DRM: What did you buy? (An Essay.)

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by gmw

I was not speaking about the law, I was speaking about an agreement. Most sites selling DRM ebooks have terms-of-use agreement that you are asked to read and accept - and at least some of of those agreements are explicit about the removal of DRM. Okay so I have not signed the agreement, does that make breaking it any better on my reputation? Am I not as good as my word? I like to think so, but apparently not everyone holds to the same standard.

Some contracts are unenforceable because they demand terms that aren't legal to demand for a sale.

Many books are printed with a note that says "no part of this may be reproduced in any way without written permission from the publisher"--but that's not true; fair use allows excerpts, quotes, reviews, and so on. If a book is printed with a note that said, "this book may not be read on Tuesdays" or "this book is only for Catholics; persons of other religions are forbidden to read it," those would be thrown out if a publisher tried to sue for breach of contract.

Contract terms have to be understood before purchase (terms-of-use inside a book, with no hint on the outside that such terms exist, aren't enforceable), and have to fit with legal principles. A book might say "this book is only authorized for use on Windows machines," meaning, "attempting to read it on a Mac may not work, and we won't refund your money if you try and fail." It can't mean "if you try to read this on a Mac, we will sue you, because Macs allow wifi copying that we've prevented in Windows."

Many sites, however, do *not* have any terms about DRM. They don't even tell you that DRM exists--they just say, "to read our books, click *here* to download & install this program." And they send you off to Adobe to get ADE, or to Microsoft to get their Lit reader, or whatever. There's no mention on the ebook store site at all that there's any legal expectation that you use that specific program, registered to your device, to read their books.

BooksOnBoard's help page has options to click on a device or a filetype; there's no hint of "you are legally required to use this software to read the books we sell." It doesn't say "you may not remove the encryption bits from this book before reading."

Sorting out what other software might work to read the books bought from them is left as an exercise for the buyer.

[speedlever]

Pardon the newbie question, but how do you know (before downloading) that an ebook is DRM'd or not?

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by speedlever

Pardon the newbie question, but how do you know (before downloading) that an ebook is DRM'd or not?

Short answer: You don't.

Longer answer: if the store points you to software that requires registration to use, it's likely the books are DRM'd. If they require Adobe Digital Editions, Microsoft Reader, or Mobipocket to read, they're almost certainly selling DRM'd ebooks.

Some stores sell both DRM'd and non-DRM'd books, but point you at the same software for both. (ADE will read non-DRM'd epubs just fine.)

To avoid DRM, you either have to write to the bookstore about each individual book, or avoid buying from any store that says you need registration-required software for reading its ebooks. (Non-DRM ebook stores tend to point to Acrobat Reader, not ADE, if they sell PDFs, and often declare that their books aren't DRM'd so that you can read them on any compatible device, or shift to a format you like better.)

Less-long answer: Make a thread here at Mobileread, and someone will know if that store sells DRM'd ebooks, and if there's any specific issues with them (like B&N's filenaming problems, or how to tell Amazon's DRMd from not-DRM'd books). (At Amazon: if the device limit is "unlimited," there's no DRM.)

[speedlever]

Very helpful. Thank you.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by edembowski

I often shop at Barnes & Noble for my ebooks. I have a sony reader, so whenever I get a book, I decrypt it and push it down to my reader. At no rime was I ever presented with any statement regarding DRM removal. I went ahead and opened the license for the Nook app on the PC, and found a very interesting paragraph:

B&N has a curious site don't they. I just took a quick look and found this:
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/nook/legal/
which says: "3. Prohibited Conduct. In your use of your nook or the Service, you may not: (i) transfer the Digital Content from one electronic reading device to another without maintaining the applicable digital rights management solution for that Digital Content;"

Exactly how you are supposed to get to this useful information if you are buying books for a device other than the nook I am not sure. (Note that the clause says it covers the "Service" as well as the nook device but the leading paragraphs of the agreement say it is just for the nook ereader - so I cannot claim this covers your specific situation.)

