I'm regretting giving my husband a Kindle 3

[abookreader]

Originally Posted by Newfie56

The husband's sticking with his Kindle. (Yes!!!) I'm going to keep an eye on this forum and start making some serious hints for one reader or another, though, come birthday time!

Ah, another Mixed Marriage.
Believe me, you'll be happy you have Calibre if that happens. My husband likes to read from the iPAD, but I'm pretty much a Kindle girl.

[Latinandgreek]

Originally Posted by Newfie56

The husband's sticking with his Kindle. (Yes!!!) I'm going to keep an eye on this forum and start making some serious hints for one reader or another, though, come birthday time!

Nice! I hope your birthday is coming up soon. Enjoy!

[twobits]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

by the same token it has not been made prosecutable for PERSONAL USE!

You must be reading a different DMCA then I did.

[Newfie56]

Originally Posted by abookreader

Ah, another Mixed Marriage.
Believe me, you'll be happy you have Calibre if that happens. My husband likes to read from the iPAD, but I'm pretty much a Kindle girl.

Not necessarily a mixed marriage. I'm liking his Kindle pretty well right now, thanks to many helpful members of this forum!

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by twobits

You must be reading a different DMCA then I did.

for personal use? point it out

[jocampo]

Originally Posted by Newfie56

Hi everyone. I'm new to the forum, having been brought here by my attempts to redeem myself -- and the Kindle gift I gave my husband for Christmas. He is a prolific reader, checking stacks of books from the library regularly. When he asked for an e-book reader for Christmas, I posted on my facebook: "Kindle or Nook?" and the Kindle responses outweighed the Nooks. I got him the version with 3G & wifi. I simply assumed (you know what they say about that word) that it would be compatible with the ebooks offered from our library.

Of course, now I know better. And I'm sure I'm not the first person to post this dilemma on this forum. I've tried googling and trying to figure this out... But I'm not the most computer-savvy person in the world. Most of the instructions I've read for "getting around" this issue are more than a year old and I don't know why I can't find anything more recent. Can someone provide a link (or links) to instructions that even someone getting solicitiations from AARP can understand?

He's wondering if I can return the Kindle, and I don't want to admit defeat (not sure they would even take it).

Thanks in advance for any help.

If you have original box and receipt, and the Kindle is not broken, Amazon or Best Buy store will take it.

And for those who could be reading this: another vivid example that e-readers should be bought based on the books you read and like, not just the device itself

[Xanthe]

Originally Posted by Newfie56

The husband's sticking with his Kindle. (Yes!!!) I'm going to keep an eye on this forum and start making some serious hints for one reader or another, though, come birthday time!

I was going to suggest hanging onto to the Kindle and just getting another ereader that would handle the library books. After all, one ereader is never enough.

[Newfie56]

Well said, Xanthe!

[screwballl]

The problem is there are conflicting laws on the books (in the US). There is a fair use exemption to copyright law, and then there is the god awful DMCA.

Copyright law is mostly civil law. If you violate copyright you would usually get sued, not be charged with a crime. Sorry, but in copyright suits, these don't apply the same way or at all. It's mostly which side and set of evidence the judge or jury accepts or believes more, though the rules vary based on the type of infringement. In civil cases you can even be made to testify against your own interests. Exception: in the USA, a commercial copyright violation involving more than 10 copies and value over $2500 was made a felony in the 1990s.

So most of us ebook owners using calibre to modify books for personal use will likely never get found out or need to worry as long as we do not share the files themselves... at least until big brother decides everyone is required to be monitored at all times...

[travfar]

Originally Posted by twobits

Thats part of the problem. That was the determination under the previous copyright laws. We do not yet have the body of case law for the DMCA to see if it holds up as written or not. People now seem to often mix rights they used to have as still being active under the new law which is not true in the law itself, so we wait for it to be challenged.

Look further down in my post. I posted a court opinion from 2 years ago that specifically addressed the DMCA. Same basic opinion as the Sony one from almost 3 decades ago. OK to do for personal not for profit use, not OK to profit from software that does it.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by wvcherrybomb

Since I reasonably believe that circumvention of DRM is necessary to read library books on my Kindle, I am not breaking any laws.

Don't be too sure about that. You don't own the library book - the library does. If you don't have permission from the library to strip the DRM (and of course you don't), I doubt that the exception you are relying on would include your usage.

[wvcherrybomb]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Don't be too sure about that. You don't own the library book - the library does. If you don't have permission from the library to strip the DRM (and of course you don't), I doubt that the exception you are relying on would include your usage.

I'm sure the FBI has been slowly building a case against me. I expect they'll be busting my doors in any day now. If I suddenly disappear, you'll know I'm on death row.

[FF2]

Originally Posted by wvcherrybomb

I'm sure the FBI has been slowly building a case against me. I expect they'll be busting my doors in any day now. If I suddenly disappear, you'll know I'm on death row.

They'll probably waterboard your kindle to get the truth (epubs) out of it.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by ApK

Harry, you have neglected to cite all the exemptions to the anti-circumvention provision, nor did you mention that the 5th circuit federal court has already ruled that
breaking DRM when there is no violation of copyright is not enough to trigger the anti-circumvention provision of the DMCA:

"Merely bypassing a technological protection that restricts a user from viewing or using a work is insufficient to trigger the DMCA's anti-circumvention provision. The DMCA prohibits only forms of access that would violate or impinge on the protections that the Copyright Act otherwise affords copyright owners... The owner's technological measure must protect the copyrighted material against an infringement of a right that the Copyright Act protects, not from mere use or viewing."
-- http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions...21-CV0.wpd.pdf

That pretty clearly and unambiguously says to me that if you strip DRM just to read a book you're entitled to read, that's OK. If you strip DRM to get rights you shouldn't have then that's a violation.
Why are you trying to make people think that you have some first hand knowledge that this is against the law when the courts seem be saying it's not?

ApK

Thanks for posting the cite. That's a very interesting case, and makes some subtle distinctions that I am going to have to ponder a bit. I am not at all sure that I agree with the court's conclusion concerning the dongle. They seem to be saying that since the dongle did not perform a DRM function, it is not a violation to circumvent it. One thing I think I might disagree with is the conclusion that the dongle does not perform a DRM function.

I do agree with the court's statement that the DMCA is intended to protect copyright, and that any DRM that is circumvented to access material which is not protected by copyright does not violate the law. But remember that this particular thread is about library lending, and the question is whether it is fair use to circumvent DRM on a book that the library owns, and is subject to a contractual relationship between the library and the borrower. In this context, the library has, in the lending transaction, made it clear that it is not conveying to the borrower all of the fair use rights the library has - such as to access the contents for more than X number of days. OTOH, the borrower's fair use rights might not be constrained by that.

Consider whether a thief has fair use rights to the content of a book he has stolen. The court's decision implies that the thief would have such rights. But I think that this implication is dicta - that is, not necessary to the decision and therefore not any kind of precedent.

Because what this case holds, I think, is that there is no evidence that the defendant ever actually circumvented anything - it just used something on which the DRM had already been circumvented, possibly by someone else - and it's not illegal to do that.

A very subtle decision, indeed.

[wvcherrybomb]

Originally Posted by FF2

They'll probably waterboard your kindle to get the truth (epubs) out of it.