https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/protect-readers-rights-unlocking-ebooks/ssmGC3T9

Maybe nothing will happen, but who knows. **** DRM. Sign, spread the word.

Yo Nerd, no one cares about your books.

The petition is asking for a DMCA exemption for DRM circumvention for e-books. It is not asking for the US government to ban the use of DRM on e-books, a power which it doesn't and shouldn't have.

Edit: The petition is also dumb, because when you purchase an e-book you actually are paying for a license, and for electronic media there is no actual distinction between lending and copying so comparing e-books to physical books in libraries is aggressively stupid.

If that's what you actually think and not just trolling because you've nothing better to do, I'll argue with you when I'll have nothing better to do.

Uh, yes, this is what I actually think, as someone who understands both copyright and computer software.

Pointless semantics. I might come back to this later, but in the meantime, here's a very interesting article on the future of libraries: http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidvinjamuri/2012/12/11/the-wrong-war-over-ebooks-publishers-vs-libraries/

This sentence literally means "meaningless meaning."



ty for the Forbes article talking about who-gives-a-**** but here's the thing:

First off, the very act of storing electronic media on a device involves making a duplicate of it. Streaming and caching are covered under fair use, deliberate local storage isn't. The only way you can legally download and read the e-book you "bought" is by securing a limited copyright license for the work. So, of course e-book sales are governed by a license, because e-books would be useless otherwise.

Second, the basis for the first sale doctrine (this is what you're talking about even tho you might not know it) is that the original copy of the work was created and sold by the copyright holder. This doesn't apply to electronic media for two main reasons: because the original copy of the work was created by the consumer (when they downloaded it); and, because there is no destructive way of transferring this data, the person reselling their copy must also have permission to grant a copyright license to others.

Ironically, a strong and effective DRM scheme which allows the revocation and transfer of licenses is literally the only way a destructive transfer can be implemented for e-books.

joncy

stop knowing everything

Thanks for elaborating, at least.

>>This sentence literally means "meaningless meaning."

It literally means "pointless search of meaning", ie., your spiel about how you're actually purchasing a license. It has no relevance to DRM (the subject at hand). If we were talking about video games, would you use the same argument?

>>The only way you can legally download and read the e-book you "bought" is by securing a limited copyright license for the work. So, of course e-book sales are governed by a license, because e-books would be useless otherwise.

Again, unrelated to DRM.

>>Second, the basis for the first sale doctrine (this is what you're talking about even tho you might not know it) is that the original copy of the work was created and sold by the copyright holder.

The OP was about DRM, even tho you might not know it.

>>doesn't apply to electronic media for two main reasons: because the original copy of the work was created by the consumer (when they downloaded it); and, because there is no destructive way of transferring this data, the person reselling their copy must also have permission to grant a copyright license to others.

1. Curious, why would you want to re-sell your digital copy of a digital product unless it's no longer available on the market? 2. There are different types of licenses. 3. DRM is counter-productive.

>>Ironically, a strong and effective DRM scheme which allows the revocation and transfer of licenses is literally the only way a destructive transfer can be implemented for e-books.

There is a big chance that this would come at the consumer's expense. If we're talking about libraries of the future, then OK, it makes sense (eg., imposed time limits or whatnot). If we're talking about a product you buy (a book), a DRM scheme is a very, very bad idea.

Here is where I first read about this petition BTW: http://terribleminds.com/ramble/2013/03/06/drm-a-petition-to-unlock-e-books/

I pretty much agree with everything he has to say in that post, but I guess it's nothing new.

I bought Skyrim on Steam. I think it's bull**** that I can't play it on Xbox. I'm starting a petition.

I dont feel like getting into all of the issues with DRM & whatever. I do work in publishing and clearly it has some effect on what we do. I don't work with ebooks directly. Not saying that DRM isn't bad, but what's so wrong about "renting" an ebook? If it's a class you're only taking for 4 months why not?

Anyway, these guys have the right idea and are far less fear mongering than your link http://pubstandards.org/

I FEEL LIKE IF I PAY FAR LESS FOR A DIGITAL VERSION OF A THING THAN I WOULD FOR THE REAL THING I SHOULD STILL GET TO KEEP IT FOREVER! WHY CAN'T I WATCH THE MOVIES I PURCHASE OFF OF ITUNES ON MY VCR?

I find that many times as I observe debates about varying subjects (DRM, Copyright, Government, Gun Rights, Death Penalty, ect) there will come a time when I realize that one of the debaters is arguing based on an unspoken assumption that goes something like "In a perfect world...".

Then I shed a little tear because it's not a perfect world, and the reason our lives are so complicated and frustrating is because people are greedy, lazy, cheap, dishonest, and hurtful.

No, it literally doesn't.

It depends. PC games and downloadable games are also licensed like e-books. Console games are not licensed in the same way because resale involves a physical storage medium and a destructive transfer of content.