I hope that, despite your assertion, I never actually said that every bookseller has such clauses - it's be a pretty silly thing to say, as there are some very proud of their DRM-free status right here on these forums - but anyone with the knowledge of how to remove DRM must certainly be aware of the possibility of such clauses. I mean, did you really think DRM was added just to give you something to do when you downloaded the file? I guess there may be occasions when DRM is added "because that's how we do things here", but I would guess the usual case, when DRM is added, is that they don't actually want it removed.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by gmw

I stand corrected on copyright.

Who exactly do you suppose is forcing people at gun point to buy books from Amazon (or whoever) ? I still fail to see how a person's choice to buy a book from a certain retailer is somehow puts that retailer in a position demand anything. Repeat after me: Just say No. If enough people actual spoke with their dollars instead of with subterfuge then publishers/sellers may actually start to adapt. At the moment they have little incentive to improve their ways, and who knows some of their silly clauses may pay off one day.

It wouldn't really matter what a small minority of people do, it is what the majority do that counts. And for the majority, DRM restrictions are not a problem. But even if they were, how would the suppliers know you didn't buy from them because of the restrictions they put on their products and not some random other reason?

[wallcraft]

Originally Posted by gmw

In your use of your nook or the Service, you may not: (i) transfer the Digital Content from one electronic reading device to another without maintaining the applicable digital rights management solution for that Digital Content;

This is interesting wording, because it is perfectly possible to write an ebook reader that maintains B&N DRM without using any B&N/Adobe code and without a license from B&N or Adobe (there are 3rd party readers with such a license from B&N and/or Adobe, which partially explains the wording). So far as I can tell, iReader is actually an Android-based Reader that does exactly that (read DRMed eReader and MOBI ebooks without permission of the DRM producer) although not, yet, for ePub. It is almost certainly illegal in the US to write, or make available, this app. I have seen posts suggesting that such reverse engineering would be legal in some European countries, but I don't know if that is actually the case.

[Worldwalker]

Anyone who uses the word "solution" to mean "software" should be shot. Also "process", especially with regard to a movie actor or a professional athlete.

[edembowski]

Originally Posted by gmw

B&N has a curious site don't they. I just took a quick look and found this:
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/nook/legal/
which says: "3. Prohibited Conduct. In your use of your nook or the Service, you may not: (i) transfer the Digital Content from one electronic reading device to another without maintaining the applicable digital rights management solution for that Digital Content;"

Exactly how you are supposed to get to this useful information if you are buying books for a device other than the nook I am not sure. (Note that the clause says it covers the "Service" as well as the nook device but the leading paragraphs of the agreement say it is just for the nook ereader - so I cannot claim this covers your specific situation.)
...

To be clear:

These Terms of Service (this "Agreement") is a legally binding agreement made by and between Barnes & Noble, Inc. ("we," "us," or "our") and you regarding your use of your nook™ eReader ("nook").

This is an agreement regarding your use of your nook™ eReader. I think I've clearly stated that I'm not using the nook. When you buy something, do you find yourself bound to obscure clauses that you've never seen before? If that's the case, how do you know what you've agreed to? The basic part of any agreement (as well as any contract) is a meeting of the minds as to what is being agreed upon. At no time during the purchase of any ebook have I been presented with such requirements.

I mean, did you really think DRM was added just to give you something to do when you downloaded the file?

No, I am quite aware that publishers would rather DRM not be removed, but that is completely irrelevant. I am not held bound by their desires. Are you trying to make a point here, or is this simply argument for argument's sake?

[gmw]

Originally Posted by edembowski

No, I am quite aware that publishers would rather DRM not be removed, but that is completely irrelevant. I am not held bound by their desires. Are you trying to make a point here, or is this simply argument for argument's sake?

Perhaps I come at such agreements differently to others because I am a software developer. I am used to dealing with many different licensing arrangements - from formal, sign-in-blood, corporate agreements through to "postcardware" (all the author asks is that you send them a postcard to add to their collection) and more. There's even one specifically called "trustware".

A great many of these arrangements are of doubtful legal precision, and even if they were legally binding, in the vast majority of cases the developers would not have the resources to sue people that violate the agreements - especially people in other countries. Because of this lack of enforcement I imagine there a great many violations of all these agreements - even well known ones like GPL etc.. But since the people using many of the products I am alluding to here are software developers themselves, I suspect that there is a fair amount of adherence because we'd all like to think that others would respect our wishes if the situation is reversed.

