DRM removal or piracy?

[Difflugia]

In the Calibre Companion thread, I mentioned and linked to an app called [deleted] that will (among other things) remove Google Play licensing checks. chaley moderated the post, removing the name and link. He also agreed via PM that I could post a question about the situation here.

First, let me state here what this question is not. It is not a question about if using software (or books or anything else) without paying for it is justified. It is not.

What I'd like to know is how that particular app meshes with MobileRead guidlines. Recently, the decision was made to allow mentioning by name and linking of tools for DRM removal. Is the app named above such a tool or does it cross a line into other territory?

For the record, chaley sees no redeeming value:

Originally Posted by chaley

That app has no purpose other than piracy. It is not equivalent to removing DRM. One removes DRM for fair-use purposes; to enable reading a book on a personal device that otherwise couldn't be used. CC can simultaneously run on any Android device with networking, so the problem of fair use does not arise.

Originally Posted by chaley

It will be interesting to see how other mods react to publishing info about an app that removes licensing, makes in-app purchases no cost, removes advertising and more; all of which deprive the developer of income from his or her app; and none of which are necessary for fair use.

Incidentally, I only named the app once in this post, in case moderators decide at some point to redact it. I'll ask that until someone affirms that it's OK, we don't mention it again.

[Difflugia]

From the CC forum:

Originally Posted by cybmole

five years old & with her very own hacked app - way to go

Rooted device, hacked app(s), books without DRM, customized network setup, firewall, no accessible personal information. Exactly how I expect her to set things up once she's old enough.

Originally Posted by cybmole

why not put ALL of her library on her tablet, & be legal- no need to connect , no licence check to pass.

Since the books have had DRM removed, everything's just as legal now as it would be with your solution.

Originally Posted by cybmole

or use content server option as already suggested.

I prefer the way I'm doing it now.

Originally Posted by cybmole

a coding war: " I'll hack every update "- "oh no you won't, I'll fix it so you can't"... is not the best way forward

Which is exactly why DRM (in any form) constitutes a war on your customers (or at least one where they're collateral damage).

[chaley]

To amplify a bit on my position: using the mentioned app permits someone to remove licensing etc on something that the person did not buy. It is sufficient to download a copy containing the checks, run the app, and voila. This process is very different from removing DRM on a book. In all the situations I am aware of the user must obtain a book licensed to him or her, then use tools to remove the DRM.

In other words, the existing DRM removal tools work on books purchased by the user. Honesty is supported by the tools, thereby supporting fair use. The pirating app works on install files that are freely available and not illegally uploaded. No purchase is required. Fair use is out the window.

[chaley]

Adding one of my comments to Difflugia as additional background info

Originally Posted by chaley

And yes, I am annoyed. Some 40% of CC's installed base is pirated, and your publishing this info can only make it worse. In other words, your actions are costing me money.

Note that I am not objecting to the use Difflugia made of the tool. Assuming he actually purchased CC, in his very narrow situation using the tool is acceptable. I am objecting to publishing information about tools that have no foundation in fair use.

[Difflugia]

Originally Posted by chaley

Assuming he actually purchased CC...

I did (several times, actually ).

[Difflugia]

Originally Posted by chaley

The pirating app works on install files that are freely available and not illegally uploaded. No purchase is required. Fair use is out the window.

I'm not aware of a way to legitimately get the APK of a purchased app without buying it in the first place. All of the ways that I'm aware of involve an illegal upload or a friend that bought it. Is there a way for someone to get the Calibre Companion APK from a legal source without previously being licensed to use it? You don't have to explain (or even hint at) how, but if there is, that's something new to me.

[chaley]

Originally Posted by Difflugia

I'm not aware of a way to legitimately get the APK of a purchased app without buying it in the first place. All of the ways that I'm aware of involve an illegal upload or a friend that bought it. Is there a way for someone to get the Calibre Companion APK from a legal source without previously being licensed to use it? You don't have to explain (or even hint at) how, but if there is, that's something new to me.

Yes, there are many, mostly "alternate stores" that offer the identical APK available on Google Play. This is usually not a problem because either the app is free and unlicensed, or it has a license requiring verification with the play store. These "stores" are not doing anything illegal, as they are not changing the APK. Of course, for licensed apps the result is not useful unless the pirate app is applied.

[cybmole]

For what it's worth, Google's view is that the L..P..app is a piracy tool, thus it is not allowed in their store.

But same applies to adblockers, so google are revenue, not morals driven!

I think it has some merit in that it can remove annoying ads from apps where there there is no option to buy an add free version, or can enable a paid for app to run in airplane mode.
It is a tool, it can be used for good or for bad.
I enjoyed messing with it on my kobo tablet, as a learning experience, though I did end up having to factory reset that tablet eventually.
I no longer have a copy to hand but as I recall, licences was just 1 of many menu options.

