In article <slrnh69lf2.g4o.postmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Bob Hauck <postmaster@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:30:12 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch
> <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:45:58 -0400, Bob Hauck wrote:
> >
> >>> It may not be impossible to retrieve them. For instance, if the
> >>> customer paid for the book with a credit card or paypal or any other
> >>> kind of electronic payment (which is the only way to buy anything from
> >>> Amazon anyways), the customer could be sued by the rights holder to
> >>> turn over his copy, resulting in a possible judgement if they failed
> >>> to do so, which would go on their credit report.
>
> >> I think you are mistaken. The customer did not violate the copyright,
> >> the seller did. Any remedies would necessarily be against the seller.
> >>
> >> More to the point...has this EVER happened as you describe?
> >
> > I seem to recall the case where a small number of Harry Potter books went
> > on sale before they were supposed to, and there was some significant legal
> > manuevering over it. I don't recall all the details, though..
>
> So you have no idea, you just made up a nice scary story.
>
>
> >> Your great love for DRM-encumbered products and outrageous actions by
> >> rights holders is duly noted. Perhaps you should go work for the RIAA.
> >
> > No. You misunderstand my position. I believe in the right of any
> > software vendor, either free or not, to write any code they like that
> > does anything they like, including restricting content of protected
> > media, so long as it does not try to restrict unprotected media.
>
> To on the one hand demand copyright of unlimited duration and new
> restrictions on traditional fair use, and then to throw on top of it
> intrusive "protection" schemes, then that is too much in my view.
>
> DRM is especially pernicious because in some forms you lose access to
> content that you paid for because of events you cannot control, such as
> the vendor going out of business. Or maybe you're down on your luck and
> can't afford an Internet connection for a while. Sorry, you can't
> listen to those tunes you bought in the good times!
>
> In addition, such content might never enter the public domain,
> representing a loss to the culture and society. That is the opposite of
> the underlying purpose of copyright, which is to enrich the culture.
Well, the good news is DRM always gets cracked.
Which is also the reason why it's entirely pointless; it hurts
interoperability and is just generally annoying, yet does virtually
nothing to prevent piracy.
The RIAA seems to have finally mostly given up on the whole DRM thing.
What seems to have done it is that instead of DRM giving them control
over consumers, as they imagined it would, Apple structured things so
DRM gave Apple control over the RIAA labels. Oops.
More technology companies need to step up and do similar things. Or at
least be honest with content owners that DRM doesn't really work.
Instead, many companies seem to be willing to tell content owners
whatever they want to hear and implement whatever consumer-hostile
nonsense content owners think they want, presumably in order to try to
get exclusive content for their media platforms.
> Perhaps vendors ought to be made to choose one or the other. Trust in
> your DRM, or trust in the legal protections of copyright, but not both.
This would be hilarious. It will, of course, never happen.
> > This is where you anti-DRM people lose sight of the argument. It's
> > within the rights holders rights to restrict the content. But it's
> > within my rights not to buy that content. Whether or not the product
> > i'm using enforces those rights is irrelevant to me, so long as it
> > doesn't try to restrict unencumbered media.
>
> The problem comes if nearly everyone accepts DRM. Then you and I are
> out of luck, there will be nothing to purchase. That is why us anti-DRM
> folk argue so much against it. We want to prevent that acceptance.
The fact that online music sales are now mostly DRM-free is, I think, a
good first step. It demonstrates to content owners that they can make
money even without DRM, and consumers who are exposed to DRM-free
content in that market are more likely to want DRM-free content
elsewhere.
IMO, the only legitimate use for DRM is content that is explicitly
provided as "rental" content. If you're paying purchase prices rather
than rental prices, you shouldn't be getting content that can be revoked
at the copyright holder's whim.
--
"The game of professional investment is intolerably boring and over-exacting to
anyone who is entirely exempt from the gambling instinct; whilst he who has it
must pay to this propensity the appropriate toll." -- John Maynard Keynes
|
|
