EPUB and DRM

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by kennyc

True, but the touch layer distorts/changes the readability.

As I said.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

As I said.

So the end result, the end experience is the same as having a different screen, because it is. Sorta like putting a layer of plastic over your HDTV display.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by kennyc

True, but the touch layer distorts/changes the readability.

I didn't care for the 700 because of the lights between the screen and the touch layer. But the 600 is not bad because the light layer has gone and the touch layer is right near the screen.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I didn't care for the 700 because of the lights between the screen and the touch layer. But the 600 is not bad because the light layer has gone and the touch layer is right near the screen.

I've never seen a 700, but from all I hear it was "worse" than the 600 in those respects. And for the reasons you state.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I've never seen a 700, but from all I hear it was "worse" than the 600 in those respects. And for the reasons you state.

The 600 is really no worse then a K2.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The 600 is really no worse then a K2.

well, my K2 is equivalent to my 505 as far as display, contrast, clarity, sharpness, and the 600 which I compared side-by-side with my 505 is not.

[EowynCarter]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I didn't care for the 700 because of the lights between the screen and the touch layer. But the 600 is not bad because the light layer has gone and the touch layer is right near the screen.

last mobileread meet-up had 600, 505, and (Well, in think that's 700, fist sony touch screen.)
While the 600 screen is better than 700, it's not up to the 505's.

[AlexBell]

Originally Posted by Belynda

Many Many thanks for all your help. I think I am sorted out now. What I great site this is and what helpful people. I think I will hang around and learn lots more

Were you able to remove the DRM?

Regards, Alex

[Avarwen]

DRM is a pain it was useful when ebooks first came out and weren't well known now it's just thorn in readers sides. The thing is DRM may force people to use illegal means to read book a they bought. I'm hoping as ebooks become more popular DRM will be dropped in favor of more open formats.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Avarwen

DRM is a pain it was useful when ebooks first came out and weren't well known now it's just thorn in readers sides. The thing is DRM may force people to use illegal means to read book a they bought. I'm hoping as ebooks become more popular DRM will be dropped in favor of more open formats.

Well, my stance is that if I bought it, it's mine, I can do whatever I want with it for my own use as long as that doesn't infringe on others rights by law.

[Hellmark]

The means being used to remove most forms of DRM used currently, are not illegal. No DMCA violations.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

The means being used to remove most forms of DRM used currently, are not illegal. No DMCA violations.

To be pedantic about it, we do not yet know for sure whether or not "the means being used to remove most forms of DRM used currently" are legal. The DMCA is clear that creating, selling, or distributing* such tools is (at least potentially) a felony. When it comes to use of those tools, the DMCA is schizo at best. In one section it appears to say that use of DRM-removing tools is (or may be) a felony. In another section it appears to say that (paraphrasing here) nothing in the DMCA denigrates or removes any Fair Use rights** that existed before the DMCA.

Serious legal scholars differ*** on the question of which of those sections overrides the other. They even differ on the question of what each of those sections really means. All of which means that we won't know the legality for sure until either the congress clarifies by passing yet another law OR some court takes up a relevant case and provides a ruling (and that ruling goes through all possible appeals as well). Until one of these things comes to pass, confident statements about the legality (in the US) of DRM removal seem premature.

That said, I cannot believe that any District Attorney would bother bringing a DMCA case against an individual who stripped DRM from legitimately acquired content for personal use only. They'd be laughed out of the courtroom, and scolded in the press for wasting public funds! My opinion is that stripping DRM for personal use only will be found to be legal. It's certainly ethically OK in my book, and seems pretty safe as well. But remember to ensure that the authors and/or copyright owners get paid for their effort and investment -- don't "steal" (more properly "distribute without permission of copyright owner") books!

Xenophon
(who is NOT a lawyer)

*Depending on precise legal arguments (that I don't understand!) "distributing" such tools may (or may not) include linking to them, hosting them for download, telling someone else where to get them or how to use them, and/or who knows what else. Or not. Again, no court rulings on the subject to date.

**"Rights" is really the wrong term for "Fair Use." In US law, "Fair Use" is a defense against the charge of copyright violation, not a collection of rights. Fair use has never been defined in full by either congress or courts. Rather, it has grown from precedent set in quite a number of court cases. We know from these cases that certain things are "fair use" (because the court found them to be so). We also know that the cases to date do not exhaustively define the boundaries of fair use (because the courts are careful to rule only on the case before them, not on all possible fair use defenses).

***Oh boy do they differ! I took a graduate seminar in IP Law for Computer Scientists at Carnegie Mellon. One interesting aspect of the course was guest lectures by quite a few exceedingly eminent legal scholars on various aspects of the DMCA. They differed wildly on whether or not stripping DRM for personal use only is permitted under the DMCA. One went so far as to accept a token payment from interested students (a penny, IIRC) and to provide in return formal written advice-of-counsel that it's OK. Another quoted chapter and verse to demonstrate that it's a felony for sure (and that anyone who even thinks of stripping DRM is a pirate who will burn in H*ll for all eternity!). The others fell all over the spectrum in between. I think this demonstrates that it really isn't clear at all...

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

That said, I cannot believe that any District Attorney would bother bringing a DMCA case against an individual who stripped DRM from legitimately acquired content for personal use only.

IMO, this is the main part. How would they even know you did it, and why would they care?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

IMO, this is the main part. How would they even know you did it, and why would they care?

Probably only if the individual said they had done it, like by posting messages here or on other forums saying so.

[Belynda]

Originally Posted by AlexBell

Were you able to remove the DRM?

Regards, Alex

With some great help from here yes I was Alex many thanks to all for offers of help. Spent time today removing drm and converting books.