Sorry Kindle, You're Not Invited

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by vaughnmr

I value your informed opinions, when you do give them. I don't appreciate your constant Amazon bashing.

It's not Amazon bashing. It's exclusive eBook bashing and Amazon is at the forefront of this problem.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

do NOT misquote me!!!



I don't know how many ways to say this;

in the United States it is NOT illegal to strip DRM for personal use.

Personal use of purchased eBooks. But we are talking BORROWED eBooks from the library. Different thing. I have never seen anyone say that stripping DRM from library eBooks is legal. Fair Use does not include library eBooks.

[wyndslash]

this "discussion" of sorts would go so much smoother if we all had actual cases to refer to :P

maybe in the future we'll see something of the sort in the courts, since the ebook borrowing is just new for now

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Then why get so worked up about it?

Because along the way to trying, there will be a lot of eBooks available in only one format with or without DRM and that means no access for lots of people. Also, it means that if you do want any of these eBooks, you have to pay Amazon even if you'd prefer not to.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by khalleron

No, the tools involved only gave owners their own Kindles' PID numbers and fixed a problem buying DRMed Mobi and using library Mobi on Kindle.

They had nothing to do with removing DRM.

It was DRM shifting which meant that you could buy Mobipocket eBooks, shift the DRM and use them with a Kindle. That meant not buying DRMed eBooks for the Kindle direct from Amazon and library Mobipocket eBooks got caught in the crossfire.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

KindleKitten is not misleading anyone, she is simply stating facts, her view of the universe which is just as valid as anyone else's. According to KindleKitten there is nothing wrong with stripping the DRM from a book, and so there is nothing wrong with stripping DRM from a book.

Now someone else might say well yes there is, I placed the DRM on that book and I would very much prefer if you did not strip that DRM, in fact I am telling you that it is wrong to strip the DRM from that book.

It would be unethical and immoral to not explain to everyone that they have been, are, and forever will be, able to do whatever they want whenever they want, just try to be nice please thanks.

I'm not debating the issue of DRM stripping for eBooks that one buys. The issue is that library eBooks are not the same. You are borrowing them. There is no buy and keep. The library eBooks are supposed to stop working when the time is up. So if you have the DRM removed and have them past the time limit, you should be paying a fine like you would for borrowing a pBook and keeping it past the date without renewing it. It's like jumping the gate at the MBTA (public transportation) for a free ride. Sure you get the ride and it's free. But it's still not right.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by wyndslash

this "discussion" of sorts would go so much smoother if we all had actual cases to refer to :P

maybe in the future we'll see something of the sort in the courts, since the ebook borrowing is just new for now

I don't think we'll see any cases of people stripping the DRM of eBooks they bought and do not distribute.

Chances are, we won't see library eBooks go to court if they are not distributed after being stripped even if it is wrong.

[carpetmojo]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I'm not debating the issue of DRM stripping for eBooks that one buys. The issue is that library eBooks are not the same. You are borrowing them. There is no buy and keep. The library eBooks are supposed to stop working when the time is up. So if you have the DRM removed and have them past the time limit, you should be paying a fine like you would for borrowing a pBook and keeping it past the date without renewing it. It's like jumping the gate at the MBTA (public transportation) for a free ride. Sure you get the ride and it's free. But it's still not right.

It's basically the same as stealing Library books, isn't it ?

It seems that that is what is happening if you strip the DRM from a library issue, surely.

And doesn't d/loading a book for free that is in copywright come into the same category ? in that you are preventing income going to the writer or his/her estate, if that is the law concerning that work.

You may disagree with the law, but does that mean it is right to break it ?

Or Patent Law, intellectual Rights Law, artistic ownership rights, plagierizm law, property ownership law................

Interesting chain of thought, that rarely seems to come up when book copywright law is discussed, somehow.......................

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by carpetmojo

It's basically the same as stealing Library books, isn't it ?

It seems that that is what is happening if you strip the DRM from a library issue, surely.

And doesn't d/loading a book for free that is in copywright come into the same category ? in that you are preventing income going to the writer or his/her estate, if that is the law concerning that work.

You may disagree with the law, but does that mean it is right to break it ?

Or Patent Law, intellectual Rights Law, artistic ownership rights, plagierizm law, property ownership law................

Interesting chain of thought, that rarely seems to come up when book copywright law is discussed, somehow.......................

There is a difference when you talk stripping DRM from a library eBook vs. downloading from the net.

The library has the eBook and you are allowed to borrow it for up to 2 or 3 weeks. Then if you want it again or are not finished reading it, you have to borrow it again,. You may have to go to the back of the waiting list and wait some rather long time for your turn. So instead of having it expire and then maybe have to wait all over again, you strip the DRM and keep it. You could have gone back to the library for all the times you want to read it and get it. But there's a chance of having to wait. This way, you don't have to wait.

