I'm regretting giving my husband a Kindle 3

[Harmon]

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?

Wrong question, Harry. It's not a question of the existence of "exceptions." It's a question of whether it's covered in the first place. The exceptions only come into play after coverage is determined. At a minimum, removal of DRM for personal use of a DRMed item you have legally acquired is not covered in the first place. The reason there are no exceptions to point to is that no exception is needed.

Actually, for library books, the borrower might have the right to remove DRM for the period of the loan, since his possession of the file for that period, at least, is legal.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Wrong question, Harry. It's not a question of the existence of "exceptions." It's a question of whether it's covered in the first place. The exceptions only come into play after coverage is determined. At a minimum, removal of DRM for personal use of a DRMed item you have legally acquired is not covered in the first place.

Why do you believe that it's not covered? I can certainly see nothing in the DMCA that says that it doesn't apply to items that you've bought.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

by the same token it has not been made prosecutable for PERSONAL USE!

PLEASE give some evidence to support this. You keep saying it but you haven't provided one shred of evidence that it's true!

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by HarryT

PLEASE give some evidence to support this. You keep saying it but you haven't provided one shred of evidence that it's true!

I'v already told you that I am not going to put the time into researching this. anecdotally I know it is ok for personal use. other folks have posted plenty of links giving you the information that is valid for this

[voracious71]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Another point to consider about library lending is that, even if your library offers ebooks, they will probably have very long waiting times for most popular books. Many people have reported having to wait months. Given that you can generally buy bestsellers for under $10, and get thousands of classics completely free, is it really worth the bother?

This is a good point and I'm finding it to be true - I have a Nook for library books and haven't borrowed an ebook in weeks.

[GreenMonkey]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

I'v already told you that I am not going to put the time into researching this. anecdotally I know it is ok for personal use. other folks have posted plenty of links giving you the information that is valid for this

It remains illegal. The DMCA anti-circumvention provisions are still the law - until the Supreme Court or another high court rules on the inherent conflict between the DMCA and traditional fair-use rights. There's been a few cases to come out both ways, so far. But until overturned, or ruled illegal by the Supreme Court, the DMCA stands as law.

That said, I hate the DMCA and copy protection with a passion. I worry about what is ethical vs what is legal - they are not the same on this matter, as often is the case.

But I'm not going to argue that stripping DRM is legal. So far, it's not legal, but it's ethical, so I don't care. But some people really believe in the law (and some people are scared to break the law) so it's something someone with an e-reader should know about.

Crappy, terrible, chilling-effect law. Ugh, I hate the DMCA.

[baccilus]

eBook sellers only sell books in a particular format. Is it illegal in US to remove DRM from that book so that it may be converted into any other format for personal viewing?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by baccilus

eBook sellers only sell books in a particular format. Is it illegal in US to remove DRM from that book so that it may be converted into any other format for personal viewing?

The previous 141 posts in this thread have largely been discussing this very question. The majority opinion appears to be "technically yes, but nobody going to hassle you about it if you do.". Some people will tell you (but are unable to provide any evidence) that it's absolutely legal.

The truth of the matter is that this is a grey area of the law, and there have been no court cases to set a precident. Until there are, all anyone can do is to give you an opinion.

The practical answer is that if you keep it to yourself, who's going to know?

[speedlever]

I know that initially, an important consideration in my purchase of an EBR was whether or not I could read library books on it. The reality of it is that the only library ebooks I've borrowed were for testing purposes with the Kindle. I find that my local library has few ebooks that I'm interested in. And the few they have are on long waits.

I have enough to read from multiple other sources such that the library issue has become a moot point for me.

And I can always use the iPad to read a library ebook if I choose to wait for something they actually have.. and decide not to put it on the K3. Shucks, I might even actually borrow a real paperback book.

[Barty]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

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

I was under the impression that something is illegal because lawmakers made it illegal. The courts may rule on constitutionality or clarify where the laws are vague. I think the laws here are only vague in the sense people don't like them.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by Barty

I was under the impression that so ethnic is illegal because lawmakers made it illegal. The courts may rule on constitutionality or clarify where the laws are vague. I think the laws here are only vague in the sense people don't like them.

you lost me there

[DreamWriter]

Originally Posted by Newfie56

The husband's sticking with his Kindle. (Yes!!!) I'm going to keep an eye on this forum and start making some serious hints for one reader or another, though, come birthday time!

Newfie, I had a difficult time deciding which eReader to purchase. At one point I was leaning toward one that could read ePub since I thought I'd like to use the library's lending system. But then I learned about long wait times, which kind of put me off. And I wasn't keen on installing another program on my computer. The idea of using 3G/wifi to obtain books appealed to me.

I decided to buy a Kindle, and I haven't regretted that decision! There are many free books available – both classics and contemporary.

There are numerous web sites where you can obtain free ebooks, including here on MobileRead (see the "E-Books" link near the top of the screen). Here are two links that your husband may find helpful at Amazon.com: Amazon Top 100 Bestsellers (free books on the right) and Amazon Free Book Collections – Classics and Limited-time Promotions.

I have discovered many books (and authors) that I never would have considered if I'd limited myself primarily to borrowing library books. I hope that your husband enjoys his Kindle!

[screwballl]

This is a simple solution and therefore needs no further discussion.As the law states in laymen terms:

It is not illegal to remove DRM for personal and private use. The fair use exclusion of copyright law allows this. Courts have upheld this.

The DMCA states it is illegal to remove DRM for purpose of gain or damages, or on media that you do not have ownership of, which was also upheld by the courts.

Modification or removal of DRM for private use does not equal gain or damages as stated by the US courts.

Now for a library lent book, it is not your property so therefore illegal to remove DRM.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Why do you believe that it's not covered? I can certainly see nothing in the DMCA that says that it doesn't apply to items that you've bought.

That's my point. The DMCA does NOT say that it doesn't apply to items that you've bought. It doesn't have to.

If you go out and buy a car, and sign a contract for the purchase of a Volkswagen, the contract is not going to say that you haven't bought a Ford.

Likewise, the DMCA does not SAY that it doesn't cover stripping DRM from your own files, because it doesn't cover that in the first place. The law is written in a fashion that avoids making personal DRM stripping a violation. So there doesn't have to be a specific exception for that.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

PLEASE give some evidence to support this. You keep saying it but you haven't provided one shred of evidence that it's true!

What, exactly, would you consider to be "evidence?"

What "evidence" do you have that stripping DRM from personally owned files is a violation?

You can't rely on quoting the DMCA. It doesn't mean what you think it does. I'm a lawyer, you aren't. I know how to read statutes, you don't. If it comes down to your understanding of the law versus mine, I am about a hundred - nay, a hundred thousand - times more likely than you are to be right, given that I have a legal education and 39 years of practical experience, and you have...what?

So if that's all the "evidence" you have, you lose.

But come on, define what else you might mean by "evidence" and let's see if you have any.