DRM removal or piracy?

[cybmole]

I think you are being obtuse,
if I wanted to steal an app I would just go to an appropriate site and download it, or Google the relevant phrase.
Why would I or anyone wish to go to the extra hassle of downloading app a, and patching it myself with app b.... which needs a rooted device also to work...when it is so much easier to do one stop theft.

I would guess that your pirates have gotten cc from torrent sites not via LP. How is your 40pc derived , have you looked into what sites have your app ? Do you reckon all apps have such high piracy or is yours a particular favorite

As for Alf, the tools can't distinguish bought from borrowed, or detect the smarter, lazier thief who is exploiting kindle's change your mind and request no quibble refund loophole. I guess the tools are very popular with poor college students wanting expensive text books which can be loaned

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by cybmole

As for Alf, the tools can't distinguish bought from borrowed, or detect the smarter, lazier thief who is exploiting kindle's change your mind and request no quibble refund loophole. I guess the tools are very popular with poor college students wanting expensive text books which can be loaned

I believe the tools do not work on books borrowed or rented from Amazon.

But this is getting away from the main topic of this thread: Should the mods allow software in question be mentioned by name on MobileRead.

The mods are following this discussion with interest.

[Ghitulescu]

Originally Posted by chaley

My position is clear. Fair use of something I purchased is very different from using something I did not purchase. If I go to a torrent site and download a book then I am stealing the book. If I go to some site and download an APK then process it with this tool then I am stealing software.

And how can you prove you have "clean" content? I mean, if any federal agency will inspect your storage medium, how can they identify them as being legally bought, as the legally bought ones have DRM?

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Ghitulescu

And how can you prove you have "clean" content? I mean, if any federal agency will inspect your storage medium, how can they identify them as being legally bought, as the legally bought ones have DRM?

Personally, I keep my ebook receipts. I also note in calibre where and for how much I bought each book.

[cybmole]

Originally Posted by Ghitulescu

And how can you prove you have "clean" content? I mean, if any federal agency will inspect your storage medium, how can they identify them as being legally bought, as the legally bought ones have DRM?

well there's paranoia, and then there's uber-paranoia.
when was the last time a federal agency inspected your storage medium, or that of any of your friends ?

don't they have better things to do, like catching terrorists ???

"so can you prove you paid for these how to make a dirty bomb , and beheading for beginners apps, sir "

"yes, I saved the receipts."

"OK, that's all right then, have a nice day."

[cybmole]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I believe the tools do not work on books borrowed or rented from Amazon.

believe what you like, but 2 minutes of testing will enlighten you [snip ]( so feel free to edit /delete this if you so deem )

let's get back to the debate of what software can me mentioned, how oblique does that nudge nudge wink wink "google xxx" hint have to be... etc..

[Alexander Turcic]

This discussion is interesting because first of all, everyone seems to be on the same side: using tools to circumvent license checks with the goal to pirate content is wrong (both legally and morally) and should not be encouraged.

The question appears to be, should it be allowed to name such a tool without regard to its very nature? There are two aspects to answer this. One is the legal aspect. Unless someone could prove me wrong, I'm convinced that naming the tool is not a crime. Skim through today's IT news and you'll see plenty of references to specific hacking and cracking tools and methods that were used to hack a target. If there was a law against naming such tools, mainstream news coverage would look different.

Then there is the moral aspect. We don't want to encourage our visitors to pirate content. One could claim that just by naming a tool you'd passively assist a user in pirating content or software. That would assume that we are somehow the authority on the Net and that there are no alternatives to finding the information. Obviously, we are not the authority. I maintain that someone who wanted to find out more about how to break a license scheme is not going to visit MobileRead; rather he'd go to other communities and platforms (starting off with a Google Search). In fact I am convinced that the vast majority of our users is not interested in active piracy (other than to discuss the theoratical aspects of it).

Is it immoral to just mention the name of a tool whose sole reason for existence is to circumvent license checks? The answer depends on your values, and since we are an international bunch with different backgrounds, our values will undoubtly differ. I hesitate to make general community-wide decisions/guidelines based on my own moral judgement; instead I prefer to decide case-by-case. In this very case, it's not just the question whether mentioning an Android cracking tool is in accordance with our guidelines. It should also be considered that it was mentioned in a forum section that is dedicated to the support of a specific Android app, developed by a fellow MobileRead member, that can be cracked with the aforementioned tool. So there is a correlation and I think in this light for this specific case, it should be possible to find a common understanding that cracking tools ought not to be mentioned.

[Difflugia]

Originally Posted by Alexander Turcic

In this very case, it's not just the question whether mentioning an Android cracking tool is in accordance with our guidelines. It should also be considered that it was mentioned in a forum section that is dedicated to the support of a specific Android app, developed by a fellow MobileRead member, that can be cracked with the aforementioned tool. So there is a correlation and I think in this light for this specific case, it should be possible to find a common understanding that cracking tools ought not to be mentioned.

