People who want no DRM are impractical dreamers...

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

(I see I have a minor typo - retained above, fixed below):


unauthorised

unauthorised is actully misspelled. The correct spelling is unauthorized.

[JSWolf]

My mother has a Sony Reader. She really likes it. But because of the DRM, she'd have been totally lost if I wasn't around to help her. What she would be doing is borrowing library pBooks. So on her own, she'd not be reading eBooks because DRM would have been in the way from the start.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

unauthorised is actully misspelled. The correct spelling is unauthorized.

Unauthorised is the proper British spelling.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by John F

Stonetools, do you have a Sony and an LRX ebook (Sony's DRM)?

Try this experiment. Do a hard reset, try to read the ebook. Do you think you'll be able to read it?

Yes I do. You just go back to Sony and download it in ePub. That's not a good analogy.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

This is a good point.

If I had to choose between having no DRM on ebooks that are sold or having ebooks available from libraries, I'll go for having no DRM on ebooks that are sold.

But I would have thought that some method of enabling libraries to lend ebooks could be found, perhaps with custom hardware.

The question I have though is who would pay for the DRM? Would it be the libraries? Would it be Overdrive? Would it be the publisher? Would be all three or two of them? Would we lose library eBooks (I hope not).

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by tompe

I do not see why you need traditional DRM for libraries. Just have a minimum time of 2 weeks or so for lending a book and put some social DRM on the books.

Social DRM for library books is a fail before it ever happens.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

JS, another resolution to the library dilemma is a dedicated library e-reader that you lend, with library-only access port. That assumes the hardware becomes much cheaper and more durable. But it is another long-term answer.

It's not my hardware. I don't want to be responsible for it. So that won't work.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by kennyc

How could you possibly book a cruise that doesn't provide wi-fi!

The ship has internet access, but to use it, you have to pay for time. And it's sat elite so it's slow. Besides, I won't need it. And I'll have enough books on my 650 to keep me happy.

[toddos]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Do you really pay attention to what goes on on MR? Your statement leads me to believe you don't actually read what's on MR.

We've been over this issue many times.

We cannot say that stripping DRM in the USA is illegal. It's a gray area. We have the DMCA and it has exceptions. So we know according to the DMCA, if you fall under the exception, stripping DRM is legal. We also have fair use exception to the copyright. So under fair use, stripping DRM is legal. Also, we do not know if DRM trumps fair use or does fair use trump DMCA. So until this goes to a court of law, it will remain a gray area.

Define where on MR. It's not a discussion I've seen, so probably the answer is "no".

The DMCA provides for 3-year-long exemptions. Currently the only one that allows you to remove DRM from books is if the DRM on all available versions of the book prevents you from using TTS or a screen reader. If Amazon disallows it but Barnes & Noble allows it, the exemption doesn't apply. Any other reason, including "it doesn't work on my desired platform," does not have an exemption and would fall under the category of circumventing access control.

So it's only a gray area in that it hasn't been tried. Assuming the DMCA is constitutional and this does not match an exemption, too bad.

Edit: Didn't address fair use. That's only about copying, not access control. Fair Use allows you to maintain a backup copy. With an ebook, you can do that with DRM in-place -- just make a copy of the file. Where that interacts with the DMCA's circumvention restriction is when you have to be able to remove the copy protection in order to make a backup.

I'm pro-DRM removal (and even more pro-DRM-free content) and anti-DMCA, but that doesn't change the fact that the DMCA makes me a criminal every time I liberate an ebook I buy.

[JSWolf]

^ Sorry, but it's not illegal until a judge says it's illegal.

[kennyc]

Liberation is free, drm costs.

[Nyssa]

When does the act become a criminal one?

If I purchase a book and as I add it to my collection, I remove the DRM, am I a criminal, then?

If I give the book to my husband to read, am I a criminal, then?

If I give it to my friend to read?

I know that if I post it on a public board, I would be a criminal then.

[OtterBooks]

Originally Posted by Nyssa

When does the act become a criminal one?

If I purchase a book and as I add it to my collection, I remove the DRM, am I a criminal, then?

If I give the book to my husband to read, am I a criminal, then?

If I give it to my friend to read?

I know that if I post it on a public board, I would be a criminal then.

Only if there were people on the public board who weren't your friend. Also if you have a falling out with said friend, the copy becomes illegal, since that person is no longer your friend. Copyright is all about friendship. Just make sure everyone adds you as a friend to their Facebook account, and you're in the clear.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by toddos

Edit: Didn't address fair use. That's only about copying, not access control. Fair Use allows you to maintain a backup copy.

Fair use also allows you to quote excerpts for reviews, and use up to entire copies for research & educational purposes. You can't hand out chapters of a DRM'd ebook to a classroom without stripping the DRM, and giving a copy of a chapter for study is a common educational use.

Works that are in the public domain are not protected by copyright law--which includes the main body text of works with a copyrighted new intro. If you strip the DRM in order to make a copy of the book text, not the intro, is that a violation of the DMCA? The DMCA doesn't protect works in the public domain; it only applies to copyrighted works. Whether it applies to 1200 unwanted copyrighted words attached to an 80,000 word public domain book, hasn't been established.

The DMCA only affects those uses which are restricted by copyright law. Fair use, and access to public domain works, are not. How that plays out in practice hasn't been tested in court yet.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

unauthorised is actully misspelled. The correct spelling is unauthorized.

Not in the UK!

http://www.chaucery.com/fun/dialecti...2=unauthorized