JD on EP

Let me do some quick fisking here, before getting back to the main point. I'll be speaking as I normally speak, rather than copywrite it down into basics -- intended more to explain my position than to persuade others.

"Amazon Kindle (Swindle), Sony Reader (Sh-reader), and others are all competing to control how, what, and when we can read with their competing Digital Restrictions Management technologies."

The derogatory renamings are a clue to the mind of the writer.

The issue of which content each publisher chooses to distribute is orthogonal to the choice of a distribution mechanism -- people don't seem to be accusing Amazon of not publishing Loose Change or whatever.

Rights-management technologies themselves -- whether a chip, or digital encryption keys, or a password on a website, or a housekey -- do not compete with each other, and I don't think any of those vendors have a business case in any particular technology, so much as not wanting their creations cast adrift atomically upon the net, forcefully shorn of their metadata. The phrase "competing drm technologies" is a puzzler.

"Let's let them know that we won't buy their ebook readers until they get rid of the DRM!"

This part I agree with, inasmuch as it's about individual consumer choice. (My own buying decisions are based on a constellation of factors, and I might choose rights-enabled or rights-disabled devices in different situations.) I believe in finding agreement between creators and consumers, sellers and buyers. I have seen that attempts to put all the power on one side or other are not sustainable. I do not believe that rights-enabled formats should be the sole alternative; I do not believe that rights-disabled formats should be the sole alternative. I do not believe that all buildings should have all doors locked, and I do not believe that all buildings should be prohibited from having any locks at all. Creators and consumers have diverse needs, so we need to develop rights-management technologies which can be tuned to the situation, satisfying all parties in the transaction.

If these advocates don't want to be forced to purchase devices they don't find acceptable, then I'm with them, and have been ever since Al Gore championed the Clipper Chip back in the 90s. We need a diversity of device types available.

"Join us in opposing all DRM ebook readers and DRM ebooks by taking part in this action."

This is the part I find most troubling. It's very absolutist, very disrespectful of the choices of others, and its emphasis on force to affect strangers seems morally primitive, Talibanesque. You've got to grow and become able to tolerate diversity, because the rest of us will not let you smash it out.

"Amazon, Sony, and others want to change the way you read: They want to put locks on your books. Their "ebook readers" use Digital Restrictions Management (DRM) technology to control how, what, and when you can read."

I suspect that the repetition of the unsubstantiated "amazon wants to control what you read" is designed to enrage the passions: flamebait.

The way I see it, these vendors are offering additional options for text transactions, whether time-based, device-based, or whatever. Such contracts will appeal to different people in different situations. I can't agree that we need to prohibit all such options, permitting only the existing dead-tree model and the Gutenberg Project model. You and I have no right to interfere in the externally-benign, internally-consensual transactions of others.

"When you purchase a DRM ebook, it is locked to a single device."

That is true some of the time, but not all of the time.

And such a transaction would actually be desirable in some situations, but not (as with any transaction type) in all situations.

It is not a sound argument.

"DRM ebooks are bad for authors and publishers."

Let them decide what's good for them, what's not.

"The owners of DRM technology get to decide which books, newspapers, and magazines can be put into their DRM formats. The DRM technology owners can deny whomever and whatever they wish from using their format."

Rights-management technologies themselves are licensed to publishers -- "the owners of DRM technology" don't usually publish themselves.

Publishers already clearly decide which content they'll amplify.

"DRM allows for digital censorship."

This, to me, is offensively silly. "Censorship" is the use of the political process to prevent publishing. Even in Berkeley, there are ideas which cannot be expressed without dire legal costs to the speaker. The existence of digital locks cannot be equated with coercion to silence. They trivialize actual censorship.

"Every few years you will have to buy a new copy of your favorite books, and a new ebook reader to go along with it."

Possibly. Possibly not. You can't divide devices up into "has drm" and "doesn't have drm". We need to find the transaction mechanisms which will succeed for all parties.

A spectrum. Not a duality.

"Don't buy ebook readers that use DRM technology -- our books will end up locked shut."

Please do as you see fit, and feel free to persuade others to share your point of view. But I think you'd make your case better by pointing to specific objections for specific devices or stores, rather than lumping in everything as "drm is bad".

Summary: All of us create digital bits today, whether explicitly (Adobe Photoshop or a wordprocessor, eg) or implicitly (having your photograph appear in Google Maps, having your credit or medical history in unknown databases).

I firmly believe that each person has the right to track and control the bits they generate.

I also believe that each of us benefits from greater choice in the ways we consume bits from others, and therefore a diversity of potential selling contracts helps both buyer and seller find the best fit.

I resist attempts to outlaw a class of technology by legal fiat. Prohibition works in the short term, but not in the long term. We need to adapt to greater choice, not try vainly to repress it.

All of us already use a variety of rights-management technologies. The digital world should offer similar choice.