Sorry Kindle, You're Not Invited

[jkeene]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

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.

Slight tangent, but I don't see how Fair Use is restricted to purchased items. I double checked the four tests of section 107 and none of them indicate ownership of a copy is required. http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

I believe a book reviewer can quote lines for a review without owning a copy of the book, for instance.

Is there something I'm missing?

[Janette55]

In a college class I took a few years ago an instructor's husband was a copywright lawyer. She said that college instructors could copy small sections of a lesson, but not the whole lesson for assistance in class. But to copy whole chapters to give to students was BREAKING the law, unless they had premission from the author and should also be from the publisher. Copyright laws forbid the copying of that extensive of a book, a whole chapter, let alone the WHOLE book. So, to copy a whole book for personal use is breaking the law. Period, there is no argument, acccording to this lawyer. She is wanting to quote her lawyer, so I guess I get to quote my lawyer,
Now, I have gone the university library and copied sections of books, jounals, mags, and other to use in a reseach paper, and knew that technically it was illegal, but have done so for my own personal usage, to be destroyed at a later date. I have also contacted authors to use a section or photo in a term paper that I felt was important enough to share (and was given persmission to do so).

To me, to make a copy of the library ebook is the same, by stripping the DRM, so I can make a copy of a ebook that does not belong to me is breaking the copywright law. To tell others how to strip the DRM so they can keep a library book (whether is is on paper or electronic, is breaking the copywright law.

That is my personal opinion. I can make a backup copy of my own ebook, it is for my own personal use. To make a copy to give to others, to share with a friend who will read it and then give it back can be a grey area, but to give to them to keep is not, it is black and white.

Carl Rogers states that is isn't so much as how I see an issue as how another persons see the issue. That to understand why they see something they way they do I must accept how they see it. That goes both ways. It matter how KK see the issue of the legality of stipping DRM and saying a Kindle can read books from a library.
What also matters is how others see it. And that is where KK is missing the whole discussion. She can shout all she wants (I am making an assumption that KK is a female), but what she is missing is that what the others believe is just as important as what she believes, not trying to force them to beleive, see it, the way she does.

In that aspect, it doesn't matter who is right.

Having said that, I do believe it is wrong for someone to tell a Kindle owner they can obtain ebooks from a library, by stripping them, and not informing them of the confusion of the legailty of it. No matter what I believe, the rightness or wrongness of the legality of it, THEY may not see it as legal and will be offended by not being informed. And that is an important aspect that is being ignored here.

So, KK can shout all she wants, but she is ignoring that the person she is telling they can read the library ebook may not agree with her method of obtaining the book, they may see it as illegal, as stealing from the library.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

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.

I'm not answering you until you find the multi-quote key and learn how to use it

Originally Posted by Janette55

In a college class I took a few years ago an instructor's husband was a copywright lawyer. She said that college instructors could copy small sections of a lesson, but not the whole lesson for assistance in class. But to copy whole chapters to give to students was BREAKING the law, unless they had premission from the author and should also be from the publisher. Copyright laws forbid the copying of that extensive of a book, a whole chapter, let alone the WHOLE book. So, to copy a whole book for personal use is breaking the law. Period, there is no argument, acccording to this lawyer. She is wanting to quote her lawyer, so I guess I get to quote my lawyer,
Now, I have gone the university library and copied sections of books, jounals, mags, and other to use in a reseach paper, and knew that technically it was illegal, but have done so for my own personal usage, to be destroyed at a later date. I have also contacted authors to use a section or photo in a term paper that I felt was important enough to share (and was given persmission to do so).

To me, to make a copy of the library ebook is the same, by stripping the DRM, so I can make a copy of a ebook that does not belong to me is breaking the copywright law. To tell others how to strip the DRM so they can keep a library book (whether is is on paper or electronic, is breaking the copywright law.

That is my personal opinion. I can make a backup copy of my own ebook, it is for my own personal use. To make a copy to give to others, to share with a friend who will read it and then give it back can be a grey area, but to give to them to keep is not, it is black and white.

