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

[Abisha]

Dear HarperCollins eBook Customer,
As of November 19, 2010, the HarperCollins eBook Store has been discontinued. We are contacting you so that you have the opportunity to download and archive the titles you have purchased. To download previously purchased titles, sign in and visit your 'My library' page. After December 19, 2010 titles that have not been downloaded will no longer be accessible.
We appreciate your patronage, and we regret any inconvenience this may cause you.
Sincerely,
The HarperCollins e-books Support Teamwww.harpercollinsebooks.com

Let's just gnaw on the fact that unless our computers out live us, inevitably we the consumer will once again be defrauded by big business, and the literature and/or audio books that you worked so hard to pay for - and legitimately purchased will be stolen out from under you when you can no longer access the content.

[TallMomof2]

That's another reason to strip the DRM. I won't get burned again.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by Abisha

Let's just gnaw on the fact that unless our computers out live us, inevitably we the consumer will once again be defrauded by big business, and the literature and/or audio books that you worked so hard to pay for - and legitimately purchased will be stolen out from under you when you can no longer access the content.

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.

The only fraud is when they told you in big letters that are "buying" an eBook, only to tell you in the fine print (which you and most other people don't bother to read) that you really didn't buy an eBook - you bought a limited license.

TallMomof2: you committed a crime stripping the DRM off because you violated the license you agreed to.

If you want this to stop, then stop paying money for eBook licenses. Stop paying them to defraud you. When their bottom line hurts because of their fraudulent practices, they will change.

[Abisha]

@rlauzon

Consider the following:

The content/image notification shown above is found on the HarperCollins store. Should this have stated "Rent/Borrow" this thread would have never begun. As for Digital Restrictions, the Digital Millenium Act, and EULA's, I find them to be the product of a corrupted political system, beguiled by the bribes of unethical industry. Paraphrasing Locke, an unjust law is simply not a law...

I understand your position rlauzon, though I respectfully disagree.

[DiapDealer]

TallMomof2: you committed a crime stripping the DRM off because you violated the license you agreed to.

This is not so "cut and dried" anymore, depending on where you live. But otherwise, I agree completely with your post. The only way any of this nonsense will stop is if people stop paying for the license to read a book.

[abookreader]

TallMomof2: you committed a crime stripping the DRM off because you violated the license you agreed to.

To the dungeons!

[Grimm]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

TallMomof2: you committed a crime stripping the DRM off because you violated the license you agreed to.

From what I can tell, at least in my jurisdiction it's a civil matter, not criminal. You make a blanket statement that may or may not be accurate.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by Abisha

The content/image notification shown above is found on the HarperCollins store. Should this have stated "Rent/Borrow" this thread would have never begun. As for Digital Restrictions, the Digital Millenium Act, and EULA's, I find them to be the product of a corrupted political system, beguiled by the bribes of unethical industry. Paraphrasing Locke, an unjust law is simply not a law...

I understand your position rlauzon, though I respectfully disagree.

Actually, I agree with you. Everything on the site, in big letters, says that you are "buying" the eBook. But when it comes down to the actual transaction, it says you aren't. Cory Doctorow pointed this out in January.

IHMO, this is fraud. But until it's taken to the courts, there's nothing to be done.

But, regardless of whether or not you agree that this is right, the fact remains that you made an agreement with HarperCollins as a condition for downloading the eBook. By removing the DRM, you violated that agreement and it's you, legally speaking, that are in the wrong.

[nyrath]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

IHMO, this is fraud. But until it's taken to the courts, there's nothing to be done.

But, regardless of whether or not you agree that this is right, the fact remains that you made an agreement with HarperCollins as a condition for downloading the eBook. By removing the DRM, you violated that agreement and it's you, legally speaking, that are in the wrong.

But until he is taken to the courts, there's nothing to be done.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by Grimm

From what I can tell, at least in my jurisdiction it's a civil matter, not criminal. You make a blanket statement that may or may not be accurate.

Please don't play semantics with us.

[pwarren]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

Please don't play semantics with us.

Semantics? It's a fairly important distinction, in one case, you could possibly receive a criminal record, possible jail time or a fine. In the other, you may have to pay compensation.

A fairly substantial semantic difference I would say.

Copyright violation, and license violation, is not a crime, it's copyright violation, and license violation.

(IANAL)

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Abisha

Let's just gnaw on the fact that unless our computers out live us, inevitably we the consumer will once again be defrauded by big business, and the literature and/or audio books that you worked so hard to pay for - and legitimately purchased will be stolen out from under you when you can no longer access the content.

Yes, just one more good reason to either not buy DRMed ebooks, or to strip the DRM on purchase.

I've re-downloaded my three Mobipocket ebooks, just in case.

[Grimm]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

Please don't play semantics with us.

I'm not playing anything with you. There is a world of difference between civil and criminal. To pretend there is not is disingenuous at best, outright ignorant at worst.

[Penforhire]

This is merely a good chunk of the argument against DRM. Very few of us pay a price anywhere near p-book price and expect to only be renting the title. It is unreasonable to think so. Criminal? Probably not as criminal as us stripping DRM (in America anyway).

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by pwarren

Semantics? It's a fairly important distinction, in one case, you could possibly receive a criminal record, possible jail time or a fine. In the other, you may have to pay compensation.

A fairly substantial semantic difference I would say.

Copyright violation, and license violation, is not a crime, it's copyright violation, and license violation.

(IANAL)

Yes, it is an important distinction but has nothing to do with the actual argument. Too often, people here have used semantic obfuscation to support lame arguments (I'm not accusing you of it).