I'm regretting giving my husband a Kindle 3

[DiapDealer]

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.

It hasn't been determined... only assumed and interpreted. You may turn out to be correct eventually, but until we get that actual final determination, it can't hurt to err on the side of caution. I strip DRM from my purchases, but you won't hear me swearing on a stack of bibles that it's legal -- nor will I swear under the same circumstances that it's illegal.

[ProfCrash]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

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.

Thent he folks who posted after having this happen the them did something wrong. Because I read the posts on this site.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

It hasn't been determined... only assumed and interpreted. You may turn out to be correct eventually, but until we get that actual final determination, it can't hurt to err on the side of caution. I strip DRM from my purchases, but you won't hear me swearing on a stack of bibles that it's legal -- nor will I swear under the same circumstances that it's illegal.

fine, that is understandable. what is going on is what I call the; "Mary Magdalene was a whore" syndrome. ie; things get repeated so often that they become "true" in popular culture. it is irresponsible to say that something is illegal especially if the process has not been addressed by the courts

[FF2]

Originally Posted by TheKindleWorm

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.

I agree. I really like my k3 but a number of folks have asked for my recommendation and they are huge consumers of LIBRARY books. I've suggested that other readers may be a better choice in that case and explained that the k3 does not do most library books in their or its native state. I have mentioned that there are techniques for bypassing the limits but warned about its potential issues.

[travfar]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

It hasn't been determined... only assumed and interpreted. You may turn out to be correct eventually, but until we get that actual final determination, it can't hurt to err on the side of caution. I strip DRM from my purchases, but you won't hear me swearing on a stack of bibles that it's legal -- nor will I swear under the same circumstances that it's illegal.

But it has been determined. 27 years ago. These copyright issues are not new. The battleground for it was when home VCRs came out. That case went all the way to the supreme court. The ruling was in line with what most of the pro DRM strippers have said. As long as you do it for personal use and don't profit from it, it's legal.

http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id408.htm

This was backed up a couple of years ago in a district court concerning stripping DRM from DVDs. The problem is there are two seemingly contradictory federal laws. One gives the user the right of fair use, the other makes it illegal to remove DRM. The district court ruled that it is legal for people with use rights to strip the DRM but said it was illegal to sell software to do so. Which goes inline with the supreme court ruling that you can't profit from it. That seems to be the key stipulation.

http://www.lutzker.com/pdf/321-Studios-Article.pdf

The profit factor is the key factor. It's the overriding factor. For example, people make Star Wars movies. Lucasfilm is well aware of this but since they don't show or sell them for profit, it can't do anything. They are called tribute films.


http://www.lutzker.com/pdf/321-Studios-Article.pdf

[DiapDealer]

it is irresponsible to say that something is illegal especially if the process has not been addressed by the courts

I'm with you 100%, there.

[FF2]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

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

It may not matter but are you saying that copying SOMEONE ELSE'S (including a library book or dvd) for YOUR personal use is not prosecutable? Or that copying or de-drm-ing something you own is not prosecutable? The first example would probably depend on the criminal code.

And maybe we need something else clarified - not for you, but in general: somethings are crimes and illegal - punishable by fines or jail time. Other "wrongs" are civil wrongs and one (publisher for instance) may sue for damages but no jail time or criminal fines or penalities attach.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by travfar

But it has been determined.

I think most of the conclusions you state are either unsupported or misapplied.

There is no fair use law, there is only ever-evolving fair use doctrine.

The profit element is very important to recovering monetary damages, but it's not necessary for copyright protection under the law.

Plus, it is arguable at best if being saved the cost of buying a second copy, or the ad revenue generated by posting a tribute film doesn't amount to 'profiting.'

The tribute films are generally issues of trademark, not copyright (unless you're talking about using footage from the actual original movies, in which case, those get taken down for reported copyright violation all the time), and just because a trademark or copyright holder CHOOSES not to take action, it doesn't prove they can't.

Lastly, just from skimming, it doesn't appear that any of those items you linked state or even clearly imply a blanket "it's ok if it's for personal use" exemption, just some specific personal uses of some technologies. But maybe you can point me to something I skimmed over.

That's how I see it, anyway.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by FF2

And maybe we need something else clarified - not for you, but in general: somethings are crimes and illegal - punishable by fines or jail time. Other "wrongs" are civil wrongs and one (publisher for instance) may sue for damages but no jail time or criminal fines or penalties attach.

