Consumers @#$%$! by DRM Scheme Once Again: HarperCollins eBook Store Close

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Go to http://www.borders.com/online/store/...sku=1439192596 and have a look. You will see that the link says buy now & download. It does not say purchase a license. It does not say rent the eBook. It says BUY and when I buy something, I own it.

And if you bothered to read the terms of use on the site, they say, under section 9. Literary Works:

Registered Users may not modify, transmit, publish, participate in the transfer or sale of, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, display, or in any way exploit, any of the content of these literary works, in whole or in part. By downloading literary works from the Service, the Registered User hereby acknowledges and agrees to these terms.

Stripping the DRM from the eBook is, without question, moditying the work.
Creating a version that you can read on a different eBook reader is creating a derivative work.

When you downloaded the eBook, you agreed to these terms.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by Grimm

Again, the difference between civil law and criminal law is hardly a matter of semantics no matter how much you might wish it to be.

Are you a lawyer or something? Several people have pointed out that for the purpose of the argument, the difference between civil and criminal law is irrelevant and yet you persist.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by 44Dave

Not so. I purchased 2 ebooks last week from B&N. At no time was I ever presented with a license to agree to. Ever, even while making my account.

Then you didn't read the terms of use.
XII. DIGITAL CONTENT

You may not transfer the Digital Content from one electronic reading device to another without maintaining the applicable digital rights management solution for that Digital Content. You may not bypass, modify, defeat or circumvent any of the security features, special rules or other applications that protect the Digital Content.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

And if you bothered to read the terms of use on the site, they say, under section 9. Literary Works:


Stripping the DRM from the eBook is, without question, moditying the work.
Creating a version that you can read on a different eBook reader is creating a derivative work.

When you downloaded the eBook, you agreed to these terms.

You are not even allowed to transmit it! So, how are you going to put it on your first device anyway (unless you have a 3G or wifi enabled device...)

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by Catlady

You ignored the rest of what I said. Just where do I agree that I am licensing and not buying?

I ignored the rest of what you said because it was based on the incorrect assumption that you bought the eBook.

Read the terms of use of the site you paid money to. They (sort of) clearly point out that you bought a license, not an eBook.

[44Dave]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

Then you didn't read the terms of use.
XII. DIGITAL CONTENT

I sure never agreed to them. What kind of contract is binding when one party does not agree?

[paaThaka]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

First off, if you paid money for a DRM-contaminated eBook, you didn't "legitimately purchase" a book. You paid for a license - a very limited license - to read the eBook for a limited time on a limited number of devices (plus, I'm sure, more than a few more limitations).

They have the legal right to prevent you from accessing the eBook in the future - because that's what the license said they could do.

This only applies to United States and in some limited extent to some other common law systems with similar license policy legislation.

For instance, in many countries within EU these one-sided usage policies have no legally binding stature.

But technically within US you're right, although the lying weasels surely didn't make this evident when they sold the ebooks.

They were selling "ebooks", not a "non-exclusive right to keep a permanent copy of the applicable Digital Content and to view, use, and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times, solely on the Device or as authorized by X as part of the Service and solely for your personal, non-commercial use." or some-such.

So they deserve all the flak they get, if you ask me

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by paaThaka

This only applies to United States and in some limited extent to some other common law systems with similar license policy legislation.

For instance, in many countries within EU these one-sided usage policies have no legally binding stature.

But technically within US you're right, although the lying weasels surely didn't make this evident when they sold the ebooks.

They were selling "ebooks", not a "non-exclusive right to keep a permanent copy of the applicable Digital Content and to view, use, and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times, solely on the Device or as authorized by X as part of the Service and solely for your personal, non-commercial use." or some-such.

So they deserve all the flak they get, if you ask me

With software EULAs, you actually have to agree to the terms before you are allowed to install it (although it doesn't do you a whole lot of good to decline since you usually can't return opened software, one of the major reasons I no longer buy software other than shareware that I can try before I buy). Unless e-book EULAs are presented in a similar way, instead of being buried in hard to find fine print, I fail to see how they can be enforced.

[Grimm]

Edited by me for content.

[Grimm]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

Are you a lawyer or something? Several people have pointed out that for the purpose of the argument, the difference between civil and criminal law is irrelevant and yet you persist.

I don't particularly care what you think save to say that your statement is false. People are putting forth that it is a criminal matter if you break DRM. It is NOT a criminal matter at all. That makes it relevant. Don't like me pointing out that FACT? Cool, I don't care.

[FF2]

Originally Posted by edbro

I'm going to have to be more careful. I just got out of jail for ripping the tag off my mattress. I certainly don't want to go back.

