Remove DRM from Kindle

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by Sarmat89

How can you "rip off" a criminal?

Here we go again.

[jhowell]

I have no problem with Epubor repackaging open source software. I also have no problem with them charging for what they offer. They do seem to have developed a simple user interface that could be helpful to some.

My problem is that they take credit for the work of others without attribution. Giving credit to the original developer is the only payment asked for in exchange for making use of most open source software.

By not acknowledging the existence of the alternatives that form the basis of their software they give a false impression that no other solutions exist. This demonstrates a level of dishonesty that would make me think twice about providing them with credit card information.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by jhowell

I have no problem with Epubor repackaging source software. I also have no problem with them charging for what they offer. They do seem to have developed a simple user interface that could be helpful to some.

My problem is that they take credit for the work of others without attribution. Giving credit to the original developer is the only payment asked for in exchange for making use of most open source software.

By not acknowledging the existence of the alternatives that form the basis of their software they give a false impression that no other solutions exist. This demonstrates a level of dishonesty that would make me think twice about providing them with credit card information.

Very well said. It's not the repackaging, and it's not the charging that I find offensive. It's the lack of attribution.

[Little.Egret]

Originally Posted by DNSB

Some of the sites that use Gutenberg as a source but do quite a bit of work cleaning up the ebooks, adding decent covers, etc. are, to me, are at least adding some value added. Then we have the scammers who strip Gutenberg's boilerplate, add nothing and think they should be paid for this.

Gutenberg /require/ you to strip Gutenberg's boilerplate.

If you wish to acknowledge them, their rules require something like a web URL where the acknowledgement resides, the ebook itself may not reference Gutenberg in the text or additional front/ back matter.

[supermighty]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Very well said. It's not the repackaging, and it's not the charging that I find offensive. It's the lack of attribution.

I greatly sympathize with you, but there are real issues with requiring an open source project to require attribution.

In 2004 xFree86 (a low level GUI drawing library) changed their license to include an attribution clause. Many many Linux distributions found this unacceptable and forked the version before the license was changed.

News at the time:

To update this, the list of OS distributors opting out of XF86 Version 4.4, and future releases, based on licensing concerns continues to grow.

The reasons for this was incompatibility with existing license. It was also counter to the social culture of open source at the time.

The GPL3 license that DeDRM uses requires that the license itself be included in distribution, but does not require greater attribution of work to end users. So long as Epubor includes the license file, and adhere to the license, they would be in compliance.

The GPL3 does not limit one from charging a fee for software. The goal of the GPL is the liberty to access the source code of software that one would use.

But I do agree with you that it's sh*tty of them to just take it and not give back to the community of people who created it in the first place.

[DiapDealer]

I was speaking merely about common courtesy. But ....

The GPL3 license that DeDRM uses requires that the license itself be included in distribution, but does not require greater attribution of work to end users. So long as Epubor includes the license file, and adhere to the license, they would be in compliance.

Except for the part where they don't include—or at the very least provide a way for the user to easily acquire—the source code for the GPL'ed portions. And let's face it: for all practical purposes, including the source code (or making it readily available) IS attribution. So in essence, adhering to the license DOES require attribution (since the source code in question contains the names, and/or noms de plume of its creators).

[supermighty]

I get it; there are things that hold up in a court of law, and there are things that hold up in the court of opinion.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by supermighty

I get it; there are things that hold up in a court of law, and there are things that hold up in the court of opinion.

Court of law is a relative term. Which court? Even the gnu webpage is not really clear about it:

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html

Note that the GPL, and other copyleft licenses, are copyright licenses. This means that only the copyright holders are empowered to act against violations.

Which makes it almost sound like that the GPL is enforceable under copyright law rather than contract law.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Court of law is a relative term. Which court? Even the gnu webpage is not really clear about it:

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html


Which makes it almost sound like that the GPL is enforceable under copyright law rather than contract law.

