Personally I strip the DRM of all the ebooks and movies I buy (not rent of course).
Enough with the "bought, but actually renting with an undetermined end date".
Enough with the "bought, but actually renting with an undetermined end date".
Piracy is more ethical than buying DRM media.
I know at least one author that refuses “out-of-band payments” for that reason.
And this is to say nothing about advance payments where the publisher is taking the risk of a book not selling, and the author gets paid regardless, which can be a big thing for small authors too.
Using piracy from the beginning ensures nobody gets paid.
A library can only lend as many copies as it purchases. Someone selling their copy can only sell the copy they purchased. These secondaries are constrained by the primary.
Your talking about one person buying a single copy and then distributing it for free in perpetuity. This secondary is not constrained by the primary.
Only if you sent $$ to the author/s.
And don't forget to send a larger chunk money to other new prospective authors that you don't know and that haven't even sold a single copy of their book (or maybe not even finished it yet)!
Indeed. And also do not underestimate the cost of adding DRM to media. Don't know about ebooks, but for streaming media I would estimate about half the engineering time spent designing, building and maintaining video work flows is somehow related to CENC, CBCS, Widevine, Playready, Fairplay and the whole ecosystem of third party consultancy around this.
For larger platforms these investments are worthwhile, but I don't think it's a coincidence that smaller audio shops and podcasts generally avoid DRM for streaming audio (where margins are smaller than Live/On demand video streaming).
We have been living millenia without DRM protection of books so I would wager the justification of their necessity is dubious at best.
I 100% always pay for books available without DRM such as from No Starch Press. I encourage any authors reading to consider similarly ethical publishers.
Not buying it nor downloading it illegally would be the ethical stance.
That's the crucial difference between choosing what you think is right and using an external source, you have access to your thoughts while they don't.
Some bands have been scolded and threatened by their publishers for said public voice, and instead choose silence as they could be sued by their producers/publishers.
Creators I have contacted about DRM almost never reply. Likely for similar contractual reasons. They can only legally respond with scolding or silence.
I did have one artist I contacted reply once. They were Christian and all but said I would go to hell for sharing copies of someone elses work.
I asked how they felt about Jesus replicating and freely sharing someone else's bread and fish. They never replied again.
In my country, you have a legal right to share copies to close friends. I think that’s ethical, but I don’t think it’s ethical when people mass download someone’s work without paying them when they were charging for it.
And woah! I completely underestimated how much user hostile anti-piracy tech has grown in the past 20 years .
Couldn't even play my DVD, that I bought, with my money, on my computer. Had to install a bunch of libraries to deal with all the file chunking and mangling they do now, just to play a video, not even burning it, just play.
Really raised my blood pressure that one.
Mainstream DVDs have pretty much always been a collection of .TS files on the disc, best ripped with specialized software. Things like VLC pull in those libraries upon install anyway. Also, I think you mean "rip" rather than "burn", if you mean to copy data from the disc to your machine.
You can buy it or use it free with the beta keys, and it should solve your problem.
And paying sends the message of "I'm OK with DRM shittified media, abuse me more!"
Stripping DRM is also illegal under DMCA. Might as well just pirate and call it a day. Either way you mention leaves you illegal
It is not illegal to mail cash within the US, unless you're trying to avoid paying taxes/launder money.
Not sure about other countries, a cursory web search didn't turn up anything useful.
Yes, which is why nobody is saying "buy second-hand books to support your favorite author".
Also, it's probably a small effect, but I'd guess that the existence of a secondary market contributes to at least some primary sales (since the buyers know they will probably be able to resell a book if they need to, making them more likely to buy a primary copy if they want to read it right now).
Somebody paid for a second-hand copy, nobody paid for a pirated copy.
Incidentally, many favorite books that I pirated when I was broke and had very little room, I later bought paper copies of.
I also pirate most music, but if I really like a band I discovered via piracy, I will buy their vinyl or see them in concert.
The ability to freely share content scondhand, be it a paper book or in digital form, creates new fans. Some of those fans have money to give back, or will share with people that do.
Because they provide a platform (making content more visible), payment processing (which can be 3% or more for some payment methods), customer support etc.
If content producers don't need any of that, they can always have a self-hosted website with their own donation button (or physical mailing address for checks and banknotes, cryptocurrency address etc).
> I think all authors and other content producers should have sort of a tip jar
That tip jar would cut out everybody else involved in the production of a book and in getting you to even find out about it existing.
Every author has the option to self-publish and set their own price (including a "pay-as-you-wish" option), but on the other hand, if they prefer the (relatively) lower risk of going with a traditional publisher, you should also respect that decision and not sidestep that by unilaterally deciding that "oh, I'd prefer you would have made this DRM-free and pay-as-you-wish, here's a check for $20!".
If somebody puts together a different tip jar which supports and even wider variety of people, or does so in a more equitable way, I want to be free to choose that one instead.
Let content compete for legitimacy based on how integrated into the wider community it's associated tip jar is.
Not everybody wants a tip jar. Why should you get to impose your views over that of the author who’s book you want to read?
I don't care if they think I should read it in a couch or a hammock or a bathtub, why should I care whether they think I should print it on a page or project it on my ceiling or peer at it through a cloud of malware?
There are people who want to turn the world into a skinner box. I'm not going to fund their project just because I appreciate an author who has made a deal with them at some point. The author did not make that deal on my behalf.
If I can't pay an author without also paying my enemies, then I'm not going to pay the author. But I'd really rather pay the author.
As long as you just leech, you're not sharing copyrighted content, and therefore arguably not in breach of copyright.
Any resources/tools/tutorials you'd recommend?
Even then I’ve found around 5% don’t decrypt
Here's one option you might try (no connection to it but it seems to be one of the most recently usable, trustworthy versions) https://github.com/noDRM/DeDRM_tools
Even on IT related ebooks, some authors only publish their ebooks on Amazon.
They’ve pretty much closed this loophole. IIRC now you need an older physical Kindle that doesn’t support KFX files and you can download files for that device.
It’s still a crappy workaround because the older file format doesn’t have any of the latest typography features.