A statement strengthening the argument that stripping the DRM from an audiobook is an act of piracy.
Yes, it is. I was going to point that out earlier, but it wasn't relevant. Of course, the argument to begin with is specious, so strengthening it isn't a huge deal.
I could:
1. Buy it from a retailer, either in CD format or in a DRM-protected digital file format.
2. Borrow it from the library (in either of those formats), make a copy of it, and "return" it to the library on the library's terms.
As soon as two or more people do the latter, that's removed one or more potential sales from the retail food chain, and the publisher (and the author) get less money than they otherwise would have.
You're not comparing apples to apples, though. You forgot the second half of part 1, which is: make a copy and then sell the original to the used book store (or even return it to the new book store).
Now which is worse?
The point is, borrowing books from the library is an accepted method for reading books. Under "normal" usage, you check out a book, preventing other people from having it for a certain period of time, and then you give it back. The "payment" part of that transaction is the fact that you're restricting other people from doing the same thing during that period of time. It doesn't make any difference if, during that period of time, you read it once, five times, a hundred times, or zero times. It is irrelevant to the transaction. Once that price has been paid, I don't see that it's relevant when your usage of the text occurs, as long as it doesn't exceed the price.
Previous Topic
Index
