Disabling text-to-speech (TTS) triggers DMCA exemption: YOU ARE ALLOWED TO REMOVE DRM

[kamm]

Today's changes have completely removed the "adversely affected" part, essentially making it (removing DRM) legal for everyone if there's no version w/ red-aloud-enabled on the market.

[brecklundin]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

kamm, using bold print and full caps is the equivalent of shouting. You can make your point without them. Please stop.

Nate the great
moderator

Sorry Nate....ya know I generally agree with you on things and always enjoy your comments but here is another case of a moderator arguing with someone to the point if being antagonistic then pulling out the "moderator badge" when the situation goes in a direction that moderator might find uncomfortable....sorry that is flat inexcusable and wrong use of the whole moderator thing. Either display it 100% of the time or never use it like the thinly veiled threat it was used in that post.

A moderator should never argue over a topic until something turns into a problem...moderators are the ambassadors of a site and should know better. Basically I would say this is a case where it might not be best to allow yourself to be drawn into a heated debate and, instead, make your point and then let it go...right or wrong. To me that is best for the whole site and community.

[frabjous]

As a non-moderator, let me agree with Nate’s point about the way kamm expresses his points. Bold does come across to me as a form of shouting. I feel as if kamm is venting his frustration at the wrong people. Let’s reserve that level of ire for the DRMers, not for people who just express skepticism about our legal system’s ability to see reason.

Unfortunately, the red part of the post kamm quoted really only says it’s legal to remove DRM preventing TTS when no-TTS-enabled version of the book is being sold. It’s pretty explicit on that.

Personally, I don’t care what’s legal. I only care what’s moral. I don’t buy products from those who ship their products with DRM, so I’ve never had to remove it. But I were a visually impaired person who wanted to use TTS, I’d feel absolutely no guilt about stripping DRM off the cheapest ebook version to use TTS with it, whether legal or not. The thought of a publisher who would charge a visually impaired person more for a TTS-enabled version is simply loathsome.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by kamm

Today's changes have completely removed the "adversely affected" part, essentially making it (removing DRM) legal for everyone if there's no version w/ red-aloud-enabled on the market.

Ah, but that's the catch. That means, for example, that no book that's also sold in the Apple iBookstore would quality, since they all can be read aloud.

[corona]

My guess is that the question of whether or not one is affected would depend on the legal definition of disability, if it really came down to it. "The Americans with Disabilities Act defines a covered disability as 'a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity.' The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was charged with interpreting the 1990 law with regard to discrimination in employment. Its regulations narrowed 'substantially limits' to 'significantly or severely restricts.'" (Thank you, Wikipedia!) (Oh, and Happy Birthday, ADA!)

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by frabjous

As a non-moderator, let me agree with Nate’s point about the way kamm expresses his points. Bold does come across to me as a form of shouting. I feel as if kamm is venting his frustration at the wrong people. Let’s reserve that level of ire for the DRMers, not for people who just express skepticism about our legal system’s ability to see reason.

I am a moderator, and I have not been arguing in this thread, and I agree that the bold, exclamation points, and reiterating the same point multiple times are beginning to cross the line of Rule 1: "Discuss things politely." Bold text does come across as shouting to many readers, whether it is meant to or not.

The LOC ruling is obviously of interest to many here, and speculation about its possible implications is natural, but no one, not even a lawyer specializing in copyright law, can accurately predict how this will play out. The US legal system is very complex, deliberately so. I would suggest that all participants in this conversation avoid making absolute statements or insist on the factual nature of their claims, other than direct quotes of the recent ruling and other relevant legal text.

[scveteran]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I do wear glasses for distant vision when I drive or go to the movies. But as for reading close up, I can see fine. But technically, this does make me visually impaired. And thus, legally able to strip the DRM.

There are also other reasons. For example a friend of mine has eyes that tear up excessivelly, so if he reads: he is constantly wiping his eyes. There are people who get eye strain. People who are diabetic and it affects their vision. In my case my vision is drasticallly altered by my blood sugar levels. But any diabetic's vision will be affected to some degree whether they realize or not.

[scveteran]

Originally Posted by kamm

That is nonsense, on many levels.

First, these parasites a Random House think we are totally stupid and we will take their interpretation over the word of the law - obviously we won't.
Secondly what the heck is proving? I wear glasses, that makes me visually impaired, even by the most rotten legislation these publishers ever bought.
Thirdly how the hell I am suppose to know about this? This is the first time I ever heard of this site.

Nonsense, as I said.

That program requires you to meet the standard of being blind or of low vision. There are many people who are visually impaired and TTS would be helpfull that don't have proof that they legally meet those requirements. Many doctors in the VA system would not record a diabetic as low vision if the person only meets the 20/60 requirement part of the time. In my case, I always meet that level but years ago when it first started my doc would not have written a statement for me.

