DRM Handcuffs

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by CRussel

Horsepucky. Please READ what I post before you tell me I'm full of it. If you feel the need to grovel to DRM, go right ahead. But don't try to pretend that a backup with DRM on is a protection against catastrophic failure. Or against the provider of the book going out of business, or just deciding to stop selling that version of DRM'd book.

Doesn't protect against being struck by lightning or contracting cancer, either. You might as well add these eventualities in as well. I'm saying that if you want to pretend that you are trying to protect against all eventualities by stripping DRM, be my guest. I'm proposing indubitably legal methods to protect against LIKELY eventualities for people who want to follow the law.

If following the law is grovelling to DRM, I can live with that.

[rdfry]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Then maybe you should post DRM removal techniques on this forum, since the law is toothless and what could happen, right? You should add your name and address, too, just to put your money where your mouth is.

No? Didn't think so.

I look at the world as it is, not as how I'd like it to be. As it is, these laws are on the books and if you want to avoid any possibility of legal entanglement, you should act according to the law. Just sayin'.

I would if mobile read would allow it. It is pathetic that the congress of the United States has not amended the DMCA to allow for fair use of ebooks that you have paid for, but since this is really unenforceable on an individual basis it makes it meaningless.

[HansTWN]

Stonetools, if we break the DRM and don't distribute the files what are the damages?

[stonetools]

Just because a law is on the books doesn't mean that it is just or that it is right. There have been plenty that have been struck down. My guess is that this will be one of them as far as personal use goes. And in the meantime, people will continue to strip drm.

And if you don't want to strip DRM, because hey, it could be illegal and maybe the book industry wants to make a point by suing you, you should use legally approved backup methods. I think that should be the preferred option, and the moderators apparently agree with me with me that this forum shouldn't be involved in publishing DRM removal methods, because of potential liability. But maybe they don't, so just go ahead and post your best , geekiest DRM removal stuff right here. Don't forget to post your real name and address.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Stonetools, if we break the DRM and don't distribute the files what are the damages?

(Shrug)

I don't know and I don't intend to find out. I also think that NOBODY should be going around urging people to remove DRM unless they are 100 per cent sure that there will be no legal liability. That's just me, though.

[HansTWN]

Let us call removing DRM a civil protest against an unfair system. Sort of like African Americans sitting in the front of the bus in the 50's (though we need to be nowhere near as brave to do it!)

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

You are right on the money --- and buying only non-DRM books is just not an option at this point.

I only buy non-DRM'd ebooks. I don't even download freebies with DRM, or that require store-specific software to open. I can see that students might be stuck in a position where they have to deal with DRM or give up on their education, but for everyone else, it's a choice.

Originally Posted by stonetools

I also think that NOBODY should be going around urging people to remove DRM unless they are 100 per cent sure that there will be no legal liability. That's just me, though.

There is no law, nor moral imperative, to only suggest those actions that one is certain are entirely legal.

Gay sex was illegal in a lot of places in the US, not long ago. My religion has been banned in various locations; a lot of my religious practices are occasionally banned by some cities. Some laws are immoral and oppressive, and part of the process of changing them is breaking them--because if nobody breaks them, the people who want the laws to stay claim that there's no demand for them to change.

I don't the the DMCA anti-circumvention law is parallel with laws against religion or orientation--but it is an invasive law, declaring what a person can & can't do in the privacy of their own home, with no harm to anyone. And it's not even clear that breaking DRM for the purpose of reading on a different device, or backup in case of store shutdown, is illegal.

Those who advocate DRM-cracking should certainly inform people that it's legally iffy. However, plenty of us are willing to break laws in ways that don't cause any damage.

[stonetools]

There is no law, nor moral imperative, to only suggest those actions that one is certain are entirely legal.

That's MY moral imperative. You are free to take another approach.

Gay sex was illegal in a lot of places in the US, not long ago. My religion has been banned in various locations; a lot of my religious practices are occasionally banned by some cities. Some laws are immoral and oppressive, and part of the process of changing them is breaking them--because if nobody breaks them, the people who want the laws to stay claim that there's no demand for them to change.

I think its creepy to equate this anti-DRM stuff with the struggle against civil rights or the people who marched and went to jail over gay rights or religious freedom. That's taking this thing WAAAAAAAAAAY out of proportion-and it does a disservice to those who marched and went to jail and bled, IMO.