The issues with and limitations of current copyright law w.r.t. electronic media is central to the debate about DRM. Pretending otherwise is deliberate ignorance.

So iow you didn't know it.

The first sale doctrine doesn't just deal with reselling, it also deals with gifting and lending. Since you went out of your way to talk about libraries I figured you'd give a **** about the first sale doctrine but nope, apparently not.

Do you have a point?

To what end?

Yes, it is very unlikely that an existing publisher would create a DRM scheme which enabled a secondary market. On the other hand, without DRM any secondary market would be indistinguishable (both legally and technologically) from mass piracy. Soooo....

You appear to have mistaken my posts as advocating for DRM instead of advocating for copyright reform.

The petition you posted isn't stupid because it's opposing DRM, it's stupid because: 1.) the president can't declare by fiat that companies can't use DRM anymore, all they can do is add a DMCA exemption for e-book DRM circumvention which ain't happening because unlike cell phone locking the DMCA is actually working as intended here, 2.) it says that e-books "aren't licensed" when they actually are and must be in order for the purchase of an e-book to even be legal, 3.) it asks for the first sale doctrine to be unambiguously applicable to e-books without adding a license transfer mechanism, 4.) it wants all of the previous without serious copyright reform.

Basically

and I don't mean this to offend you, this is the truth

but basically you don't understand the issues here, and neither do the people who made that petition.

I used to have this problem a lot. The cynicism won in the end.

>> No, it literally doesn't.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/semantics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantics

>> The issues with and limitations of current copyright law w.r.t. electronic media is central to the debate about DRM. Pretending otherwise is deliberate ignorance.

Any imposed security measure, such as limitations that certain DRM schemes introduce, can be broken. Now, I don't think that people shouldn't pay for electronic media... But I think that when publishers introduce measures that potentially hinder the end-product they're trying to protect, they're doing everyone (including themselves) a disservice. I'm happy to talk about copyright laws regarding electronic media, but this is not what we are talking about. At least this is not what I am talking about.

>> So iow you didn't know it.

I am talking about technology. You are talking about law. See the difference?

>> Yes, it is very unlikely that an existing publisher would create a DRM scheme which enabled a secondary market. On the other hand, without DRM any secondary market would be indistinguishable (both legally and technologically) from mass piracy. Soooo....

If by "secondary market" you mean a market for "used goods", then there is no need for one when dealing with e-books while they are available from the distributor(s)...

>> You appear to have mistaken my posts as advocating for DRM instead of advocating for copyright reform.

I must have missed those part(s) of your post(s) in which you were advocating for copyright reform. Silly me.

>> The petition you posted isn't stupid because it's opposing DRM, it's stupid because: 1.) the president can't declare by fiat that companies can't use DRM anymore, all they can do is add a DMCA exemption for e-book DRM circumvention which ain't happening because unlike cell phone locking the DMCA is actually working as intended here, 2.) it says that e-books "aren't licensed" when they actually are and must be in order for the purchase of an e-book to even be legal, 3.) it asks for the first sale doctrine to be unambiguously applicable to e-books without adding a license transfer mechanism, 4.) it wants all of the previous without serious copyright reform.

1. Working as intended? Of course it's working as intended. Cell phone locking worked as intended as well. I think that decriminalizing the removal of DRM from your book's copy is a step in the right direction.

2. Technically, you are correct.

3. Personally, I think that DRM might make sense in the context of e-book libraries. That's not to say that there can't be any other / better ways.

4. It's the closest we've got to a public message to the US government right now, and it is a step in the right direction, read point 1.

Cheerio.

Hey mb. This looks interesting, I'll be reading everything on there when I'll have some time... Thanks!

So what are you talking about? DRM in general? Yet you link a whitehouse.gov petition?

DMCA exemption for e-book DRM circumvention.

Decriminalization of removal of DRM technology, minimizing the incentive to use it.

Also, SPACECAT!

I spend almost all of my free time on language processing, don't even ****in go there bro.

Um, yes, yes you are talking about copyright laws regarding electronic media, because the DMCA is the foremost of those laws and you are currently advocating for a change to this law. This is all about copyright law.

wat. You know libraries deal in used goods, right? And the first sale doctrine is what allows libraries to freely exchange used books free of the control of the original copyright holder. You basically just argued that libraries shouldn't be allowed to carry books as long as you can still buy them. I just don't even know what you're arguing for anymore.

Yes because my description of how current copyright law effectively prohibits a basic and fundamental tenet of our free market system (the ability to sell goods) should naturally be understood as tacit approval rather than a scathing reductio ad absurdum argument about how any country that bases its economy on intellectual property is horribly doomed.

No, you don't understand the issue here. The DMCA was specifically written to prevent people from removing the DRM from electronic consumable media. E-books, for example, or movies, video games, or computer software.

