View Single Post
Old 01-03-2011, 03:53 PM   #109
ApK
Award-Winning Participant
ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.ApK ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 7,393
Karma: 68715774
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: NJ, USA
Device: Kindle
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarryT View Post
One very significant different is that of course MP3 files have no DRM, so that if you keep them longer than the agreed loan period you're probably violating the terms of the contract between you and the library, but not breaking copyright law.
Well, I don't know about that...follow:

It appears to be true, as stated in that court decision, that the Digital Millennium COPYRIGHT Act only concerns matters of copyright.

Keeping a dead-tree book out of the library too long is indeed not a copyright violation. Even at worst, they can charge you with stealing a book, not violating copyright.

But we agree that keeping an ebook longer than allowed is wrong.
That issue is separate from the issue of stripping DRM, except of course, in the sense that stripping the DRM makes it possible to do with epubs, just as you can do it with an mp3 or other non-drmed library loans.

The copyright issue involved, and the specter of possible illegality come from the unauthorized duplication of a work, which is a basic copyright protection.

You have an effective license to duplicate a digital file and read it's contents for a period of time. If you keep the book, or the mp3, or the video, in a usable form longer than that, you are now in possession of an unauthorized copy of the work. That's a copyright violation.

The best argument for DRM stripping being legal, is the converse (or is it inverse?) of that scenario. The DMCA, as stated in that court decision, only prohibits circumvention of DRM in matters that would violate copyright.

As your library loaner copy is NOT a violation of copyright, because you are permitted to have a readable copy of it during that period, stripping DRM from it for the same use, for the same period, is not a violation of the DMCA.

That's certainly how I'd argue it. If I were a lawyer. Which I'm not.

Ethical matters of fairness of terms-of-use and whether Adobe or Overdrive has the right to insist that you use only certain hardware is matter separate from copyright concerns.

ApK
ApK is offline   Reply With Quote