Carl Rogers states that is isn't so much as how I see an issue as how another persons see the issue. That to understand why they see something they way they do I must accept how they see it. That goes both ways. It matter how KK see the issue of the legality of stipping DRM and saying a Kindle can read books from a library.
What also matters is how others see it. And that is where KK is missing the whole discussion. She can shout all she wants (I am making an assumption that KK is a female), but what she is missing is that what the others believe is just as important as what she believes, not trying to force them to beleive, see it, the way she does.

In that aspect, it doesn't matter who is right.

Having said that, I do believe it is wrong for someone to tell a Kindle owner they can obtain ebooks from a library, by stripping them, and not informing them of the confusion of the legailty of it. No matter what I believe, the rightness or wrongness of the legality of it, THEY may not see it as legal and will be offended by not being informed. And that is an important aspect that is being ignored here.

So, KK can shout all she wants, but she is ignoring that the person she is telling they can read the library ebook may not agree with her method of obtaining the book, they may see it as illegal, as stealing from the library.

huge, HUGE, HUGE difference!!!! copying and distributing in a classroom is BIG difference from copying one page (or an entire) book for you to curl up by the radiator with

[Piper_]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

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?

I've already said a gillion times I don't do or support that, JW. In the very post you're responding to, I said "I am given the book for 2-3 weeks to read. I read it within that time period and then I delete it."

I don't know what else you want me to say... ?

As for Jaywalking - ditto. See answer as I gave earlier about speeding.

Originally Posted by Janette55

But to copy whole chapters to give to students was BREAKING the law, unless they had premission from the author and should also be from the publisher. Copyright laws forbid the copying of that extensive of a book, a whole chapter, let alone the WHOLE book. So, to copy a whole book for personal use is breaking the law. Period, there is no argument, acccording to this lawyer.

His saying it would be a breach of copyright to make copies for an entire class is not his saying that "to copy a whole book for personal use is breaking the law."

Whole class is not personal use.

[Zarich]

Title was flamebait pure and simple. Ops purpose served.. he started a massive argument.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Zarich

Title was flamebait pure and simple. Ops purpose served.. he started a massive argument.

It was catchier than "Another Library to Demonstrate eReaders"

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Zarich

Title was flamebait pure and simple. Ops purpose served.. he started a massive argument.

It was an enjoyable argument (until the head-against-wall repetition set in, any way).

[jl_carter]

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

Yes, the Fifth Circuit’s decision has been cited and discussed elsewhere multiple times since it was originally made in July 2010.

But no one seems to have discussed that on September 20, the Fifth Circuit issued a revised opinion in that case. In its new decision, it found that DRM had not been circumvented and hence made no finding on DRM circumvention.

More importantly, on December 14, 2010, the Ninth Circuit found (http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastor...4/09-15932.pdf) that DRM circumvention is prohibited even if there is NO copyright violation. In the decision, the Ninth Circuit states:

In § 1201(a), Congress was particularly concerned with encouraging copyright owners to make their works available in digital formats such as “on-demand” or “pay-per-view,” which allow consumers effectively to “borrow” a copy of the work for a limited time or a limited number of uses. As the House Commerce Committee explained:

[A]n increasing number of intellectual property works are being distributed using a “client-server” model, where the work is effectively “borrowed” by the user (e.g., infrequent users of expensive software purchase a certain number of uses, or viewers watch a movie on a pay-per-view basis). To operate in this environment, content providers will need both the technology to make new uses possible and the legal framework to ensure they can protect their work from piracy.

So the intent of Congress was to prohibit the circumvention of DRM on "borrowed" items and the Ninth Circuit says their wording used is sufficiently plain and clear to give effect to that intent.

In footnote 10, the Ninth Circuit quotes the US Copyright opinion that fair use is not a defense to a violation of § 1201. In footnote 12 the Ninth Circuit "leave[s] open the question whether fair use might serve as an affirmative defense to a prima facie violation of § 1201". So there is no case law on whether fair use is a defence to DRM circumvention.