Was the jail time for a mattress greater than for tearing it off a pillow? Smaller, less costly item.

[FF2]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

Are you a lawyer or something? Several people have pointed out that for the purpose of the argument, the difference between civil and criminal law is irrelevant and yet you persist.

Jail time versus a possible monetary penalty is more than semantics. Crimes can send one to jail. Civil legal wrongs can be punished with monetary awards. If Amazon could not sold the drm-stripped book for a sony reader, their LOSS might be zero - a jury of one's peers might award them one penny or more but not impose jail time.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by Grimm

I don't particularly care what you think save to say that your statement is false. People are putting forth that it is a criminal matter if you break DRM. It is NOT a criminal matter at all. That makes it relevant. Don't like me pointing out that FACT? Cool, I don't care.

Originally Posted by FF2

Jail time versus a possible monetary penalty is more than semantics. Crimes can send one to jail. Civil legal wrongs can be punished with monetary awards. If Amazon could not sold the drm-stripped book for a sony reader, their LOSS might be zero - a jury of one's peers might award them one penny or more but not impose jail time.

We weren't discussing penalties here, just whether something was illegal or not. In this instance, Grimm, your bringing the difference was semantical nitpicking. Too often here, I've seen legal semantics used as an argument to condone doing something illegal just because the penalties or the method of prosecution was different. However, it doesn't matter if one carries a lighter penalty (even to the point of being virtually nonexistant), if it's illegal, it's illegal.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by paaThaka

This only applies to United States and in some limited extent to some other common law systems with similar license policy legislation.

For instance, in many countries within EU these one-sided usage policies have no legally binding stature.

Some courts in EU countries have found some EULAs to be not legally binding. But those aren't the kind of licenses used by ebook sellers.

Shrinkwrap or click-through licenses are sometimes questionable because of the fact that you don't have the opportunity to read the license until after you've opened the package or installed the software. These are problematic because you may then be unable to return the opened software, even if you don't agree with it.

But this is not what Amazon (and I assume B&N) do. For Amazon, you first have to register your device with the Kindle store. In doing this, you are presented with the terms of service. If you disagree with the terms, you can return your Kindle.

Here are Amazon's conditions:

Use of Digital Content. Upon your payment of the applicable fees set by Amazon, Amazon grants you the non-exclusive right to keep a permanent copy of the applicable Digital Content and to view, use, and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times, solely on the Device or as authorized by Amazon as part of the Service and solely for your personal, non-commercial use. Digital Content will be deemed licensed to you by Amazon under this Agreement unless otherwise expressly provided by Amazon.

Restrictions. Unless specifically indicated otherwise, you may not sell, rent, lease, distribute, broadcast, sublicense or otherwise assign any rights to the Digital Content or any portion of it to any third party, and you may not remove any proprietary notices or labels on the Digital Content. In addition, you may not, and you will not encourage, assist or authorize any other person to, bypass, modify, defeat or circumvent security features that protect the Digital Content.

But violating this contract isn't really what causes trouble; it's violating the DMCA by circumventing DRM that causes trouble.

Circumventing DRM can be civil or criminal, although it's only criminal if it's done for personal gain. But the civil provisions provide statutory damages, meaning that if you can be shown to violate the DRM, you can be sued *either* for actual damages (lost sales or whatever), or you can be sued for statutory damages, where you owe a penalty of up to $2500 per violation (I think it's a range of $250-$2500). You won't be sent to jail for the civil violation, but you can still be fined in about the same way you can be fined for speeding, which is another civil violation.

And - to respond to some other posts - circumventing DRM is illegal in the US. Aside from the particular exceptions described in the statute (including those adopted by the librarian of the library of congress), there aren't any other exceptions. "Fair use" doesn't apply to the DMCA. "Fair use" is simply an exception to the copyright act; it's not some sort of overarching constitutional right like free speech. Congress created the "fair use" exception, and congress can take it away or refuse to expand it to new laws.

Of course, the likelihood of getting caught is extremely small if you're stripping DRM from books you bought and not redistributing them. And since there's no real harm, I doubt even the rights holder would care. But the (il)legality of the act is clear enough in the US.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

For Amazon, you first have to register your device with the Kindle store. In doing this, you are presented with the terms of service. If you disagree with the terms, you can return your Kindle.

This is not true. You can create an account, register a copy of Kindle for Mac (Or PC) with it, and buy and download books, without ever being shown any conditions.

I just tried it. You should do so too.

In one dialog there was a link titled "Terms of Use", but it didn't lead to a valid page.