Sorry Kindle, You're Not Invited

[Piper_]

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.

education and understanding can be your friend

I gathered from your earlier statement (that you deleted the books after use) that you didn't think it was ok to keep them. If not, i owe an apology to jwolf.

I would never say - nor have I seen anyone else say - it was ok to keep a library book past the agreed to deadline.

If someone has shown any legal or ethical justification for it, i'd be interested in seeing that argument. I think it would be very wrong, personally.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

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

Actually, according to my traffic school instructor in California, this is not always so. Another example of why I agree that these matters are arguable at best. Clear laws protecting our rights would be best.

Write your legislators.

ApK

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by ApK

Do have any kind of source for that?

check the lengthy thread in the kindle forum, I bumped it yesterday

Originally Posted by Piper_

I gathered from your earlier statement (that you deleted the books after use) that you didn't think it was ok to keep them. If not, i owe an apology to jwolf.

I would never say - nor have I seen anyone else say - it was ok to keep a library book past the agreed to deadline.

If someone has shown any legal or ethical justification for it, i'd be interested in seeing that argument. I think it would be very wrong, personally.

I'm NOT saying that! I am referring to the personal use test case

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

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.

I'm just not understanding the point. Maybe you know something about the legal definitions I don't, or perhaps there is some Talmud-like point of subtle distinction that I'm missing.
While I find argument on this stuff interesting, I'm forced to say...<shudder>..."Let's agree to disagree on this point."

[Piper_]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

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.

I understand, Lemurion. You're a good guy, and i don't want to be argumentative with you. I can see the difference, but can't see how they matter, so I can't make myself feel guilty over it.

To me, I'd compare it more to removing a "stay off the grass" sign and staying off the grass by my own will.

Or removing a speed regulator installed in my car and driving the speed limit by my own will.

I don't think the speeding thing is quite the same either way though. One being a clear law that's a matter of life and death if I ignore it... the other, well, you know. Not the same.

All I know is that the DRM is there so I only read the book within the 2-3 week period, and I'm still only reading the book within the 2-3 week period. I can't bring myself to see how I should feel the slightest twinge of guilt for that.

I'm going to leave it at that, since I need to go and I'm repeating myself now. Talk to you later.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

check the lengthy thread in the kindle forum, I bumped it yesterday

Yes, but in that thread all you said on the matter was:

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

I'm not going to invest the time researching it, but I know that it has been determined that if you copy media for your personal use, do not distribute it, and do not make money off of it, it is not prosecutable.

and I don't rely on wiki for anything

I have researched it a bit, and I have not yet found a blanket justification for it.
Until it's found and cited, I think there is enough other justification to discuss without relying on that.

It's causing a "repetitive stress injury." Every time it's repeated, lots of folks get stressed.

ApK

[Piper_]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

check the lengthy thread in the kindle forum, I bumped it yesterday



I'm NOT saying that! I am referring to the personal use test case

KK, I'm glad. Forgive us for being confused, but your posts are somewhat cryptic!

So when you say, "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."

...you are not saying the case law or anyone in that thread said it was ok to photocopy the entire book and retaining it for personal use... correct?

No one on the thread in question said it was, so I doubt you are - I just want it clear for the viewers, so to speak.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Piper_

I don't think the speeding thing is quite the same either way though. One being a clear law that's a matter of life and death if I ignore it... the other, well, you know. Not the same.

Brief off topic detour:
In traffic school in CA, we were told that the speed limit is a suggested speed limit (at least in California..where there is open desert, so it's relevant).
IF you can prove that the restriction was inappropriate at the time, the law DOES allow for you to legally go faster. HOWEVER, the instructors point was, in his career he was only ever aware of ONE time that anyone challenged a speeding ticket on those grounds and won, and the circumstance were unusual, so it'd be foolish to try that play. Still...

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by ApK

Brief off topic detour:
In traffic school in CA, we were told that the speed limit is a suggested speed limit (at least in California..where there is open desert, so it's relevant).
IF you can prove that the restriction was inappropriate at the time, the law DOES allow for you to legally go faster. HOWEVER, the instructors point was, in his career he was only ever aware of ONE time that anyone challenged a speeding ticket on those grounds and won, and the circumstance were unusual, so it'd be foolish to try that play. Still...

That makes sense.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by ApK

Yes, but in that thread all you said on the matter was:



I have researched it a bit, and I have not yet found a blanket justification for it.
Until it's found and cited, I think there is enough other justification to discuss without relying on that.

It's causing a "repetitive stress injury." Every time it's repeated, lots of folks get stressed.

ApK

Originally Posted by Piper_

KK, I'm glad. Forgive us for being confused, but your posts are somewhat cryptic!

So when you say, "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."

...you are not saying the case law or anyone in that thread said it was ok to photocopy the entire book and retaining it for personal use... correct?

No one on the thread in question said it was, so I doubt you are - I just want it clear for the viewers, so to speak.

read the quoted case law

work calls... later folks

[ApK]

Originally Posted by khalleron

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.

Fair enough, except that I think I'm judging this issue on Amazons STATED intentions, not just what I THINK their intentions are.

But they could be lying in the letter.

Indeed, my one take-away from college psych classes was "if there is a discrepancy between the way someone acts and what they say, believe how they act."
But we're talking about the (presumably) considered actions of a corporation, not the psychology of an individual.

I'd reply the same way the the user did in the other link you posted. "Your letter said you want X. Fine. But you demanded Y, which has nothing to do with X."

Maybe that would hold up in court, if MR felt like throwing money and time away fighting it.

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

read the quoted case law

Looking. Can't find it. Maybe you could point me to it later?

work calls... later folks

Me too. See y'all later!

ApK

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by ApK

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

This is not really a DMCA issue. You are borrowing the eBook from the library. It isn't really you property to do with as fair use says you can. Fair use applies to purchased items. if someone strips the DRM, then that copy is not time limited and if it's kept past the time limit, then that person should be paying a fine to the library.

Fair use also says how you can use your purchased content as well.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Piper_

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.

OK, you have put a converted copy of the library eBook on your Kindle. Now you don't quite get to finish reading it before the time limit runs out. Do you keep it past the time limit to finish it or do you do the right thing and delete it, and try to borrow it again?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

I'm NOT saying that! I am referring to the personal use test case

Where does it say that it is OK to make a photocopy of a library pBook for your own personal use? Who says I can borrow say the latest bestseller from the library and make a photocopy of it so I can keep it? I know you can photocopy some of it, but I have never read or heard of being able to photocopy an entire book for personal use.

And if it really is the case that I cannot photocopy the entire pBook, then I cannot keep the eBook as it would be just as wrong.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Piper_

I understand, Lemurion. You're a good guy, and i don't want to be argumentative with you. I can see the difference, but can't see how they matter, so I can't make myself feel guilty over it.

To me, I'd compare it more to removing a "stay off the grass" sign and staying off the grass by my own will.

Or removing a speed regulator installed in my car and driving the speed limit by my own will.

I don't think the speeding thing is quite the same either way though. One being a clear law that's a matter of life and death if I ignore it... the other, well, you know. Not the same.

All I know is that the DRM is there so I only read the book within the 2-3 week period, and I'm still only reading the book within the 2-3 week period. I can't bring myself to see how I should feel the slightest twinge of guilt for that.

I'm going to leave it at that, since I need to go and I'm repeating myself now. Talk to you later.

Jaywalking on a deserted road is still against the law. Nobody is going to get hurt. But it's not legal.

Having a copy of a library eBook converted to be usable on the Kindle is also not legal. Nobody is going to get hurt as well. But still not legal.