the box saying "For Japan Only". While the games were legally purchased they were not licensed for use in this country, which means that I'm completely ignoring how the companies, mostly Konami, distributed their product.

If publishers and authors are so worried about piracy then they should provide legal alternatives for people. DRM will not stop piracy, refusing to release popular books in e-book form because you're an idiot will not stop piracy (specifically referring to you know who). All it does is make people angry.

As far as I'm concerned the only time that an author has absolute control is before the author's work ever gets published, the moment it's published, the moment that people are expected to spend their money to purchase said content, is the moment where the consumers begin having rights too.

You can argue control all you want but as long as you're getting adequately compensated for your work it should matter not whether it's a DTB, an audio book, or an e-book. It's about making a living doing what you want to do, it's about people enjoying your work, only the fat heads will freely gather mounds of cash off of book royalties, movie royalties, and audio book royalties, and then act as if releasing a book in e-book form is somehow an insult to everything they stand for. That [expletive] was rewarded for her hard work, I think it's time that she puts aside her personal preference, and allow her fans to have something that they so clearly desire to have.

That's where things get tricky. You have people 


webhill said:


> Just gotta comment because this recently came up in discussion with my friend...
> She wanted to purge her house of the huge number of children's music CDs that has accumulated since her kids (now 9 and 7) were born, so she packed them all up into boxes. Her husband came home from work and said "what are those boxes," and she said "Oh, those are all the kid CDs, I wanted to make some room for new stuff so I thought I'd donate these to the church." He said "Oh, great. Give me a list of the titles so I can delete them from your hard drive, too." She said "Um, well, I don't want you to delete them," and he said "then you can't give them away, you're going to have to destroy them, or keep them." So, she's keeping them another year or two, until she's 100% sure her younger kid doesn't want to listen to any of it, and then she's going to delete them and give the discs away.
> 
> Not EVERYONE is a crook at heart.


That's were the CD/DVD cases come in handy. It allows you to compact what would otherwise be a mess.

Anyway, nice to see someone else that thinks the same way I do. My mom talked about doing the same thing, putting all of her CD's on iTunes and then getting rid of the CD's. I talked her out of it.

Also, this is the reason that I'm against buying used CD's, it's impossible to tell who's truly getting rid of the content from the people that are simply selling their store bought copy.


----------



## kevindorsey (Mar 4, 2009)

Yea, I agree.  DRM does not stop piracy, if anything it encourages it


----------



## kb7uen Gene (Mar 13, 2009)

You just wait, when these kids, who think taking and not paying is okay, get older and they are authors, or enter the business world in some other way,  they will be screaming their heads off about how they are loosing royalties.  It is all fine and good when it isn't them.  In my opinion taking from an author, proformer, actor, or who ever is no different than breaking in to someones home or business, and taking personal property.  It is no different than shop lifting in Borders Books.

Gene


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

kevindorsey said:


> Yea, I agree. DRM does not stop piracy, if anything it encourages it


*Disclaimer: I apologize in advance for getting carried away here but this is an issue that's been on my mind a lot recently. This is not aimed at you, this is my reaction to your words, the words suggesting that DRM could encourage piracy.*

I really don't like the idea that DRM encourages piracy.

If you take a look at the groups on the extreme end of things you'll see that they're not affected at all, and by extreme end of things I'm referring to the people that don't give any thought about downloading illegal files, and the people who would never consider it. DRM or no DRM, they will remain unchanged.

The group that is affected by DRM is in the middle of those two groups. On the one hand you have people considering downloading illegal files when they wouldn't have done so if they could use their purchased files in a way that suits their needs (being able to read Kindle books on a Sony, watch an iTunes digital movie on a PSP), that kind of thing. The counterbalance is that there are people who, without thinking about the legal implications, wouldn't hesitate to share DRM free files with friends and family.

DRM or no DRM, an act of piracy is a deliberate, and willful choice. Saying that DRM encourages piracy would be like saying that Harry Potter's author encourages her fans to download illegal copies of her books. The choice of including DRM, the choice of not releasing books in e-book form, results in a legal option not being present, nobody has to choose piracy.

The Harry Potter author, and yes, I'm deliberately avoiding thinking/mentioning her name, has every right to not release her books in e-book form if she's so inclined. I would love to re-buy the Harry Potter books in e-book form but not being able to isn't what makes me angry with her. It's the fact that an author is willfully ignoring their fans over something that doesn't require any work from them. It's not like it is when fans want a new book, that's something that requires a chunk of an author's life, a piece of themselves, could interfere with them writing what they really want to write. Not allowing the books to be formatted into e-books is just plain rude, she might as well walk up to one of her fans and spit in their face.

If DRM encourages anything it's with DRM stripping. It's not because DRM itself is wrong, the e-books checked out of libraries should have DRM, just as the sites that offer subscriptions for access to their content should have DRM. Where it's gone wrong is with the way it's being misused and with the compatibility issues it causes. Amazon is using DRM to ensure that someone that purchases a Kindle from them cannot use DRM'd content on it that comes from any other place than their own store, or use the content purchased from them on any device that doesn't come from their store, and then they hide behind the supposed notion that they are protecting the content rather than their own bottom line.

From a consumers perspective it's easy to want DRM free content for the sheer flexibility it offers but anyone that's being honest about it will admit that, just like DRM'd content, it favors one group over the other.

This is where things get really messy. Different companies own the rights to different formats, so while being able to register my PRS-600 with my Amazon account, and being able to download books in the BBeB format from their store to my device would allow me the flexibility that I desire while keeping the DRM intact, it would also mean that Amazon would be distributing e-books in a format that they had no legal rights to distribute. If you take all of the different retailers with all of the different formats, licensing, and what not... Yeah, it's a mess.

The other option is to force a standard but how can we have a free market if companies are forced to use a format that they don't want? What about DRM, should companies be forced to choose Adobe's Digital Editions?

There are ways around the DRM but the ways around it are, at best, providing solutions for individuals, not for the entire market.

Let's say that someone, like me, was upset over the kind of control Amazon has, and with help along the way, some effort on my part, I was to find a way around the DRM on Amazon's e-books. Should the barrier that is no longer present mean that I should continue purchasing e-books from Amazon? What about other retailers selling DRM'd books that aren't compatible with my Kindles, should I purchase those e-books if I have the means to get around the DRM?

It's not just a matter of what retailers and publishers do, but what we, the consumers, do as well.

It's one thing to free e-books you've purchased in the past so that you can use them on your new gadgets, quite another matter entirely to continue purchasing new e-books that will have to be freed in order to be used. The free market is based on how people, on the whole, spend their money. There are publishers, like Baen, that provide DRM free e-books, of their own free will, retailers, like Smashwords that distribute content without DRM, of their own free will.

Sidestepping DRM is a solution but it's not a responsible solution. Anyone that continues to purchase e-books that require they sidestep the DRM in order to use them are only reinforcing the problem, not fixing it. It requires sacrifice, willingly passing on e-books because you'd have to sidestep the DRM in order to use them on your shiny new gadget, or on your older gadgets, but the responsible thing to do is to look for e-books that you want to read that fit how you wish to use them.

Support the authors, publishers, retailers that provide what you need, whether it's a choice in formats, or DRM free content that allows you to freely/legally reformat them as needed. Do not support the authors, publishers, retailers that do not provide what you need.

The free market is a great thing, if you care about DRM, about having compatible formats, about TTS, about publishers delaying e-books in order to try forcing people to purchase the hardback, then use your money in a way that supports what you care about, as it's our money that shapes the free market, not our posts, not our blogs, it's our money.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Lighten up, Selcien. Will any of it matter in a hundred years?


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

That's just my natural disposition shining through.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Selcien said:


> That's just my natural disposition shining through.


Lucky I still have TenInX's tinfoil hat.


----------



## sherylb (Oct 27, 2008)




----------



## Badandy (Dec 4, 2008)

kb7uen Gene said:


> You just wait, when these kids, who think taking and not paying is okay, get older and they are authors, or enter the business world in some other way, they will be screaming their heads off about how they are loosing royalties.


I guess I count as "these kids". I grew up in the age of Napster. I saw the legal troubles. I saw more restriction and then user backlash which led to Apple moving to DRM free music and they seem to be doing fine.

I had a Cybook Gen3 (another ebook reader). I downloaded a couple of books (The Selfish Gene, Influence, etc) and I haven't gotten a chance to read them yet. I'm going to buy a Kindle 2. What choice do I have? Buy those titles again? No way, I haven't even read them! What logical choice do I have other than try to find a way to strip the DRM and put it on a new device. Technically illegal? Probably. Does it violate my sense of right and wrong? No. You know what it will do though? It will make me research, learn how to use, and download tools that make it easy to do immoral things. DRM on books you pay for (not subscriptions and library books) is counter-productive. By making things so restrictive, they're putting people into a place where it's easier to justify the wrong acts you so passionately decry.



> It is all fine and good when it isn't them. In my opinion taking from an author, proformer, actor, or who ever is no different than breaking in to someones home or business, and taking personal property. It is no different than shop lifting in Borders Books.


This is an incredibly simplistic view of the situation and is part of the reason why ineffective no-tolerance policies continue to invade our public schools. Downloading an artist's IP and not paying for it is illegal. It's wrong. But asserting that duplicating and obtaining a digital copy of something is equal to depriving a store of goods they paid for is logically wrong. They *might* lose the revenue they'd have made had you bought the book, but they can still sell it to someone else; it's not as big of a loss.

Many people download illegally because the traditional restrictions of DRM limit how they can sample the content and they don't know whether buying something in its totality would be a waste of money or not. In this respect, Amazon's got it right. For every sample they provide they are reducing piracy.

Just some random thoughts, I realize it's not organized very well.


----------



## LSbookend (Dec 22, 2008)

Comment for the first post. Tell him to find Ur and dont mention it was written for kindle lol


----------



## Dave Dykema (May 18, 2009)

I should have thought of that. I'll do it next time I see him (Saturday) and let you all know how it goes.


----------



## Guest (Dec 14, 2009)

Selcien said:


> I surely don't care. I'm not talking about illegal downloads either, I'm talking about content that was legally purchased but imported. On all of my video games I've imported from Japan there is a little note on the back of the box saying "For Japan Only". While the games were legally purchased they were not licensed for use in this country, which means that I'm completely ignoring how the companies, mostly Konami, distributed their product.


This isn't actually the same thing. A lot of anime is done this way, but it actually has more to do with available technology than limiting distribution. Do to various laws in different countries, a lot of electronic equipment is subtly different. If you buy a DVD that is made for distribution in Japan, it might not work on your DVD player, even if the DVD player was made in Japan. That is because the equipment shipped and sold in the US may have differences.

We actually had this happen. We bought some anime on Ebay without realizing what those "Zones" meant. They were brand new DVDs, but wouldn't work when we tried to play them in the DVD player. (They did work when we played them on the computer DVD player, however).


----------



## Jesslyn (Oct 29, 2008)

Selcien, I agree with a lot of what you said, but I boil my feelings down as I am in no way as eloquent.

When I buy an ebook, I consider it mine to use any way that I want that doesn't violate copyright laws.  That means that I have no problem removing DRM, reformatting to Kindle compatible, re-enabling TTS, etc.  It also means that I don't share the content illegally.  Mine means mine.


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

bardsandsages said:


> This isn't actually the same thing. A lot of anime is done this way, but it actually has more to do with available technology than limiting distribution. Do to various laws in different countries, a lot of electronic equipment is subtly different. If you buy a DVD that is made for distribution in Japan, it might not work on your DVD player, even if the DVD player was made in Japan. That is because the equipment shipped and sold in the US may have differences.
> 
> We actually had this happen. We bought some anime on Ebay without realizing what those "Zones" meant. They were brand new DVDs, but wouldn't work when we tried to play them in the DVD player. (They did work when we played them on the computer DVD player, however).


There are natural divisions. With standard definition TV's you have PAL and NTSC, both of which are incompatible with each other, beyond that is the matter of the power source, but that can be taken care of with power converters. I believe that HDTV's all use the same standard. So, basically, the world is broken up between PAL and NTSC, the barriers/zones do not reflect that. Japan uses NTSC, the same as the US, there is also no need to use power converters between the two countries.

Take the PS2, a US unit, and a Japanese unit (I have both). Everything included with the systems are swappable, you can use the US power cord, the US controller, the US memory card on the JPN PS2, and vice versa. Further, JPN PS3 games will work on US PS3 units, I assume it works the other way, Blu-ray's between the two countries should also be fully compatible. However, when it comes to PS2 games, the US ones will only work on the US systems, and the JPN ones will only work on the JPN systems. PS3 games work fine, PS2 games do not, it could not get any clearer that they are artificial barriers.

To take it further. The Sony PSP. It will play any game from any country. What did SCEE (Sony Computer Entertainment of Europe) do? Why, they went after the retailers, like PlayAsia, that imported/exported games, basically threatened to shut them down if they continued to send foreign games to Europe. I haven't been paying much attention of late so I don't know if things have changed.

To go even further. Using your example, if there were actual incompatibility issues your anime wouldn't have played on your computer. It didn't play on your DVD player because it is programmed to only accept DVD's that have the "proper" code, if it gives the wrong code it refuses to play the disc. Take away the artificial barrier and it would work perfectly fine. Which, of course, is why we have region free players, region free discs, 'cause it's most definitely not a hardware issue.

Zones are nothing but another form of DRM. It's done for the companies, not the consumers.



Jesslyn said:


> Selcien, I agree with a lot of what you said, but I boil my feelings down as I am in no way as eloquent.
> 
> When I buy an ebook, I consider it mine to use any way that I want that doesn't violate copyright laws. That means that I have no problem removing DRM, reformatting to Kindle compatible, re-enabling TTS, etc. It also means that I don't share the content illegally. Mine means mine.


Eloquent? That's a new one, I usually get accused of being verbose. 

I completely skipped DRM'd music as I was content to rip the music off of my CD's, don't even bother with the free digital movies I get with my Blu-ray's, much less buy them. So while DRM isn't a new issue, dealing with it, rather than merely ignoring it until it goes away, is definitely new to me.

*********************

And btw, those tin hats only work against Satellites, with computer monitors you'll need some kind of face guard, otherwise the signals will simply bounce off the inside of the tin hat, ensuring that the signals are twice as effective.


----------



## Varin (May 12, 2009)

"You can argue control all you want but as long as you're getting adequately compensated for your work it should matter not whether it's a DTB, an audio book, or an e-book. It's about making a living doing what you want to do, it's about people enjoying your work, only the fat heads will freely gather mounds of cash off of book royalties, movie royalties, and audio book royalties, and then act as if releasing a book in e-book form is somehow an insult to everything they stand for. That [expletive] was rewarded for her hard work, I think it's time that she puts aside her personal preference, and allow her fans to have something that they so clearly desire to have."

@Selcien,

I think I love you. Very well said!


----------



## angel_b (Nov 18, 2009)

So, is it immoral for overseas Kindle owners to put in a bogus US address to circumvent the publishing laws in order to get anything other than indie books from the Amazon store?


----------



## chevauchee (Mar 29, 2009)

Okay, I've been fuming over this and I know I'll get validation here. A coworker stopped me to ask my opinion on the Kindle vs the Nook, because he's considering getting a reader for his wife. I had no problem helping him think aloud. He was particularly interested in PDF support, which I was happy to tell him the Kindle now has. I was telling him about the selection, how some companies were planning to hold back on ebook releases, and he said, "Don't worry, I'm sure I can find anything she wants."

