Whatever stopped you from porting it yourself....

Vatsan -

"Whatever stopped you from porting it yourself...."

Are you serious?

Hey Rory,

While your porting stuff...Could you port Windows XP to my PowerPC?

Hey Rory, care to explain how circumventing DRM for fair use is somehow, in any way, unethical?

Jim -

"Could you port Windows XP to my PowerPC?"

Just go to SourceForge, grab the latest tree, and recompile Windows with the --PowerPC switch.

Duh.

Michael -

"Hey Rory, care to explain how circumventing DRM for fair use is somehow, in any way, unethical?"

While this won't win me any popularity contests in the geek world, I believe that the distributors of media should have the right to choose the method by which their wares reach the public.

In the case of Dan Brown novels, for example, the chosen method of electronic distribution is DRM protected e-books. If that's the condition on which I can enjoy the price and convenience of a downloaded book, then I'm OK with that. It isn't the publisher or distributor's fault that I don't have a DRM enabled reader for my phone.

Plus, I think it would be difficult to argue that circumventing the DRM wouldn't lead to unlawful distribution of the work through unapproved channels.

As someone who's been thinking about writing an e-book, this is stuff I've spent some time thinking about, and I certainly wouldn't like it if people were taking my work and taking it upon themselves to modify my chosen distribution plan, and especially when it might lead to facilitation of theft.

But, without getting too tangential (OK - too late), I'd say that I *shouldn't have* to circumvent the DRM. If Microsoft is serious about DRM media, then we shouldn't be pushing it like crazy and then not providing the tools with which to consume it. It would be like ordering that all soft drinks should be distributed in bottles, but then taking away everybody's bottle openers.

Not cool.

When the only way to get at the sweet, sticky, frothy beverage in the bottle is to *break* it, then something's gone wrong somewhere.

Like on my Smartphone.

"When the only way to get at the sweet, sticky, frothy beverage in the bottle is to *break* it, then something's gone wrong somewhere."

or use something else to open the bottle.... wouldn't really be a problem since you purchased the bottled item in the first place.....


"Plus, I think it would be difficult to argue that circumventing the DRM wouldn't lead to unlawful distribution of the work through unapproved channels."


Only if you distribute it.. Circumventing the DRM in itself is not really a problem, its the distributing it that becomes a problem.


Rick

P.S. You used the word theft incorrectly. I only point it out since you used the dictionary to make your point last time.

theft

1. The act or an instance of stealing; larceny.
2. Obsolete. Something stolen.

larceny

The unlawful taking and removing of another's personal property with the intent of permanently depriving the owner; theft

Sounds like your SmartPhone isn't very smart.

Rick -

"or use something else to open the bottle.... wouldn't really be a problem since you purchased the bottled item in the first place....."

All analogies have *some* flaw, and the soft drink was no exception, but you're smart, and I'm assuming you knew what I meant.

"P.S. You used the word theft incorrectly. I only point it out since you used the dictionary to make your point last time.

theft

1. The act or an instance of stealing; larceny.
2. Obsolete. Something stolen.

larceny

The unlawful taking and removing of another's personal property with the intent of permanently depriving the owner; theft"

I don't actually see how I was incorrect.

There's this belief now that, because bits can be perfectly copied without destroying the source of the bits, copying isn't the same as stealing since it doesn't deprive the owner of his goods.

However, if the circumvented media is distributed (and it is), and if it is downloaded without remuneration going to the producer of the work (and it is), then the producer of the work is being deprived due compensation.

Put spin on it if you'd like - I call it theft.

Well, going with the bottle analogy. I personally like to grab the bottle (probably mountain dew), all the money in the cash register, get the owner's daughter's phone number, a few magazines, a bag of onion rings, a few of those 2 for $1 cherry pies and probably a slushy. Then rush out of the store, take a sip of my drink, then put the soda on the corner for everyone else to have a sip too as a I flip through the latest issue of Play (i didn't mis-type that), getting brainfreezes from the slurpy and chowing down on pies and onion rings.

