4 ms·
Isn't it technically a crime though? That's the kicker: the legislative backing to the schemes. Its a matter of time until this GS are so locked down that circu
by jammygit 8y ago
Isn't it technically a crime though? That's the kicker: the legislative backing to the schemes. Its a matter of time until this GS are so locked down that circumvention becomes impractical, even if its several years in the future. The 'it doesn't work' argument is temporary unless there is enough pushback (as happened with music, thankfully)
- sn41 8y agoThis lockdown is what organisations like EFF are trying to fight. Once I have paid for a product, I am its owner. I should be legally allowed to use it, disassemble it, or repair it in any manner I choose to. My main concern is that my book collection in all probability will outlast Amazon as a company. When they go away, should my books be unreadable? Will I get a refund when Amazon goes bankrupt? DRM violates the transactional nature of business by tying the product eternally to the seller to be usable at all.
- redwall_hp 8y agoDRM is technically a crime, too. It's infringing upon First Sale Doctrine. You, as someone buying media, actually have rights to what you purchase. The general public has just accepted the industry trampling on those rights and lobbying for laws that conflict with them.
- jolux 8y agoIsn't it protecting their reproduction rights?
- lgeorget 8y agoIf my understanding is correct, the Doctrine of First Sale only applies if you buy a physical asset, like a CD or an actual book.
- darkpuma 8y agoIs DeCSS not illegal under the DMCA? Those DRM'd DVDs were no less physical than DRM-less audio CDs.
- pergadad 8y agoYou're not buying a book on Amazon, you're buying a personal license to use a book.
- Tor3 8y agoI would argue you're not, because when you buy a book you can choose between hardcopy and kindle - and there's nothing visibly telling you that with one option you get to own the book, with the other you're merely licensing.
- tzs 8y ago> DRM is technically a crime, too. It's infringing upon First Sale Doctrine. First sale doctrine says that you aren't violating copyright by selling any lawfully made particular copy that you own. I don't see anything in it that says the publisher can't use means other than copyright to try and stop you from doing that.
- bubblethink 8y ago>(as happened with music, thankfully) The main reason it didn't happen with (sold) music was that audio cds were already unencumbered. So it made even less sense than usual to tack on additional DRM. And finally, the most popular form of consuming music now is streaming, which does have DRM generally.
- tzs 8y agoIt did happen with sold music. Most downloadable music sold in the early to mid 2000s had DRM. It wasn't until Steve Jobs wrote an open letter in early 2007 calling for the music industry to drop this did it start to change widely [1]. One label, EMI, then agreed to go DRM-free on iTunes. Another, Warner, said that Jobs was an idiot and they would never go DRM free. Within a year or so most labels came to agree with Jobs, and when Amazon Music launched in early 2008 it was DRM-free, including music from Warner. It took something like another year for iTunes to go fully DRM-free, because Warner was holding out there. [1] http://macdailynews.com/2007/02/06/apple_ceo_steve_jobs_posts_rare_open_letter_thoughts_on_music/ http://macdailynews.com/2007/02/06/apple_ceo_steve_jobs_post...
- bubblethink 8y agoI'm aware of that, but the crucial bit is that CDs existed (and still do for the most part) as it is pointed out in the letter. So even if it weren't for apple, sooner or later things would have taken a similar turn. And that's also why this didn't extend to any other form of media.
- darkpuma 8y ago> Isn't it technically a crime though? Ten years ago, so was smoking dope.