And he had the nerve to wink at me like it was funny!


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

angel_b said:


> So, is it immoral for overseas Kindle owners to put in a bogus US address to circumvent the publishing laws in order to get anything other than indie books from the Amazon store?


Morality is based on personal values, all I can do is suggest asking yourself a different question.

Are you content to stay within the boundaries that have been set for you, or do you wish to go beyond them?


----------



## angel_b (Nov 18, 2009)

Selcien said:


> Morality is based on personal values, all I can do is suggest asking yourself a different question.
> 
> Are you content to stay within the boundaries that have been set for you, or do you wish to go beyond them?


My boundaries are kind of rubbery. 

I was just throwing it out there for debate.

There are a lot of overseas Kindle users that are more than disgruntled at the extreme lack of choice when buying books. I'm sure it's only a matter of time before there's an avalanche of illegal downloads and sharing due to the same frustration as the DRM debacle has caused.


----------



## TheSeagull (Oct 25, 2009)

This is my opinion:
Stripping DRM is fine, you have already purchased the item.
Downloading an eBook that is not available to purchase is also fine, provided that you buy it if/when it becomes available. 
Downloading an eBook that is available to purchase illegally is baad.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Here's my opinion:  

There is no song, video, game or book I have to have so badly that I have to circumvent legal processes to own it.  There are plenty of legally obtainable items to have instead.  If the creator of the product doesn't care if I can buy it, I don't care to own it.  

I even pay for shareware...for example, I've made my contribution to Calibre, because I use it.  Just my two cents worth.

Betsy


----------



## Richard in W.Orange (Nov 24, 2009)

How I think ... which is moral (at least I think it is)

Most of this summer I was sick (H1N1) and COULD NOT go out and see HP6. A friend (who shall remain nameless) downloads seemingly everything from the web ... well in advance of its being available. He brought me HP6 to watch at home (on a thumb drive) ... Laptop hooked to plasma and I got to see it then. I didn't really keep it though (although for a "copy" it wasn't "too" bad) LAST WEEK I BOUGHT HP6 (along with a few others my friend had given me).

Now, I actually have digital copies of all these flix because the ones I bought (BluRay) all came with plain DVD AND Digital copies.

I do have "some" discomfort watching/using that which I KNOW to be illegally obtained. But at the same time, I bought them the minute I could. 

I CANNOT imagine doing this with a book (although I admit access to 1200dpi high speed scanner and top flite OCR software/hardware). So I could bandsaw the binding off a book, drop it in a machine and then 60ppm later have the 'pdf' version of the book. For my use, I guess fine (its fair use) but giving it to others, NOT SO MUCH. 

Its like "loaning" books. If I loan you a DTB then I can't read it too .. so the if you loan your "nookbook" to a friend its not on your nook makes sense. You cannot have your cake and eat it too basically.

BUT using anything without rights to it (theatrically I am not by contract rights allowed to videotape a show I've produced) you've stolen the work. If you take pictures of a show you're seeing and publish them, you've stolen not once but as many as 100x over. You stole from the actor(s), musician(s), producer, director, choreographer, lights sets and costume designers...there's a lot of folx who OWN the rights to what they've created. Its no different. You have a copy you didnt' pay for, you stole it.


----------



## Malweth (Oct 18, 2009)

bardsandsages said:


> And herein is the problem. People don't consider "virtual" products real, ergo they don't see the point in paying for it.
> 
> They don't realize that all of this illegal downloading has frankly costs thousands of jobs in this country. Entire store chains have gone out of business (Tower Records). People that work in the factories and warehouses that produce and distribute music lose their jobs. Fewer acts get recording contracts because there is less money to go around.


Tower had many problems that put it out of business. Internet piracy was mentioned, but I can't see that being #1. They, like most media-only stores (FYE, etc), were over priced for the modern market (discounters were one of the other mentioned contributors to their 2004 bankruptcy). Napster brought piracy, "legal" by numbers, to the world's desktop. Piracy, while still rampant, is a considerably more underground activity now.

If Borders or B&N were to go under now, piracy wouldn't even be mentioned. Amazon and its Kindle certainly would be. If a major publisher were to go under now, piracy would be minor in comparison to any other problems they may have had. I'm not saying that piracy is a minor problem, only that, in general, it isn't the major contributor to any company's downfall.


----------



## sherylb (Oct 27, 2008)

TheSeagull said:


> This is my opinion:
> Stripping DRM is fine, you have already purchased the item.
> Downloading an eBook that is not available to purchase is also fine, provided that you buy it if/when it becomes available.
> Downloading an eBook that is available to purchase illegally is baad.


Downloading an eBook this is not available to purchase IS an illegal ebook!! You don't get to justify the purchase of an illegal eBook with you might buy it if/when it becomes available. At the point you made the decision to download what you know is an illegal copy you stepped over the line.


----------



## Jesslyn (Oct 29, 2008)

TheSeagull said:


> This is my opinion:
> Stripping DRM is fine, you have already purchased the item.
> Downloading an eBook that is not available to purchase is also fine, provided that you buy it if/when it becomes available.
> Downloading an eBook that is available to purchase illegally is baad.


Pretty much my view. I will purchase the DTB on the 2nd point, then the ebook so my morality 'rubberiness' costs me and benefits the author publisher


----------



## LindaW (Jan 14, 2009)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Here's my opinion:
> 
> There is no song, video, game or book I have to have so badly that I have to circumvent legal processes to own it. There are plenty of legally obtainable items to have instead. If the creator of the product doesn't care if I can buy it, I don't care to own it.
> 
> ...


Hey Betsy I think we came from the same school.

Besides, I worry as a homeowner that if I get into any legal trouble I may lose my home - or my job. I work in a bank, and they really frown on anything done illegally.

But most importantly, I believe in Karma. Or as my mother in law says...."you reap what you sow". As a child my husband once stole some kind of expensive toy from someone in his neighborhood (I can't remember what). Many years later he opened up an auto repair shop out of an old garage at a friend's house - and yep you guessed it, ALL of his equipment was stolen by an acquaintance of that friend. Over $5,000 in just tools alone. He told that story to his nephew who was caught shoplifting in a mall, and explained that although he was royally upset, he felt that it was Karma. He always felt guilty about stealing that toy - and never stole again, but knew that one day it would jump up and bite him.

Oh, and don't ever ask him about the BB gun that he begged for one Christmas, and got...but then shot a bird out of a tree. He gave the gun back to his dad and told him to get rid of it. To this day he can't tell that story without getting choked up!


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

LindaW said:


> Hey Betsy I think we came from the same school.


I admit I'm kind of old school on this. The thieves that broke into my home several years ago rationalized their actions, too, I'm sure. I had stuff, they didn't.  It wasn't their fault.  I believe theft is theft no matter how it's sugar coated. By the rationale I read here, I guess it's OK to steal a stereo or a car as long as sooner or later you intend to pay for it. (I realize that there is the physical absence of the item which makes it different than digitial media, but still...)

But this is another one of those discussions where no one's mind will be changed... so I'm back to working on the commission I need to finish.

Betay


----------



## TheSeagull (Oct 25, 2009)

sherylb said:


> Downloading an eBook this is not available to purchase IS an illegal ebook!! You don't get to justify the purchase of an illegal eBook with you might buy it if/when it becomes available. At the point you made the decision to download what you know is an illegal copy you stepped over the line.


Morally though I don't see anything wrong with it, provided that it isn't available.


----------



## Tip10 (Apr 16, 2009)

TheSeagull said:


> Morally though I don't see anything wrong with it, provided that it isn't available.


Therein lies the issue -- if "it isn't available" the ONLY possible source for downloading it MUST BE AN ILLEGAL COPY.

And you are actually saying that morally you do not see any issue with downloading an illegal copy?

Let me re-phrase this:

Do you approve of and support the making and distribution of illegal copies of copyrighted materials?


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

TheSeagull said:


> Morally though I don't see anything wrong with it, provided that it isn't available.


That's a disturbing trend.


----------



## TheSeagull (Oct 25, 2009)

Tip10 said:


> Therein lies the issue -- if "it isn't available" the ONLY possible source for downloading it MUST BE AN ILLEGAL COPY.
> 
> And you are actually saying that morally you do not see any issue with downloading an illegal copy?
> 
> ...


Morally I don't see the problem with downloading an "illegal copy" if it isn't available. The publishers can have my money, if they want it, if they had a DONATE button on their site I'd gladly use it. I don't approve of the making of illegal copies but they're there, they're not invisible, they're even the first result on google before the legal ones sometimes.


----------



## geoffthomas (Feb 27, 2009)

But it is their right to choose to not make it available for sale.

This is a matter of property right.
It is not your property, therefore you don't get to make the rules.
I might agree with you on an individual issue but not on the general principle.
The property owner can choose to do what he wants to with the property he owns.

If your neighbor has a nice cleared field, perfect for playing football and he wants it kept neat and manicured and unused, then you do not have the right to got play football on it because you want to and nobody is using it.  The same thing is true for the Harry Potter books.  Why they are not made available in ebook form escapes me.  But it is not my right to choose.  It is not my property.  So if the author/owner wants to withhold their availability then so be it.  I will just have to do without.  And if I feel strongly enough, I might choose to not but the hard copy to read and I might choose to not see the movie and I might choose to not even read the library copy.  If everybody did that then the author/owner would make no money.  But she does not need revenue from ebooks.  She is already rich.

And it is her right to withhold her property.

It is legally and morally wrong to take her property from her and to distribute it without her permission.

The only time that it might be morally (not legally) ok is if a property owner was withholding food from starving people and the food was going to waste anyway.  But it would still be the owner's right to do so.  

Just sayin.....


----------



## angelad (Jun 19, 2009)

TheSeagull said:


> Morally I don't see the problem with downloading an "illegal copy" if it isn't available. The publishers can have my money, if they want it, if they had a DONATE button on their site I'd gladly use it. I don't approve of the making of illegal copies but they're there, they're not invisible, they're even the first result on google before the legal ones sometimes.


LOL, so true about their availability.


----------



## TheSeagull (Oct 25, 2009)

geoffthomas said:


> But it is their right to choose to not make it available for sale.
> 
> This is a matter of property right.
> It is not your property, therefore you don't get to make the rules.
> ...


Yes but technically they are morally wrong from witholding the content and therefore destroying trees. I don't think the grass analogy works here. I understand it's their right but it's just not correct, it's like someone releasing a blockbuster in VHS, the public are not going to buy a VHS and VHS player.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

geoffthomas said:


> But it is their right to choose to not make it available for sale.


You may be beating a dead horse. Just sayin'...


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

TheSeagull said:


> Yes but technically they are morally wrong from witholding the content and therefore destroying trees. I don't think the grass analogy works here. I understand it's their right but it's just not correct, it's like someone releasing a blockbuster in VHS, the public are not going to buy a VHS and VHS player.


I have to disagree, If I am a photographer or painter, it is not morally wrong for me to only to make one print of my photo or painting and not make it freely available in books, magazines and on the web. And other people should not be able to copy and distribute copies of that print that they made.


----------



## Tip10 (Apr 16, 2009)

TheSeagull said:


> Yes but technically they are morally wrong from witholding the content and therefore destroying trees. I don't think the grass analogy works here. I understand it's their right but it's just not correct, it's like someone releasing a blockbuster in VHS, the public are not going to buy a VHS and VHS player.


Let me get this right -- you are offering up moral arguments to justify stealing someone's property because they choose not put it out in the format you want.....

and you cannot see what's wrong with this picture....


----------



## TheSeagull (Oct 25, 2009)

Chad Winters (#102) said:


> I have to disagree, If I am a photographer or painter, it is not morally wrong for me to only to make one print of my photo or painting and not make it freely available in books, magazines and on the web. And other people should not be able to copy and distribute copies of that print that they made.


I want to pay for it, I'm not asking it for free.


Tip10 said:


> Let me get this right -- you are offering up moral arguments to justify stealing someone's property because they choose not put it out in the format you want.....
> 
> and you cannot see what's wrong with this picture....


We can reverse it, let's say it was only available as an eBook, does that mean I can't print it out because they chose not to make it available in that format?

I've never done it but it isn't morally wrong, if there was a book that I wanted that wasn't available to buy as an eBook or in the local library I wouldn't hesitate.

I've never done it but wouldn't hesitate if there was a title I couldn't buy in eBook format and couldn't get from the library


----------



## Tip10 (Apr 16, 2009)

TheSeagull said:


> We can reverse it, let's say it was only available as an eBook, does that mean I can't print it out because they chose not to make it available in that format?


With that you are changing the paradigm. You went from obtaining the converted copy elsewhere to producing it yourself.

If YOU want to scan in YOUR printed copy and convert it for YOUR use on YOUR electronic device then I'll agree that you have an argument under fair use. Just as YOU can print out YOUR copy of YOUR electronic version for YOUR use.

The comparable to what you have seemed to be saying is that if an author only published in electronic form it would be okay to go and get printed copies of the book SOMEONE else had made.

And that also would be obtaining an illegal copy.


----------



## TheSeagull (Oct 25, 2009)

I've lost the argument but it is my own belief. What about if you already own the book and are too lazy to scan it


----------



## geoffthomas (Feb 27, 2009)

TheSeagull said:


> Yes but technically they are morally wrong from witholding the content and therefore destroying trees. I don't think the grass analogy works here. I understand it's their right but it's just not correct, it's like someone releasing a blockbuster in VHS, the public are not going to buy a VHS and VHS player.


Firstly we should not assume that by withholding ebook that DTBs will be printed instead. I would assume that there will just be a void. And if a movie is only available on VHS rather than on DVDs, then the public WILL buy VHS if they want to watch that movie. Or the producer will not make any money. His choice. But get the point - he owns the movie so it IS his choice.


----------



## marianneg (Nov 4, 2008)

TheSeagull said:


> Morally I don't see the problem with downloading an "illegal copy" if it isn't available. The publishers can have my money, if they want it, if they had a DONATE button on their site I'd gladly use it. I don't approve of the making of illegal copies but they're there, they're not invisible, they're even the first result on google before the legal ones sometimes.


Would you also think it's ok to make and distribute physical copies of a physical book that is out of print?


----------



## klopus (Dec 8, 2009)

Guys please put morality aside for a moment. Just look at it from long term practical and egotistical point of view, per Ayn Rand. If everybody were stealing for whatever "valid" reason (too expensive, can't get it legally, not available at retail yet, simply "I'm entitled", easy to steal, etc.)  everything that others produce what do you think would happen? Or if everyone can decide with impunity based on their personal "moral" outlook what laws to break and what not instead of working within confines of democracy to change the laws? In both cases it's not hard to get the answer - we'll turn into Somalia and very soon   Pirates will be the first to run out of the things they crave because by their actions they made it impossible for those who produce and distribute things and art to live off of their craft.

People arguing against DRM (which is an ugly byproduct of an ugly rampant stealing) and about validity of pirating and breaking IP laws usually argue that electronic copy theft is somehow morally different from physical copy theft. So not to pay for a copy of eBook or mp3 song is different than stealing the same physical book or CD from B&N or Borders store. And I strongly suspect that morality has nothing to do with it but ease of theft and impunity are the main moral denominators. Every real retail store is chock full of DRM and PRM (Physical Rights Management) in many forms - security people, cameras, electronic tags on books and CDs, exit sensors, etc.  Probability of getting caught and consequences are much more dire than breaking DRM.  That's where I suspect this moral dichotomy between digital and physical stealing comes from.


