DRM protection on purchased books

[wallcraft]

Originally Posted by screwballl

Its not the ones that unlock the files in their possession that get caught, it is the stupid ones that openly share them with others via filesharing that get caught, although right now they are just going after the movie and music sharers, not the ebook sharers.

Those are the ones who get huge fines. The typical out of court settlement is $5,000, and it is just as applicable to ebooks, so this is something to stay away from for ethical and practical reasons.

It is very probably completely legal in the US to strip DRM from ebooks you bought for the purpose of reading them on devices you own. Even it is not legal, as you say, who would know? What is criminal is helping anyone else. In particular, to go to jail you have to write or distribute the software. There is no one in jail over ebooks, but Adobe tried hard in United States v. ElcomSoft and Sklyarov. Very recently, MicroSoft tried to lock up someone modding Xbox's in his living room. In that case, even the judge was amazed that something so penny ante was in his court room (Judge berates prosecution in Xbox modding trial). This is almost exactly analogous to a small business stripping other people's ebook DRM.

[EowynCarter]

Serously, if I de-drm my books to put them on MY reader, who's gonna know ? who gonna care enough to get a lawsuit ?

Then, if I de-drm a book, put it on the internet, that's where the pubishers will begin to care.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by EowynCarter

Serously, if I de-drm my books to put them on MY reader, who's gonna know ? who gonna care enough to get a lawsuit ?

Then, if I de-drm a book, put it on the internet, that's where the pubishers will begin to care.

It would have been game and DVD producers who lobbied/paid for that particular law, but there would be no reason why other types of content producers couldn't use it too.

They might not care now, but that doesn't necessarily mean they won't care in the future. Amazon's Kindle logs whether a book you open has DRM restrictions or not, I doubt they would be shy to share that information with content publishers. If you think they won't, ask yourself why they would put that capability into their firmware.

[DiapDealer]

Amazon's Kindle logs whether a book you open has DRM restrictions or not, I doubt they would be shy to share that information with content publishers. If you think they won't, ask yourself why they would put that capability into their firmware.

Amazon as a company, would be signing their own death-warrant if they shared that kind of info with publishers.

[The Old Man]

Obviously those sharing music files on the Internet are inflicting monetary injury on the publishers, musicians, etc. I don’t think it’s quite a great a loss as they make out but, none-the-less, it is a loss.

The eBook controversy is somewhat different. For example, I bought a Kindle. Recently I bought a book from the Sony store (epub) that was not available at Amazon. I stripped the DRM so I could read it on my Kindle. If I knew I could not read an epub book on a Kindle I wouldn’t have bought the Amazon Kindle. If I knew I could not strip and convert the Sony book to mobi I wouldn’t have bought the Sony epub book. Both companies benefited because I could strip the DRM.

To return to the original post in this thread we find an individual stymied in his eBook experience because of DRM. Would not both eBook and eReader sellers be in a better position if there was no DRM constraints?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by wallcraft

In the US, the DMCA makes this illegal with a maximum penalty of 5 years in federal jail. See DRM: What did you buy? (An Essay.).

Please stop saying that removing DRM is illegal. It's not yet been tested in a court of law. So we do not know if DMCA trumps fair-use or fair-use trumps DMCA. So until then, it's a gray area. So do you know 100% that it is illegal? If you do, please cite where it was ruled illegal by a judge. If you can't, please stop saying it is illegal.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

So do you know 100% that it is illegal? If you do, please cite where it was ruled illegal by a judge. If you can't, please stop saying it is illegal.

Did you miss this part in wallcraft's later post?

Originally Posted by wallcraft

It is very probably completely legal in the US to strip DRM from ebooks you bought for the purpose of reading them on devices you own.

[wallcraft]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Please stop saying that removing DRM is illegal.

What is illegal is sharing copyrighted material over the internet. It is only a matter of time before someone gets hit by a lawsuit for posting ebooks, or, given the way some sharing software works, downloading ebooks from the darknet. This isn't a DRM issue, in the sense that this has always been banned by copyright. However, the copyright owner is on much stronger ground if they have released an ebook version and it is this version that is available on the darknet. One federal judge has said that the lack of an ebook version might be a defense to darknet downloads (of a scanned version from a physical book).

[KenJackson]

Originally Posted by wallcraft

In the US, the DMCA makes this illegal with a maximum penalty of 5 years in federal jail.

