Well let me answer your question for you: Yes, ibooks can have their DRM stripped fairly easily, and no there isn't an "uncrackable format". But as SteelCurtain pointed out, that shouldn't necessarily be seen as a threat. Most people will want to pay for the content if they can.
Public Libraries give people free access to books. Most people only read a book once, or maybe twice after purchasing it. But a book in a Library can be read hundreds of times, thus the publisher only receives a tiny fraction of the amount "per read" when compared to selling new books. They didn't want this, and wanted to prevent libraries giving away free access to their IP.
Same thing again in Australia in 2001. Video Retailers Assoc. v Warner. Warner Home Video, and other publishers, had begun illegally printing "this disc is not for rental" onto DVDs. They claimed they have the right to enter into a rental agreement for their products, but the court found they did not. Subsequently they were forced to bin tens of thousands of DVDs and reprint them without that phrase. I actually have, as it happens, a Sony bluray that I bought which reads in the fine text "Unauthorised copying, hiring, lending, public performance, radio or TV broadcast of this BLU-RAY is prohibited". That text is an abuse of the law - it may not be very prominent, but it makes claims which they cannot make, and I'll be writing a strongly worded letter to Sony to demand a reprinted disc, which doesn't claim that I don't have a right to hire or lend it. But the point I'm making is not only did publishers believe they have a right to demand their retail products can't be put onto video library shelves, but they actually printed this on discs and on covers illegally, and forced the Video Retailers Assoc. to litigate in the Federal Court to have them stop.
What do you think Warner did after this? Well they then decided they would create a "rental disc" that would be released 2-3 months before the retail DVD and charge a much higher wholesale price for it. It's not at all what the copyright law wants them to do, but it can't really stop them either. So they're allowed to do that. What they aren't allowed to get away with is what's called two-tier sales, where you sell the same product at the same time for two different prices.
Public Libraries give people free access to books. Most people only read a book once, or maybe twice after purchasing it. But a book in a Library can be read hundreds of times, thus the publisher only receives a tiny fraction of the amount "per read" when compared to selling new books. They didn't want this, and wanted to prevent libraries giving away free access to their IP.
Same thing again in Australia in 2001. Video Retailers Assoc. v Warner. Warner Home Video, and other publishers, had begun illegally printing "this disc is not for rental" onto DVDs. They claimed they have the right to enter into a rental agreement for their products, but the court found they did not. Subsequently they were forced to bin tens of thousands of DVDs and reprint them without that phrase. I actually have, as it happens, a Sony bluray that I bought which reads in the fine text "Unauthorised copying, hiring, lending, public performance, radio or TV broadcast of this BLU-RAY is prohibited". That text is an abuse of the law - it may not be very prominent, but it makes claims which they cannot make, and I'll be writing a strongly worded letter to Sony to demand a reprinted disc, which doesn't claim that I don't have a right to hire or lend it. But the point I'm making is not only did publishers believe they have a right to demand their retail products can't be put onto video library shelves, but they actually printed this on discs and on covers illegally, and forced the Video Retailers Assoc. to litigate in the Federal Court to have them stop.
What do you think Warner did after this? Well they then decided they would create a "rental disc" that would be released 2-3 months before the retail DVD and charge a much higher wholesale price for it. It's not at all what the copyright law wants them to do, but it can't really stop them either. So they're allowed to do that. What they aren't allowed to get away with is what's called two-tier sales, where you sell the same product at the same time for two different prices.
For Religion & Health see:[/b][/size] Williams & Sternthal. (2007). Spirituality, religion and health: Evidence and research directions. Med. J. Aust., 186(10), S47-S50. -LINK
The WIN/Gallup End of Year Survey 2013 found the US was perceived to be the greatest threat to world peace by a huge margin, with 24% of respondents fearful of the US followed by: 8% for Pakistan, and 6% for China. This was followed by 5% each for: Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, North Korea. -LINK
"That's disgusting. There were clean athletes out there that have had their whole careers ruined by people like Lance Armstrong who just bended thoughts to fit their circumstances. He didn't look up cheating because he wanted to stop, he wanted to justify what he was doing and to keep that continuing on." - Nicole Cooke
The WIN/Gallup End of Year Survey 2013 found the US was perceived to be the greatest threat to world peace by a huge margin, with 24% of respondents fearful of the US followed by: 8% for Pakistan, and 6% for China. This was followed by 5% each for: Afghanistan, Iran, Israel, North Korea. -LINK
"That's disgusting. There were clean athletes out there that have had their whole careers ruined by people like Lance Armstrong who just bended thoughts to fit their circumstances. He didn't look up cheating because he wanted to stop, he wanted to justify what he was doing and to keep that continuing on." - Nicole Cooke