----------



## Susan in VA (Apr 3, 2009)

Jesslyn said:


> When I buy an ebook, I consider it mine to use any way that I want that doesn't violate copyright laws. That means that I have no problem removing DRM, *reformatting to Kindle compatible*, re-enabling TTS, etc. It also means that I don't share the content illegally. Mine means mine.


I tend to agree with this -- if I've bought it legally, I ought to be able to use it _for myself_ in any way I choose. But what's the actual legal status regarding different formats? If someone chooses not to make a book available in electronic form at all, fine, that's their choice. But what if it's available in one e-format but not another? Lots of people here have both Kindles and Sonys. Is it legal to reformat for personal use?


----------



## Susan in VA (Apr 3, 2009)

Richard in W.Orange said:


> If you take pictures of a show you're seeing and publish them, you've stolen not once but as many as 100x over.


Just curious -- Does this apply whether or not the pictures are published _for profit_? And do newspapers need to get permission from the show's producers to publish pictures with their reviews?


----------



## Susan in VA (Apr 3, 2009)

LindaW said:


> Besides, I worry as a homeowner that if I get into any legal trouble I may lose my home - or my job. I work in a bank, and they really frown on anything done illegally.


There's that!  I could lose my green card over a crime that's serious enough. (Good thing speeding tickets don't count, else I'd have been deported already.)


----------



## Susan in VA (Apr 3, 2009)

marianner said:


> Would you also think it's ok to make and distribute physical copies of a physical book that is out of print?


Well, it's not ok. But what does one do in such a case? If you have a book that you cannot get another copy of for any amount of money, but you want to share the content with someone without giving away your own copy -- is there a legal way to do it?


----------



## Malweth (Oct 18, 2009)

klopus said:


> People arguing against DRM (which is an ugly byproduct of an ugly rampant stealing) and about validity of pirating and breaking IP laws usually argue that electronic copy theft is somehow morally different from physical copy theft. So not to pay for a copy of eBook or mp3 song is different than stealing the same physical book or CD from B&N or Borders store. And I strongly suspect that morality has nothing to do with it but ease of theft and impunity are the main moral denominators. Every real retail store is chock full of DRM and PRM (Physical Rights Management) in many forms - security people, cameras, electronic tags on books and CDs, exit sensors, etc. Probability of getting caught and consequences are much more dire than breaking DRM. That's where I suspect this moral dichotomy between digital and physical stealing comes from.


I seldom (if ever) see anyone argue against DRM because it makes things harder to steal. In fact, the opposite is generally true -- DRM does not make things harder to steal (it's easy enough to break), it only prevents people from invoking Fair Use. I see no problem, ethical or legal, in stripping DRM for personal use. This is actually a common problem for Kindle as there are other places to buy e-books (in mobi or convertable formats), most of which include DRM. This could constitute a form of monopolization since only Amazon DRM can be used on the Kindle. It is unethical to force purchase through one store when competition is available. Thankfully, many of the third-party sellers of mobi formatted books have few if any DRMmed books.


----------



## hera (Mar 25, 2009)

Susan in VA said:


> I tend to agree with this -- if I've bought it legally, I ought to be able to use it _for myself_ in any way I choose. But what's the actual legal status regarding different formats? If someone chooses not to make a book available in electronic form at all, fine, that's their choice. But what if it's available in one e-format but not another? Lots of people here have both Kindles and Sonys. Is it legal to reformat for personal use?


It is legal to reformat data if you don't have to bypass the DRM to do so. For example, I can legally create a playable CD from MP3s, re-encode the MP3s at a different bit-rate, or covert a MP3 file to a WMA file. This is considered Fair Use.

It violates the DMCA to break DRM. (Depending some on what technique you use)It is breaking DRM to convert a DVD into a format you can watch on your iPod. In many people's opinion (including mine), this part of the DMCA is in violation of fair use rights. As far as I know, the courts have never ruled directly on which has precedence: DRM or Fair Use.

eBooks purchased from Amazon do have DRM.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Susan in VA said:


> But what's the actual legal status regarding different formats? Is it legal to reformat for personal use?


In most cases the answer is no. Electronic media is generally governed by a license agreement that prohibits reverse engineering. Under fair use, you may make copies, however.



Susan in VA said:


> If you have a book that you cannot get another copy of for any amount of money, but you want to share the content with someone without giving away your own copy -- is there a legal way to do it?


If you read the small print in the front of most books, photo copying is not legal.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Susan in VA said:


> Well, it's not ok. But what does one do in such a case? If you have a book that you cannot get another copy of for any amount of money, but you want to share the content with someone without giving away your own copy -- is there a legal way to do it?


It's called "lending" or "reading it to them." 

Betsy


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> It's called "lending" or "reading it to them."


Now there's the simple, straight-forward answer I was groping for.


----------



## Susan in VA (Apr 3, 2009)

Jeff said:


> In most cases the answer is no. Electronic media is generally governed by a license agreement that prohibits reverse engineering. Under fair use, you may make copies, however.


So does that include a copy that I make of a book I own legally in Kindle format but want to read on my Sony as well? (Hypothetically, since I don't own a Sony.)



Jeff said:


> If you read the small print in the front of most books, photo copying is not legal.


But nobody would quibble, legally or morally, with limited amounts of copying. People photocopy recipes for their friends all the time (though in fairness they ought to write the name of the cookbook on the photocopy). And when I went on vacation once in the middle of a semester, I didn't lug along my 750-page hardcover textbook but photocopied the 25 pages I needed to study during that time. I didn't have an ethical problem with that. As an author/publisher, do you think I was wrong?


----------



## Susan in VA (Apr 3, 2009)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> It's called "lending" or "reading it to them."
> 
> Betsy


Gee thanks, Betsy. Why didn't I think of that.  You make it sound so simple. 

(It was a real-life question... long ago I bought an anthology of SF short stories, most not available anywhere else. The anthology is long since out of print; the publisher is out of business, the author untraceable. I wanted to share ONE of the short stories with several people, since I thought it was memorable. But if the people in question are scattered about the globe... and besides, I wasn't going to mail my only copy around and maybe have it get lost... I didn't photocopy it; mainly because I kept hoping that I'd find a reprint somewhere, but it was very frustrating at the time not to be able to share something I really liked.)


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Susan in VA said:


> So does that include a copy that I make of a book I own legally in Kindle format but want to read on my Sony as well? (Hypothetically, since I don't own a Sony.)


You have agreed not to reverse engineer the content.



Susan in VA said:


> But nobody would quibble, legally or morally, with limited amounts of copying. People photocopy recipes for their friends all the time (though in fairness they ought to write the name of the cookbook on the photocopy). And when I went on vacation once in the middle of a semester, I didn't lug along my 750-page hardcover textbook but photocopied the 25 pages I needed to study during that time. I didn't have an ethical problem with that.


Legality has nothing to do with ethics or morality. In a democratic society our collective ethics and morals are the laws. If we don't like the laws we have a slow and somewhat painful mechanism to change them.



Susan in VA said:


> As an author/publisher, do you think I was wrong?


I give away far more books than I sell so I'm hardly the one to ask.


----------



## Susan in VA (Apr 3, 2009)

Jeff said:


> Legality has nothing to do with ethics or morality. In a democratic society our collective ethics and morals are the laws. If we don't like the laws we have a slow and somewhat painful mechanism to change them.


Hmmm... given the choice between abiding by the law and abiding by my own ethics, I know which one I'd consider more important. There are plenty of things that are legally permissible but just _wrong_.


----------



## Dave Dykema (May 18, 2009)

Susan in VA said:


> And do newspapers need to get permission from the show's producers to publish pictures with their reviews?


In a way. Usually, the show will let the press in (in my case TV news) for the first song or two. Then, everyone gets kicked out. This isn't for a review though. This is for coverage of Fleetwood Mac is in town, or "Rent," or whatever.

If we use a photo from a website in a story, we're supposed to credit it, unless we're media partners with them (and we're media partners with a lot of media). We probably credit it 80% of the time when we're supposed to, with the other 20% slipping through due to people's ignorance.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Susan in VA said:


> Gee thanks, Betsy. Why didn't I think of that.  You make it sound so simple.
> 
> (It was a real-life question... long ago I bought an anthology of SF short stories, most not available anywhere else. The anthology is long since out of print; the publisher is out of business, the author untraceable. I wanted to share ONE of the short stories with several people, since I thought it was memorable. But if the people in question are scattered about the globe... and besides, I wasn't going to mail my only copy around and maybe have it get lost... I didn't photocopy it; mainly because I kept hoping that I'd find a reprint somewhere, but it was very frustrating at the time not to be able to share something I really liked.)


Sorry, couldn't resist. The fact is, sometimes there isn't a good solution.

Betsy


----------



## Richard in W.Orange (Nov 24, 2009)

Susan in VA said:


> Just curious -- Does this apply whether or not the pictures are published _for profit_? And do newspapers need to get permission from the show's producers to publish pictures with their reviews?


When "we" do a photoshoot (we provide pictures to the paper) then the photos are "ours" 
Generally the photos you see with a review were provided by the producing company (thus controlling the images that go out)
We *do* take cameras away from people who think they can use them during the show
Don't let *me* catch you with a video camera as it might not work later

Under the license we sign we can make a video for the sole purpose of archiving and we're on the very edge of what under the contract is considered fair use doing so.

If you see many pictures of our show (and check out facebook) generally the ones of 'on-stage' have been taken by us and provided ... Actors can publish thier pic far and wide, but it is their image...

Its really fraught with complication ...


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

Malweth said:


> It is unethical to force purchase through one store when competition is available.


I just don't understand this line of thinking. I don't see anything wrong with Amazon making a product that only their DRM works for. That's business. Its not a monopoly, you can buy B&N ebook reader if you want. A monopoly would be if Amazon was the only eReader and the only Ebook seller. Selling an individual product in a crowded marketplace is not a monopoly. Amazon should not have to build a platform for other companies products, that's anti-competition.

"We'll let Amazon do all the R&D and then just come in and undercut them at the last minute because they had to open their platform"


----------



## Susan in VA (Apr 3, 2009)

Thanks for explaining.



Richard in W.Orange said:


> We *do* take cameras away from people who think they can use them during the show
> Don't let *me* catch you with a video camera as it might not work later


Good for you. Not every place enforces that.... I went to a show recently that had the "no pictures/no videos' paragraph in the printed program, AND someone came out before it started and made an announcement saying the same thing, and still I saw a dozen or so people getting it on video, mostly with their cell phones. Not even trying to hide them, either.


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

Here is something for the pirates (where ever they may be) to consider.  

Suppose you randomly meet an author, musician, or film maker whose product you've enjoyed, but obtained through piracy.  Could you look that person in the eyes and admit how you got their product?   The chances of ever actually meeting them is, of course, very slim, but if you wouldn't have the integrity to say where and how you got it face to face, then maybe piracy isn't as acceptable as you imagine it to be.  

If your answer is no, you could not look them in the eye, but still pirate their works anyway, then I'd say you were a moral coward.  If you think your answer is yes and you want to stand behind your convictions, then how about sending the creator an email  saying what you've done and why you think you're right to do so.


----------



## TheSeagull (Oct 25, 2009)

Tip10 said:


> With that you are changing the paradigm. You went from obtaining the converted copy elsewhere to producing it yourself.
> 
> If YOU want to scan in YOUR printed copy and convert it for YOUR use on YOUR electronic device then I'll agree that you have an argument under fair use. Just as YOU can print out YOUR copy of YOUR electronic version for YOUR use.
> 
> ...


It might not be illegal
http://law.lexisnexis.com/practiceareas/Copyright--Trademark---Free-Download/Free-Download/Sony-BMG-Music-Entm%27t-v-Tenenbaum

The judge said:
the Court was prepared to consider a more expansive fair use argument than other courts have credited - perhaps one supported by facts specific to this individual and this unique period of rapid technological change. For example, file sharing for the purposes of sampling music prior to purchase or space-shifting to store purchased music more efficiently might offer a compelling case for fair use. Likewise, a defendant who used the new file-sharing networks in the technological interregnum before digital media could be purchased legally, but who later shifted to paid outlets, might also be able to rely on the defense.

So there's a ruling that says it might me ok to make/distribute a digital copy if there's not one available.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

TheSeagull said:


> So there's a ruling that says it might me ok to make/distribute a digital copy if there's not one available.


The owner of the intellectual property is the only entity that can license the property's use. No judge can force me to make a copyrighted paperback available as an e-book nor can that judge prevent me from suing anyone that does.


----------



## Shamar (Dec 13, 2009)

Considering the thread topic, this might be a good place to drop this video....


----------



## hard-case (Feb 24, 2009)

Geemont said:


> Suppose you randomly meet an author, musician, or film maker whose product you've enjoyed, but obtained through piracy. Could you look that person in the eyes and admit how you got their product? The chances of ever actually meeting them is, of course, very slim, but if you wouldn't have the integrity to say where and how you got it face to face, then maybe piracy isn't as acceptable as you imagine it to be.


Depends on how you define "piracy". I'd be more than happy to walk up to Mike Carey and and thank him for writing the Felix Castor novels, and the sleepless nights I endured when each new novel was released. I'd also be happy to tell them that since I found the series on a lark and at the time US publishing of his novels was virtually non-existent (at that point, book 1 was out but hard to find in the US and book 3 had just hit overseas), I purchased them via a UK bookstore ebook download that utilized IIRC the epub format, and that required a few extra steps to view the book on my Kindle. Some people would call that piracy, I would completely disagree, in that I paid a legitimate vendor (who in turn provided renumeration to the publishing company and thus, eventually, the author) a legitimate price for a legitimate product. Nowhere in the agreement listed during purchase, in the licensing agreement for the download software, or even in the book itself, exists language to explicitly prohibit said action, nor is what I am doing in any way attempting to gain any profit whatsoever (it is solely for private use). I'm unsure as to whether or not this makes me a moral coward, as with so many things in life the shades are quite grayish.

The biggest issue I have with the whole concept is that it is all a matter of degrees. Granted, most would agree that the individual who downloads, say, a copy of the movie "New Moon" or a copy of Breaking Benjamin's "Dear Agony" is committing piracy. But from there the view becomes a much muddier. Say, for example....I download this weeks episode of "How I Met Your Mother" on the net...is that piracy? Some would argue it is, others that there's no functional difference between that and utilizing a VCR/DVR/Tivo. Let's say I just bought a legitimate copy of "Dear Agony", and then proceed to put it into my computer and "download" the songs onto my Zune. Is that piracy? Some would and have argued that the very fact that transitioned from one "medium" to another without compensating the artist makes me guilty of piracy. Is it? How does one draw the line, when half the laws written to cover these situations were created in an era when the CD didn't exist, and the rest are so vague that it can be argued that every time you listen to a CD you are obligated to pay the artist a performance fee? Even the concept of making a backup copy of a work under fair use isn't completely settled, as the law was originally IIRC written to cover Betamax copies (how many here actually remember, much less still own anything in the Betamax format?).

And if you really want to delve into a rather sticky wicket......define "product"......