If that's theft, then call me a criminal Rory. But I mean really, can you honestly call that theft? Honestly?

Seriously though, you point is valid. Redistribution is the stealing part. Circumventing the media restrictions is not. I think it's a pretty definite line there.

You've always been allowed to take your merchandise be it cars, televisions, books, etc. and modify them to do whatever you want. But once you cross that line and give it to someone else while retaining the original copy yourself, that's the theft and you are now a thief.

I mean if someone takes the time to purchase a paperback and then types it all up in Word so they can read it at work that just makes them crazy not a thief. So just because something lends itself to allowing for thievery does not make the action itself criminal.

Rory, if you produce content, and somehow have this idea that DRM stops piracy... time to wake up. DRM hurts consumers, and consumers only. None of my illegally aquired content EVER gives me issues, and works quite nicely. Pirated copies of content appear well before end-consumers get real copies in their hands. This happens in software, audio, video, and probably e-books.

Anyone who tells you as a writer that DRM-enabling your work is going to get you more sales is just plain wrong.

Also, there's this thing called fair use. Content publishers most certainly do not have say over every tiny way someone might decide to use their content.

As far as theft, it's only theft if you're deprived of revenue. If I make 1000 backup copies and keep them in my room, that's not theft. It'd be theft if I took those copies and went out and stopped people from buying the content legally, and instead sold them my illegal copies.

Course then again, text publishers don't like even LEGAL copies being sold (used books on Amazon anyone?), so it's not like rational thought really matters with them.

George -

"Seriously though, you point is valid. Redistribution is the stealing part. Circumventing the media restrictions is not. I think it's a pretty definite line there."

Yes - there definitely is a line, and people cross it.

All the time.

That's why I'm not speaking in hypothetical terms - this isn't something that *could* happen - this is something that *does* happen.

Michael -

"Rory, if you produce content, and somehow have this idea that DRM stops piracy... time to wake up. DRM hurts consumers, and consumers only."

Bullshit. It'll stop casual "sharing."

"None of my illegally aquired content EVER gives me issues, and works quite nicely."

It sounds like you aren't interested in paying for this stuff in the first place, so why are you even taking part in this conversation? We both know that the protection will be circumvented and that people like you will continue to download the unprotected content. If that's your plan, then there isn't even any reason for you to be discussing DRM.

"Anyone who tells you as a writer that DRM-enabling your work is going to get you more sales is just plain wrong."

Sometimes the goal isn't to get *more* sales, but to *not* get *less* sales.

While it would be great to be able to increase sales by, say, 20% just by implementing DRM, I think more people are concerned right now with sales not *dropping* by that amount (the amount, BTW, was chosen at random and is only used to help illustrate an idea - I am not claiming that piracy accounts for 20% losses in potential sales).

"As far as theft, it's only theft if you're deprived of revenue. If I make 1000 backup copies and keep them in my room, that's not theft. It'd be theft if I took those copies and went out and stopped people from buying the content legally, and instead sold them my illegal copies."

So, "storing" some of those "backup" copies so that they're conveniently available on bittorrent, in news groups, and other sources is... OK?

I'm not arguing against making backups for yourself. If you really feel the need to do that, and if you think that the time spent is worth more to you than the cost of reacquiring the same content later should you ever lose the original, then more power to you.

But, and lets not kid ourselves, this stuff gets passed around illegally.

If it were *your* business, wouldn't you try to protect it? I certainly would.

"Course then again, text publishers don't like even LEGAL copies being sold (used books on Amazon anyone?), so it's not like rational thought really matters with them."

What are you talking about? It isn't just the publishers - it's everybody in the entire food chain. Publishers, artists, and other people down the line don't make any money on books that are sold used.

Of *course* they're going to try to change that. That's business, and if you think that anybody is in this for any other reason, then you're fooling yourself.

