Sorry Kindle, You're Not Invited

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

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.

I feel like some of you have me on your ignore lists. Again:
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...&postcount=241

If you think my argument is flawed, fine, tell me why, but this has been asked and answered over and over again.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Fair Use does not include library eBooks.

It most certainly does, but fair use has nothing to do with this issue.

Fair use concerns how you may use someone else's copyrighted material. For example, can you reprint part of a copyrighted book in a review? Fair use doctrine says you probably can, and it does not matter whether that material came from a hardback from the book store, or a borrowed library e-book.

As the DMCA indicates, and the fifth circuit court recently made clear, the provision in the law that prohibits cirvumventing DRM only applies if that circumvention is for the purpose of a COPYRIGHT violation. Since you HAVE the right to read your copy of the borrowed ebook for x days, then stripping DRM ONLY for the purpose of enabling the rights you are entitled to is NOT a violation of the law.
No one is endorsing or suggesting using any copyrighted material in a manner that violates copyright.

I've said this before, and we've cited the law and the court decision elsewhere more than once.

ApK

[iandix]

let's not use the word theft here, as it is not stealing .. to be class as theft you need to cover the proofs of the offence, one of these proofs are to deprive a person of the item. As you are not depriving anyone of the item it is not theft.

It could be covered under copyright violation..

but what I would class it as .. seeing you have made a contract (with overdrive) and you are violating that contract (you agreed to the contract with no intention to follow the restrictions) then that would be "gaining benefits by deception" which in most countries is a criminal charge. But I would be surprised if a court would waste their time on such a minor issue, at most all I would imagine would be to have your account closed.

But saying it is a minor issue .. does not make it right!! and this brings me back to my point the whole time.. IF you wish to do this then so be it, but please don't tell other people it's legal and you will not get into trouble. TELL THEM THE WHOLE TRUTH..

[ApK]

Originally Posted by iandix

but what I would class it as .. seeing you have made a contract (with overdrive) and you are violating that contract (you agreed to the contract with no intention to follow the restrictions) then that would be "gaining benefits by deception" which in most countries is a criminal charge. But I would be surprised if a court would waste their time on such a minor issue, at most all I would imagine would be to have your account closed.

What if it turns out that part of the terms of the agreement were an illegal infringement of your rights? Just to take it to an extreme example for illustration, what if some joker slipped in a line about giving them your first born child....until it was caught, removed and the joker fired and sued, would you comply just because you didn't read every line of the fine print and clicked the agree button?

[Piper_]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

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.

I would never do anything to someone else's "property" that they expected me to return.

Library ebooks are never returned. Even if I had to return it, I could return the DRM'd copy, completely intact, because I have made no changes - done no damage - to their property.

"Stripping" is a misnomer for what we do. We don't touch the file; we read it and in so doing, make a copy that we can read on another device.

Even when we buy an ebook, it is the intellectual property of someone else, and I would say their rights weigh more than the library's. (My librarian is perfectly fine with my stripping DRM to read their books on my Kindle)

So no - I don't see why the library - whose property remains unchanged - should be given more regard than the intellectual property holder I purchased from.

I honestly don't understand the point of straining at such wispy distinctions of whose property it is.

I am given the book for 2-3 weeks to read. I read it within that time period and then I delete it.

Who have I harmed? I could have kept it on my Sony. Instead, I moved a copy to my Kindle. The only person who can tell the difference is me.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by ApK

I feel like some of you have me on your ignore lists. Again:
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...&postcount=241

If you think my argument is flawed, fine, tell me why, but this has been asked and answered over and over again.

Because that doesn't answer the question. It's simply an unsupported assumption on your part that the temporary sub-license to you from the library provides all the same rights as the license held by the library. It also doesn't settle the issue as to whether it's truly a license, ownership, or something in-between that hasn't been properly defined yet.

As it is, all I see in your argument is a statement to the effect that library borrowing is simply "time-limited ownership," conferring all the same rights as ownership, with no compelling evidence to support the assertion.

If I have a volume license key for some software, and give you a copy to put on your work laptop, that doesn't mean that you have the right to crack the software and put it on another computer instead - even if you don't use it on your work laptop and delete it from the other computer when you're done with it.

If you purchase a license, you own that license. If you borrow a book from the library you are temporarily using their license. I have seen no compelling argument that you have the same rights over their license as you would over your own license.

One is yours, one isn't.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

One is yours, one isn't.

None are yours. The content is always owned by the copyright holder, purchased or borrowed, and only the instance of the digital file is always yours.

I'm making no claims about whether it 'exactly' the same or or I have 'all the same rights' anything like that because that's not at issue at all.

When I borrow an ebook, I am given permission to have access to read the contents for x days. I am not seeking or taking any other rights or permissions.

ApK

p.s. just an aside, re the volume licensed software, wouldn't that depend on the terms? Also, correct me if I'm wrong but there IS case law establishing that, regardless of the EULA terms, I have a right to make a backup copy and to protect my ability to access the software.
We can start another thread if you want to discuss that...probably on another forum.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by Piper_

I honestly don't understand the point of straining at such wispy distinctions of whose property it is.