"illegal" can mean in violation of a criminal law, or of a civil law and I'd prefer to stay on the law-abiding side of either kind.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

it is irresponsible to say that something is illegal especially if the process has not been addressed by the courts

It's even more irresponsible not to warn someone that what you are suggesting they do may very well be illegal.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by FF2

I agree. I really like my k3 but a number of folks have asked for my recommendation and they are huge consumers of LIBRARY books. I've suggested that other readers may be a better choice in that case and explained that the k3 does not do most library books in their or its native state. I have mentioned that there are techniques for bypassing the limits but warned about its potential issues.

I think a lot of these folks have trained themselves to not purchase books. I believe that most of them, once they find all the free, inexpensive, and public domain books would be quite content with all of that over the library. I burned out on the library a long time ago due to long waits and unavailability

Originally Posted by travfar

But it has been determined. 27 years ago. These copyright issues are not new. The battleground for it was when home VCRs came out. That case went all the way to the supreme court. The ruling was in line with what most of the pro DRM strippers have said. As long as you do it for personal use and don't profit from it, it's legal.

http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id408.htm

This was backed up a couple of years ago in a district court concerning stripping DRM from DVDs. The problem is there are two seemingly contradictory federal laws. One gives the user the right of fair use, the other makes it illegal to remove DRM. The district court ruled that it is legal for people with use rights to strip the DRM but said it was illegal to sell software to do so. Which goes inline with the supreme court ruling that you can't profit from it. That seems to be the key stipulation.

http://www.lutzker.com/pdf/321-Studios-Article.pdf

The profit factor is the key factor. It's the overriding factor. For example, people make Star Wars movies. Lucasfilm is well aware of this but since they don't show or sell them for profit, it can't do anything. They are called tribute films.


http://www.lutzker.com/pdf/321-Studios-Article.pdf

thanks for putting in the time on this! karma!

Originally Posted by FF2

It may not matter but are you saying that copying SOMEONE ELSE'S (including a library book or dvd) for YOUR personal use is not prosecutable? Or that copying or de-drm-ing something you own is not prosecutable? The first example would probably depend on the criminal code.

And maybe we need something else clarified - not for you, but in general: somethings are crimes and illegal - punishable by fines or jail time. Other "wrongs" are civil wrongs and one (publisher for instance) may sue for damages but no jail time or criminal fines or penalities attach.

see above, and that has withstood the test of time

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's even more irresponsible not to warn someone that what you are suggesting they do may very well be illegal.

oh look! the sky is falling the sky is falling!

[Newfie56]

This has been an education on many different levels. I'd like to thank EVERYONE for all the opinions represented, the links and advice provided, and the passion imparted. What an interesting, lively forum I stumbled upon in my quest to address the Kindle-library book issue.

I've taken everything into consideration and will give the husband the short version tonight when he returns from work (ha! I've got the day off) as the final decision is his, obviously! If he asks my opinion (and I think he will), I will suggest we keep the Kindle (and the Kindle-related "stuff" Santa brought) and take advantage of the many legitimate resources proffered here by this wise and experienced group.

Y'all are terrific! (Can you tell I live in the South now?)

[kindlekitten]

have fun and let us know how it goes!

[travfar]

Originally Posted by ApK

I think most of the conclusions you state are either unsupported or misapplied.

There is no fair use law, there is only ever-evolving fair use doctrine.
...

That's how I see it, anyway.

I think you need to do some more research before jumping to your conclusions. If there is no fair use law, then why is it in the USCC aka the "law book"?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...7----000-.html

Once again, the big determinate of fair use is the profit motive.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by travfar

I think you need to do some more research before jumping to your conclusions. If there is no fair use law, then why is it in the USCC aka the "law book"?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...7----000-.html

Once again, the big determinate of fair use is the profit motive.

Being a producer of some protected IP and having had the need in the past to discuss the matter with IP lawyers, I'm quite familiar with that citation.

That section of the law does not define fair use. It neither allows nor prohibits any particular use as fair use. It states that there are fair use exceptions, lists some general areas where fair use may apply, and lists some of the factors in deciding IF a use is fair use.
Whether a given use constitutes fair use is decided by the courts, not by that law.

And, as that very citation indicates, profit--any commercial impact-- is merely one of the factors to be considered, certainly not "the big determinate."