How do you feel about DRM?

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

In the U.S., breaking digital locks on DRM is clearly against the DMCA. Here's subsection 1201(a) of the Act:

[snip]

Subsection 1201(2) of the Act further states:

[snip]

You're neglecting 1201(a)(1)(B): "The prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to persons who are users of a copyrighted work which is in a particular class of works, if such persons are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by virtue of such prohibition in their ability to make noninfringing uses of that particular class of works under this title, as determined under subparagraph (C)."

and also
1201(c)(1): Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.

Until there's a case that actually addresses the issue directly, I think the law is unclear. In the US, anyway.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

You're neglecting 1201(a)(1)(B): "The prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to persons who are users of a copyrighted work which is in a particular class of works, if such persons are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by virtue of such prohibition in their ability to make noninfringing uses of that particular class of works under this title, as determined under subparagraph (C)."

and also
1201(c)(1): Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.

Until there's a case that actually addresses the issue directly, I think the law is unclear. In the US, anyway.

You're ignoring the underlined words above. The applicability of the exemption is determined through a periodic rulemaking by the Librarian of Congress and is not unclear; you may recall that the Librarian of Congress previously granted exemptions for "jailbreaking" a phone.

1201(c)(1) is somewhat tricky as it's not immediately clear whether or not it allows circumvention in cases that involve fair use. However, in the case of Universal City Studios v. Reimerdes (111 F. Supp. 2d 294, 322 (S.D.N.Y. 2000)) the court found that fair use does not apply in cases of circumvention of DRM (that case involved decrypting DVDs). The RealNetworks cases is also a good one, and should be easy to find if you have an interest in the subject.

The DMCA isn't new, there have been a number of cases on it, and on the anti-circumvention section specifically. What issues do you see that still need to be ruled on? Don't take the last sentence as a rhetorical question, I genuinely would like your thoughts on that.

Just as an interesting aside, Canada will likely implement new copyright legislation shortly that includes a a highly controversial section DRM-breaking.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

You're ignoring the underlined words above. The applicability of the exemption is determined through a periodic rulemaking by the Librarian of Congress and is not unclear; you may recall that the Librarian of Congress previously granted exemptions for "jailbreaking" a phone.

Yes, and there's currently an exception for certain classes of ebooks. (Those that disable any read-aloud function, prevent use of screen readers, and aren't available in forms that do permit those functions.)

I bow to your greater knowledge on the fair use exemption.

[QuantumIguana]

(a) VIOLATIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES. (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title...

Ah, but what if it ineffectively controls access to a work?

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by QuantumIguana

Ah, but what if it ineffectively controls access to a work?

Last I checked DRM is quite effective. Try removing DRM from an ebook that you don't have the right to access. As in crack the DRM and not just simply remove the DRM of a book you can already view. And even stripping your own DRM might be trivial to you, but might not be to somebody not even aware that there is tools for it to do that for you.

[MzTinaFL]

I don't mind DRM providing I can move content from one reader to another. But of course that doesn't happen. I am on my 3rd ereader (palm TX, Apple 3G, Samsung Galaxy 4.0) and I really hate that some of my earliest books which were purchased for mobipocket and are DRM aren't usable. I even paid full price for some books...so it really bothers me. I love ereading and I buy a LOT of books...but other than occasionally buying through Amazon, I pretty much stick to non-drm.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by MzTinaFL

I really hate that some of my earliest books which were purchased for mobipocket and are DRM aren't usable.

You can trivially remove the DRM, provided that you know the Mobipocket PID for which the book is encoded. Do a Google search for "MobiDeDRM".

It's a very good idea to remove DRM from books as soon as you buy them.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You can trivially remove the DRM, provided that you know the Mobipocket PID for which the book is encoded. Do a Google search for "MobiDeDRM".

Umm... a better search term is: Apprentice Alf's blog

[HarryT]

OK. Wasn't sure if Alf knew about old-fashioned Mobi books.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

OK. Wasn't sure if Alf knew about old-fashioned Mobi books.

[FX: Churchill dog]Oh, yes![/FX]

[mclien]

Originally Posted by spindlegirl

I wish that DRM removal could be obvious for Linux users. I've found some work arounds under wine, but I find that blog that we're all supposed to google confusing, which leads to dead links, and simply saying "Linux users will find it easy to change the code to plug in"... well, no.

I think there is some more detailed part in the README. (the plugin way for calibre doesn't work, though).
But basicly I'm with you. (debian user, too). What is more annoyence to come is, that in near future we won't be able to buy books without windows, because Adope DRM will not work using wine in the future (some DOT.net stuff or some shit, I forgot).
I also hate the way publishers try to force printet book ways to digital media. Just ridicules!
Maybe publishers should become obsolete:
An author publishes everything on her/his side for "free" download next to a donate button. I download a book and pay a small amount for that (3$ would be more than double a author gets normally for a book). Then I read it. In case I like it I WILL donate the next amount. I read it a few month/ years later and enjoy it again? Well, I'll most likely will pay the next amount.
I will make the book a birthday gift? I'll put it on a D Card/ send it via mail... whatever and donate again.
(OK call me a dreamer. But maybe there are enought people of my kind out there to make a living for some authors that way)

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mclien

What is more annoyence to come is, that in near future we won't be able to buy books without windows, because Adope DRM will not work using wine in the future (some DOT.net stuff or some shit, I forgot).

Are Adobe withdrawing the Mac version of ADE? I hadn't heard that Windows was going to be a requirement.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Are Adobe withdrawing the Mac version of ADE? I hadn't heard that Windows was going to be a requirement.

The apparent issue is that future Windows versions of ADE might require Microsoft APIs that aren't part of WINE, and so couldn't be run on a Linux machine.

Nothing to do with the Mac version as all.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

The apparent issue is that future Windows versions of ADE might require Microsoft APIs that aren't part of WINE, and so couldn't be run on a Linux machine.

Nothing to do with the Mac version as all.

I was referring to the previous poster's claim that "soon we won't be able to buy books without Windows". I don't believe that statement is true; you'll be able to buy them using a Mac.

[no.guru]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

The apparent issue is that future Windows versions of ADE might require Microsoft APIs that aren't part of WINE, and so couldn't be run on a Linux machine.

Nothing to do with the Mac version as all.

Maybe VirtualBox would work.