I should have been clearer: "After a number of years, most books' value diminishes rapidly", I meant the value to the publishers.
And I agree: "What you have is called "you have no idea when Amazon's DRM is going to break, but when it does, or they choose to stop supporting their DRM server, you're going to lose your books"."
Hence the key publishing scheme.
And I need to underscore that I was talking about Google's nifty DIGITIZING rig. No 'scan-quality' issues.
For the record: I own an e-reader. For about a year and a half. No, not a Kindle. An iLiad.
I've read about 1,900 documents on it so far - none of which was DRMed - of which about 20 are books. For me, an e-reader is better than a book. More comfortable to read, lighter, and much simpler than carrying a book around, as I travel a lot for my work.
Amazon will not give up on a profitable business model, even if it's bad for the Commons. Even though, theoretically, the reason we allow businesses like Amazon to exist and to do as they please, is that it's better for the Commons.
The only thing I can propose that might be acceptable to ebook publishers, is have a shortish lifespan for the DRM of electronic versions of books. After a number of years, most books' value diminishes rapidly; and all/most ereaders will be broken, or superseded and/or overtaken by new technology or by a new distribution model, so their DRM-ed content will be useless/valueless.
The 'lease' model that Mike decries would be applied, in the manner of poetic justice, to the DRM itself: e-books' DRM should/could be legal for only ten years, after which keys to unlock the DRM are published. The keys would have to be registered with whatever government organization takes care of copyright when the publisher first gains copyright and these would be released/published at the end of the DRM's ten-year life.
The publisher would be forced to market the books properly, as their 'life' would be shorter. In instances where a publisher goes belly up, the wait would be somewhat less than the near-infinite time it would take to crack the DRM's crypto.
The fact that dead-tree books are now very easily and very quickly digitized en masse by groups of people or Google's nifty book-scanning rig, challenges publishers' (un)righteously indignant squawks to rest: They ARE being digitized now, anyway. Welcome to the 21st Century.
"...attempting to legislate from the bench.." Can you spell 'framing the discussion'? I knew you could.
Laws aren't just what Parliament passes. They're also what the prosecutors enforce and how the Courts rule.
1) In Canada's British-based legal system, libel wasn't/isn't generally protected by the truth of one's statements. If I'm wrong, any lawyers out there, please correct me.
2) OK, so if Parliament passes a law which is unconstitutional, is the Supreme Court of Canada supposed to remain silent? What's the point of having other laws and a Constitution, then? And a Charter of Rights, eh?
3) Read the ruling:
Q: "Should the Common Law Provide a Defence Based on Responsible Communication in the Public Interest?"
A..further down: "It asserts that the existing law is inconsistent with the principle of freedom of expression as guaranteed by s. 2(b) of the Charter."
...
" Freedom of expression and respect for vigorous debate on matters of public interest have long been seen as fundamental to Canadian democracy. Many years before the Charter this Court, in the Reference re Alberta Statutes, [1938] S.C.R. 100, per Duff C.J., suggested that the Canadian Constitution contained an implied right of free expression on political matters. That principle, affirmed in cases like Saumur v. City of Quebec, [1953] 2 S.C.R. 299, and Switzman v. Elbling, [1957] S.C.R. 285, has stood the test of time."
This was a clarification of what the law was/is, not a rewriting.
On the post: Amazon Announces It Sold More Kindle Books Than Physical Books On Christmas... But Doesn't It Mean Rented?
I should have been clearer: "After a number of years, most books' value diminishes rapidly", I meant the value to the publishers.
And I agree: "What you have is called "you have no idea when Amazon's DRM is going to break, but when it does, or they choose to stop supporting their DRM server, you're going to lose your books"."
Hence the key publishing scheme.
And I need to underscore that I was talking about Google's nifty DIGITIZING rig. No 'scan-quality' issues.
For the record: I own an e-reader. For about a year and a half. No, not a Kindle. An iLiad.
I've read about 1,900 documents on it so far - none of which was DRMed - of which about 20 are books. For me, an e-reader is better than a book. More comfortable to read, lighter, and much simpler than carrying a book around, as I travel a lot for my work.
On the post: Amazon Announces It Sold More Kindle Books Than Physical Books On Christmas... But Doesn't It Mean Rented?
A Halfway Solution?
The only thing I can propose that might be acceptable to ebook publishers, is have a shortish lifespan for the DRM of electronic versions of books. After a number of years, most books' value diminishes rapidly; and all/most ereaders will be broken, or superseded and/or overtaken by new technology or by a new distribution model, so their DRM-ed content will be useless/valueless.
The 'lease' model that Mike decries would be applied, in the manner of poetic justice, to the DRM itself: e-books' DRM should/could be legal for only ten years, after which keys to unlock the DRM are published. The keys would have to be registered with whatever government organization takes care of copyright when the publisher first gains copyright and these would be released/published at the end of the DRM's ten-year life.
The publisher would be forced to market the books properly, as their 'life' would be shorter. In instances where a publisher goes belly up, the wait would be somewhat less than the near-infinite time it would take to crack the DRM's crypto.
The fact that dead-tree books are now very easily and very quickly digitized en masse by groups of people or Google's nifty book-scanning rig, challenges publishers' (un)righteously indignant squawks to rest: They ARE being digitized now, anyway. Welcome to the 21st Century.
On the post: Canada Gets A 'Responsible Communication' Defense Against Libel Claims
Sigh... Was: Nice but...
Laws aren't just what Parliament passes. They're also what the prosecutors enforce and how the Courts rule.
1) In Canada's British-based legal system, libel wasn't/isn't generally protected by the truth of one's statements. If I'm wrong, any lawyers out there, please correct me.
2) OK, so if Parliament passes a law which is unconstitutional, is the Supreme Court of Canada supposed to remain silent? What's the point of having other laws and a Constitution, then? And a Charter of Rights, eh?
3) Read the ruling:
Q: "Should the Common Law Provide a Defence Based on Responsible Communication in the Public Interest?"
A..further down: "It asserts that the existing law is inconsistent with the principle of freedom of expression as guaranteed by s. 2(b) of the Charter."
...
" Freedom of expression and respect for vigorous debate on matters of public interest have long been seen as fundamental to Canadian democracy. Many years before the Charter this Court, in the Reference re Alberta Statutes, [1938] S.C.R. 100, per Duff C.J., suggested that the Canadian Constitution contained an implied right of free expression on political matters. That principle, affirmed in cases like Saumur v. City of Quebec, [1953] 2 S.C.R. 299, and Switzman v. Elbling, [1957] S.C.R. 285, has stood the test of time."
This was a clarification of what the law was/is, not a rewriting.
Next >>