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

Anarel said:


> "You can argue control all you want but as long as you're getting adequately compensated for your work it should matter not whether it's a DTB, an audio book, or an e-book. It's about making a living doing what you want to do, it's about people enjoying your work, only the fat heads will freely gather mounds of cash off of book royalties, movie royalties, and audio book royalties, and then act as if releasing a book in e-book form is somehow an insult to everything they stand for. That [expletive] was rewarded for her hard work, I think it's time that she puts aside her personal preference, and allow her fans to have something that they so clearly desire to have."
> 
> @Selcien,
> 
> I think I love you. Very well said!


I just wish it had been enthusiastic rather than angry, and while I did type in "[expletive]" (i.e. didn't require the board software to edit me), I most certainly had a word in mind, I didn't need to call her that.



Chad Winters (#102) said:


> I just don't understand this line of thinking. I don't see anything wrong with Amazon making a product that only their DRM works for. That's business. Its not a monopoly, you can buy B&N ebook reader if you want. A monopoly would be if Amazon was the only eReader and the only Ebook seller. Selling an individual product in a crowded marketplace is not a monopoly. Amazon should not have to build a platform for other companies products, that's anti-competition.
> 
> "We'll let Amazon do all the R&D and then just come in and undercut them at the last minute because they had to open their platform"


I will give credit to Amazon for one thing, they do not limit the number of times you can download your e-books from them, quite a big deal to me after seeing this message last night....

"Download error
Error code: 80131904
Error description: Failed call to fulfill the title.
Error details: 410 Gone (1 The requested eBook has already been downloaded. An Adobe eBook can only be downloaded three times unless the download link is reactivated. (TransactionID =*edited out*)"

Bought The Color of Magic from a retailer that isn't Amazon yesterday, wasn't able to do what I wanted with it, re-downloaded the file in hopes that a new file would work, next thing I know I had no more copies. There was no warning, nothing to indicate that I started with three, that I had two left after downloading the first copy, one left after the second copy, none left after the third copy. Went to download it for the fourth time and found out I had no copies left.

I've just checked my other Adobe ePub book, bought from a different retailer, to see if I could burn through the copies on that as well, I also checked the free Adobe PDF I had gotten from there while I was at it. Burned through both of them, although I got four copies altogether of The Gunslinger before it refused to give me any more, and the error message was a bit more helpful than the other store was. "Distributors only allow a certain number of downloads for titles before they must be manually reset. Please contact *book store name edited out* for assistance in resetting your download count. Thank you for your patience!"

Suffice it to say that I'll be buying all of my DRM'd e-books through Amazon.

And in case you are wondering, I bought The Color of Magic from Amazon after getting the error message, all I can say is that I hope it's a *really* good book, and yes, I realize that I should have read it first before buying it again, but anger does tend to compromise ones ability to think clearly, and I was quite enraged about it last night.


----------



## Magenta (Jun 6, 2009)

cloudyvisions said:


> Well, I'm probably going to be the unpopular voice in this thread, so please don't get too upset with me here, but it's definitely becoming along the same lines of illegal music, tv shows, or movies, and yes, it's becoming easier to get these and now e-books from various places online. I'm going to be honest here, I know of a few places where you could probably get almost any copy of a book if it's currently floating around in a PDF/LIT/HTML formatted file...and there are programs that easily convert any formatted file to pretty much anything else, so copies of books aren't any worse to read than what you would get for Kindle...but I buy a couple books every week on a regular basis just about, so even though it's out there, that doesn't mean we're all necessarily going to GO there and quit buying books.
> 
> Now, music on the other hand...sure, I am in that "younger person" category, but when music is as overpriced as it is, and I have a $335 monthly car bill, car and health insurance, and college school bills to pay, am I going to pay $10-$20 to download a CD that I may or may not even like on the songs on, or am I going to download it? Sorry, but at this point of time in my life, I'm going to look for a safe, anonymous place to download it. Does that mean I NEVER buy music? No, I just bought Dashboard Confessional's new album 2 weeks ago. And I'd find it a bit hard to believe that EVERY single person on the boards here has never gotten an illegal/shared digital copy of music/etc. at some point of time in his/her life.
> 
> ...


Thou shalt not steal.

I think that pretty much says it all.


----------



## Badandy (Dec 4, 2008)

Magenta said:


> Thou shalt not steal.
> 
> I think that pretty much says it all.


It doesn't say it all: It's a complicated issue with a substantial grey area. Is me buying a book on Mobipocket.com and then stripping the DRM to put on the Kindle stealing? Is watching a TIVO'd show and skipping through the commercials stealing?

Besides, not every member here goes by the commandments.


----------



## Magenta (Jun 6, 2009)

Badandy said:


> It doesn't say it all: It's a complicated issue with a substantial grey area. Is me buying a book on Mobipocket.com and then stripping the DRM to put on the Kindle stealing? Is watching a TIVO'd show and skipping through the commercials stealing?
> 
> Besides, not every member here goes by the commandments.


Stealing is wrong no matter what way, shape or form and no matter what religious faith you follow.

Strip DRM - STEALING
Download illegal digital copies of books, movies, music - STEALING
Buy a bootleg dvd or cd - STEALING
Watch cable with an illegal box - STEALING

ALL WRONG AND ALSO CRIMINAL.


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

Magenta said:


> Strip DRM - STEALING


Would you care to explain how you've reached that conclusion? 'Cause I certainly cannot see how a legally downloaded e-book becomes stolen when the DRM is removed.


----------



## Badandy (Dec 4, 2008)

Magenta said:


> Stealing is wrong no matter what way, shape or form and no matter what religious faith you follow.
> 
> Strip DRM - STEALING


I second Selcien's question. How is this so unequivocally wrong as to be considered stealing?

Also, is watching a TV show and fast-forwarding through the commercials stealing?


----------



## geoffthomas (Feb 27, 2009)

This thread is degenerating into a "he said", "she said" process.
And those who think it is alright to use the property of someone else in a way other than that allowed by that owner will never see the light.
Because they don't want to.  It would require discipline.

And it is also fun to pick nits and be the devil's advocate - I have certainly done that myself.

But I for one tire of this discussion.
We are talking about the property rights of live authors here.
Those who have not given their permission for their work to be used as you might want to.

That is all there is to it.


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

geoffthomas,

You may call it nitpicking but to me there's a world of a difference in whether it's stealing or not.

I'm genuinely curious to find out whether the "Strip DRM - STEALING" comment was tossed out as a lazy retort or whether there is logic behind it, and if there is logic behind it I'd very much like to read it.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Selcien said:


> I'm genuinely curious to find out whether the "Strip DRM - STEALING" comment was tossed out as a lazy retort or whether there is logic behind it, and if there is logic behind it I'd very much like to read it.


We in the United States have two bodies of law: criminal and civil.

The question of *criminal legality* is difficult to answer accurately. To do so would probably require quoting a particular criminal case as a precedent under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. That would be the job of your defense lawyer at your trial and the result would depend upon your jury.

Civil law however, is another matter and quite easy to answer. You are in *breach of contract* if you reverse engineer most digital products. The examples below are specific to the Amazon Kindle and its content.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=200144530

[quote author=Amazon Kindle: License Agreement and Terms of Use]
No Reverse Engineering, Decompilation, Disassembly or Circumvention. You may not, and you will not encourage, assist or authorize any other person to, modify, reverse engineer, decompile or disassemble the Device or the Software, whether in whole or in part, create any derivative works from or of the Software, or bypass, modify, defeat or tamper with or circumvent any of the functions or protections of the Device or Software or any mechanisms operatively linked to the Software, including, but not limited to, augmenting or substituting any digital rights management functionality of the Device or Software.
[/quote]

[quote author=Amazon Kindle: License Agreement and Terms of Use]
Restrictions. Unless specifically indicated otherwise, you may not sell, rent, lease, distribute, broadcast, sublicense or otherwise assign any rights to the Digital Content or any portion of it to any third party, and you may not remove any proprietary notices or labels on the Digital Content. In addition, you may not, and you will not encourage, assist or authorize any other person to, bypass, modify, defeat or circumvent security features that protect the Digital Content.
[/quote]


----------



## Badandy (Dec 4, 2008)

Jeff said:


> We in the United States have two bodies of law: criminal and civil.
> 
> The question of *criminal legality* is difficult to answer accurately. To do so would probably require quoting a particular criminal case as a precedent under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. That would be the job of your defense lawyer at your trial and the result would depend upon your jury.
> 
> ...


I, for one, had no illusions that stripping the DRM was legal. The simple fact is, it isn't because of these license agreements (which are often found unenforceable, but I digress). What I took exception to was being accused of stealing when I legally bought a copy of a book but needed to strip the DRM in order to read it on a different device. According to the license agreement that is illegal, but I surely thought people here weren't such sticklers that they'd accuse me of some heinous and moral wrong and equate what I did to literal theft of a physical item from a store. Apparently I was wrong.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Badandy said:


> I, for one, had no illusions that stripping the DRM was legal. The simple fact is, it isn't because of these license agreements (which are often found unenforceable, but I digress). What I took exception to was being accused of stealing when I legally bought a copy of a book but needed to strip the DRM in order to read it on a different device. According to the license agreement that is illegal, but I surely thought people here weren't such sticklers that they'd accuse me of some heinous and moral wrong and equate what I did to literal theft of a physical item from a store. Apparently I was wrong.


  I was attempting to answer the question that Selcien asked and didn't accuse you of anything. In fact, I don't even know who you are.


----------



## TheSeagull (Oct 25, 2009)

I think it's illegal in very few places, it's legal here in the UK to strip DRM.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

TheSeagull said:


> I think it's illegal in very few places, it's legal here in the UK to strip DRM.


Interesting.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Interesting, indeed.  

TheSeagull, I've been looking for someplace that states that explicitly.  Do you have a reference? So far I've only been able to find references to the European Union Copyright Directive (EUCD), that was passed in 2002, which seems to be similar to the DMCA.  (Please don't take offense, I look everything up, love to have references to things.  Annoys my friends no end.  )

Betsy


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Folks, I'd also urge everyone to be aware of the words you use and how you use them.  I'm feeling like some people say "steal" when they mean "remove DRM so my device reads a book I paid for" as well as "come in your house an take all your belongings."  One can argue that they are both wrong, but it's for very different reasons and they're not the same thing.

I one time called the police because some items had been taken out of our car. . . .I was using the word robbery. . .the police officer said, "no ma'am, it's just theft."  Then there's larceny, and grand theft, etc.  All bad, but with different legal definitions and ramifications if caught!  

I think there's a lot of agreement here about what people think is wrong. . .some disagreement, too, of course. . . .but there are definitely nuances.  And I think most of the confusion is from people using a word that others assign a slightly different connotation to.  So, deep cleansing breaths, everyone.  AAAAHHHHH.  Isn't that better?  And if you get your ire up and feel the urge to respond NOW, consider saving your post for a couple of hours to make sure, in your passion, you haven't gotten carried away.  

And, just as a reminder, no matter how you feel about it, Amazon's Terms of Service do not allow removal of DRM. . .and KindleBoards does not allow discussion of HOW to do so.  (Not saying anyone has strayed there. . .just reminding. . . . )


----------



## Richard in W.Orange (Nov 24, 2009)

Susan in VA said:


> Thanks for explaining.
> Good for you. Not every place enforces that.... I went to a show recently that had the "no pictures/no videos' paragraph in the printed program, AND someone came out before it started and made an announcement saying the same thing, and still I saw a dozen or so people getting it on video, mostly with their cell phones. Not even trying to hide them, either.


My announcement goes (I as president do the curtain speech) blah blah, because of our audio and communications systems we MUST ask that you not just turn your phone to silent but _ TURN IT OFF ALL TOGETHER_ as they interfere with our systems and can cause serious problems during the production that will affect your enjoyment. (At this point I turn off MY cell phone) and then I hear the little phone off noises throughout the house.))

For the most part that works but audience etiquette has gone so far down hill . . . .


----------



## TheSeagull (Oct 25, 2009)

Jeff said:


> Interesting.


Whoops, never meant legal but it's not a crime if that makes sense, it's not breaking a law. If you told the police you stripped DRM they wouldn't care because it's not a crime, it's in the same league as things like divorce disputes...someone needs to personally take you to court. It's called a "civil offence" I think. While in the US it is a crime I believe, against the DMCA. But it is illegal/a crime in very few places.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Betsy's the one who researches, but, Seagull, I think really it's treated very much the same.  The cops aren't going to arrest you for stripping DRM and using the book on your own alternate device.  You've broken the ToS agreement you signed, but that's between you and the company you signed it with.  But if, for instance, Amazon catches you doing this with books you've purchased from them, they can disable your account and have the right to ban you from using their site.

Now, if you then take those stripped books and sell copies. . .well, now you're in a pickle.  You've done more than just strip DRM for your own use. . .now you're pirating. . .and now I think you are breaking the law and not just a Terms of Service agreement.  Still not sure Amazon could legally prosecute your for failing to honor the ToS, but the publishers/authors certainly could for illegal distribution of works not your own.


----------



## Richard in W.Orange (Nov 24, 2009)

Yep!

Generally ToS agreements are enforced by warning users or taking away rights rarely do the vendors deal with the costs of litigating the matter. Your ISP will do this if you do things that violate with them...sorry, no more fios for you! 

I am routinely amazed by people who sign a ToS but have no intention of honoring it ... makes me wonder what thier "word" is actually worth?


----------



## TheSeagull (Oct 25, 2009)

Ann in Arlington said:


> Betsy's the one who researches, but, Seagull, I think really it's treated very much the same. The cops aren't going to arrest you for stripping DRM and using the book on your own alternate device. You've broken the ToS agreement you signed, but that's between you and the company you signed it with. But if, for instance, Amazon catches you doing this with books you've purchased from them, they can disable your account and have the right to ban you from using their site.
> 
> Now, if you then take those stripped books and sell copies. . .well, now you're in a pickle. You've done more than just strip DRM for your own use. . .now you're pirating. . .and now I think you are breaking the law and not just a Terms of Service agreement. Still not sure Amazon could legally prosecute your for failing to honor the ToS, but the publishers/authors certainly could for illegal distribution of works not your own.


Yes it just applies to personal use, sharing it would be a crime. I don't strip Amazon's DRM and have never signed a TOS that say's I can't.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Weeeelllllll. . . . . .if you buy a Kindle and buy Kindle books for it from Amazon, their ToS says you can't strip the DRM or alter the device so it will read non-supported formats.  The ToS is displayed when you order and if you buy it you've effectively agreed to it.


----------



## TheSeagull (Oct 25, 2009)

Ann in Arlington said:


> Weeeelllllll. . . . . .if you buy a Kindle and buy Kindle books for it from Amazon, their ToS says you can't strip the DRM or alter the device so it will read non-supported formats. The ToS is displayed when you order and if you buy it you've effectively agreed to it.


I mean that I haven't stripped DRM from a webstie whose ToS says I can't. I don't strip Amazon's DRM because there's no point, it's readable on my Kindle obviously and I signed their ToS. Here's a blog post by Clint Brauer of Cyberread:
http://www.cyberread.com/ebooks-blog/ebooks-drm/

It doesn't sound like he'd be opposed to me stripping the DRM on the eBooks his site sells.


