DRM removal plugin for Calibre

[abookreader]

Well hopefully the behind the scenes work will continue if that is the case.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

This also means Amazon and ADE will start work on a new encryption method.

And break every device that's out there? I honestly don't think that's going to happen. Did the film studios change the CSS encryption system on DVDs when that was cracked? No, of course not, because every DVD player in the world would have stopped working.

We are not the typical eBook-buying crowd here. I have a number of friends with eBook readers; none of them would dream of removing DRM from their books.

[DiapDealer]

This also means Amazon and ADE will start work on a new encryption method.

I doubt it. That would be a huge, infrastructure-changing, expensive, complicated endeavor. I'm not saying they won't ever -- or aren't currently working on -- changing their DRM schemes, but it won't be because of this blog's popularity.

If the current DRM schemes change, it will probably be because of pressure from publishers. But I just don't look for any drastic changes anytime soon.

[EowynCarter]

As far as I'm concerned, no buying book if I can't de-drm. Period.
Hopefully it will follow the music way, and go DRM free at some point.

Publishers should be tankful with the people who made these scripts.

[wvcherrybomb]

Originally Posted by HarryT

This is a grey area of the law. Many people are of the OPINION that DRM removal for personal use is not illegal in the USA, but until a case actually comes to court and a judge decides, nobody actually knows one way or the other.

There already has been a court case, the outcome of which is the personal/fair use exception. That stands as law, not opinion, until a higher court upholds or overturns it. (US)

Originally Posted by screwballl

Within the US: It is illegal to create a program/code that removes any sort of DRM or lock of digital material within the US, BUT it is NOT illegal for individuals to use them for personal use as outlined in the fair use exceptions of copyright law.

You are correct. My earlier comment was wrong as Alf does fall into a different catagory than us users.

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

but why did everyone have to start yaking about it? We used to just say "google is your friend" Now we have ruined it for everyone.

I'd say that's a little dramatic. MR is just a forum among millions, not the Washington Post.

Originally Posted by EowynCarter

Publishers should be tankful with the people who made these scripts.

I agree. I was hesitant to spend money on ebooks at all until I found out there was a way to be sure I could keep them. Now I buy, buy, buy.

[DiapDealer]

It is illegal to create a program/code that removes any sort of DRM or lock of digital material within the US

Actually, to be quite the stickler for detail here... I don't think the above statement is necessarily true. It's illegal to distribute such a program.

If (and I still think it's a great big "if" fest at this point) individuals are legally allowed to remove the DRM from their purchases for their own personal use, surely they could write their own personal scripts to do so?

[SeaBookGuy]

Honestly, I don't think publishers really care about folks who extend library books, and instances involving a book an individual's paid for, as long as it's personal use only.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think it'd be awfully difficult to get a criminal conviction (requiring a unanimous jury verdict), and what sort of civil "damages" could they collect in a personal use case?

CYA for potential bootleg copies is more like it.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Actually, to be quite the stickler for detail here... I don't think the above statement is necessarily true. It's illegal to distribute such a program.

That's right; it's distribution that's the key. What the DMCA actually says is:

No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that —

(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or

(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

Alf is falling foul of the "offer to the public" clause regardless of whether or not he personally has written the software.

[Sydney's Mom]

Originally Posted by wvcherrybomb

I'd say that's a little dramatic. MR is just a forum among millions, not the Washington Post.

Well, in my day . . . I sent a PM to someone, asking for help. They asked me for a non-MR mailbox, because they didn't want this tied to MR. I thought that was good practice. I am a lawyer, and I see boogymen around every corner.


Some may not remember, but MR received one take down notice already.

[CleverClothe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's right; it's distribution that's the key. What the DMCA actually says is:

Erm, Harry. Read the fourth word of that quote.

[wvcherrybomb]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

Well, in my day . . . I sent a PM to someone, asking for help. They asked me for a non-MR mailbox, because they didn't want this tied to MR. I thought that was good practice.

It IS a good practice, but there are these same conversations taking place all over the internet in much more detail than MR allows. I would say that MR would be low on the list of sources for these articles. And posts here are certainly not solely responsible.

I would have understood the drama more if I had known you are a lawyer. I have nothing against them, as I have two family members who are attorneys, just saying they tend to blow things up a little ... my family members, I mean.

[wvcherrybomb]

Originally Posted by CleverClothe

Erm, Harry. Read the fourth word of that quote.

*cough*manfacture*cough*

[Fbone]

Harry must be a speed reader

[Poppaea]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

Well, in my day . . . I sent a PM to someone, asking for help. They asked me for a non-MR mailbox, because they didn't want this tied to MR. I thought that was good practice. I am a lawyer, and I see boogymen around every corner.


Some may not remember, but MR received one take down notice already.

What I do fail to understand is: When you are so concerned, why do you discuss it ad infinitum in this board now. Even if I had not known before there is something, err, let's call it legally questionable, you'd have me made more than aware with your lamenting in two different threads.

Do you really think this helps?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by CleverClothe

Erm, Harry. Read the fourth word of that quote.

"Manufacture". What about it?