9

padlock[1] Katie Gatto at our sister blog Appletell has made a post explaining how to determine which e-books in your iTunes listing are DRM-protected and which are DRM-free. It is a useful little tutorial for those who are not sure (or, for that matter, bother to purchase iBooks titles in the first place).

However, annoyingly, Gatto repeatedly conflates DRM with copyright. She begins the article with “If you want to know which of your ebooks are DRM free and which have been protected by copyright,” then mentions that this process “will let you know if a book has DRM protections or if you’re free to share it with others,” and says that if a book is listed as protected, “it has a copyright attached.” She then concludes, “Use accordingly to avoid lawsuits.”

Of course, if you use according to her advice, you probably won’t be avoiding lawsuits. It should be needless to say that plenty of non-DRM-protected e-books (such as those sold by Baen, or posted online by Cory Doctorow) are fully copyright-protected—meaning that while you might be able to share them with friends, you are not necessarily legally free to unless the holder of the copyright allows it.

Might a decreased understanding of copyright be one of the casualties of the media industry’s reliance on DRM? I didn’t think the fact that everything is copyrighted under current copyright law (including books, e-books, Internet posts, and even scribblings on the backs of napkins) was that hard to understand, let alone that foregoing DRM does not mean you are foregoing your right to protection under the law.

Or perhaps peer-to-peer is to blame for this “anything not strictly forbidden must be permitted” attitude. It seems to be very much of a piece with the “innocent infringement” defense that one target of a RIAA lawsuit is assaying:

Whitney admitted to using KaZaA as well as downloading and sharing music over the P2P network, but said she didn’t realize what she was doing was wrong. Her technological illiteracy and age [of 16 years] made her incapable of intentionally infringing the record labels’ copyrights, she argued.

Either way, that a technology blogger should make the same mistake is irritating both from a standpoint of lacking accuracy in reporting, and because it gives more ammunition to the proponents of DRM: “If we don’t protect it, they’ll think they’re permitted to pirate it.” That kind of confusion we can do without.

 
9