It's perfectly rational to try to make money wherever an opportunity presents itself. If I were a publisher, I'd probably be freaking out about revenue lost to used books as well.

If I were a car manufacturer, I'd want a cut of sales on used cars. And so on. It doesn't mean I'm going to get it, or even that I *should*, but I'm going to go for it because the goal of being in business is to make dough.

Anyway, I think it's significantly easier not to care about things like piracy when your income doesn't depend on them. People seem to lack perspective in this area.

Rory -

"That's why I'm not speaking in hypothetical terms - this isn't something that *could* happen - this is something that *does* happen."

Let me get this straight before I rain down the truth upon you. So you think because people DO distribute converted copies of media illegally, then it is wrong/illegal to copy or convert media altogether?

I just want to clarify before I jump your bones prematurely.

I wouldn't want to call you a shitbastard without good cause.

I love MS Reader, but the last hundred bucks I've spent on ebooks has been for the Mobipocket format, which does run on my SmartPhone. And you can get Dan Brown in the format...!

Rory,

Ok I'm going to backpedal here (from my previous post where I forgot to enter my name etc.)

I came home and started unloading on my wife what a wackjob Rory was, unfortunately my one and only did not agree with my opinion (well, she DOES think you are a wackjob, just not in this case).

She finally explained the whole thing to me in a way that makes sense to me. I guess you kind of forget that you are really technical and comfortable with what your doing when converting and burning CD's that you forget about the person who isn't so aware.

She developed a scenario like this. She legally downloads the MP3s from some site (or has me do that) and listens to them on her computer. She likes them so much she burns them onto a CD (or has me do that) to listen to in her stereo. Then since she was able to do that so easily, she gets one for her car. Then her sister and her go out for coffee and her sister loves that CD. She immediately says, "Oh, I've got like 6 of these, just have this one!"

My wife is now a thief. She didn't mean to be. She never would be in any other situation. But now she is a media pirate. The fact is it’s just too easy to become a criminal with digital media.

Sooooo....I guess it makes sense that a Media giant might want to make their digital media harder to mass distribute and easier to maintain the original copy. The lines do get blurry because of how easy it is to make copies of content and redistribute. So blurry in fact that Joe GoodPerson becomes a common criminal without even thinking about it and his girlfriend Jill Naerdowrong an accessory in his crime.

In short, I apologize Rory. I have been made to see the light; I now understand why it might make sense that converting from one digital format to another just might be in itself a crime.

And once again, my wife is always right.

I re-read my post and I think I didn't make this point clear enough.

If it's hard enough to convert media formats most people aren't going to do it because it's just too hard. Thus the Media giants protect their billions (which being Republican I believe they deserve).

My wife is never going to take the time to figure out how to convert Napster’s files to non-expiring MP3's. The only people that are going to take the time are us.

So, I guess I'm glad they make it hard to prevent most (like my wife) from becoming criminals, I've accepted the fact that I'm slightly criminal and I can't stand the real criminals out there mass distributing this stuff.

>Michael -
>
>"Rory, if you produce content, and somehow >have this idea that DRM stops piracy... time >to wake up. DRM hurts consumers, and >consumers only."
>
>Bullshit. It'll stop casual "sharing."

First, casual sharing should be allowed. I'm allowed to lend you a book of mine. I'm allowed to lend you a CD of mine. Why should this change just because all of a sudden there's the technical means?

And then lets just pretend, theoretically, that someone runs into this "casual sharing problem". Are they A: Likely to be pissed off that they can't do what they could do with a traditional book or CD or B: Likely to say "ooh I'm hurting the auther so I'll buy another copy to do what I used to be able to do for free"?

Hint: How many million people are using eMule/Kazaa/iMESH/etc.? How many more will goto such sources when they realise that they got screwed for doing things legit?

DRM sends out the message that you get a better overall customer experience if you pirate.

