Quote:
Originally Posted by Kumabjorn
So, you're perfectly happy with living in a grey zone? I agree that lending someone your Kindle, without making any copies shouldn't be a crime. Hence, the laws need to change.
|
I don't think lending someone your Kindle in itself is against the law. It's all about copies - where they are, are they made?
Here is how I'm currently interpreting things and I may well be wrong because I'm not a lawyer and haven't read through this extensively:
- When you purchase an ebook you implicitly agree to Amazon's terms of service (TOS). They do not represent copyright law in themselves, they are a license agreement. This is what Amazon wants you to observe with your purchase.
So - here's my take on a couple of scenarios:
1) You purchase an ebook from Amazon. A copy of this book remains on the Amazon content server and a copy is delivered to your Kindle. This is fine by Amazon's TOS, but is it a break of copyright law by Amazon? My take (in a vacuum) is yes. Amazon could theoretically have broken the law in doing this. However, the content creators must grant certain permissions to Amazon to make copies of content under certain conditions (or otherwise the business model would fail). This would also be why content creators can prevent Amazon putting ebooks in their prime lending scheme etc.. which is effectively a way of sending all sorts of unpurchased copies out to different consumers.
2) You purchase an ebook from Amazon and you create a backup copy on your laptop with the DRM untouched in a program like Calibre. Here, you haven't broken Amazon's TOS because you haven't interfered with the security mechanisms and you are still limited to Amazon registered devices/apps to view the content. However, you're in muddier water when it comes to copyright laws and this is where people starting talking about fair use. Fair use is the explanation that may allow you to make your own personal back-up copies of content.
3) Same as 2 but you remove the DRM. You've violated Amazon's TOS - however is there any change to the copyright position? I think this is one that people argue about. My position is no, there is no difference between this and scenario 2 as far as copyright law goes, but I'm sure many would argue otherwise (including some content creators).
4) You have multiple account holders on your Amazon account and content is shared amongst devices. This is not a breach of Amazon TOS and it's only as much a breach of copyright law by Amazon in the same way as scenario 1 as at any given time there is only supposed to be 1 copy in circulation and 1 copy on Amazon's content server. And again, if any additional permission was required by Amazon it would have been granted by the content creator.
5) Same as scenario 4 but you have a back-up copy on your laptop. OK - this is where I start to sink into mud. If you leave DRM on the file you're still not breaching Amazon's TOS, but is there a breach of copyright law. There are now mulitple copies of the file in circulation for one purchase. And I'm guessing if you're not connected to Amazon's content servers you can view your copy of the product at the same time as your fellow account holder. Oops - now it starts looking like we're in trouble even though we've attempted to comply with Amazon's TOS. I haven't dug deeply enough to see if there's a clause that covers this (there might be), but it would seem even Amazon's TOS are not sufficient to protect the consumer from breaking the law. I would even argue that perhaps it is Amazon that is breaking the law here as it is they who are granting the copies to fellow account holders.
6) Same as 5, but your backup has removed DRM. A breach of Amazon's TOS and (it appears to me) a breach of copyright law
7) You loan your Kindle with purchased DRM content on it to whomever your want. As long as that Kindle is still connected to your account and as long as you haven't created back-ups, this is neither a breach of Amazon's TOS nor is it a violation of copyright law.
8) Scenario 7 with any backup option taken (with or without DRM) may not be a breach of Amazon's TOS (see scenarios above) but it will be a violation of copyright law as far as I can see.
I'm not saying I'm 100% right. This is just me looking at different scenarios and trying to interpret them. It may be that scenario 5 in particular is covered somehow with agreements Amazon makes with content creators. But it does make you sit back and think a bit as a content consumer how easy it is to break certain laws without even intending to.
This is why I've chosen to live in my own little grey area. I attempt to follow copyright laws in spirit even if sometimes it may not be to the letter. As for Amazon's TOS, I've pretty much blatantly chosen to breach them by removing DRM from my content which probably makes me not a very nice customer for them - but I guessing most people here wouldn't want to lynch me for that disgression even though Amazon might.