The ethics of providing something for free (A Lovefilm story)

[Inventive Software]

So I signed up to Lovefilm's trial, to see how good their service is. And a nice little goodie appeared in my inbox, "Download 'Driving School' for free!" OK, seems neat. Haven't seen the film, missed it when it was on TV, so will see if it's any good. Bet it uses WM DRM. After having the hassle of using their download manager to get the movie, once I start downloading, I read my rights on the content I've downloaded for free. Turns out I have 7 days to start watching it, then after a 24 hour period when you first watch it, it won't play.

Whatever their proviso is for offering downloaded content, am I within my legal right to Fair Use to strip this b*****d of all it's DRM?

Secondly, provided the first holds up of course, since this is my first encounter with WM DRM, how do I go about this?

[blutach]

Different laws apply to different legal jurisdictions. What applies in the US may not apply in the UK.

However, considering this is not content you own, it would seem reasonable that after the 7 day period, you should dispose of it, whether the DRM has been stripped or not.

Regards

[snipper_cr]

How can you determine if someone owns some sort of media or not?
If you go out and buy a DVD of a movie, do you own it? Or are you just paying the rights to use it? That said... isnt everything then illegal in the US for doing this? Im not trying to open a can of worms, simply i am curious as to the logic.

[setarip_old]

@snipper_cr

Hi!

To perhaps better understand the Doom9 Forum approach to this topic, click on the following link:

http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=1049081&postcount=4

[Wombler]

@snipper_cr

Hi!

To perhaps better understand the Doom9 Forum approach to this topic, click on the following link:

http://forum.doom9.org/showpost.php?p=1049081&postcount=4


Whilst that determines the remit of this forum it doesn't answer the OP's query as that's American law and doesn't apply in the UK.

Unfortunately the UK chooses to rely on a mass of ambiguous outdated copyright legislation which is both difficult to unravel and to determine specific relevance.

The current iphone unlocking case (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6978110.stm) is indicative of the lack of clarity here.

As Blutach says 'different laws apply to different jurisdictions'.


Wombler

[setarip_old]

@Wombler

Hi!Whilst that determines the remit of this forum it doesn't answer the OP's queryThat's because (As you quoted me) my response was addressed to "snipper_cr",not to the OP, "Inventive Software" - to whom "blutach" had already responded...

[Wombler]

@Wombler

Hi!That's because (As you quoted me) my response was addressed to "snipper_cr",not to the OP, "Inventive Software" - to whom "blutach" had already responded...

I'd better get my brain in gear before I post. :)

Thanks for the correction.


Wombler