JL

[tubemonkey]

OverDrive Media Console ---> Help ---> About Copyrighted Materials...

Important Notice About Copyrighted Materials

The laws of copyright protect the digital content ("Content") that is made available in this software and associated OverDrive services. Copyrights in the Content are held by their respective owners. The Content embodies the intellectual property of a third party and is protected by law.

You may use the Content only for your personal, non-commercial use. The Content and any other copyrighted material may not be modified, copied, distributed, shared, displayed, emailed, transmitted, sold or otherwise transferred, conveyed or used, in a manner inconsistent with the Agreement, or rights of the copyright owner. You will not redistribute, transmit, assign, sell, broadcast, rent, share, lend, modify, adapt, edit, sub-license or otherwise transfer the Content. You are not granted any synchronization, public performance, promotional use, commercial sale, resale, reproduction or distribution rights for the Content.

For Content downloaded from a library service, at the end of the lending period, your license to the Content terminates, and you may no longer use or access the Content. At the end of the lending period, you are required to delete and/or destroy any and all copies of the Content. In the event OverDrive, the library or other rights holders determines you are violating permitted uses of the Content, we reserve the right to suspend or terminate your ability to use or access an OverDrive service or the Content.

[iandix]

thankyou jl_carter and tubemonkey two very useful and informative posts. I think this should put an end to 90% of the debate on this thread... just one or two inflexible types might refuse to bend ..or might read only the bits they like :-) But as far as I am concerned these have put the nail in the coffin of this debate.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by iandix

thankyou jl_carter and tubemonkey two very useful and informative posts. I think this should put an end to 90% of the debate on this thread... just one or two inflexible types might refuse to bend ..or might read only the bits they like :-) But as far as I am concerned these have put the nail in the coffin of this debate.

Um...on which side? jl_carters post indicates that it's still ambiguous, and tubemonkey's refers to the copyrighted content, not the DRMed delivery mechanism.

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by John the Miner

... about "Doesn't anybody proofread any more?" and I don't want to make a big issue out of it.
'fraid not; it's a nearly extinct art, like the dodo. Have a look at Gutenberg's efforts with its "distributed proofreaders".
I know these people are volunteers, but that's not the point.
I've been a proofie since 1957, so I have a little bit of experience in finding literals.

Welcome to Mobileread .... .... Not all threads are like this one ....

Originally Posted by kennyc

But you have to understand Amazon wants to SELL YOU BOOKS.

unless you are in a georestricted area ....

Originally Posted by Zarich

Title was flamebait pure and simple. Ops purpose served.. he started a massive argument.

Originally Posted by ApK

It was an enjoyable argument (until the head-against-wall repetition set in, any way).

[GeoffC]

It seems necessary to remind that what one country allows is not, necessarily, allowed in others.

[ A reason in my very humble opinion to why posters ought to add their Location to their profile, so apples can see they are not counter-arguing pointlessly with oranges, grapes and bananas. ]

[ApK]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

It seems necessary to remind that what one country allows is not, necessarily, allowed in others.

[ A reason in my very humble opinion to why posters ought to add their Location to their profile, so apples can see they are not counter-arguing pointlessly with oranges, grapes and bananas. ]

<-- Very well

Originally Posted by GeoffC

unless you are in a georestricted area ....

THEY WANT TO SELL YOU BOOKS. They are not any happier about the restrictions than the customers in those areas, and Amazon would prefer to sell to them if they could. That's what they say, and it seems silly to doubt that they'd want to take your money if they could.

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by ApK

THEY WANT TO SELL YOU BOOKS. They are not any happier about the restrictions than the customers in those areas, and Amazon would prefer to sell to them if they could. That's what they say, and it seems silly to doubt that they'd want to take your money if they could.

Amazon are seemingly powerful enough to 'get their own way'...