I am given the book for 2-3 weeks to read. I read it within that time period and then I delete it.

Who have I harmed? I could have kept it on my Sony. Instead, I moved a copy to my Kindle. The only person who can tell the difference is me.

It's like speeding at 3AM on a deserted road. It doesn't hurt anyone, but it's still illegal.

My own issue is not about caring whether people strip DRM from library books or not. I really don't care that much either way. My issue is with the assumption that stripping DRM from library books is legally identical to stripping DRM from purchased books - and I've seen no evidence that truly supports that statement.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by iandix

The Problem as I see it, is not the fact that a Kindle owner is using their local library or that they are stripping DRM from the books so they can read them on their Kindle. If they wish to do that then no skin off my noise. The problem as I see it ..is Kindlekitty telling people who may not know or understand the subject that it is legal and nothing wrong with doing it.

There are people out there who may have a different view of morality, and may find breaking a contract (and yes when you join the library you are making a contract) and then stripping DRM from books and making copies of books that DO NOT belong to you as wrong. If she said " oh there are ways to borrow books and read them on your kindle but it might not be 100% legal to do, but the chance of getting in trouble is very very slim.. then I think this debate would not have happened.

saying over and over it's for personal use so it's fine, does not make it legal, you did not buy the book it does not belong to you, so this whole personal use thing is no valid. You borrowed a book under strict restrictions that you are suppose to follow, if you wish to break this contract and gain benefits by deception, then that is up to you... just don't mislead people...tell them the whole story and let them decide.

STOP!!!!

misquoting me!!!! I have said REPEATEDLY that it is not illegal. you have very primitive understanding of the law if you cannot tell the difference in this

Originally Posted by JSWolf

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.

the case law which has been discussed dealt with borrowed library books up to an including photcopying the entire book and retaining it for personal use.

education and understanding can be your friend

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by ApK

None are yours. The content is always owned by the copyright holder, purchased or borrowed, and the instance of the digital file is always yours.

I'm making no claims about whether it 'exactly' the same or or I have 'all the same rights' anything like because that's not at issue at all.

When I borrow an ebook, I am given permission to have access to read the contents for x days. I am not seeking or taking any other rights or permissions.

ApK

No. You missed the point completely.

Let me restate.

One (license) is yours, one (license) isn't.

When you borrow a library book you are using THEIR license, not your own.

[carpetmojo]

Originally Posted by ApK

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

A-g-g-g-g-h-h-h-h...................................



Just got through 7 pages.



Give up.

[ I still reserve the right to doubts about evading copywright laws however.)

[khalleron]

Originally Posted by ApK

Exactly. The letter cited in the CNN link says they were doing this to go after tools used to circumvent DRM to violate copyright. They cast a wide net and caught these tools by mistake.
The letter (as far as I can see in the link) said nothing about Amazon wanting to prevent people from reading library books on the Kindle. It says they want to protect Kindle books from copyright violations.

Wouldn't be the first time a cease and desist letter was wrongly targeted.
Lawyer sees "DRM" and "Kindle" and "download" in the same Google hit, and they send a letter, right or wrong.

Note, I'm not saying Amazon WANTS library books on the Kindle, I'm just saying this issue doesn't seem to indicate they don't.
ApK

You seem to like to judge people's actions by what you think their intentions are. I believe you can only judge people's intentions by what their actions are.

Amazon has not gone after those who make DRM removal tools - they've gone after MR and those who make it possible to use libraries and buy books at places other than Amazon.

From which it seems that they don't want you to read library books or purchase books elsewhere. They seem perfectly happy for you to remove DRM from books you buy from them.

Actions, actions. They're the only way to judge.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

the case law which has been discussed dealt with borrowed library books up to an including photcopying the entire book and retaining it for personal use.

Do have any kind of source for that?

[iandix]

Originally Posted by ApK

What if it turns out that part of the terms of the agreement were an illegal infringement of your rights? Just to take it to an extreme example for illustration, what if some joker slipped in a line about giving them your first born child....until it was caught, removed and the joker fired and sued, would you comply just because you didn't read every line of the fine print and clicked the agree button?

Courts are tied up dealing with contracts all the time, the only winners are the lawyers. Look at the church of Scientology they have a billion year contract that not only covers you but any future reincarnations of you (I would love to see them try and enforce that :-) But most courts do have a "reasonable man" view on things like this, if the contract is beyond reason in it's demand then courts can throw it out. This is the courts view what is reasonable not yours...

But remember it is your responsibility to read the contract before signing it.. .. saying you didn't bother or it was too long ... is not a legal excuse.

[Poppaea]

Originally Posted by iandix

But saying it is a minor issue .. does not make it right!! and this brings me back to my point the whole time.. IF you wish to do this then so be it, but please don't tell other people it's legal and you will not get into trouble. TELL THEM THE WHOLE TRUTH..

Jepp!!!