| > They’re not perfect but how is it bad behavior to say you’ll issue a takedown notice if your copyright material is republished? That's not what they said. This is how you should have read their reply: > If your discourse represents a circumvention of this technical protection measure, we'll command a take-down as a standard procedure. If you say something we don't like, if we think we can make the argument that the information about methodology and implementation you share for free, is circumvention of our DRM, we'll follow our existing strategy to abuse the legal system silence you and prevent you from sharing information. > I don’t really understand why they’re being treated as the enemy here? Because they are the bad guy, they're actively working to make the world worse. They're pretending like if it wasn't for their kindness, access to these ebooks would be impossible. But in reality they only care about controlling other people by force. The legal threats, insane arguments about how it's better if how their DRM works is a secret, the intent of the software they're defending, and the messages they sent; are just ways or attempts to exert control what other people are allowed to do, or are allowed to know I'd also like to discourage this argument generally > Without their DRM you either wouldn’t be able to borrow ebooks because publishers would never agree to it, or would be limited to kindle/libby to read them The (unfair) translation of this is: If it wasn't me abusing you, it would be so much worse! You should be saying thank you that it's me abusing you! Not complaining about how you don't like how you're being treated! Everything can always be worse, the point is to make it better, not accept something harmful. |