You find an eBook on the net that is not available at any library you can access. You download it and read it and keep it. Now you have an eBook that you were never supposed to get for free. You've deprived the author of the income from that eBook.

With the library eBook, it is wrong to keep it. But you would have the right to borrow it over and over. So in keeping it, you are not depriving that author any income from that eBook. But, you might be depriving that author income from other eBooks. The library might keep track of how popular eBooks are and buy more from the more popular authors. So you skew the results by keeping the eBook instead of reborrowing.

Another thing you can do with library eBooks is strip the DRM, keep it until you've finished reading it and then delete all copies. If you go past the borrow time, it's still wrong, but not as wrong as you still have to go back to the library to borrow it again if you want to access it. So if the library keeps track of borrows, you don't skew the results as much.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by carpetmojo

It's basically the same as stealing Library books, isn't it ?

No. For more details, read the rest of this thread, if you can stand it.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Katie1

What I really like to know is how to remove the DMR from my Amazon PAID books so I can store & use them on my other eReader!!

See same popularly referenced blog, same set of tools. Just as easy for most books.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Asawi

Did the process of converting WMA to Mp3 involve DRM stripping or was it just a matte of converting?
If there was no DRM stripping involved it can't be compared.

The MP3s have no DRM. To convert the protected WMA files to MP3, you must strip the DRM.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I'm not debating the issue of DRM stripping for eBooks that one buys. The issue is that library eBooks are not the same. You are borrowing them. There is no buy and keep. The library eBooks are supposed to stop working when the time is up. So if you have the DRM removed and have them past the time limit, you should be paying a fine like you would for borrowing a pBook and keeping it past the date without renewing it. It's like jumping the gate at the MBTA (public transportation) for a free ride. Sure you get the ride and it's free. But it's still not right.

Personally, since I use public transportation every day I feel that the tax rate should be increased with the new funds going straight into the transit lines coffers, in this way public transportation would become free. I don't really like the idea of tax dollars going towards things like roads and bombs.

But back on topic, laws are changed routinely. At the moment we have a number of laws on the books relating to book use, but these laws were put into place when books were a rare commodity, irreplaceable. This is for all intents and purposes no longer the case. We shouldn't be trying to shoehorn our old laws into the new paradigms reading space, if you must have your law it should adequately reflect the realities of the new reading experience.

[Piper_]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

[...]The issue is that library eBooks are not the same. You are borrowing them. There is no buy and keep. The library eBooks are supposed to stop working when the time is up. So if you have the DRM removed and have them past the time limit, you should be paying a fine like you would for borrowing a pBook and keeping it past the date without renewing it. [...]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

There is a difference when you talk stripping DRM from a library eBook vs. downloading from the net.

The library has the eBook and you are allowed to borrow it for up to 2 or 3 weeks. Then if you want it again or are not finished reading it, you have to borrow it again,. You may have to go to the back of the waiting list and wait some rather long time for your turn. So instead of having it expire and then maybe have to wait all over again, you strip the DRM and keep it. You could have gone back to the library for all the times you want to read it and get it. But there's a chance of having to wait. This way, you don't have to wait.

You find an eBook on the net that is not available at any library you can access. You download it and read it and keep it. Now you have an eBook that you were never supposed to get for free. You've deprived the author of the income from that eBook.

With the library eBook, it is wrong to keep it. But you would have the right to borrow it over and over. So in keeping it, you are not depriving that author any income from that eBook. But, you might be depriving that author income from other eBooks. The library might keep track of how popular eBooks are and buy more from the more popular authors. So you skew the results by keeping the eBook instead of reborrowing.

Another thing you can do with library eBooks is strip the DRM, keep it until you've finished reading it and then delete all copies. If you go past the borrow time, it's still wrong, but not as wrong as you still have to go back to the library to borrow it again if you want to access it. So if the library keeps track of borrows, you don't skew the results as much.

I'm not sure who you're disagreeing with then, JW.
If anyone here has said it was OK to keep the book - even past the time alotted - I haven't seen it.

All I've seen, including by KK, are defenses of stripping the DRM as long as you delete when it should be deleted. That caveat has been made clear several times.

The worst accusation against that has been that it means you *could* keep it. But by that logic, you shouldn't even download the library book, because you *could* strip the DRM and keep it.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by Piper_

I'm not sure who you're disagreeing with then, JW.
If anyone here has said it was OK to keep the book - even past the time alotted - I haven't seen it.

All I've seen, including by KK, are defenses of stripping the DRM as long as you delete when it should be deleted. That caveat has been made clear several times.

The worst accusation against that has been that it means you *could* keep it. But by that logic, you shouldn't even download the library book, because you *could* strip the DRM and keep it.

The issue I'm seeing is that people are conflating the legal standing of stripping the DRM from one's own property with that of stripping the DRM from someone else's. It's not simply a matter of the legality of stripping DRM, but also the question of property rights.

Do you have the same rights over something that you have borrowed or rented from someone else as you have over something you own?

That's the question that must be answered first.