To bring this back to books and publishing. I have no personal beef with any of these publishers and sellers using DRM. The publisher is the author's representative for these publications. So, as far as I am concerned, any agreement being requested for a publication essentially comes from the author. If they wanted to publish without DRM those options exist so, unless the author is explicit otherwise, I must assume the author wants the DRM on their work. I don't look at this as ignoring the big faceless publishing corporation, but ignoring the author's wishes. If I were an author I'd really like to think that readers would respect my wishes - even if they don't agree with them.

In short: No I am not really trying to be argumentative here, I am trying to explain why this feels personal to me, that people openly breaking agreements they know exist feels very wrong.

[jhempel24]

If it comes down to Amazon, B&N, Sony, or whoever saying "We're not going to sell you our books because you strip the DRM" then they need to take a look at their business model. There will never be a suit between the retailers and the public unless such user is caught distributing the material.

I can understand from business to business to protect their property within their company, which could have sensitive information.

Originally Posted by gmw

that people openly breaking agreements they know exist feels very wrong.

I don't agree with the position of breaking the agreement is very wrong here, you are trying to equate breaking DRM to promising your mom you'll take her out to dinner on her birthday, and not showing up....two different things.

Stripping DRM to suit my use on a reader isn't even a moral issue for me. And holding to my word to my wife, and holding to my word on DRM restrictions are apples and steaks, not even in the same classification.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by jhempel24

If it comes down to Amazon, B&N, Sony, or whoever saying "We're not going to sell you our books because you strip the DRM" then they need to take a look at their business model. There will never be a suit between the retailers and the public unless such user is caught distributing the material.

I can understand from business to business to protect their property within their company, which could have sensitive information.



I don't agree with the position of breaking the agreement is very wrong here, you are trying to equate breaking DRM to promising your mom you'll take her out to dinner on her birthday, and not showing up....two different things.

Stripping DRM to suit my use on a reader isn't even a moral issue for me. And holding to my word to my wife, and holding to my word on DRM restrictions are apples and steaks, not even in the same classification.

Agreed, what seems immoral to me is the seller expecting me not to read the book on my device or to go out and buy a device just to be able to read the file. My only moral obligation is not to distribute the file.

[gmw]

Originally Posted by jhempel24

I don't agree with the position of breaking the agreement is very wrong here, you are trying to equate breaking DRM to promising your mom you'll take her out to dinner on her birthday, and not showing up....two different things. ...

This is a position that I find difficult to grasp. Others have argued that they believe they have not actually agreed to anything - that the links to licences or terms of service are essentially meaningless and unenforceable and so are not really agreements. I can grasp that argument, I find it ingenuous perhaps, but I can understand it (and if I were sued for violating some obscure clause there is a good chance I would use it myself).

However, to say that my word is only my word when I say it is, leads to some uncomfortable contradictions. If I were to say "I solemnly promise that promises to you are ones that I will keep", does this statement mean anything? I can understand that, if it were a choice between keeping an appointment with your mom OR accepting DRM then priorities will come in to it. But this is not such a situation.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by gmw

However, to say that my word is only my word when I say it is, leads to some uncomfortable contradictions. If I were to say "I solemnly promise that promises to you are ones that I will keep", does this statement mean anything? I can understand that, if it were a choice between keeping an appointment with your mom OR accepting DRM then priorities will come in to it. But this is not such a situation.

Where is the honour on the other side? Do you really see this as consumers reneging on some gentleman's agreement? Do the publishers cede you legal access to your purchased e-book for your lifetime plus 70 years? The deal from the big publishers is this: give us your money and take our crappy conditions based on laws bought with our political influence or get lost. Giving us DRM is treating us with contempt. Demanding pure honour from those consumers who choose to deal with perceived robber-barons is asking for too much.

[GreenMonkey]

Originally Posted by rkomar

Where is the honour on the other side? Do you really see this as consumers reneging on some gentleman's agreement? Do the publishers cede you legal access to your purchased e-book for your lifetime plus 70 years? The deal from the big publishers is this: give us your money and take our crappy conditions based on laws bought with our political influence or get lost. Giving us DRM is treating us with contempt.