That is exactly it. GPL violators have tried in court to use contract law to weasel out of their obligations and they have failed. Copyright law forbids copying without a license and the GPL is carefully crafted to protect the rights of software users. A license under GPL is automatically granted by abiding its terms and automatically denied or revoked by violating them.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

That is exactly it. GPL violators have tried in court to use contract law to weasel out of their obligations and they have failed. Copyright law forbids copying without a license and the GPL is carefully crafted to protect the rights of software users. A license under GPL is automatically granted by abiding its terms and automatically denied or revoked by violating them.

Yes, but actually last precedent is that it is a contract issue and not a copyright issue, no matter if GNU wants to call it a copyright license or not.

See: http://www.theregister.co.uk/AMP/201...able_contract/

[Quoth]

Best solution is to own a Kindle. Put the serial number of the Kindle in Calibre plugin. Only download via PC for USB. This works for Linux. The PC Kindle Apps do not work on Linux (on Wine) now and the older versions don't authorise if fresh install on Windows or Linux.

I'm 100% behind copyright. It's simply immoral to upload/share copyright works. However DRM isn't the solution, it's evil and contrary to the principles of copyright. The US DMCA is also wrong and fortunately only applies in the USA.

Even if something is a LEGITIMATE "free download" it may be copyright, thus you should give people the link and not send them the file, nor upload it.

[darryl]

Epubor has, as jhowell indicates above, produced a simple gui which may well be worthwhile, at least to some. I suspect that their real problem is not acknowledging the hard work of others. The fact that they do not do so is possibly out of fear of the GPLv3. If their software is indeed based on the DeDrm tools then they have 2 significant problems. The first is that they must make their source code for their entire product freely available. The second is that that program also must be licensed under the GPLv3. It would also seem to be very problematic for Epubor to enforce its own purported copyright terms against those pirating the program or even distributing modified versions. Not of course that I would recommend trying this. I certainly can't see epubor ceasing and desisting unless they are forced to, which also seems to be unlikely. If their product is in fact based on the tools they seem to have managed to build a successful and professional business operation by effectively appropriating an open source product and claiming it as their own, laughing all the way to the bank.

[sealbeater]

Originally Posted by Sarmat89

How can you "rip off" a criminal?

The same way you rip off anyone else...

[greengoat]

Originally Posted by FrustratedReader

Best solution is to own a Kindle. Put the serial number of the Kindle in Calibre plugin. Only download via PC for USB. This works for Linux. The PC Kindle Apps do not work on Linux (on Wine) now and the older versions don't authorise if fresh install on Windows or Linux.

I'm 100% behind copyright. It's simply immoral to upload/share copyright works. However DRM isn't the solution, it's evil and contrary to the principles of copyright. The US DMCA is also wrong and fortunately only applies in the USA.

Even if something is a LEGITIMATE "free download" it may be copyright, thus you should give people the link and not send them the file, nor upload it.

Hi FrustratedReader,

I am trying to use the calibre software to remove DRM from my kindle books. I highly appreciate your posts! I would like to know if you could go through the steps to put my kindle device's serial number onto the calibre program? I have the calibre, DEDrm, and kindle pc installed but can only convert MOBI formats if they are small books. If it is large it will fail to convert. Also, if my kindle book is AZW format it will say it is DRM locked and I can not read or do anything with the book. Anyone else that can help me with this is greatly appreciated. I thank all of you for your very helpful posts. I know more now than when I started trying to use the calibre. Just want to make it work to convert to some DOC.x formats. Thank you!

[rcentros]

Originally Posted by greengoat

Hi FrustratedReader,

I am trying to use the calibre software to remove DRM from my kindle books. I highly appreciate your posts! I would like to know if you could go through the steps to put my kindle device's serial number onto the calibre program? ...

I think you need to go to Apprentice Alf's Blog for the specifics on how to do this.

https://apprenticealf.wordpress.com/