3 ms·
What you’re proposing would require a literal quantum shift in DRM, where it’s only possible to use a copy of something if that thing hasn’t been itself copied
by c0pium 3y ago
What you’re proposing would require a literal quantum shift in DRM, where it’s only possible to use a copy of something if that thing hasn’t been itself copied somewhere else. That world would ironically unite the desires of publishers, creators, and actual archivists, leaving only the pirates out in the cold. Whoever figures out how to do that is going to make a fortune.
- j_maffe 3y agoNo you wouldn't. It's not about DRM, it's about the contractual agreements between libraries and publishers. They already track the number of times it's borrowed and for how long. OP is suggesting that it should be dealt with the same as a hard copy, i.e. only one person can borrow it at a time.
- c0pium 3y agoProposing that any rights holder would accept a solution where there is no technical control preventing arbitrary copying is an extraordinary claim which requires extraordinary evidence. I’m not saying it wouldn’t be cool, I’m saying it’s never going to happen. Secondly, you should reread their post, it’s much broader than your interpretation. They were envisioning a world where the device and copying restrictions we have today don’t exist.
- j_maffe 3y agoI'm not sure we're on the same page. How do you think libraries loan out ebooks, currently? DRM for this exact functionality is already implemented by most publishers
- c0pium 3y agoYou should reread their post, libraries usage is incidental to what they’re talking about. Their point, that first sale should apply to ebooks, requires a fundamentally different approach to DRM. If I own my content and can put it on any device I want, how can the seller be sure I’m only using one copy at a time? Consider the case that I might have it on multiple different devices which aren’t connected to the internet, they’re saying I should be able to do that while keeping the requirement that only one copy be usable at a time. My reference to quantum was saying that this usage pattern would require something like quantum entanglement to replicate the state of which copy is active among all copies.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago> If I own my content and can put it on any device I want, how can the seller be sure I’m only using one copy at a time? They can't, which is the same as it is now. DRM is a farce and everything is on The Pirate Bay. Which is why restricting libraries like this is ridiculous -- anybody who doesn't care to follow the law doesn't need to get a copy from a library, they can just download it from a piracy site. The reason you go to the library instead is that you want to follow the law.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- j_maffe 3y agoThere is no justice in following unjust laws.
- j_maffe 3y agoI'm not sure if the librarians in the article meant this but that's beside the point. The publishers can enforce a DRM on their side such that only one reader gets it at a time and adjust the contracts with the libraries accordingly, no need for fancy quantum stuff for client-side DRM.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- elijaht 3y ago> that it should be dealt with the same as a hard copy, i.e. only one person can borrow it at a time. That's how it works in every library system I have dealt with
- j_maffe 3y agoYeah same but as the article states, there are extra terms in the agreement such as a maximum of 26 loans and a two-year renewal, whichever comes first. And the ebook is usually 4 times more expensive than the physical one just for that period. It should be treated just like a hard copy in all these manners.