DRM/Copy-Protection/Anti-Piracy measures

[Mister Emu]

How are they not?

The very idea of legal theft, as an aside, is an oxymoron. Theft by definition is unlawful taking.

Libraries have lending agreements with creators giving them legal sanction to borrow out their works. They also have agreements as lenders with those borrowing that they won't use the good for illegal purposes.

Often they are not followed. Which rosy world do you live in where they are?

Again, what are you talking about? When did I imply that every library patron uses the lending for only legal purposes? And what kind of non-sequitur is this? How does it follow that if patrons break the law using library services that the library is somehow now a legal purveyor of theft?

 

[Nymphs]

Libraries have lending agreements with creators giving them legal sanction to borrow out their works. They also have agreements as lenders with those borrowing that they won't use the good for illegal purposes.

Really? I'd love to see those agreements.

Again, what are you talking about? When did I imply that every library patron uses the lending for only legal purposes? And what kind of non-sequitur is this? How does it follow that if patrons break the law using library services that the library is somehow now a legal purveyor of theft?

I didn't say that, you did. I'm just saying that libraries allow this type of theft just by existing, do they not?

 

[YmirGF]

Do you think 90% of the population actually realizes they agreed to it? Even if they do, most aren't going to abide by it.

As an experiment you could go into a library of your choice and state to the people there that you intend to copy the digital media you are borrowing from them. You might get an interesting surprise.

If that is too bold, perhaps ask them "innocently" if it is ok if you made a copy of the media before you returned it.

 

[DreadFish]

Only if you don't legally own the CD.

Actually, technically, I think that even copying a CD that you legally own is producing an illegal copy.

 

[DreadFish]

Really? I'd love to see those agreements.

Just because a person doesn't read the small print doesn't mean they haven't agreed to it

I didn't say that, you did. I'm just saying that libraries allow this type of theft just by existing, do they not?

It would be more appropriate to say that they make this type of theft easier. Saying that libraries allow this type of theft would be incorrect. They do not allow it, however they do not actively enforce the laws; they simply rely on individuals honoring the agreement that they have made.

 

[HonestJoe]

Actually, technically, I think that even copying a CD that you legally own is producing an illegal copy.

Technically but if it’s just for personal use (back-ups, copying to an MP3 player etc.) it also clearly falls within the fair use defence and has zero chance of ever being prosecuted.

 

[DreadFish]

Technically but if it’s just for personal use (back-ups, copying to an MP3 player etc.) it also clearly falls within the fair use defence and has zero chance of ever being prosecuted.

Ah, good to know. Thanks.

 

[Nymphs]

Just because a person doesn't read the small print doesn't mean they haven't agreed to it

I'm still waiting to see those agreements. :yes:

It would be more appropriate to say that they make this type of theft easier. Saying that libraries allow this type of theft would be incorrect. They do not allow it, however they do not actively enforce the laws; they simply rely on individuals honoring the agreement that they have made.

And in being open, they allow this type of behaviour to happen. If the library didn't exist, less of that behaviour would happen. I don't condemn the behaviour by any means, in fact, I support it (as seen earlier in this thread). Libraries aren't doing anything to stop it are they? If not, they are allowing it by omission.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The very idea of legal theft, as an aside, is an oxymoron. Theft by definition is unlawful taking.

That's one take on it... albeit a strange one. There are plenty of forms of "illegal taking" that aren't considered "theft"; fishing over the limit, for instance. Or camping on private property without permission.

I think most people differentiate between the crime of theft and the moral transgression (which could be defined as "taking something that rightly belongs to someone else"). It's only when the law is just that those two things would coincide... but it's not necessarily the case that the law is just.

 

[MoonWater]

I think software should be treated just like anything else really, at least as far as it can be. I don't have to hook up to the internet or some GPS satelite every time I drive my car, so I shouldn't be required to hook up to the internet in order to play a single player game. I can lend a movie to a friend I should be able to do the same with software. I don't have to replace any of my books if the shelf they are on breaks and can move them between shelves at my leisure without needing to pay extra so I shouldn't have to re-buy a program or spend extra money simply because the computer I had it on broke or because I want to use it on a different computer. I can convert my music into any format I please and copy it as much as I like to use in different music players and burn different CD mixes so long as it's all for personal use, I should be able to copy and convert any software that I own for personal use on multiple compatible devices too. etc.

I know there are certain fundamental differences between software and physical property that make it impossible to treat both exactly the same in all aspects. I'm just saying that in instances where they can be, they should be.

Granted I wouldn't be in favor of legally restricting such, that would be too intrusive in my mind. With the exception of outlawing always online DRM or limited installs and severely restricting all this licensing BS since it's so anti-consumer and so invasive. Heck I'd go so far as to say that limitting the number of installs a person can have is akin to theft as I would consider it no different than a bookstore saying "alright you've bought that book but you are only allowed to have it on one bookshelf. If that shelf breaks or you wanna move it to a different one then you'll have to buy another copy of the book" or saying "you can read this book at home but if you wish to remove it from that location and bring it to another location to read then you'll have to spend another $10 on our special "2 locations" license, buy now and we'll let you read in a third location for free." Sounds absurd right? You'd feel like you were getting robbed right? Well limited installs are the same thing in my mind, "oh, your computer broke 2 weeks after buying the program? Sucks for you, you have to buy our program again. No you don't get any discount or refund. You wanna be able to use the program at home and at work then you better give us more money." What a load.

 

[Riverwolf]

Actually, technically, I think that even copying a CD that you legally own is producing an illegal copy.

I think it's one of those things that's left up to the publisher to determine. It's why this is such a legal gray area.

Technically but if it’s just for personal use (back-ups, copying to an MP3 player etc.) it also clearly falls within the fair use defence and has zero chance of ever being prosecuted.

I freaking love Fair Use. It's one of the few laws that actually acknowledges the user and consumer rather than allowing the corporations all the power.

 

[Riverwolf]

I'm still waiting to see those agreements. :yes:

Ask your local librarian. The exact agreements probably differ from library to library.

And in being open, they allow this type of behaviour to happen. If the library didn't exist, less of that behaviour would happen. I don't condemn the behaviour by any means, in fact, I support it (as seen earlier in this thread). Libraries aren't doing anything to stop it are they? If not, they are allowing it by omission.

If they knew that someone was doing it, they would try to stop it, perhaps by suspending the person's account.

I do agree with this concept: a law is only as good as its enforcement, whether that be the presence of potential enforcement, or the practical inability for enforcement. But just because it's either not being enforced, or can't be enforced for whatever reason, doesn't make it any less illegal. The law in question might be effectively useless, but it's still there, which means prosecution is possible.