[scveteran]

Originally Posted by nekokami

I am a moderator, and I have not been arguing in this thread, and I agree that the bold, exclamation points, and reiterating the same point multiple times are beginning to cross the line of Rule 1: "Discuss things politely." Bold text does come across as shouting to many readers, whether it is meant to or not.

The LOC ruling is obviously of interest to many here, and speculation about its possible implications is natural, but no one, not even a lawyer specializing in copyright law, can accurately predict how this will play out. The US legal system is very complex, deliberately so. I would suggest that all participants in this conversation avoid making absolute statements or insist on the factual nature of their claims, other than direct quotes of the recent ruling and other relevant legal text.

I am not trying to be argumentative here. I would just like to point out a couple of things here.

First, I have been using the Internet about as long as anyone here. I was even using BBS before the Internet caught on. During that time, I have not met anyone that I can remember who said that Bold in limited usage is shouting. Certainly not the amount of usage of bold that had been used by the time that Nate had complained.

Second, the amount of bolding that was used in that last post was excessive. When you use bold excessively, it loses its value. So use it sparingly.

Third, I understand that you were not taking part in the discussion and then pulling the moderator card as others have complained about. However, if you run into the discussion to back up another moderator, it does leave a bad taste. I think this is one major reason that the moderators who are in the discussion must not call out someone they are disagreeing with. Either the other moderators should notice it on their own or another member should alert a moderator. Otherwise it gives a bad image.

[stasys]

But why you are talking only about TTS? As I understood this clause, if I bought, let say epub file and my ebook reader renders it poorly - I have a legal right to stripe out DRM and convert my epub file to whatever I want. Can't I?

[corona]

Stop quibbling! This is an interesting and important thread, and it's easy enough to skip over the posts of the momentarily overly-exercised.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by scveteran

Third, I understand that you were not taking part in the discussion and then pulling the moderator card as others have complained about. However, if you run into the discussion to back up another moderator, it does leave a bad taste. I think this is one major reason that the moderators who are in the discussion must not call out someone they are disagreeing with. Either the other moderators should notice it on their own or another member should alert a moderator. Otherwise it gives a bad image.

Just to be clear, I've been following the thread and I did notice the problem on my own, and was going to comment even before I saw the post criticizing Nate's remarks.

I agree that ordinary, occasional use of bold text does not count as "shouting" online. However, when overused and combined with multiple exclamation points, invective ("parasites," "rotten legislation," etc.), all-caps, and red coloring, I think somewhere in there the line between polite discourse and ranting has been crossed.

That being said, I'm not saying people can't get a bit excited, only that we try to keep things civil here. Yes, I know there are places out there in the 'net where ranting is the norm, but MobileRead hasn't been one of those places, historically, and we'd like to try to maintain that.

(And I've been online since the days of 300 baud modems, if that matters.)

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by stasys

But why you are talking only about TTS? As I understood this clause, if I bought, let say epub file and my ebook reader renders it poorly - I have a legal right to stripe out DRM and convert my epub file to whatever I want. Can't I?

I think the reference to "screen reader" was probably intended to mean specialized "assistive technology" software:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_reader

A screen reader is a software application that attempts to identify and interpret what is being displayed on the screen (or, more accurately, sent to standard output, whether a video monitor is present or not). This interpretation is then re-presented to the user with text-to-speech, sound icons, or a Braille output device. Screen readers are a form of assistive technology (AT) potentially useful to people who are blind, visually impaired, illiterate or learning disabled, often in combination with other AT, such as screen magnifiers.

The inclusion of illiteracy or learning disability in this context is interesting, though I don't know if it has a legal basis. I think it would be hard to argue that someone wanting to listen to a book while driving has a pressing need for assistive technology, but someone who is even mildly dyslexic could probably make a pretty good case.

In any case, my understanding is that it is not illegal to remove DRM (in the US).* It is illegal to provide tools with which to do so, and it is illegal to violate copyright law, e.g. distribute copies of content which has had DRM removed (or content which never had DRM, for that matter). I very much doubt any publisher is going to come after an individual for de-DRMing their library, as long as they don't then post the content to a torrent or something like that.

*Edited to add: my bad, it is illegal unless the content falls within one of the classes defined by the LOC:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17...1----000-.html

See section (a) (1).

[Nate the great]

Okay. I'd like to point out that someone dug up this thread from _last_year_. Why are you guys rehashing such a fossilized decision?

[scveteran]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Okay. I'd like to point out that someone dug up this thread from _last_year_. Why are you guys rehashing such a fossilized decision?

Because of the recent news that is on point with the thread. Actually it is so on point that I didn't even notice that the thread was a year old.