Cell phone providers abused the DMCA by arguing that cell phone unlocking constituted disabling the DRM on their pre-packaged software, a legal argument they used to threaten small operators and their own customers. The DMCA was not intended for this purpose by any means.

Currently there are no other/better ways, the fundamental nature of our computer technology means there is no legal or technological distinction between an exchange of e-books between devices and creating an unlicensed duplicate in violation of copyright. Period. If you want other/better ways you better start thinking more about law and less about technology, because right now your talk isn't anywhere close to where the problem is.

Cool, they don't care. DMCA was straight up written to make e-book DRM legally protected, and now there are a few dozen regional copyright/DRM treaties to which the US is a signatory so the odds of them slacking on the DMCA beyond clear abuses is *raspberry*.

What he was originally talking about is banning the use of DRM on e-books (because that's what the petition asks for). What he's talking about now (ostensibly, after I started talking about the legal situation) is a DMCA anti-circumvention exemption for e-books.

And apparently I'm not the only person who thinks the petition is stupid, because in order for it to warrant a response it'd need to get double its current total every single day until the petition closes. Literally less successful than the nuisance polls asking for democrat congresspeople to be prosecuted for supporting gun control, even though the population of the internet is largely literal, literate, technology-minded, and opposed to the expansion of copyright.

Copyright holders have every right to impose any kind of DRM scheme they want (provided it doesn't do anything malicious, see some version of StarForce). You also have a right to not buy it.

I also think it's incredibly audacious that you think you know better than the people implementing DRM about how cost effective it is for them. I see this repeated ad nauseum across the internet, that DRM is more expensive than the lost sales from piracy... what data supports this?

Licensing Starforce or SecuROM could be cost-effective. I think it's safe to say that it's not cost effective to go full retard like EA and require an always-on connection to an AWS instance for a non-subscription game that requires more-or-less indefinite support.

Any data is going to be proprietary, and probably sales bull**** anyways.

However, you don't really need data to look at how effective it is in accomplishing it's intended functional goal. If DRM doesn't make it more difficult for people to pirate games, than there is no reason to think that has any effect on piracy.

As far as I know the only real cases in which DRM has been any sort of inconvenience is multiplayer games, and relatively obscure titles with really heavy DRM that no one could be arsed to crack.

That's my feeling as well, Obi_Kwiet...

>> I spend almost all of my free time on language processing, don't even ****in go there bro.

My major was language & literature, mmm... I dropped out to go to work (ha ha, laugh all you want), but I'm positive you're not aware of all the ways this word can be used.

>> What he was originally talking about is banning the use of DRM on e-books (because that's what the petition asks for). What he's talking about now (ostensibly, after I started talking about the legal situation) is a DMCA anti-circumvention exemption for e-books.

Petition to US White House to stop putting DRM on e-books. Decriminalization of removal of DRM technology, minimizing the incentive to use it.

>> You basically just argued that libraries shouldn't be allowed to carry books as long as you can still buy them. I just don't even know what you're arguing for anymore.

I didn't argue anything, I was just curious why you'd want to re-sell e-books, and that was pretty much it.

Love the ARP Odyssey on the spacecat picture.

(I'd prefer a Minimoog though which probably surprises landfish)

And of course, multiplayer titles like CoD and Battlefield aren't big money makers so I'm sure it doesn't matter for them.


I'm pretty sure their accountants have a reasonable idea of the number of units they sell. I'm not saying "trust EA, they know what they're doing" I'm saying "some mouthbreathing armchair expert is ****ing clueless and throws around wild assumptions."

Yeah, "armchair experts" like Cory Doctorow for example? I bet The Guardian published his article on the topic of Tor Books eliminating DRM from their e-books specifically because he doesn't know **** (and neither do they). I mean, why else? He can't possibly have a point, can he?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/may/03/death-of-drm-good-news

I was taking a tangent about the point as it affects video games, not books. Aren't you Mr. Strawman today.

I'm all in favor of copyright reform (namely the reduction of copyright term to something sane) and don't think DRM is always a good thing, but don't think it's inherently wrong or bad, either. I think criminalization of DRM removal for personal use (i.e. not redistributing it) is absurdly stupid. But the assumptions made by this petition, such as about being a purchase and not a license, are also absurdly stupid. Jon's right on the money in his above points about how IP works.

Has there ever even been an online petition that has done something?
I may be completely in the dark on this but I'm fairly confident there has been a lot more petitions with a lot more people 'signing' them that have done a whole lot of nothing.
The closest example I have found to a 'succesful' online petition is Family Guy coming back, but it's a fairly safe bet it was the sales figures that actually did that...

The whitehouse petition to make cellphone unlocking be legal again got a response from the whitehouse saying "we agree."

Yeah, that's basically nothing, but it still feels good as hell to at least know the whitehouse is on our side.

I hope they won't put DRM in the spacecat.