I'm regretting giving my husband a Kindle 3

[abookreader]

I really don't know why anybody would go through all the hassle of the weeks of Overdrive Waitlists etc with the goal of keeping Library book. If they just want the book to keep, almost any book can be found in under 20 seconds from one of the 100s of Pirate Sites or RapidShare or wherever.

I primarily have the plug-ins installed to protect my purchases but yes I have put Library books on my Kindle. I like to read on my Kindle because it is my favorite eReader. I can't see why it matters all that much to the library whether I'm reading the book on my Sony, on my Kindle, or on my Computer.

But yes, it does break DMCA pretty much in the same manner that people have been copying library CDs to their iTunes or keeping Overdrive audiobooks on the iPods way past the due date for years.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I think we have a confusion of terminology here. When you say:
what do you mean by the word "rights"? I interpreted you to mean "capabilities", but you're saying that you don't mean that? What did you mean?

Yes, bad wording on my part. I meant: The decision seems to clearly reinforce the notion that circumvention is only a violation of the DMCA when the circumvention results in a copyright violation.

What is your opinion on the "RealNetworks" case. That was a clear case of a court ruling that it is illegal to remove DRM to enable what would otherwise be "fair use" rights, such as format conversion.

There are a couple of significant differences in the RealNetworks case.
1. They were the producers of the decrypting software, not end users.
The creators of the software seem to be more at risk of being in violation than end users. Note no USER of the DVD copy software was sued.

2. Their software (If I understand correctly) actually breaks CSS encryption. The inept DRM stripping scripts do not, they just apply your valid license keys in ways the software maker did not intend in order to serve the needs of your specifically licensed use: reading the book.

And also, that case was from a lower court, more than a year ago. Perhaps the 5th circuit ruling shows that higher courts, having had more time to review the situation , now see things more clearly, just as the copyright office continues to add new exemptions to the circumvention provision:
http://www.copyright.gov/1201/

ApK

p.s. We must have some IP lawyers among us...let's hold a moot court!

[sbtx99]

"Can someone provide a link (or links) to instructions that even someone getting solicitiations from AARP can understand?"

Based on this sentence, before you do anything, I would recommend installing Adobe Digital Editions (ADE) on your computer and check out a few books from the library, if you haven't already done so. No matter which device you eventually choose, you're going to have to use ADE to download the books from your library onto your computer and then transfer the books to your device.

I personally have no problems using ADE but have seen some people complain about using it. I started reading ebooks on my laptop using a couple different reading apps before purchasing my first Sony Reader. Gaining some knowledge of ebooks before purchasing the Reader proved very helpful to me (and I'm a systems analyst, so I'm not usually tech-challenged).

[ApK]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Precisely. If you strip DRM to get rights you shouldn't have, then that's a violation. And that's exactly what you're doing when you strip library DRM - you're getting rights you shouldn't have: namely, the right to keep the book indefinitely. Whether or not you choose to exercise that right is of no relevance; the important point is that by removing the DRM you have gained a right that the copyright holder did not intend you to have.

It should also be noted that library Overdrive system also provides content in MP3 format, as well as other mobile formats that have no technological enforcement of the check-out period. They seem to have no problem with having the admonition to "delete all copies in your possession" as the sole license enforcement mechanism.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by ApK

Yes, bad wording on my part. I meant: The decision seems to clearly reinforce the notion that circumvention is only a violation of the DMCA when the circumvention results in a copyright violation.

I see what you mean now. Thank you for the clarification.

2. Their software (If I understand correctly) actually breaks CSS encryption. The inept DRM stripping scripts do not, they just apply your valid license keys in ways the software maker did not intend in order to serve the needs of your specifically licensed use: reading the book.

I would fully accept this to be true when it comes to removing DRM from a book that you have legitimately purchased. It seems to me, however, that for a library book, the situation is completely different. You have not purchased the book; it's the library's book. I think there's a very good case to be made that you are violating the provisions of the DMCA by removing the one thing that makes a library book a library book: namely, the expiration.

just as the copyright office continues to add new exemptions to the circumvention provision:
http://www.copyright.gov/1201/

As you very rightly say, there are numerous exemptions to the DMCA. You are allowed to remove DRM if you are a disabled person and the DRM prevents you from accessing the book, if you're an educational establishments, for purposes of critical review, and much more. An important point, though (or so it seems to me) is that there is no "personal use" exemption. If there was intended to be such an exemption, don't you think it would have been explicitly listed in the list of exemptions?

[Poppaea]

Originally Posted by ApK

If she otherwise did not care for the Kindle, or preferred other hardware, or had not bought one yet, I'd agree wholeheartedly. Get the device that does best what you want most.

ApK

But she does not care for the Kindle. All she wants is a device that reads library books easily and is recommended by a majority of users. See first post...