----------



## geoffthomas (Feb 27, 2009)

Yeah....see this is were I get hung up.
On the "everybody knows it's ok" and "it's legal" stuff.
Like Betsy I want to see the piece of paper that says what "everybody knows" and determine that it came from a legitimate and truly authoritative source.
Meaning no disrespect, but if there is a prohibition against something, then it is illegal to transgress.

And please understand me, I purchase my music CDs and then immediately rip them for my MP3 player.  Not really making a "copy" in case of loss or damage.  I am changing the format of the vendor's property so that I may use it on a device of my choosing other than the one that the seller had intended I use.

On the other hand, while I have Calibre and other software I would not intend to change a DRM'ed book, even that I bought, so that I might read it on some other device than it was intended for.  I kinda assume (perhaps incorrectly) that the property owner has some reason for not providing it in the format that I need for my ereader (hardware and/or software).

I happen to know a couple of authors that are now putting their work into ebook format.  And they are doing so without DRM (they don't like it).  And they are not yet providing correctly working copies in all formats that a reader might want.  Rather than download an existing format and "fixing" it for my ereader, I will wait until they get their act together and provide one I want.
I have also decided to not purchase ebooks from sources other than Amazon because they do not offer a specific title in non-DRM format that I can read and do not have it in DRMed MOBI.  So I choose to do without.  My choice.  I could purchase another ereader that they do support and then make the ebook purchase.  I choose not to pursue that option that they have provided me.

But I do not change the property that they own for my advantage.  Only because I believe that they have some reason for not providing what I want.  And that is their right.  I do realize that often they have no reason other than either laziness or lack of know-how.  But that is not my choice to decide about and to correct.  I can correspond with them and suggest that I might "fix" it for them and provide it for their use, if they want to ask me to.  

This is how I think people respect each other and the rights of others.
I suspect that some of you do not agree with me.
And that is what makes the world go round.

I believe that every person should be prepared to accept the consequences of their actions.

Just sayin.....


----------



## TheSeagull (Oct 25, 2009)

Well personally I will do everything to pay the author, I don't really care about the publisher. Usually if an eBook is available it is available for all formats, I haven't came across one that hasn't, just with geo-restrictions that bug me, but that is the publishers and not the author so I buy it an strip the DRM. The money still gets to the rightful copyright holder - the author.


----------



## Chad Winters (Oct 28, 2008)

Where it would get sticky for me would be if Amazon quit the ebook business and I'm stuck with hundreds of .azw DRM'd books that I can't read anymore because my 6 year old Kindle died. I'm usually a stickler for ToS, etc. But it would be REALLY tempting to find a way to strip the DRM to read on whatever device is possible at that time.


----------



## Tip10 (Apr 16, 2009)

The stripping of DRM for personal use only is an area where we've had conflicting court rulings -- some rulings have said that in order for it to be a violation of DMCA it had to be in conjunction with a copyright violation (which is not necessarily present just with the stripping of DRM) where other rulings have said other things -- eventually the courts will have to settle it out or Congress will have to change the laws to specifically address it.

My personal beliefs are that once I have purchased the rights to enjoy the fruits of an author (or performer) -- i.e. purchased a book or an album -- then I have no issue with manipulating those works into other formats for *my own personal* use -- being it ripping a CD to listen to on my MP3 player or stripping DRM from an e-book in order to be able to read it on one device versus another. 
I will tell you that, at heart, I am lazy. If its easier to go get a LEGALLY converted copy rather than go through the efforts of stripping DRM I'll likely go get the LEGALLY converted copy -- in no case will I ever go and get an ILLEGAL copy -- I either make it myself or obtain a legal copy.

However, that being said, I feel that I must also state that I will NOT loan out that converted copy at all nor will I loan out the original and continue to use the converted copy while its loaned out -- the two are never used simultaneously.


----------



## tedmcardle (Dec 12, 2009)

Interesting


----------



## Badandy (Dec 4, 2008)

Jeff said:


> I was attempting to answer the question that Selcien asked and didn't accuse you of anything. In fact, I don't even know who you are.


I never said you accused me of stealing (hence why I used past tense when I was talking about being accused) and I don't know who you are, so it seems we're in the same boat.


----------



## Shamar (Dec 13, 2009)

Magenta said:


> Stealing is wrong no matter what way, shape or form and no matter what religious faith you follow.
> 
> Strip DRM - STEALING


You're kidding right?

And religious faith has nothing to do with it. In my opinion people who are good, ethical people are good despite religion, not because of it.


----------



## Malweth (Oct 18, 2009)

Most here will not change their views and many options exist for obtaining Legal e-books, modifying e-books for personal use, and stealing e-books. One is certainly legal, the next possibly legal, and the last certainly illegal (whether enforced or not). We're discussing the measure of legality for the latter two, but it seems clear that modifying for personal use is not likely to cause legal problems.

The illegality of electronic theft seems mostly limited to civil matters. The RIAA lawsuits have shown that no criminal enforcement of electronic theft of copyrightable material will take place. It remains to be seen whether this will change over the next decade. Civil enforcement of electronic theft should be a concern, but isn't something the average user will ever need to deal with. Civil matters of individual copyright infringement also face big changes over the next decade.

Ethically it's also fairly well set in stone. Obtaining legal e-books is always ethically right. Modifying e-books is perhaps a gray area, but unless a limiting contract has been signed (and the user well aware of it), "fair-use" is a precedent. The file has been purchased, not rented, and that carries a certain set of rights of use.

Electronic theft or copyright violation is unethical.

Those are my views. I know many more who think they're perfectly ethical and morally right than who actually are.


----------



## Shamar (Dec 13, 2009)

Malweth said:


> Most here will not change their views and many options exist for obtaining Legal e-books, modifying e-books for personal use, and stealing e-books. One is certainly legal, the next possibly legal, and the last certainly illegal (whether enforced or not). We're discussing the measure of legality for the latter two, but it seems clear that modifying for personal use is not likely to cause legal problems.
> 
> The illegality of electronic theft seems mostly limited to civil matters. The RIAA lawsuits have shown that no criminal enforcement of electronic theft of copyrightable material will take place. It remains to be seen whether this will change over the next decade. Civil enforcement of electronic theft should be a concern, but isn't something the average user will ever need to deal with. Civil matters of individual copyright infringement also face big changes over the next decade.
> 
> ...


I agree.

And also, the books, music, movies, software that I download may be wrong to some, but if I like the work then I usually go out and actually buy the CD, book, movie, software (well, not as often with software because I can't afford some of it that runs into the hundreds and 1000's of dollars) to support the artist, author, etc. If I like it I want to give them support, and the music, movie, book, etc that I don't like gets deleted anyway.

And I do have friends who are artists and video game designers who disagree with me on that subject, and my morals and opinions do change from time to time. However, that is how I feel at the moment, and I don't feel unethical about what I'm doing.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)




----------



## hard-case (Feb 24, 2009)

Badandy said:


> I, for one, had no illusions that stripping the DRM was legal. The simple fact is, it isn't because of these license agreements (which are often found unenforceable, but I digress). What I took exception to was being accused of stealing when I legally bought a copy of a book but needed to strip the DRM in order to read it on a different device. According to the license agreement that is illegal, but I surely thought people here weren't such sticklers that they'd accuse me of some heinous and moral wrong and equate what I did to literal theft of a physical item from a store. Apparently I was wrong.


Actually, it depends on the particulars. For example...if you legally purchased an eBook from a non-Amazon source, and stripped the DRM in order to view said book on your Kindle, the sections of the Amazon Kindle ToS that were quoted earlier are not actually applicable. The section restricting use and detailing the removal/modification of security features on digital content refers to content that is obtained via The Kindle Store (through Amazon, naturally). As Amazon does not own, nor have rights to the content legally obtained from a different vendor, the amount of control they can legally flex over it is minimal. The section regarding reverse engineering is restricted to the Kindle itself and to the software/media that is preinstalled on the device at time of purchase, or updates to the same software....basically the operating system. As such it has nothing to do with items purchased from a separate vendor an loaded onto the kindle after it is delivered.

Of course, you are subject to the license agreement of the organization/store/site from which you purchased the content, but that is a different story. If there is nothing in that agreement that specifically prohibits you from acting as you did, then there should be no issue at all regarding your actions from that standpoint. Legally.....has anyone who questions your actions from a legal standpoint actually cited any specific laws or court cases? It's easy for someone to say "DMCA", but it gets a LOT messier once you go beyond the surface level knowledge and delve into the meat of law itself. One could just as easily argue that based on the precedents and understandings found in RIAA v. Diamond and US v. ElcomSoft, as well as the DMCA's own provisions regarding fair use, that you have every legal right to circumvent the DRM measures, so long as you legally possess the original file, are not performing the circumvention for the purpose of committing illegal acts, and are doing so in order to "space shift" your legal owned file onto another personal device you own.

This in a way addresses the issues I have with this whole kerfuffle......the almost kneejerk "Stop, criminal scum!" viewpoint you mention encountering above, and just how "broken" the situation has become, where you almost have to ear a juris doctorate in order to know what rights you actually possess. I understand, with the prevalence of file sharing (copies to Napster to Bittorrent, oh my!) that the issue of creator rights has been a major consideration over the past few years, but unlike what some with stakes in the situation might profess (I'm looking at you MPAA/RIAA!) the consumer does indeed have rights. And the concept of leaving the "defining" of those rights to all parties except the consumer is a rather frightening thing, as it was put by Cory Doctorow:


> "Any time someone puts a lock on something you own against your wishes, and doesn't give you the key, they're not doing it for your benefit."


----------



## klopus (Dec 8, 2009)

Shamar said:


> And also, the books, music, movies, software that I download may be wrong to some, but if I like the work then I usually go out and actually buy the CD, book, movie, software (well, not as often with software because I can't afford some of it that runs into the hundreds and 1000's of dollars)


Telling keyword here is *usually*. So only after you perused the electronic goods for free you decide yourself what's worth your money and how much you wish to pay for the pleasure and even that not always. And why you don't (hopefully) do same with food at supermarket and cloths at department store? Is it because goods in electronic form are somehow different from the physical objects or simply because retail DRM (cameras, security, tags) is harder and more dangerous to "strip"?



Shamar said:


> well, not as often with software because I can't afford some of it that runs into the hundreds and 1000's of dollars


And if you need a car but won't settle for anything less than BMW for which you don't have money it makes it ok to steal a car from dealer's lot?

Electronic piracy isn't just a matter of personal ever changing opinions, what's "wrong to some" or individual ethics. It's a matter of making a virtue out of habitually breaking the law and then finding excuses. Beats me how it's different from petty shoplifting or "real" Somalian type piracy and civic breakdown.


----------



## Shamar (Dec 13, 2009)

klopus said:


> Telling keyword here is *usually*. So only after you perused the electronic goods for free you decide yourself what's worth your money and how much you wish to pay for the pleasure and even that not always. And why you don't (hopefully) do same with food at supermarket and cloths at department store? Is it because goods in electronic form are somehow different from the physical objects or simply because retail DRM (cameras, security, tags) is harder and more dangerous to "strip"?


Sort of do the same thing with products from a department store, because if I don't like the product, clothes don't fit, etc., I take them back and get my money back. It's the same thing...if I like the product, they get my money, if I don't like the product, they don't get my money.



klopus said:


> And if you need a car but won't settle for anything less than BMW for which you don't have money it makes it ok to steal a car from dealer's lot?


No, it doesn't make it ok. I never said I was a boyscout. However, I try to limit my pirating to when it's absolutely necessarily. And one day when I have a better career, and can afford the software I need to get my work done, it will always be legally purchased. BUt sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.



klopus said:


> Electronic piracy isn't just a matter of personal ever changing opinions, what's "wrong to some" or individual ethics. It's a matter of making a virtue out of habitually breaking the law and then finding excuses. Beats me how it's different from petty shoplifting or "real" Somalian type piracy and civic breakdown.


I think you have misunderstood me. I'm not trying to make a virtue out of breaking a law.
Also, it's generally more complicated than that. I'm very unlikely to use pirated anything from a company that I consider ethical and fair in their pricing and policies. However, a company that hugely overprices it's software, and is a real dick about their licensing policies, I don't feel bad about them not getting my money.


----------



## TheSeagull (Oct 25, 2009)

My opinion on the matter is that what you are doing is wrong. If you don't LIKE something you can't return it over here anyway, you can only return things if they have a FAULT! If you NEED the software for work then surely the company will pay for it, if they refuse then refuse to do the work.


----------



## Dave Dykema (May 18, 2009)

Shamar said:


> However, I try to limit my pirating to when it's absolutely necessarily. And one day when I have a better career, and can afford the software I need to get my work done, it will always be legally purchased. BUt sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.


As the original poster, I've been trying to keep out of this, because I never intended a fullblown match to develop. However, this statement raises my hackles. Since when is it "absolutely necessary" to have the latest movie/music/game/book? It's called live without it. Put a few dollars aside, drink a few less beers, buy it when you can. If you have nothing to look forward to you have no sense of accomplishment and self-worth when you're able to get the products you want. If it's not available (the "Harry Potter" books) you have four choices: 1) Wait. It will probably come out eventually (and herein lies the main problem--lack of patience). 2) Buy the physical book. The story is available, just not how you want it. 3) Check the book out from the library if you have zero funds. 4) Don't read it. I'm sure you'll live.

P.S. I'll still give a report about how finding/downloading "UR" goes this weekend... ooh, the suspense!


----------



## kevindorsey (Mar 4, 2009)

Dave Dykema said:


> As the original poster, I've been trying to keep out of this, because I never intended a fullblown match to develop. However, this statement raises my hackles. Since when is it "absolutely necessary" to have the latest movie/music/game/book? It's called live without it. Put a few dollars aside, drink a few less beers, buy it when you can. If you have nothing to look forward to you have no sense of accomplishment and self-worth when you're able to get the products you want. If it's not available (the "Harry Potter" books) you have four choices: 1) Wait. It will probably come out eventually (and herein lies the main problem--lack of patience). 2) Buy the physical book. The story is available, just not how you want it. 3) Check the book out from the library if you have zero funds. 4) Don't read it. I'm sure you'll live.
> 
> P.S. I'll still give a report about how finding/downloading "UR" goes this weekend... ooh, the suspense!


That's a very blunt way of putting it, however we live in a society where immediate self-gratification is wide spread.


----------



## Shamar (Dec 13, 2009)

TheSeagull said:


> My opinion on the matter is that what you are doing is wrong. If you don't LIKE something you can't return it over here anyway, you can only return things if they have a FAULT! If you NEED the software for work then surely the company will pay for it, if they refuse then refuse to do the work.


I won't shop at stores that don't have good return policies because if a customer is not happy with a purchase they should be able to return it.

Oh, and speaking of how many seem to consider it unethical to not have to pay for something unless you like it....I sure have seen many here happily reminding people that if they want to try the kindle, they have 30 days to return it if they don't like it (please correct me if I'm wrong about that return policy, but that is the policy that I am aware of). Isn't that the same thing?

And about the software...I'll have you know that there is not one pirated file on my computer at the moment. It's not like I do it all the time, but once in a while I do bend the rules. And even if it's wrong, I'm ok with that. Like I said, I'm not saying that I'm perfect or 100% squeaky clean all the time.


----------



## klopus (Dec 8, 2009)

Shamar said:


> Sort of do the same thing with products from a department store, because if I don't like the product, clothes don't fit, etc., I take them back and get my money back. It's the same thing...if I like the product, they get my money, if I don't like the product, they don't get my money.