Those who advocate DRM-cracking should certainly inform people that it's legally iffy. However, plenty of us are willing to break laws in ways that don't cause any damage.

I am for fully informed consent-and that should start by informing those who ask that there are entirely legal ways to backup, archive, and share files. These ways don't cover all eventualities, and if the person persists, then they should be informed of the legally dubious methods-and of the possible consequences. Unfortunately, on Mobile Reads, it is the legally dubious way -AND ONLY THAT WAY-that is advocated as the proper way to accomplish these tasks. The impression given is that the law can, must, and indeed should be broken with impunity and that Mobile Reads is the forum to come to find how it can be done. I don't think that's a healthy impression to create.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Unfortunately, on Mobile Reads, it is the legally dubious way -AND ONLY THAT WAY-that is advocated as the proper way to accomplish these tasks. The impression given is that the law can, must, and indeed should be broken with impunity and that Mobile Reads is the forum to come to find how it can be done. I don't think that's a healthy impression to create.

Why do you insist on on attributing things to the forum (and spelling it wrong), in toto, when a child could grasp the fact that it's only certain members who feel this way? It doesn't even matter if a clear majority of the members were to feel the way that you claim they do... painting all of Mobile Read with the same ridiculously fat brush that you whip out time and time again would still be wrong. Stop doing it. Address the individuals who are challenging your position or forget it. This whole stonetools (the voice of reason) vs MobileRead (the evil geeks) crusade is tiresome (especially in light of it only existing in your head). If we're all so tragically incapable of seeing the world as clearly as you so obviously do, then why do you insist on hanging out with all us geeky, subversive, people as much as you do? Slumming? Or are you delusional enough to think you're somehow protecting the innocent newbs?

[kjk]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Let us call removing DRM a civil protest against an unfair system. Sort of like African Americans sitting in the front of the bus in the 50's (though we need to be nowhere near as brave to do it!)

Gay sex was illegal in a lot of places in the US, not long ago. My religion has been banned in various locations; a lot of my religious practices are occasionally banned by some cities. Some laws are immoral and oppressive, and part of the process of changing them is breaking them--because if nobody breaks them, the people who want the laws to stay claim that there's no demand for them to change.

Sorry, I just don't see the DRM issue being anywhere close to these examples.

[pidgeon92]

Originally Posted by stonetools

But maybe they don't, so just go ahead and post your best , geekiest DRM removal stuff right here. Don't forget to post your real name and address.

Quit being ridiculous. The government knows very well where everyone lives. The nuts patrolling public forums are the ones people are avoiding.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Why do you insist on on attributing things to the forum (and spelling it wrong), in toto, when a child could grasp the fact that it's only certain members who feel this way? It doesn't even matter if a clear majority of the members were to feel the way that you claim they do... painting all of Mobile Read with the same ridiculously fat brush that you whip out time and time again would still be wrong. Stop doing it. Address the individuals who are challenging your position or forget it. This whole stonetools (the voice of reason) vs MobileRead (the evil geeks) crusade is tiresome (especially in light of it only existing in your head). If we're all so tragically incapable of seeing the world as clearly as you so obviously do, then why do you insist on hanging out with all us geeky, subversive, people as much as you do? Slumming? Or are you delusional enough to think you're somehow protecting the innocent newbs?

I may sometimes paint with too broad a brush, but I think this is the impression created. For the record, I did address the individuals challenging my position, and I do think that expressing a contrary opinion might just be helpful in making the newbies, as you call them, come to an informed opinion on the issue. I think that dissent, even strongly worded dissent, is good. I hope you agree .

[speakingtohe]

You are right on the money --- and buying only non-DRM books is just not an option at this point.

Why not?

[speakingtohe]

I cannot help but wonder where DRM has stopped anyone from reading. The entitlement to copy and/or redistribute a pbook has never been a hot issue.

I have never bought a book where the main purpose was to be able to lend it or resell it. I have done both, but I bought it because I wanted to read the book.

Now it is all about resales. People who loudly admit to stripping drm are constantly whining because they have to. Not too long ago one would have had to spend a long time at a photocopier to copy a book and some now feel it is their inalienable right to do this in in under 10 seconds?

Copying an ebook is usually violating the contract under which it was sold. Whining about doing this the hard way is like robbers snivelling that they have to go a bank or convenience store and show them a gun.

Helen

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Why not?

Because most of the books I want are not being sold in DRM-free versions.