The argument that ebook drm tools are somehow more moral because they only work on books you own is fatally flawed, but going into more detail on that here would be inviting a ban, so I won't.

[Difflugia]

Originally Posted by chaley

Yes, there are many, mostly "alternate stores" that offer the identical APK available on Google Play. This is usually not a problem because either the app is free and unlicensed, or it has a license requiring verification with the play store. These "stores" are not doing anything illegal, as they are not changing the APK. Of course, for licensed apps the result is not useful unless the pirate app is applied.

While this doesn't really take away from your point ("easy to get" whether legal or illegal), I would dispute that they're not doing anything illegal. I'm pretty sure you hold the copyright and you authorize Amazon and Google to distribute it. Uploading it somewhere else with or without modification is illegal.

I had thought most of the "darknet" stuff dried up when they started prosecuting Mega-Upload et al. I just did a quick search and found several sites offering the demo version, though, so you're probably right that I'd find the paid version if I looked a little more. If it's up to you rather than Google or Amazon to deal with infringers, "illegal" probably doesn't mean a whole lot.

I guess at this point, if we decide that the use of DRM with Calibre Companion is justified, is there a bright line between a tool facilitating fair-use and piracy? Is it justified on software, but not books? Or are the relatively low requirements for accepting the DRM restrictions (Google Play account on a network-connected device) such that publicizing this tool is indefensible? Or something else?

[chaley]

Originally Posted by cybmole

The argument that ebook drm tools are somehow more moral because they only work on books you own is fatally flawed, but going into more detail on that here would be inviting a ban, so I won't.

If you think that supporting fair use is different from supporting theft, then we have nothing more to discuss.

[cybmole]

I think it is safe to append this logic:
1. Internet has many torrent sites where "retail" e books can be torrented.
2. Those books were sold only with drm
3. So uploaders to those sites have used de-drm tools to facilitate ebook piracy
QED

I see no moral difference between those uploading de-drm books and those uploading licence freed apps.
in both cases the creator is losing income
In both cases the existence of relevant "tools" de-skills the uploader task.
Demonizing one tool while giving a friendly nod n wink to the other ( google Alf is a well tolerated comment here ) is not really defensible

[chaley]

Originally Posted by Difflugia

I had thought most of the "darknet" stuff dried up when they started prosecuting Mega-Upload et al. I just did a quick search and found several sites offering the demo version, though, so you're probably right that I'd find the paid version if I looked a little more. If it's up to you rather than Google or Amazon to deal with infringers, "illegal" probably doesn't mean a whole lot.

Neither Amazon nor Google make any effort at all to stop piracy.

I guess at this point, if we decide that the use of DRM with Calibre Companion is justified, is there a bright line between a tool facilitating fair-use and piracy? Is it justified on software, but not books? Or are the relatively low requirements for accepting the DRM restrictions (Google Play account on a network-connected device) such that publicizing this tool is indefensible? Or something else?

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.

[chaley]

Originally Posted by cybmole

I see no moral difference between those uploading de-drm books and those uploading licence freed apps.
in both cases the creator is losing income
In both cases the existence of relevant "tools" de-skills the uploader task.
Demonizing one tool while giving a friendly nod n wink to the other ( google Alf is a well tolerated comment here ) is not really defensible

The difference is that no one is claiming that someone uploaded a license-freed app (although they do). In this case the user downloaded the licensed app *that they did not pay for and still has the license check* and used the tool to remove that license check. I submit again that this is very different from downloading a book I paid for then removing DRM so I can read the book.

Good luck with running Alf's tools on a DRMed book you didn't buy.

[Difflugia]

Originally Posted by cybmole

For what it's worth, Google's view is that the L..P..app is a piracy tool, thus it is not allowed in their store.

But same applies to adblockers, so google are revenue, not morals driven!

I think it has some merit in that it can remove annoying ads from apps where there there is no option to buy an add free version, or can enable a paid for app to run in airplane mode.
It is a tool, it can be used for good or for bad.
I enjoyed messing with it on my kobo tablet, as a learning experience, though I did end up having to factory reset that tablet eventually.
I no longer have a copy to hand but as I recall, licences was just 1 of many menu options.

The argument that ebook drm tools are somehow more moral because they only work on books you own is fatally flawed, but going into more detail on that here would be inviting a ban, so I won't.

There are actually quite a few neat functions, but most are available in other, less "compromised" apps. Pretty much the only function that I use is the one to remove Google license checks.

I won't pretend that I'm a typical user, though; my setup is actually more paranoid than I let on. My primary device is a NOOK HD that boots from an SD Card. I have several cards witih different Android images. The only one with real information is the one that I actually use to download apps from Google and Amazon, from which I remove the license checks and transfer them to one of my "normal" images, which are tied to Google accounts that don't have any payment information attached.

[Difflugia]

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.

In case it wasn't clear, I agree with this completely.