Part of what informed my post was a discussion last year involving chaley and me. At the time, his stated reasons for maintaining DRM on his app were to avoid unintentional piracy and to demonstrate an effort to protect his IP, neither of which seems to me to be compromised by general knowlege of this app. That's not to say that he's been inconsistent or anything (he's obviously allowed to have unstated reasons or even change his mind), but I want to try to make it clear that I wasn't just thumbing my nose at him or something.

I certainly won't mention any such apps and Calibre Companion again in the same breath.

[Alexander Turcic]

Originally Posted by Difflugia

... but I want to try to make it clear that I wasn't just thumbing my nose at him or something.

I never thought you did.

[chaley]

Originally Posted by Alexander Turcic

Then there is the moral aspect. We don't want to encourage our visitors to pirate content. One could claim that just by naming a tool you'd passively assist a user in pirating content or software. That would assume that we are somehow the authority on the Net and that there are no alternatives to finding the information. Obviously, we are not the authority.

I think that in this case MR should be considered an authority. It is *the* authority on CC, and it is very reasonable to assume that someone would come here to check into how its licensing works. Furthermore, this very thread is the #4 result for the google search "Calibre Companion remove license check".

Is it immoral to just mention the name of a tool whose sole reason for existence is to circumvent license checks? The answer depends on your values, and since we are an international bunch with different backgrounds, our values will undoubtly differ.

In addition to the moral question one should consider accidental education. For example, cybmole learned that the app can remove in-app advertising. Such removal is arguably another form of piracy because it is denying the developer a revenue stream, in this case not to permit using the app but simply because the user doesn't want to see the ads. NB: I am not saying that cybmole actually did this, only that because of the reference he learned that he can.

I hesitate to make general community-wide decisions/guidelines based on my own moral judgement; instead I prefer to decide case-by-case. In this very case, it's not just the question whether mentioning an Android cracking tool is in accordance with our guidelines. It should also be considered that it was mentioned in a forum section that is dedicated to the support of a specific Android app, developed by a fellow MobileRead member, that can be cracked with the aforementioned tool. So there is a correlation and I think in this light for this specific case, it should be possible to find a common understanding that cracking tools ought not to be mentioned.

OK by me.

[HarryT]

There would seem to be a pretty clear difference between Alf's tools, which can only be used by the legitimate purchaser of a book, and this application, which can be used by any downloader of a pirated app to bypass its licence checks. The one seems like a legitimate usage; the other, decidedly less so.

(I know that's not what Difflugia is using it for, let me add.)

[cybmole]

Originally Posted by HarryT

There would seem to be a pretty clear difference between Alf's tools, which can only be used by the legitimate purchaser of a book,

can we please stop perpetuating this myth.

i'ts hard for me to type detailed rebuttals without inadvertantly providing "how to... " instructions so please test it yourself.

you can test with kindle unlimited, with library loans, with any other schemes you have access to....

the tools don't know or care ... they will permanently de-drm whatever you have access to AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME

they are not deserving of being placed on some "holier than other tools" ethical pedestal.

[chaley]

Originally Posted by cybmole

the tools don't know or care ... they will permanently de-drm whatever you have access to AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME

Which is fully consistent with what we are saying. You *DO* have legal access at the time you ran the tool. You violate fair use if you lose legal access while keeping the unlocked copy. This is no different from buying a physical book, making a photocopy of it, then selling the book.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by chaley

Which is fully consistent with what we are saying. You *DO* have legal access at the time you ran the tool. You violate fair use if you lose legal access while keeping the unlocked copy. This is no different from buying a physical book, making a photocopy of it, then selling the book.

Yes, that's precisely the point that I was making. Thank you for expressing it more clearly than I did .

[Ghitulescu]

Originally Posted by cybmole

well there's paranoia, and then there's uber-paranoia.
when was the last time a federal agency inspected your storage medium, or that of any of your friends ?

don't they have better things to do, like catching terrorists ???

It doesn't matter.
They also did not searched (apart for a few, statistically irrelevant) computers for forbidden software that removes DRM, either.


But, think that in 1960 it sufficed to go to the desk and ask for a flight ticket. You needed 5 minutes from airport entry to passing through the corresponding gate (plus the queue time). Now one needs 2 hours (not all of them are used, but there have been cases where 2 h were just about).

It's not paranoia, it's not überparanoia.

The systems will always be forced to their limits. The authorities are given more and more powers (and more and more shortcuts) claiming they fight your examples while the access of the pure, genuine citizen to justice became more and more difficult.

Only the lack of personnel can prevent an authority to pretext a complaint, for whatever reason, keep you under lock for the time prescribed, while they do what they want at your home, then release you, and you haven't even access to a judge or defender (remember those shortcuts?). As blacklisted, surely your career will be stopped, your life ruined. Well, it hasn't happened to you yet, but nothing prevent it from being, strictly theoretically speaking, possible, because the "game rules" exist.