No, it's not the same thing. With retail you *first pay* for the product its listed price (not what you deem is "fair) and then if you don't like it return it back following well defined by the seller procedures and within certain period. Only then you maybe will get you money back possibly minus restocking fees. That's called a transaction guided by laws and agreements to which you agree by the fact of buying the product and that's what makes the whole system tick. Don't forget that you the buyer isn't the only side taking the transactional risk of paying for something you may not like. Artist, developer, manufacturer, distributer and retailer all are taking huge risks by investing ahead with no certainty that their expense will pay off and they will be able to provide for their own living and product support and expansion if people don't buy or return their products, not speaking of simply stealing. Compare with what you are doing - first taking the product for an open-ended spin and only then *maybe* paying for it whatever amount you think is fair. That's a valid usage only with shareware and donationware and only because their agreements clearly state this. Also note that not all countries have such liberal product return policies as we enjoy here in US.

And last but not least, back to the example of shoplifting from the grocery store, how and in what form you are returning food products? 



Shamar said:


> However, I try to limit my pirating to when it's absolutely necessarily. And one day when I have a better career, and can afford the software I need to get my work done, it will always be legally purchased. BUt sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.


So to provide your own living via your work you deprive others from income for their work (that you find so indispensable for yourself to stay afloat)? And if somebody directly or indirectly using fruits of your labor also would want not to pay for it thus hurting you financially then what? There are many cases is software development when firms, especially those that make specialized vertical niche products and not willing to resort to DRM not to inconvenience paying loyal customers, because of rampant piracy had to fire developers, curtail R&D or simply went belly up. Or to save themselves had to resort to DRM and draconian license policies.



Shamar said:


> I'm very unlikely to use pirated anything from a company that I consider ethical and fair in their pricing and policies. However, a company that hugely overprices it's software, and is a real dick about their licensing policies, I don't feel bad about them not getting my money.


So now you are the judge, jury, license lawyer and a cost expert. Don't you think that this will make you a little biased when you decide not to pay? In the mood of social conscience why just not to stop using product coming from the "dick" company? Why not to support open source freeware alternative? There's almost always a free/shareware alternative to the paid app with the exception of latest games. But we were talking about "bloodline" software not entertainment, right?


----------



## Shamar (Dec 13, 2009)

klopus said:


> No, it's not the same thing. With retail you *first pay* for the product its listed price (not what you deem is "fair) and then if you don't like it return it back following well defined by the seller procedures and within certain period.[q/quote]
> First off, what is with this "what you deem is fair"? I never said that. I said that if I like the product, I buy the legal licensed copy. I don't know where you're at, but here you cannot go into a store and buy something t whatever you deem is fair.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)




----------



## Shamar (Dec 13, 2009)

Jeff said:


>


LOL, I like that smiley 
A rant thread can be fun though, as long as no one gets their panties, boxers, briefs, whatever in a bunch over anything that is said.

I never understood people that get furiously angry over a conversation they had online (people here seem mature enough to not do that), after all..."the internets is serious freaking business", lol


----------



## mlewis78 (Apr 19, 2009)

Looked around here and didn't see this posted yet (although sometimes my searches don't bring up something that is here), so I just wanted to share this Pogue column:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/17/technology/personaltech/17pogue-email.html?_r=1&8cir&emc=cira1


----------



## Badandy (Dec 4, 2008)

Great column.



David Pogue said:


> In time, everyone realized the silliness of this exercise. It inconvenienced only the law-abiders; the software pirates had plenty of simple, convenient ways to duplicate the songs anyway.


That's my problem. I like to think myself a moral person; If I'm going to enjoy the fruits of someone's labor, I want to compensate them for it, I really do. But when I can't transfer that file between devices I own or switch to, it's just annoying and leads me to look for ways to break that "protection", as if it actually protects anything to begin with. It makes reading electronically less enjoyable and it disadvantages e-reading in general. If people think pirates are going to be deterred by a little DRM, they're wrong. They'll steal it regardless and it will end up only inconveniencing legitimate buyers.


----------



## klopus (Dec 8, 2009)

If normal retail shops didn't have protection like cameras, security people, mirrors, tags and so on much more people would shoplift. And losses would be passed to paying customers. Same with electronic media. Pirates and thieves punish honest customers.


----------



## Badandy (Dec 4, 2008)

Then why did iTunes switch to all DRM-free music?  What was the rationale behind that? And surely you're not going to continue using the simplistic and incredibly flawed argument of equating stealing physical goods with circumventing DRM for fair use, are you?


----------



## Mike D. aka jmiked (Oct 28, 2008)

klopus said:


> Same with electronic media.


It's not quite the same. Shoplifters take something which has a physical cost to produce, ship, and store. Electronic files don't have that cost associated with them.

I think it likely that most ebook pirates don't ever read any of the books they steal, so it's hard to argue that publishers actually lose much money, since the items wouldn't have been purchased anyway.

I'm not in favor of pirating ebooks or music, but I am in favor of assigning realistic costs to it, and that I haven't seen. Such figures are often exaggerated to prove a point or demonize.

Mike


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

klopus said:


> If normal retail shops didn't have protection like cameras, security people, mirrors, tags and so on much more people would shoplift. And losses would be passed to paying customers. Same with electronic media. Pirates and thieves punish honest customers.


The difference is that retail shops only watch you in their store, once you make your purchases and leave their parking lot they stop watching you. DRM, on the other hand, is not only at the point of purchase, but it's there every time you go to use what you bought.


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

geoffthomas said:


> And those who think it is alright to use the property of someone else in a way other than that allowed by that owner will never see the light.


I think this is a key sentence here, the interpretation of who's property it is.

In my opinion, everybody has a part of it, the creators, the business people, and consumers.

The creator sold their right to complete ownership when they had the book published, or when they sold their first copy of the book. The publishers gave up complete ownership (whatever they got from their agreements with the creators) when they decided to sell copies to anybody with the money to buy what they were selling, and consumers, being the ones with the last hands to touch the material will obviously never have had a chance for complete ownership.

This is a recipe for complications as everyone along the path has rights, and of course, the opinions people have expressed in this thread demonstrate the complications.

As a consumer my hands are the last ones on the product but here's the thing, regardless of who came before, when I buy a copy of a book I feel that copy becomes my property. When it was DTB's it was the physical product, with e-books it's the data files.

That's why I feel as I do, because I feel that the copies I purchased are my property, and that I can do anything that I wish to my own property so long as it doesn't cause harm to the higher owners.

I'm not renting nor borrowing, the list prices that publishers are putting on the e-books indicate that they're selling them, and for my part I'm purchasing them, and I will own what I purchase.

Your view point is beyond my ability to understand, at least based on what you've written so far, from the posts I've read (particularly the one you mention the two authors) it seems like you feel you only have the right to read the words.



Jeff said:


> I was attempting to answer the question that Selcien asked...


Such an attempt was doomed to failure, unless you shared the same thought processes. I'm not sure how Magenta reached his/her conclusion but after taking a look at their post history, I do feel that Magenta was sincere. Now, whether I'd understand the point of view is a different matter.

I'd like to add that I really like the "faces" that you used, I found the one with the club to be particularly funny. Of course, I'm a bit jealous, all I have are standard issue faces. 



Dave Dykema said:


> P.S. I'll still give a report about how finding/downloading "UR" goes this weekend... ooh, the suspense!


I'm really curious about the results you'll get with this one, what with it being a DRM'd Amazon Kindle exclusive.


----------



## klopus (Dec 8, 2009)

I wasn't talking about knocking off DRM from the *legally purchased* electronic copy by a person for that person's *individual use*. I'm talking about disseminating and using illegal copies which I don't see how it's different from trafficking in stolen goods and theft respectively.


----------



## luvmy4brats (Nov 9, 2008)

I'm going to merge this with the other thread. 

~ Luv


----------



## Shamar (Dec 13, 2009)

mlewis78 said:


> Looked around here and didn't see this posted yet (although sometimes my searches don't bring up something that is here), so I just wanted to share this Pogue column:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/17/technology/personaltech/17pogue-email.html?_r=1&8cir&emc=cira1


Wow...good article, I couldn't agree more.

Conservative minded individuals want to keep things the way they were, but it's an argument in futility. Times change, whether they like it or not. And you know what...I was sooooo happy when the digital age took some of the footing off of the record labels. Before that, you had to get a record deal to get heard. However, after information started flowing a bit more freely, of course some of the record labels made a few less millions, boo hoo, but many many more independent artists were able to be heard and sell their music after the big wigs got cut down a peg or two.

The industry changes over time and the ones who don't keep up, sometimes sadly to say and sometimes not so sadly, get cut down a bit.


----------



## Shamar (Dec 13, 2009)

jmiked said:


> It's not quite the same. Shoplifters take something which has a physical cost to produce, ship, and store. Electronic files don't have that cost associated with them.
> 
> I think it likely that most ebook pirates don't ever read any of the books they steal, so it's hard to argue that publishers actually lose much money, since the items wouldn't have been purchased anyway.
> 
> ...


You make a good point. As I said, almost every time I've gotten something for free, as long as I like it, I will go on to purchase the product in hard copy for my bookshelf, CD shelf etc. And I guarantee you that half of the music I've bought that way, I would have never bought without the ability to try it first.


----------



## Shamar (Dec 13, 2009)

Selcien said:


> The difference is that retail shops only watch you in their store, once you make your purchases and leave their parking lot they stop watching you. DRM, on the other hand, is not only at the point of purchase, but it's there every time you go to use what you bought.


Yeah...sort of like if every book you bough had a camera hidden in it to make sure that you didn't share it, lol


----------



## angel_b (Nov 18, 2009)

If I can be brutally honest (and I'm sure to get flamed for this!), all of the US residents on this site talking of thievery etc, and taking the moral high ground, don't know what it's like to want to purchase a Kindle edition of a book they really want (*cough* Under the Dome *cough*) and find that it's not available to them in their country. It happens over and over again.

And what makes it worse is that the hard cover/paperback is freely available for purchase.

The upside is I'm reading a lot of indie books which has opened up a whole new world of reading pleasure. But the downside is the feeling of frustration of owning a wonderful new device but not having free availability, even though *the DTB is available for purchase*.

I'm not taking a moral stand on illegal downloading, just asking for some understanding.


----------



## mlewis78 (Apr 19, 2009)

The music/recording industry really had this coming.  Over the years I must have paid a small fortune on all my LPs/CDs.  I waited until LPs had almost disappeared to buy a CD player, because the prices of CDs were way above the LP prices.  Yet CDs were cheaper to produce and duplicate by the recording companies.

I am not blaming the artists, but the record companies were so greedy.


----------



## Shamar (Dec 13, 2009)

angel_b said:


> If I can be brutally honest (and I'm sure to get flamed for this!), all of the US residents on this site talking of thievery etc, and taking the moral high ground, don't know what it's like to want to purchase a Kindle edition of a book they really want (*cough* Under the Dome *cough*) and find that it's not available to them in their country. It happens over and over again.
> 
> And what makes it worse is that the hard cover/paperback is freely available for purchase.
> 
> ...


Yeah, and now that you mention it.....I hear you guys telling people all the time who are in other parts of the world to lie about their location to break the rules and get books that they are otherwise not allowed to acquire by the rules that you are soooooooooooooo wanting to proclaim are the one and only dogmatic way it should be.So, by your own rules, shouldn't you be telling these people that if they reside outside the area in which they are supposed to be allowed to purchase books that are only licensed for people in the US, then they have to just wait till they are legally allowed to make the purchase?

Or do the rules bend sometimes?

(I think that they are morally ok about breaking the rules, but I imagine that most of you will say that it is stealing to do so)


----------



## Shamar (Dec 13, 2009)

mlewis78 said:


> The music/recording industry really had this coming. Over the years I must have paid a small fortune on all my LPs/CDs. I waited until LPs had almost disappeared to buy a CD player, because the prices of CDs were way above the LP prices. Yet CDs were cheaper to produce and duplicate by the recording companies.
> 
> I am not blaming the artists, but the record companies were so greedy.


exactly why I said that I was happy that the digital age and ease of copying and distributing music took the record companies feet out from under them. it created an opportunity for anyone to get heard without needing the backing of some big name record label that doesn't give two s**ts about the music, just the money


----------



## Malweth (Oct 18, 2009)

So what about Libraries & Lending...
Shamar's position is essentially the Library situation for e-books. It'd be nice if we could have e-libraries that worked with Kindles and had an equivalent selection to B+M libraries.

I understand that copying and lending aren't exactly the same thing. A book has a maximum of one person per purchased book at any given time. On the other hand, lending a physical book always means that the person you've lent it to is never going to purchase the book. This is the status quo. Is it right for electronic distributors to limit this? Once I own a file, I have no problems sending a copy to family & friends.

Here is an interesting speech I read this morning, one that completely woke me up at 4:30 am:
How to Destroy The Book, by Cory Doctorow
Read both halves of the speech.


----------



## Shamar (Dec 13, 2009)

Malweth said:


> So what about Libraries & Lending...
> Shamar's position is essentially the Library situation for e-books. It'd be nice if we could have e-libraries that worked with Kindles and had an equivalent selection to B+M libraries.
> 
> I understand that copying and lending aren't exactly the same thing. A book has a maximum of one person per purchased book at any given time. On the other hand, lending a physical book always means that the person you've lent it to is never going to purchase the book. This is the status quo. Is it right for electronic distributors to limit this? Once I own a file, I have no problems sending a copy to family & friends.
> ...


I would honestly love to see the statistics from an actual study on the matter (lest say that N=300+, and p<0.05) as to whether or not people that would buy the book vs people who would not buy the book normally, and how the sharing changed their purchasing habits.

I would be willing to bet that a book freely available in electronic format and DRM free still sold slightly more than one that was not.

I'd be willing to bet that of those that download the book, the majority f the ones who don't buy the real copy, wouldn't have done so anyways, and probably half of those that do pay wouldn't have even shown the book any interest if they couldn't get the copy first.

Therefore the availability of the digitl copy actually gained then some readership, and the people who read it and didn't buy can be counted as advertising cost because they helped spread the bok to more people who actually buy the bok


----------



## TheSeagull (Oct 25, 2009)

Shamar said:


> Yeah, and now that you mention it.....I hear you guys telling people all the time who are in other parts of the world to lie about their location to break the rules and get books that they are otherwise not allowed to acquire by the rules that you are soooooooooooooo wanting to proclaim are the one and only dogmatic way it should be.So, by your own rules, shouldn't you be telling these people that if they reside outside the area in which they are supposed to be allowed to purchase books that are only licensed for people in the US, then they have to just wait till they are legally allowed to make the purchase?
> 
> Or do the rules bend sometimes?
> 
> (I think that they are morally ok about breaking the rules, but I imagine that most of you will say that it is stealing to do so)


Am I the only person whose mind got boggled while reading this


----------



## Shamar (Dec 13, 2009)

TheSeagull said:


> Am I the only person whose mind got boggled while reading this


Sereously? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I could swear that is what I've read on various threads


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Is it o.k. to acquire a book that's not yet legally available electronically? Or _must_ you wait for the e-version? In some cases there may never be an e-version. Does that change things? And the corollary: Is it o.k. for residents of one country to 'pretend' to be resident of another country to get a book they would not normally have access to?

