Comments on: Autonomy and Morality in DRM and Anti-Circumvention Law http://www.teleread.org/2008/08/12/autonomy-and-morality-in-drm-and-anti-circumvention-law/ News & views on e-books, libraries, publishing and related topics Sun, 08 Nov 2009 03:38:33 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Chris Meadows http://www.teleread.org/2008/08/12/autonomy-and-morality-in-drm-and-anti-circumvention-law/comment-page-1/#comment-875005 Chris Meadows Tue, 12 Aug 2008 21:57:19 +0000 http://www.teleread.org/blog/?p=11807#comment-875005 If you read the actual paper, they do address that argument in section 8, "Qualifying the Argument." "Locks are commonly used to preempt access to physical property, and the state may prohibit the circumvention of such locks and the provision of lock-picking tools. Do our concerns about the preemptive character of DRM suggest that the very notion of locks and walls should be discarded?" They then go on to explain why DRM is different. As I read it, the article was written not to de-legitimize the practical arguments against DRM, but to point out why legally-protected DRM morally conflicts with the values our legal system is based on. Granted, the moral reasons may be greatly overshadowed by the practical, utilitarian concerns, and you're not likely to see a protest march by people bearing signs that say "DRM is immoral," but from the standpoint of understanding the philosophical theory of our legal system, I think such discussions are valuable. If you read the actual paper, they do address that argument in section 8, “Qualifying the Argument.” “Locks are commonly used to preempt access to physical property, and the state may prohibit the circumvention of such locks and the provision of lock-picking tools. Do our concerns about the preemptive character of DRM suggest that the very notion of locks and walls should be discarded?” They then go on to explain why DRM is different.

As I read it, the article was written not to de-legitimize the practical arguments against DRM, but to point out why legally-protected DRM morally conflicts with the values our legal system is based on. Granted, the moral reasons may be greatly overshadowed by the practical, utilitarian concerns, and you’re not likely to see a protest march by people bearing signs that say “DRM is immoral,” but from the standpoint of understanding the philosophical theory of our legal system, I think such discussions are valuable.

]]> By: Rob Preece http://www.teleread.org/2008/08/12/autonomy-and-morality-in-drm-and-anti-circumvention-law/comment-page-1/#comment-874994 Rob Preece Tue, 12 Aug 2008 21:34:39 +0000 http://www.teleread.org/blog/?p=11807#comment-874994 I'm not a big fan of DRM because I believe it slows rather than enhances development of our business (and because I believe it has monetary costs too large for small publishers to justify). That said, I think these so-called moral arguments are nonsense. You could say the same thing about a jewelry shop that puts its more expensive items in locked cabinets. Why not let people steal them easily in order to demonstrate their civil disobedience? Why undermine their autonomy. Why not determine if anti-jewelry theft, or anti-bank robbery laws are really popular or should be overturned by allowing easier jewelry shoplifting or easier bank robbery. Nope--let's keep the arguments about DRM on a reasonable basis. Do they help or hinder the development of our industry? Do they impose undue costs on consumers, or are those costs necessary considering the alternatives? Are lower cost alternatives (social DRM) workable or pipe dreams. Is aggressive pricing (the www.BooksForABuck.com approach) sufficient to undermine the economic justification for theft, or will large numbers of people continue to pirate eBooks just because they can. Rob Preece Publisher, www.BooksForABuck.com I’m not a big fan of DRM because I believe it slows rather than enhances development of our business (and because I believe it has monetary costs too large for small publishers to justify). That said, I think these so-called moral arguments are nonsense.

You could say the same thing about a jewelry shop that puts its more expensive items in locked cabinets. Why not let people steal them easily in order to demonstrate their civil disobedience? Why undermine their autonomy. Why not determine if anti-jewelry theft, or anti-bank robbery laws are really popular or should be overturned by allowing easier jewelry shoplifting or easier bank robbery.

Nope–let’s keep the arguments about DRM on a reasonable basis. Do they help or hinder the development of our industry? Do they impose undue costs on consumers, or are those costs necessary considering the alternatives? Are lower cost alternatives (social DRM) workable or pipe dreams. Is aggressive pricing (the http://www.BooksForABuck.com approach) sufficient to undermine the economic justification for theft, or will large numbers of people continue to pirate eBooks just because they can.

Rob Preece
Publisher, http://www.BooksForABuck.com

]]>