As far as "people like me"... yea, I've pirated stuff. I've also tried to do it legally, I have. Then I get slapped with all this DRM crap to deal with (like, say, CDs that won't play in my PC or let me rip them so I don't have to deal with physical media).

So, as far as selling stuff to me, note to content providers: Come back when you have a viable business model.

Also, to qualify my position: I'm not for any of this "information should be free", "yea, huh huh, lets p1r4te the w0rld dude" mindset. I think the GPL is retarded, and that content providers can go charge whatever the hell they want for whatever they want. I think it's great MS is doing their "geniune software" downloads thing (apart from the technical issues its causing).

I also believe any business has a responsibility not to defraud users and realise that when they have a *paying* customer, it's not correct to screw their customer.

MS sorta gets it. Look at their own copy protection: relatively weak. I can install Windows XP as many times I want, on as many machines as I want. MS doesn't say "oh sorry, you've reached your limit". But somehow, text/music/video providers think this is OK.

'course, video providers also think it's ok to determine how your DVD player operates (like disabling the fast forward/next button), so...

"So you think because people DO distribute converted copies of media illegally, then it is wrong/illegal to copy or convert media altogether?"

Nope.

Never said that.

Ken -

"I love MS Reader, but the last hundred bucks I've spent on ebooks has been for the Mobipocket format, which does run on my SmartPhone."

Yeah - I have Mobipocket on my iPaq, but not on my phone.

The thing is, I feel like Microsoft should be supporting the platform with a copy of Reader - I find it irritating that we got behind this DRM protected format, but then didn't provide the tools to consume the media.

But, you could be right - maybe the next step is to just accept the loss and begin using other formats because it looks like my company has given up on its own.

Michael -

"First, casual sharing should be allowed. I'm allowed to lend you a book of mine. I'm allowed to lend you a CD of mine. Why should this change just because all of a sudden there's the technical means?"

When you lend your book to someone, it doesn't autodivide, spawning a new copy of itself to be handed over. If that were the case, I think publishers would feel quite differently about sharing books.

If you share one of your MP3s, and if your copy is somehow disabled while you're lending it out, then I could see it as being closer to legit. But, if you can both listen to the music at the same time in different locations, then how is "sharing" any different from giving away something that isn't yours to give?

"And then lets just pretend, theoretically, that someone runs into this 'casual sharing problem'. Are they A: Likely to be pissed off that they can't do what they could do with a traditional book or CD or B: Likely to say 'ooh I'm hurting the auther so I'll buy another copy to do what I used to be able to do for free'?"

What they can do with MP3s is *not* the same as what they can do with traditional media. With a book or MP3, you're giving away the one physical copy you have (unless you've paid for more). With MP3s, you can keep the original and continue to play it after having "lent" it out.

Anyway, what the person feels is moot - just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's not illegal, and you have to be ready to accept the consequences of your actions if you choose to engage in that behavior.

When I speed, I am *fully* aware that I am breaking the law. I do admit, though, that I have a warped sense of responsibilty (basically that it *exists*).

I may not like the laws that say I have to drive at a pace I feel is slower than what I feel comfortable with, but it's not my place to change laws where they might suit me but be a detriment to society.

And, if I want to benefit from the laws that protect me and my rights, I have to accept the whole system, including laws I don't care for. It's my right to try to change those laws, but until then, it's my duty to live by them.

That's the difference, though, between me and a lot of people I meet nowadays - I don't try to blame the speed limit for my impatience. My own actions are my responsibility.

"Hint: How many million people are using eMule/Kazaa/iMESH/etc.? How many more will goto such sources when they realise that they got screwed for doing things legit?"

That they got "screwed?" Is that because they weren't allowed to just give away copies of albums as they saw fit? I don't see how that's "screwed."

I wouldn't feel "screwed" if I were kicked out of a movie theater because I snuck in without paying admission.

"DRM sends out the message that you get a better overall customer experience if you pirate."