After 9 pages of discussion on the above points, what I've learned is that we don't all agree where the line is, or maybe even that there is a line at all. But, that doesn't mean anyone has the right to claim the moral high ground. There really is a lot of gray area in the issue as a whole and each person is allowed to make their own, personal determination, of where the white really changes to black and vice versa.

Anyway, I'm kinda feeling like the horse is really dead here.


----------



## geko29 (Dec 23, 2008)

angel_b said:


> If I can be brutally honest (and I'm sure to get flamed for this!), all of the US residents on this site talking of thievery etc, and taking the moral high ground, don't know what it's like to want to purchase a Kindle edition of a book they really want (*cough* Under the Dome *cough*) and find that it's not available to them in their country. It happens over and over again.


Don't feel too bad, it's not available here either, at least for another week. Many of us have been waiting impatiently for it since the DTV was released 6 weeks ago. I suspect it'll be available for you sometime, hopefully sooner rather than later.


----------



## Malweth (Oct 18, 2009)

Ann in Arlington said:


> Is it o.k. to acquire a book that's not yet legally available electronically? Or _must_ you wait for the e-version? In some cases there may never be an e-version. Does that change things? And the corollary: Is it o.k. for residents of one country to 'pretend' to be resident of another country to get a book they would not normally have access to?
> [...]
> Anyway, I'm kinda feeling like the horse is really dead here.


The discussion is still interesting. For example, recently Google was awarded the use of abandoned (yet copyrighted) works. I believe the requirement is that the copyright holder has to explicitly deny permission for the use of the work. The EU is complaining that it will potentially give access to works of limited distribution (EU-Only) to other parts of the world (at zero cost?). (http://arstechnica.com/search/#google+settlement)

This is not significantly different from what you're talking about regarding E-books. The major difference is that such books without an electronic edition are still available in print, so another option exists. In regards to foreigners accessing e-books of limited distribution the situation is even more similar. Other regions are increasing the revenues of foreign distribution companies when a contract may exist for local distributors.

The onus is on the consumer to make the right decision, whatever that decision may be.


----------



## Jesslyn (Oct 29, 2008)

Susan in VA said:


> I tend to agree with this -- if I've bought it legally, I ought to be able to use it _for myself_ in any way I choose. But what's the actual legal status regarding different formats? If someone chooses not to make a book available in electronic form at all, fine, that's their choice. But what if it's available in one e-format but not another? Lots of people here have both Kindles and Sonys. Is it legal to reformat for personal use?


I venture to say that if anyone tried to sue me for removing all of the DRM on my books and could not prove that I was 'sharing'; it would fall under fair use and the case would get thrown out. Okay, now I'm running off to see if there what the book licensing says. Since there are now Kindle for iPhone in countries that don't have Kindles AND Kindle for PC, there has to be a copy of the book license somewhere on the Amazon site.


----------



## Malweth (Oct 18, 2009)

It's the Kindle License Agreement (Section 3 - Digital Content, Restrictions) that says:


> *Restrictions.* Unless specifically indicated otherwise, you may not sell, rent, lease, distribute, broadcast, sublicense or otherwise assign any rights to the Digital Content or any portion of it to any third party, and you may not remove any proprietary notices or labels on the Digital Content. In addition, you may not, and you will not encourage, assist or authorize any other person to, bypass, modify, defeat or circumvent security features that protect the Digital Content.


But again, this agreement may not be entirely legal under Personal Use.

As an example of how muddled this is, here's a legal discussion of Personal use (PDF). It's readable (at least the Intro - I haven't read further yet) and it seems to preclude any reasonable resolution (without court involvement). Even the involvement of the judicial system may not yield a conclusion without the help of legislation.

If the legal situation is that confounded, I say `do what you want' and try not to be a defining case


----------



## Jesslyn (Oct 29, 2008)

Am I not reading this correctly, but doesn't "you may not, and you will not encourage, assist or authorize any other person to, bypass, modify, defeat or circumvent security features that protect the Digital Content" mean that I can't have anyone else do it, but I can remove the DRM myself?


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

angel_b said:


> If I can be brutally honest (and I'm sure to get flamed for this!), all of the US residents on this site talking of thievery etc, and taking the moral high ground, don't know what it's like to want to purchase a Kindle edition of a book they really want (*cough* Under the Dome *cough*) and find that it's not available to them in their country. It happens over and over again.
> 
> I'm not taking a moral stand on illegal downloading, just asking for some understanding.


It happens to US residents, too. Amazon will give you a message saying this book is not available in the US in Kindle format. But there is no local sense to jump from "Not available in this country" to "Now I must pirate it" other than the gimmies.

When I wanted to read _The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets' Nest_ (unavailable in any format in the US until Q2 2010, my thoughts did not turn to piracy, but to British Booksellers.


----------



## Jesslyn (Oct 29, 2008)

Geemont said:


> It happens to US residents, too. Amazon will give you a message saying this book is not available in the US in Kindle format. But there is no local sense to jump from "Not available in this country" to "Now I must pirate it" other than the gimmies.
> 
> When I wanted to read _The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets' Nest_ (unavailable in any format in the US until Q2 2010, my thoughts did not turn to piracy, but to British Booksellers.


You got it! I always cross my fingers and hope something is on Waterstones


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Jesslyn said:


> Am I not reading this correctly, but doesn't "you may not, and you will not encourage, assist or authorize any other person to, bypass, modify, defeat or circumvent security features that protect the Digital Content" mean that I can't have anyone else do it, but I can remove the DRM myself?


Take out the center clause and it says: "you may not bypass, modify, defeat or circumvent security features that protect the Digital Content."


----------



## Jesslyn (Oct 29, 2008)

Jeff said:


> Take out the center clause and it says: "you may not bypass, modify, defeat or circumvent security features that protect the Digital Content."


I'm not up on legalese, but the center clause is there--why would I want to take it out. Hmmm... I get free legal at my job and I'm going to send this to an attorney.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Jesslyn said:


> I'm not up on legalese, but the center clause is there--why would I want to take it out. Hmmm... I get free legal at my job and I'm going to send this to an attorney.


My intent was to explain what the sentence means. The first clause says "You may not" the next clause, separated by commas begins with "and". They're two different conditions meaning that: (a) you may not remove the DRM (b) you will not encourage any other person to remove the DRM (c) you will not assist any other person to remove the DRM (d) you will not authorize any other person to remove the DRM.


----------



## webhill (Feb 12, 2009)

Jesslyn said:


> I'm not up on legalese, but the center clause is there--why would I want to take it out. Hmmm... I get free legal at my job and I'm going to send this to an attorney.


You don't want to take it out, you just want to understand the grammar of the sentence.
"you may not, and you will not encourage, assist or authorize any other person to, bypass, modify, defeat or circumvent security features that protect the Digital Content"

"You may not (and you will not encourage, assist, or authorize any other person to) bypass, modify, defeat, or circumvent security features that protect the digital content" is another way of writing it. The commas after "not" and before "bypass" set off a parenthetical clause. The basic sentence is "you may not bypass, modify, defeat, or circumvent security features." Everything else is just gravy


----------



## Jesslyn (Oct 29, 2008)

bleh--in any case, I'm not afraid to state that I remove all my ebook DRM and backup my files at home on an external hard drive.  I think once someone gets into court on that issue, the whole thinking on the purpose of DRM will get updated.

@Jeff & @webhill - THanks for the explanation, btw.  My mind was totally parsing it differently.


----------



## TheSeagull (Oct 25, 2009)

What about downloading pirated ebooks of books you already own in print? I've done this and am now starting to feel a little bad, I mean it is legal for me to scan them/OCR them but I'm lazy and don't really want to do that when I can get a copy so easily. At the end of it it isn't any different really. There should be some sort of way to get them free or at a discount if you own them in print in my opinion.


----------



## hard-case (Feb 24, 2009)

Malweth said:


> It's the Kindle License Agreement (Section 3 - Digital Content, Restrictions) that says:
> But again, this agreement may not be entirely legal under Personal Use.


Of note, however, the specific section refers to "Digital Content" as a specific binding term, and not a general appellation. The specific term Digital Content, as defined by the License Agreement, refers to works obtained from the Kindle Store. As such, the restrictions do not apply to content obtained from other sources, such as Barnes and Noble, or FictionWise, or foreign sites such as Waterstones.

Another example of how confusing it can get is US v. ElecomSoft, which IIRC is the only court case that revolves specifically around the subject of DMCA and DRM removal from eBooks....according to the Jury foreman, part of the reason for the decision in favor of the defendant (who had written software that could strip the DRM from Adobe eBook files and convert them to PDF format) was that as a whole the jury found the DMCA rather difficult to read, much less interpret.



Jesslyn said:


> You got it! I always cross my fingers and hope something is on Waterstones


That's how I managed to get my copies of Mike Carey's Felix Castor novels in eBook form. I spent the better part of an evening once hunting down what they listed with regards to policies on eBooks (not to mention that of the published, The Little Brown Book Group), as they use a DRM'ed ePub format.


----------



## Geemont (Nov 18, 2008)

Jesslyn said:


> You got it! I always cross my fingers and hope something is on Waterstones


Take a look here. 
*The Book Depository. Free shipping worldwide on all our books.*



TheSeagull said:


> There should be some sort of way to get them free or at a discount if you own them in print in my opinion.


Why? In the 90s I legally purchased the unabridged cassettes for _Lolita_ from a bookstore. Twelve years later I wanted to listen to the book again, but found myself no longer owning a cassette player, making the tapes pretty much useless and taking up space in storage. Should the publisher or store be obliged to trade in my old cassettes for CDs or MP3 downloads?


----------



## TheSeagull (Oct 25, 2009)

Geemont said:


> Take a look here.
> *The Book Depository. Free shipping worldwide on all our books.*
> 
> Why? In the 90s I legally purchased the unabridged cassettes for _Lolita_ from a bookstore. Twelve years later I wanted to listen to the book again, but found myself no longer owning a cassette player, making the tapes pretty much useless and taking up space in storage. Should the publisher or store be obliged to trade in my old cassettes for CDs or MP3 downloads?


I think they were talking about eBooks rather than pBooks.

And no they shouldn't be obliged but it would be nice.


----------



## sherylb (Oct 27, 2008)

TheSeagull said:


> What about downloading pirated ebooks of books you already own in print? I've done this and am now starting to feel a little bad, I mean it is legal for me to scan them/OCR them but I'm lazy and don't really want to do that when I can get a copy so easily. At the end of it it isn't any different really. There should be some sort of way to get them free or at a discount if you own them in print in my opinion.


By downloading the pirated books, you are in effect encouraging the people that are doing the pirating and letting them know another person thinks what they do is OK. Do you think this is a good thing?


----------



## TheSeagull (Oct 25, 2009)

sherylb said:


> By downloading the pirated books, you are in effect encouraging the people that are doing the pirating and letting them know another person thinks what they do is OK. Do you think this is a good thing?


But it's not like I've paid for it, I'm not funding them, if I were then it would be explicitily wrong.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Legality and morality aside, I think some people have missed a major business point. Although the content may be the same (a book or movie with the same title, a song by the same artist) the production of the media is almost always different. If you buy a paperback, you pay for the materials, printing cost and a small percentage in royalties. If you buy an eBook, you pay for production, hosting, support, overhead and, once again, royalties to the copyright holder.In other words, if you buy a paperback and an eBook of the same title, the only duplicate cost that you're paying twice is a few cents.


----------



## kindlevixen (Jan 13, 2009)

Jeff said:


> Legality and morality aside, I think some people have missed a major business point. Although the content may be the same (a book or movie with the same title, a song by the same artist) the production of the media is almost always different. If you buy a paperback, you pay for the materials, printing cost and a small percentage in royalties. If you buy an eBook, you pay for production, hosting, support, overhead and, once again, royalties to the copyright holder.In other words, if you buy a paperback and an eBook of the same title, the only duplicate cost that you're paying twice is a few cents.


Not really. The cost to editing/advertising/formatting/etc are the same in both books. I venture to say the cost for website hosting/support/etc is also the same since most authors have websites as a standard form of PR, and should be part of the overhead of both prices. The difference only lies in the actual publishing - it either gets printed or digitized.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

patchymama said:


> Not really. The cost to editing/advertising/formatting/etc are the same in both books. I venture to say the cost for website hosting/support/etc is also the same since most authors have websites as a standard form of PR, and should be part of the overhead of both prices. The difference only lies in the actual publishing - it either gets printed or digitized.


There are different production companies involved or layers of companies depending upon who owns what rights. Each company pays its own expenses. When you buy a paperback or hardcover from Amazon, they buy it wholesale from the company that printed the book. When you buy a Kindle book from Amazon, they have to pay for hosting the file and technical support. Each is a separate product even if the title is the same.


----------



## angel_b (Nov 18, 2009)

Shamar said:


> Yeah, and now that you mention it.....I hear you guys telling people all the time who are in other parts of the world to lie about their location to break the rules and get books that they are otherwise not allowed to acquire by the rules that you are soooooooooooooo wanting to proclaim are the one and only dogmatic way it should be.So, by your own rules, shouldn't you be telling these people that if they reside outside the area in which they are supposed to be allowed to purchase books that are only licensed for people in the US, then they have to just wait till they are legally allowed to make the purchase?
> 
> Or do the rules bend sometimes?
> 
> (I think that they are morally ok about breaking the rules, but I imagine that most of you will say that it is stealing to do so)


Hey, thanks for the support 

There are a myriad of wonderful things about living downunder. Nobody goes without health care (and that's a different conversation altogether), the PC police are roundly shouted down so censorship is thankfully very limited ... and we have the best beaches in the world 

However, all media takes a very, very long time to get here - movies, TV series (we're still waiting for the final season of Lost!) and, of course, the severe restrictions on the availability of Kindle-friendly literature.

Australia is a technology hungry country - I believe there are more mobile phones per capita here than any other country in the world.

It's so very easy for those who have access to all they need to stand on their soapbox and wag their fingers at those who don't (and, once again, another conversation altogether).

Once again, not taking a moral standpoint. However, I'm not going to condemn those who take matters into their own hands, particularly when it comes to the written word.

I say ... Download and be damned!


----------



## Dave Dykema (May 18, 2009)

angel_b said:


> However, all media takes a very, very long time to get here - movies, TV series (we're still waiting for the final season of Lost!)


So are we! It doesn't start in the USA until Feb. 2, 2010.


----------



## Tip10 (Apr 16, 2009)

patchymama said:


> Not really. The cost to editing/advertising/formatting/etc are the same in both books. I venture to say the cost for website hosting/support/etc is also the same since most authors have websites as a standard form of PR, and should be part of the overhead of both prices. The difference only lies in the actual publishing - it either gets printed or digitized.


Oh really? The why are we seeing badly formatted eBooks of books who's printed versions are just fine? Could be because the editing/formatting are not the same -- and performing those functions for one does not necessarily cover the other?


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

klopus said:


> I wasn't talking about knocking off DRM from the *legally purchased* electronic copy by a person for that person's *individual use*. I'm talking about disseminating and using illegal copies which I don't see how it's different from trafficking in stolen goods and theft respectively.


Sorry about that. Someone else had referred to store security as DRM for physical goods, I ended up projecting that onto your post.