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Please stop saying that removing DRM is illegal.

I think we could put this in it's proper perspective if we said it this way:
The immoral DMCA wrongfully disallows removing DRM.

Originally Posted by The Old Man

Both companies benefited because I could strip the DRM.

Very good point. I wish this could be communicated to the DMCA control freaks.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Amazon as a company, would be signing their own death-warrant if they shared that kind of info with publishers.

I don't see why, since it would only affect criminals.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by The Old Man

Obviously those sharing music files on the Internet are inflicting monetary injury on the publishers, musicians, etc. I don’t think it’s quite a great a loss as they make out but, none-the-less, it is a loss.

A loss that would be more than offset by increased audiences at live appearences and sales of mercandise. Which is probably why the companies that leech from musicians now expect to get a percentage of live and merchandising profits.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Please stop saying that removing DRM is illegal. It's not yet been tested in a court of law. So we do not know if DMCA trumps fair-use or fair-use trumps DMCA. So until then, it's a gray area. So do you know 100% that it is illegal? If you do, please cite where it was ruled illegal by a judge. If you can't, please stop saying it is illegal.

The only reference to it being allowed I can find is related to read aloud capabilities, presumably conflicting with some sort of disability law?

[Fastolfe]

As a reasonably educated person, I tend not to take dura lex, sed lex litterally. People who do and follow the law blindly can become bastards when bastardly laws are passed.

When I have to follow a rule or a law, I want to understand why that law or rule exists, and I will follow it only if I can detect some sense some sort of logic to justify its existence, and also a sense of fairness. Since I'm not a lawyer, many laws make little sense to me, but usually I still have a feeling that whoever proposed the law did it for honest reasons, with the common good in mind - after all, laws are there to allow individuals to function in society and prevent them from making one another miserable.

As a result, my personal morals and my limited understanding of the laws I have to follow as an individual in society make me agree with, or at least accept, and more importantly follow 99% of them.

But certain laws are completely stupid, and others have lobbying, big business corruption and unfairness written all over them. The DMCA is one of them. These laws, I sit on them, and I follow my own morals instead.

In the case of ebooks, my own morals dictate that:

- I can buy a freely readable file with no strings attached, that I'm sure will be readable without hassle, and readable 20 years from now (fair to me),
- that the author be paid for his hard work (fair to him),
- that whatever copy of a book I bought remains the only copy (fair to the author).

Therefore, if I can find a legit DRM-free copy of an ebook, even more expensive, I will buy it. If I can't, I will un-DRM a DRM'ed copy, keep the DRM-free copy and junk the DRM'ed copy. If I can't even buy the DRM'ed copy because I'm in the wrong country or something, I will download an illegal copy and I will pay the author personally the full price of the book as sold in libraries (up to him to pay his publisher's share directly, following his own personal morals I suppose). If I can't even download an illegal copy, I will buy the paper book and I will scan it.

And then, I will keep those books for myself. No sharing. I'm not sitting on DRM to save money, I'm doing it to truly own what I paid for, with my own definition of "owning", not the subtle twisted BS edicted in copyright laws that are there mostly to push publishers' agendas.

[FF2]

I am learning the ropes of Topaz. They are my books.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by wallcraft

In the US, the DMCA makes this illegal with a maximum penalty of 5 years in federal jail. See DRM: What did you buy? (An Essay.).

Not so fast! See also my contribution to that same thread. The key part reads:

The written advice-of-counsel that I paid for on the subject of DRM removal tells me that (in the opinion of one eminent IP lawyer):

• Removing DRM from legally acquired content for personal use only is a legal exercise of my fair use rights;
• Distributing content for which I lack distribution rights is clearly a violation of relevant copyright laws (whether I've removed the DRM or not);
• Providing DRM-removing code to other people within US jurisdiction is almost certainly a felony under the DMCA;
• Telling others where to get such DRM-removing programs may or may not be a felony (depending on whether or not a Court decides that it falls under "providing");
• Explaining how to use DRM-removing programs that another person has somehow acquired on their own is almost certainly not a felony under the DMCA;
• Possession of DRM-removing programs is not in itself a violation of the DMCA (although distributing them or providing them to others probably is).

The remainder of the post may also be of interest to some readers. I should also note that the final word on whether or not DRM removal is legal won't come until we get a court ruling. Or two. Or three. Or the Supremes weigh in. Or the Congress changes the law again. Or something.

Xenophon