WHAT? If it's illegal to pass copies on to your friends, that does *not* affect the "customer experience" in the slightest since it was never your right as a customer to engage in that action. It affects the *criminal* experience - it makes it harder for you to break the law.

"I get slapped with all this DRM crap to deal with (like, say, CDs that won't play in my PC or let me rip them so I don't have to deal with physical media)."

You've described problems with DRM *implementations* - not with DRM itself.

I agree that these are bad experiences you've described. One of the links in this post goes to another post I wrote in which I trashed the experience of trying to deal with the DRM in Microsoft Reader. It doesn't mean that I think DRM is bad, but that the implementation in Reader *sucks*.

The problems I detail could all be easily dealt with - they deal mostly with the purchasing process, setup, and other issues - not with *reading* the protected media which is still a perfectly pleasant experience (provided you have an app with which to consume the protected content).

DRM isn't a bad idea. It's just been poorly implemented. We're still learning.

Michael -

"I also believe any business has a responsibility not to defraud users and realise that when they have a *paying* customer, it's not correct to screw their customer."

I agree, but you're not going to get anywhere by turning around and screwing them in return. Unfortunately, dealing with problems like this requires patience and maturity, even if the other party is utterly lacking in both qualities.

"MS sorta gets it. Look at their own copy protection: relatively weak. I can install Windows XP as many times I want, on as many machines as I want. MS doesn't say 'oh sorry, you've reached your limit'. But somehow, text/music/video providers think this is OK."

Dude... If we could stop you from installing Windows in the way you've described, *WE WOULD*. What do you think this whole "activation by phone" thing is about? We're no longer going to allow XP activation over the net. This is *not* the sort of activity which implies that we're content to let people pirate our products.

In other words, we think it's just as OK as the text/music/video providers.

Finally, I would argue that if you can't agree to the terms by which the providers want to get content in your hands, then *go find other content*. Nobody's forcing you to listen to band X or read book Y, and there is plenty of content out there that's freely available.

What is it about people nowadays that makes them think they have some strange right to dictate terms like this? "I don't like the way music distribution works, so I'm going to pirate it" is *bullshit*. Do you really think that by stealing from these companies that you're going to change their minds about how they should be doing things? Do you honestly believe that they're going to respect your opinion after you've screwed them out of a sale?

What if I don't like the way gas is pumped at the station? Should I just walk up and start making modifications to hoses?

What if I don't like having to stand in line to buy groceries? I think it takes way too long, so should I just walk out of the store with bags full of produce?

And don't give me any of this "but when copying MP3s you don't actually diminish the inventory" stuff - you're still cheating someone out of a sale, which is what you're doing when stealing in the traditional sense of taking someone else's physical property.

This attitude is truly incredible to me.

I am using eReader (formerly Palm Reader) on both my Palms and my PocketPCs (yeas, I am a gadget freak).

They have what must be close to a perfect DRM solution, the books are encrypted, and the key is your credit card number used to purchase the book. This makes you want to think twice about giving away copies of the books :-) Of course, eReader.com lets you recode the book if you change your credit card number, so you don't have to go around remembering numbers from years back. I currently have an SD card stuffed with books, and most of my fiction reading is done on my Palm.

Rory-

"Nope.

Never said that."

Oh, ok. My bad. See isn't it good I clarified before arguing against a point you weren't even making?

How come that there is no product information about the reader on http://www.microsoft.com/reader/? I've got that you can read eBooks with it, but what makes it so great? I'd like to find out more about it!

Helge -

"I am using eReader (formerly Palm Reader) on both my Palms and my PocketPCs (yeas, I am a gadget freak)."

Sounds good. I'm going to look and see if there's a Smartphone version.

Hermann -

"How come that there is no product information about the reader on http://www.microsoft.com/reader/? I've got that you can read eBooks with it, but what makes it so great? I'd like to find out more about it!"

I don't know why info is so sparse. Maybe we're giving up on the product.