Anyway, there is still a bit of a difference between the two. Stolen physical goods generate a negative cash flow which has to either be absorbed or passed on, whereas pirated digital content generates no cash flow. Also, stolen physical goods are guaranteed to cause harm whereas pirated digital content is not guaranteed to cause harm (some people that pirate would never have spent the money, some people pirate as a questionable means of demoing material). The big difference is the potential damage, when someone steals a physical good they can only harm whom they stole from, a pirated digital file can harm everybody in the process as they only get a cut of a digital sale when it happens.

Personally, I don't think it's the amount of piracy that matters so much as it is the amount of legal purchases that are being made, which is where the irony of DRM comes in. It hurts the people that matter, the people that are spending money.

I understand the fear but they're going about it all wrong. They shouldn't be trying to prevent people from stealing digital content as the people that are stealing are completely bypassing the preventative measures, what they should be doing is sending a positive message to those that make legal purchases. Imagine ordering an e-book from Amazon and getting a thank you email from the author. It doesn't sound like much, especially since it would obviously be the same letter sent to everyone that purchases the e-book, but it would make things feel a bit more personal, make you feel that your purchase was appreciated, and that is a much better message to be sending than the "We do not know you so we're going to assume the worst about you." message that is sent along with each and every DRM'd purchase.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Selcien said:


> Imagine ordering an e-book from Amazon and getting a thank you email from the author. It doesn't sound like much, especially since it would obviously be the same letter sent to everyone that purchases the e-book, but it would make things feel a bit more personal, make you feel that your purchase was appreciated, and that is a much better message to be sending than the "We do not know you so we're going to assume the worst about you." message that is sent along with each and every DRM'd purchase.


Just to be clear, Amazon doesn't share customer names with publishers and we don't have the option of providing our content without DRM.

In the soon to be announced Google Editions, publishers can choose to have their books encrypted or not. I've been convinced by this thread that there's no way to stop piracy so my books will all be DRM free.


----------



## hercircumstance (Dec 19, 2009)

You'd think that people who enjoyed reading (aka - people who at least had some education and discipline enough to enjoy books) would have more morals. Any idiot off the street can passively consume music or movies so you sorta expect thieves to gather there, but I really thought better of readers.


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

Jeff said:


> Just to be clear, Amazon doesn't share customer names with publishers and we don't have the option of providing our content without DRM.
> 
> In the soon to be announced Google Editions, publishers can choose to have their books encrypted or not. I've been convinced by this thread that there's no way to stop piracy so my books will all be DRM free.


When you order an e-book from Amazon you're sent a confirmation email, I was thinking that something similar could be done with the thank you email. Purchasing the e-book would trigger the confirmation email and also the thank you email, which would be written ahead of time, and held by Amazon.

I don't know how things work and I'm not very creative besides, but I'm sure that someone can find a way to send some token of appreciation with the purchase of e-books.

Also, I've yet to run into any DRM from self published e-books being sold on Amazon, to be certain with your books, I had both volumes of The Treasure of La Malinche sent to my computer (purchased months ago but still unread ), dragged them into Calibre, and now I have ePub versions of both, if they had DRM extra steps would have been required.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Selcien said:


> When you order an e-book from Amazon you're sent a confirmation email, I was thinking that something similar could be done with the thank you email. Purchasing the e-book would trigger the confirmation email and also the thank you email, which would be written ahead of time, and held by Amazon.


It's a great idea but I don't have a clue how you'd get Amazon to agree.



Selcien said:


> ...if they had DRM extra steps would have been required.


You would know better than I about that, I've never checked. What I said was that they don't give publishers an option. Here's what my agreement with them says:

10. Technology. You acknowledge that we will be entitled to utilize DRM technology in connection with the distribution of Digital Books but are not obligated to do so. Accordingly, there may be no technology or other limitation imposed by us on copying or transfer of any Digital Book we distribute.


----------



## angel_b (Nov 18, 2009)

hercircumstance said:


> You'd think that people who enjoyed reading (aka - people who at least had some education and discipline enough to enjoy books) would have more morals. Any idiot off the street can passively consume music or movies so you sorta expect thieves to gather there, but I really thought better of readers.


You're in the US right? Just guessing ...


----------



## angel_b (Nov 18, 2009)

Dave Dykema said:


> So are we! It doesn't start in the USA until Feb. 2, 2010.


Okay *blush*.

My hubby likes to watch The Soup and they telegraphed that they were going to cover the finale of The Amazing Race, which was happening for us the following Thursday. Spoilers abound for us on the internets


----------



## hercircumstance (Dec 19, 2009)

angel_b said:


> You're in the US right? Just guessing ...


Why do you ask?

edit: Never mind. Usually that isn't a compliment. Way to welcome a new person here.


----------



## Chris W (Aug 17, 2009)

angel_b said:


> Okay *blush*.
> 
> My hubby likes to watch The Soup and they telegraphed that they were going to cover the finale of The Amazing Race, which was happening for us the following Thursday. Spoilers abound for us on the internets


How can spoilers affect you in Australia, aren't you a day ahead of us here in the States? You should know everything before us, so we should have to watch out from spoilers from you!


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

Jeff said:


> It's a great idea but I don't have a clue how you'd get Amazon to agree.


I was just using Amazon as an example, an obvious one since this board is dedicated to their e-readers.

Anyway, the idea is that everyone that purchases an e-book gets a positive message regardless of which retailer they bought it from, so it would have to be linked to the e-book, you know, sell a copy of the e-book = send the thank you message. So I think it would have to be something done by the big publishers... definitely not holding my breath here. 



> You would know better than I about that, I've never checked.


I actually ran across it before knowing the extra steps as I had some trouble with Lord Brother and Wysard (also not read yet). They disappeared from my Archive on my DX, don't show up in the "Manage Your Kindle" page, and show up on my K1 content manage as "undefined". Out of curiosity, I took, had taken, my K1 backup files of the books and transferred them to the DX and found that they worked.



> What I said was that they don't give publishers an option. Here's what my agreement with them says:
> 
> 10. Technology. You acknowledge that we will be entitled to utilize DRM technology in connection with the distribution of Digital Books but are not obligated to do so. Accordingly, there may be no technology or other limitation imposed by us on copying or transfer of any Digital Book we distribute.


Gotcha. It can go either way and depends on what whatever fancies Amazon at any particular moment in time.

And thanks for the peek at what you see from your side of things, it's appreciated.


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

hercircumstance said:


> Why do you ask?
> 
> edit: Never mind. Usually that isn't a compliment. Way to welcome a new person here.


It's neither good nor bad, just that if you were in the US you'd have a different perspective on things than someone in Australia owing to how each country has it's own unique situations that has to be dealt with.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

Selcien said:


> Anyway, the idea is that everyone that purchases an e-book gets a positive message regardless of which retailer they bought it from, so it would have to be linked to the e-book, you know, sell a copy of the e-book = send the thank you message. So I think it would have to be something done by the big publishers... definitely not holding my breath here.


I wish it was possible but I fear that it's not.

Sales are a server-side function. It would be a simple thing for Amazon, or any eBook distributor, to include a message from the author, but no publisher, big or small can do it. Book files are just formatted text. They don't include any scripting or executable code.


----------



## hercircumstance (Dec 19, 2009)

Am I going to have people profiling my country of origin every time I post here? That's disturbing. I didn't realize where you were born made so much of a difference. Should I tell everyone my skin color too? They do things in Australia very different than anywhere else I've been. I was just looking for a Kindle community, but this one is off my list now. I've never been welcomed so rudely before.


----------



## Jeff (Oct 28, 2008)

hercircumstance said:


> Am I going to have people profiling my country of origin every time I post here? That's disturbing. I didn't realize where you were born made so much of a difference. Should I tell everyone my skin color too? They do things in Australia very different than anywhere else I've been. I was just looking for a Kindle community, but this one is off my list now. I've never been welcomed so rudely before.


Please reconsider. I think you may have misunderstood something. This is a great site with lots of very nice people.


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

Jeff said:


> I wish it was possible but I fear that it's not.
> 
> Sales are a server-side function. It would be a simple thing for Amazon, or any eBook distributor, to include a message from the author, but no publisher, big or small can do it. Book files are just formatted text. They don't include any scripting or executable code.


I was thinking on the contractual side, not the technological side, basically a condition stating that the thank you email is to be sent to a customer when the corresponding e-book is purchased. Store specific things would be left to the individual retailers.



hercircumstance said:


> Am I going to have people profiling my country of origin every time I post here? That's disturbing. I didn't realize where you were born made so much of a difference. Should I tell everyone my skin color too? They do things in Australia very different than anywhere else I've been. I was just looking for a Kindle community, but this one is off my list now. I've never been welcomed so rudely before.


When and where you're born makes a difference, I mean, have you ever gave any thought as to why there is a generational gap? I have and even with something as simple as TV the differences can be huge. Take two people, ten years apart, and think for a moment about the popular programming that they would see, add in the popular music especially the concerts (even if they see the same bands the older generation could go to the concert when the band members were younger), the popular books, the popular gadgets, etc... I mean, my niece, about 18 to 19 years old, has a lip piercing. Do you not think that has to do with those kinds of piercings being more common than 10 years ago?

Different countries follow the same time differences but they also start with a different past and therefor have a different present.

I made a mistake in trying to answer in place of somebody else but I sincerely doubt that there was any harm intended.

Every board has it's bad moments but I think that you will find less bad moments here than anywhere else.


----------



## Susan in VA (Apr 3, 2009)

hercircumstance said:


> Am I going to have people profiling my country of origin every time I post here? That's disturbing. I didn't realize where you were born made so much of a difference. Should I tell everyone my skin color too? They do things in Australia very different than anywhere else I've been. I was just looking for a Kindle community, but this one is off my list now. I've never been welcomed so rudely before.


The post you saw as rude was probably more a tongue-in-cheek response from a non-American....

In your original post you had said, more or less, that you thought intelligence ought to imply superior morality. Wellllll.... Americans do tend to have much more faith in the goodness of human nature than non-Americans. (Note that I speak as a person with one foot in America and one in Europe; this is a _reasonably_ impartial observation. ) So the assumption that was made was understandable... it's just that tongue-in-cheek comments and sarcasm don't translate well without smileys or a lot of willingness to see the humor in other people's posts.

And that other poster is also pretty new here, and probably didn't realize that on Kindleboards we tend to err on the side of extra smileys and disclaimers just to be sure we don't step on any toes.

So please reconsider. This is a friendly place, by and large. Really. (Though some of us, despite being readers, might not be of superior intelligence, and some of us, despite being readers, might not be of superior morality.  But hey, we have Kindles, and we read!)


----------



## Badandy (Dec 4, 2008)

Susan in VA said:


> So please reconsider. This is a friendly place, by and large. Really. (Though some of us, despite being readers, might not be of superior intelligence, and some of us, despite being readers, might not be of superior morality.  But hey, we have Kindles, and we read!)


I understand what you're trying to do here, but I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. The poster you quoted is not only ultra-defensive, but seems to enjoy feeling persecuted and victimized. I've never seen such a strange reaction from a new member on a message board, it's absolutely baffling. Kindleboards members are so nice that it would be hard not to get that impression by looking at even one or two threads. To just assume the worst and then rail against it without getting clarification is peculiar behavior.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Hercumstances, KindleBoards is a pretty big place, hopefully you'll find some of the other threads more to your liking, I invite you to try some of the other areas.  Folks here are pretty generous.

Just as I would hesitate to make broad assumptions about any poster after only four posts, I would hope that you would give a board with 7000 members and thousands of topics another chance.

As has been said, this is a pretty friendly place.  This thread gets pretty passionate at times, but readers are pretty passionate!

Betsy


----------



## geoffthomas (Feb 27, 2009)

hercircumstance said:


> Am I going to have people profiling my country of origin every time I post here? That's disturbing. I didn't realize where you were born made so much of a difference. Should I tell everyone my skin color too? They do things in Australia very different than anywhere else I've been. I was just looking for a Kindle community, but this one is off my list now. I've never been welcomed so rudely before.


We should point out that for a new member with only 4 posts, you have stumbled into one of the few "contentious" threads on this forum.
Please stay around and look over the accessories thread where we will be happy to "enable" you.
Or the Book Corner where we discuss books we love.
Or the Book Bazaar where the resident authors here keep us informed of their latest efforts.
Or the Good Morning thread where we share our early morning thoughts.
This thread is not indicative of the general tone of KB.

But (and here I am NOT speaking for Harvey or the mods) we do like a little "friendly" discussion now and then.
And sometimes people need to be direct in order to make their point.

If you had read this thread from the very beginning you would have noted a secondary issue of opinion difference outside the U.S. vs inside the U.S.
This is especially significant due to Amazon not selling the Kindle (until just recently) outside the U.S. And having different policies about which books are sold where.

Hope you fell better about us and stick around.

Just sayin........


----------



## Mike D. aka jmiked (Oct 28, 2008)

geoffthomas said:


> And having different policies about which books are sold where.


I don't know that I'd say that Amazon has different polices. I'd say that publishers and copyright law dictate which books are sold where. 

I'm pretty sure Jeff Bezos would like to sell every book every place if it were left to him.

Mike


----------



## intinst (Dec 23, 2008)

jmiked said:


> I don't know that I'd say that Amazon has different polices. I'd say that publishers and copyright law dictate which books are sold where.
> 
> I'm pretty sure Jeff Bezos would like to sell every book every place if it were left to him.
> 
> Mike


True that!


----------



## Dave Dykema (May 18, 2009)

OK, you've all been waiting with baited breath for the attempt of the "UR" download.

It failed.

He couldn't find it or get it. Gave up after 10 minutes. I was very pleased.

We then Wii bowled. He beat me 2 out of 3 games.


----------



## LSbookend (Dec 22, 2008)

Well I'm glad the Ur download failed. Too bad about bowling. Re-match time!


----------



## webhill (Feb 12, 2009)

hercircumstance said:


> Am I going to have people profiling my country of origin every time I post here? That's disturbing. I didn't realize where you were born made so much of a difference. Should I tell everyone my skin color too? They do things in Australia very different than anywhere else I've been. I was just looking for a Kindle community, but this one is off my list now. I've never been welcomed so rudely before.


Whoa. I can't even tell which one of the people in this thread is from Australia, let alone why someone is so upset about it. I think there must have been a major misunderstanding...


----------



## angel_b (Nov 18, 2009)

hercircumstance said:


> Am I going to have people profiling my country of origin every time I post here? That's disturbing. I didn't realize where you were born made so much of a difference. Should I tell everyone my skin color too? They do things in Australia very different than anywhere else I've been. I was just looking for a Kindle community, but this one is off my list now. I've never been welcomed so rudely before.


Wow. Where did that come from? 

As Selcien said, I was just asking where in the world you were posting from as it was relevant to the discussion. I certainly didn't mean anything by it and am sorry you thought so.

I hope you're not as defensive IRL.

There's no reason to leave. As has been said, the members here are friendly and welcoming and this is just a bit of a fiery thread. But do as you please.


----------



## Selcien (Oct 31, 2008)

Dave Dykema said:


> OK, you've all been waiting with baited breath for the attempt of the "UR" download.
> 
> It failed.
> 
> He couldn't find it or get it. Gave up after 10 minutes. I was very pleased.


I was hoping that's the way it would go.

Now I wonder whether it's because it's only available from Amazon in DRM'd form (makes it blatantly obvious where it had come from), or because there is no print version of it.


----------

