I'm regretting giving my husband a Kindle 3

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

Bravo! I think we should all chip in and pay Harmon's legal fees!

I will accept payment in Belgian beer, since I am on a diet.

What diet? The Belgian Beer Diet - haven't you heard of it? It's really simple: Get some Belgian beer. Drink it. Repeat. (I would say, "Repeat as Necessary" but that's redundant. And also goes without saying.)

Lose weight? Who said anything about losing weight? But as it happens...

http://www.globalbeer.com/body_pages...stijnDiet.html

The Improved Belgian Beer Diet involves fries.

http://www.belgianfries.com/bfblog/?page_id=1426

[The Terminator]

If you don't want to strip it of DRM you can return your Kindle and use that money to buy a Sony,Kobo or nook but keep in mind the original nook with the E-ink top and LCD bottom does not get as good battery life. hope this helped

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by screwballl

Good stuff.

Essentially, the judge said it is fine for end users to use the software for "fair use", but it is not legal for the companies to make the software to begin with if it includes methods of bypassing the protection aka DRM. Another key point: this only affects companies within the US. For companies that create software of this type outside of the US that do not have these laws, then the users even within the US can use them for "fair use", and the company is not subject to US law other than trying to prevent the company in question from distributing it within the US which would be nearly impossible on the internet.

Yep, except the judge did not go quite that far on end users. I wouldn't cite this case as ruling that end users can strip DRM - I would merely point to it as being compatible with that conclusion, and not in any respect standing for the opposite conclusion.

[Yojinbo]

OP - return it right away that is my vote for you. Regret is no way to live.

So many people love the Kindles but they are not for everyone.

If library ebooks are your thing, you have other options.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I agree. All I've said is that it's PROBABLY illegal, because in my reading of the DMCA I can find nothing that says that "personal use" is included in the list of permitted exemptions to the law.

But the issue at hand is whether DMCA trumps fair-use or not and if not, then it isn't illegal. And if DMCA trumps fair use, we need to elect politicians willing to vote away DMCA.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by ApK

That's the procedure with library mp3s, that's the procedure with library mobile videos. Why should it be a problem with epubs?

No one is saying that keeping them past your licensed date is OK.

Well, kindlekitten seems to be saying that it would be ok for her as long as it's for her own personal use, but most of the rest of us aren't.

But, if you were to borrow say a DVD or an audio-book or a paper book and keep them past the due date without renewing, then you get fined. Why is it OK to keep digital library materials past the due date?

What I want to know though is if you borrow an eBook from the library, strip the DRM, read the book (no matter how long it takes), will you delete all copies of it after you are done reading?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by abookreader

*Or one of the numerous other devices which can display Adobe Digital Edition DRMd files.

The reason I said 650 is that I have a strong feeling that after seeing the pearl screen of a K3, only the 650's Pearl screen will be good enough.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

Or a Nook, or a Kobo, or a Pocketbook, or any number of other e-readers that use EPub.

I would suggest the Nook, again, because it is about the same price as the Kindle where as the Sony is more expensive.

They don't have a Pearl screen. So they may not be acceptable.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by FF2

If I am correct, I doubt that Sony believes in that position any longer - as they are now an Entertainment providing company that would probably prefer to protect their property from copying and/or liberating from copy-protection.

I have noticed that their dvd players do not play divx xdiv disks or avi content.

A lot of DVD/Blu-Ray players do not play DivX/XVid/AVI/WMA/etc. content. Why are you singling out Sony in this matter?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by twobits

What do you want to say about the personal use premise? If you use it personal you get personal liability?


Nothing in the DMCA grants an exception for personal use or lack of a profit motive.

But the DMCA may be illegal unto itself for trying to trounce fair use. We just don't know. So saying DMCA makes it illegal to strip DRM for personal use is wrong. It is unknown if it is or is not illegal. So don't say it is as DMCA may be the illegal thing here.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

Yup. I was more reacting to Jon's post ignoring the other EPub readers.

I was only listing readers with a Pearl screen that uses ADE to display ePub.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Xanthe

I was going to suggest hanging onto to the Kindle and just getting another ereader that would handle the library books. After all, one ereader is never enough.

And I was going to suggest that you look at the content that's wanting to be read and see where it's available from and decide what reader's will handle said content. Being that library eBooks are some of that content, I'd suggest sending back the K3 in favor of one that handles ePub from the library.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Don't be too sure about that. You don't own the library book - the library does. If you don't have permission from the library to strip the DRM (and of course you don't), I doubt that the exception you are relying on would include your usage.

But the EULA that you don't read and don't have to read and don't even get shown when you buy eBooks also says you don't have the right to strip DRM.

I had an Amazon.com long before there was a Kindle and even before Amazon started selling eBooks. I was never told or shown and made to click some box saying I've ever read the EULA for Kindle eBooks. So I'm thinking that the EULA is not really valid as I've never had to read it or even say I have. I can claim I never knew about it. I can claim Amazon didn't make it known I had to read it. So really, the EULA for most eBooks is useless.

[Snakey]

Originally Posted by FF2

If I am correct, I doubt that Sony believes in that position any longer - as they are now an Entertainment providing company that would probably prefer to protect their property from copying and/or liberating from copy-protection.

I have noticed that their dvd players do not play divx xdiv disks or avi content.

Sony added Divx/Xvid support to the PS3 part way through its lifespan, just an observation.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

But the EULA that you don't read and don't have to read and don't even get shown when you buy eBooks also says you don't have the right to strip DRM.

EULA with Amazon is one topic. My own opinion is that the EULA way oversteps what it actually can bind the buyer to. I don't think that the Amazon EULA is enforceable against an ordinary buyer, and I don't think that it can be used by Amazon to sue buyers for stripping DRM. OTOH, if Amazon decides you violated the EULA and declines to sell you any more ebooks, there's not much you can do about it.

With libraries, it's not quite the same thing. As someone pointed out, the library itself doesn't even own the ebook. It licenses the ebook from Overdrive, and the defects relating to the Amazon/buyer EULA probably don't exist for the library/Overdrive EULA. I have a sense that there might be a DMCA violation if the borrower strips DRM, but the whole situation is rather attenuated. You have Overdrive, which presumably buys the book from a publisher, with or without DRM on it, and then licenses it to the library, probably with another layer of encryption, and then the library "lends" you the ebook under whatever conditions it has. Certainly the borrower can have no more rights than the library has. The practical answer is probably similar as with Amazon - if you get caught, you lose your library card.

But the legal answer might well be that it is a violation to strip DRM from a library book if you keep the stripped copy beyond the lending period. Kind of bizzaro, but that's what happens when you try to string out a legal analysis to deal with situations that the law really doesn't fit.