I honestly don't have any idea.

But, the reason I like it so much is that I love the experience. The UI is clean and simple, not as buggy as other readers I've used, and there are a lot of books available in .lit format (what Reader uses).

Some apps just have a good "feel" to them, even if I can't nail what it is exactly that I like so much, and Reader is one of them.

>"DRM sends out the message that you get a >better overall customer experience if you >pirate."
>
>WHAT? If it's illegal to pass copies on to >your friends, that does *not* affect >the "customer experience" in the slightest >since it was never your right as a customer >to engage in that action. It affects the >*criminal* experience - it makes it harder >for you to break the law.

Yea, ok, look at your customer experience. You can't read on your phone cause the implementation sucks. Had you pirated the book to start with, you'd be better off. This is what your original post was all about, wasn't it?

Michael -

"Yea, ok, look at your customer experience. You can't read on your phone cause the implementation sucks."

Actually, I can't read on my phone because the implementation is non-existent. If Reader were available for my phone, I'd put up with its quirks so that I could use it, but I'd also like to know that there was a team working on improving the experience.

My point about customer experience was that pirating has nothing to do with being a customer - it's about being a thief, so "customer experience" didn't make any sense in the context in which you brought it up.

"Had you pirated the book to start with, you'd be better off. This is what your original post was all about, wasn't it?"

If my goal is to read a DRM protected book that I've acquired legitimately, then pirating that book is *not* going to make me better off.

If you set out to make yourself a breakfast of two pieces of toast and a side of bacon, then you probably wouldn't be very happy about winding up with a roast beef sandwich instead.

The outcome of reading a pirated book isn't at all inline with my goal, so, no, that isn't what my post was about.

What my post was about shouldn't be that difficult to understand - there isn't any hidden meaning or double-speak. The title actually implies quite a bit.

The point of my post is that we don't have Microsoft Reader on the Smartphone, and I think that sucks.

I understand that I mentioned DRM, but looking at the title and focusing on the other 95% of the post, it should be easy to see that it was actually about not having Reader on the Smartphone.

This tangent didn't arise until you commented with this:

"Hey Rory, care to explain how circumventing DRM for fair use is somehow, in any way, unethical?"

In other words, we're having this discussion because you wanted me to address an issue that wasn't even raised in my post. I was happy to do it, but realize that you pulled the issue from thin air, as I didn't argue in my post that there was anything wrong with circumventing DRM for fair use.

Granted, I argued against it (somewhat indirectly) in later comments, but my point here is that...

Well...

*You started it*.

Sorry, I went off on a tangent from your post:

"It’s like I’m being forced into looking at options that aren’t entirely… ethical. I have this conundrum: My phone has e-book software, but it can’t read what’s being sold online, although it wouldn’t have any problem whatsoever loading up illicitly produced digital titles."

Michael -

My point was entirely that I wanted to be able to do this legitimately. By providing the alternative, I'm trying to illustrate why it's in our best interest to do something about the situation.

So, yeah... It *was* a tangent.

I want it too Rory. Seriously.

That, and I want my Exchange tasks to synch off the server, not the client. I also want a decent alarm clock built in for free, that is not six levels deep in clicking. I want to know if every Jawbreaker game is beatable too.

Hello,

I've just got my first smartphone a week ago and was searching for a .lit reader when I stumbled across your site. It's a shame that Microsoft Reader has not been ported but I'm sure it will be in the future. Until then I'll use the Tiny eBook Reader.

- Jan

After a few months with a WM5 Smartphone, I'm confused by the fact that MS still hasn't given us a version of Reader for Smartphone.

There's no excuse with Windows Mobile 5, as it's the same OS underneath, and I can't think of any reason why an eBook reader would require a stylus.

The biggest disappointment of owning a WM5 Smartphone has been the prolems with software that should and could run on the device. I'm tempted to start investigating the technical difficulties with hacking PPC software to run on my smartphone.