When he asked for an e-book reader for Christmas, I posted on my facebook: "Kindle or Nook?" and the Kindle responses outweighed the Nooks. I got him the version with 3G & wifi. I simply assumed (you know what they say about that word) that it would be compatible with the ebooks offered from our library.

And the Kindle is returnable till the end of month. So why is there a fight over DRM stripping to keep a device she never cared to have in the first instance? This is just an egoshow for some here, but has nothing to do with giving sound advice.

Poppaea

[ApK]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I would fully accept this to be true when it comes to removing DRM from a book that you have legitimately purchased. It seems to me, however, that for a library book, the situation is completely different. You have not purchased the book; it's the library's book. I think there's a very good case to be made that you are violating the provisions of the DMCA by removing the one thing that makes a library book a library book: namely, the expiration.

I coincidentally addressed this point just now in my post immediately above. GMTA, Harry.

An important point, though (or so it seems to me) is that there is no "personal use" exemption. If there was intended to be such an exemption, don't you think it would have been explicitly listed in the list of exemptions?

That wasn't me. I am not defending that notion.

ApK

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Poppaea

So why is there a fight over DRM stripping to keep a device she never cared to have in the first instance? This is just an egoshow for some here, but has nothing to do with giving sound advice.

Poppaea

The OPs specific needs have been addressed via private channels. This has developed into a broader public discussion of the topics raised. That's what public discussion forums are for.

Again, I agree, if Library books or other ePub books are the primary concern, there are other eReader choices optimized for that.

[TheKindleWorm]

Originally Posted by Poppaea

But she does not care for the Kindle. All she wants is a device that reads library books easily and is recommended by a majority of users. See first post...

And the Kindle is returnable till the end of month. So why is there a fight over DRM stripping to keep a device she never cared to have in the first instance? This is just an egoshow for some here, but has nothing to do with giving sound advice.

Poppaea

To some extent I have to agree with you and, as much as I love the Kindle, I wouldn't suggest it to someone whose primary concern was to read library books when there are other devices (e-ink and otherwise) which can do this straight off the bat.

However, in the OPs case, they already have a Kindle - so now it's a choice to either stick with what they have or change it for something else. If it were me, I would use the 30 day grace period to really look into library books and whether that is going to provide the bulk of reading material long-term.

[Klim Chugunkin]

Originally Posted by Newfie56

He's wondering if I can return the Kindle, and I don't want to admit defeat

Do the right thing and return the Kindle; get a Sony instead.

[FF2]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I think we have a confusion of terminology here. When you say:



what do you mean by the word "rights"? I interpreted you to mean "capabilities", but you're saying that you don't mean that? What did you mean?

What is your opinion on the "RealNetworks" case. That was a clear case of a court ruling that it is illegal to remove DRM to enable what would otherwise be "fair use" rights, such as format conversion.

When googling around for the US Code, I found the site below which discusses whether that RealNetworks case might be reconsidered in light of the newer decision. One has to realize that different Circuit Courts can go their merry way until the US Sup makes an overriding decision:

http://arstechnica.com/software/news...e-is-legal.ars

A lot of this remains an intellectual exercise until something definitive is handled down. And sometimes one side or the other may decide it remains in their interest to keep things ambiguous if the risk is the Sup Ct might rule against them. Many a state has allowed a lower court decision to stand unappealed since there is no precedent value of lower ct decisions. They can keep enforcing a questionable law at lower levels rather than risk the outright overturning.

[HarryT]

Thanks - that's a very interesting article.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

I have read that you can turn in e-books early but doing so seems to screw up your ability to read the books that you downloaded at the same time. So you should only return an e-book early if you have finished all of the books you have borrowed at the same time.

That is incorrect. When you return and eBook you have on the computer, it does not screw with the other eBooks from the library. That was a case of having eBooks on the reader and returning them and then hooking the reader to ADE and ADE then dealing with the returned eBooks. So only return what's actually finished. And you can only return ePub & PDF. Mobipocket and audiobooks cannot be returned early.

So finish the eBook, delete it from the reader, return it via ADE or Reader Library and any others you have are still good to go.

[Wilyumm]

I have a Sony PRS505 then bought a Sony daily reader, (Xmas present), and download books all the time from my local library.
The only problem I have had is borrowing too many books and having the expire before I finish them. I tried placing a hold on one I knew I wouldn't finish and was told "you already have this book checked out or have a hold in place", so I hurried up and finished it.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes, I know you said that . What I'm asking you is which provision of the DMCA or the copyright act makes this permissible? There are many exemptions granted in the DMCA, but I can't see one which grants an exemption for personal use. Would you be good enough to point it out?

I'm not going to invest the time researching it, but I know that it has been determined that if you copy media for your personal use, do not distribute it, and do not make money off of it, it is not prosecutable.

and I don't rely on wiki for anything