Piracy vs Bookstores

[Redcard]

What we are facing here is an interesting conundrum.

It's what happens when convenience and availability intersect.

I believe that authors should be compensated for their work. No doubt about it. Even software authors. Website authors. Press authors.

So let's ask a different question..

What's the difference between shifting format from paperback to ebook (or darknetting for the ebook you already own in paperback form) and using libprs500 to communicate with your Sony reader? Because in both cases, you are usurping an author. What's the difference between buying a subscription to USA Today and using Kovid's "News" function in libprs500 to scrape the site? Because in both cases, you are shifting formats.

I don't mean to call Kovid out, by any means.. but let's be careful when we throw around the term "lawbreakers" and "thief." The law as it stands right now (at least in the US) could call many of us that simply for using something to convert HTML to LRF.

Right now we have 1984 posted here on this website, and that's not out of copyright in the United States. Technically, we're "thieves" if we download that book.

So no, it's not black and white. It's all shades of gray. We content ourselves with using libprs500 out of a matter of convenience. It's worth considering that.

That said, I will always prefer to pay for products, and I have not owned my Reader long enough to really go out and find Darknet books, and I tend to be the "web author" type myself.. so.. I don't think I'll face the issue. But all the same, as I mentioned earlier.. I would consider doing such for the Chronicles of Narnia.

[cmbs]

Originally Posted by Redcard

What we are facing here is an interesting conundrum.

It's what happens when convenience and availability intersect.

I believe that authors should be compensated for their work. No doubt about it. Even software authors. Website authors. Press authors.

So let's ask a different question..

What's the difference between shifting format from paperback to ebook (or darknetting for the ebook you already own in paperback form) and using libprs500 to communicate with your Sony reader? Because in both cases, you are usurping an author. What's the difference between buying a subscription to USA Today and using Kovid's "News" function in libprs500 to scrape the site? Because in both cases, you are shifting formats.

I don't mean to call Kovid out, by any means.. but let's be careful when we throw around the term "lawbreakers" and "thief." The law as it stands right now (at least in the US) could call many of us that simply for using something to convert HTML to LRF.

Right now we have 1984 posted here on this website, and that's not out of copyright in the United States. Technically, we're "thieves" if we download that book.

So no, it's not black and white. It's all shades of gray. We content ourselves with using libprs500 out of a matter of convenience. It's worth considering that.

That said, I will always prefer to pay for products, and I have not owned my Reader long enough to really go out and find Darknet books, and I tend to be the "web author" type myself.. so.. I don't think I'll face the issue. But all the same, as I mentioned earlier.. I would consider doing such for the Chronicles of Narnia.

It is exactly black and white. The gray is from your own dreaming up reasons why your behavior is acceptable.

And yes, some of the products freely discussed and linked to on Mobile Read are created solely for the purpose of breaking the law and Mobile Read promotes them. I don't know what libprs500 does, so I'm not specifically talking about that program. But if the only thing it does is illegal, then it's illegal. If you're using it for illegal purposes, then you're using it for illegal purposes.

If 1984 is not out of copyright in the US then nobody in the US should be downloading it, maybe this website shouldn't be hosting it.

Here's the thing: You want to do something illegal, so you dream up reasons why it's ok. You don't want to just accept the fact that what you're doing is illegal because then you might have moral issues with it, so you have to dream up a reason why it's not wrong. Some people even seem to think the word "illegal" is a matter of opinion when in fact the law is the law. Morals are a bit more slippery. Of course there are those who will own up to their immorality and it won't bother them, they are not the ones making up excuses why illegal activities are acceptable.

Now you're saying "hey let's not call that illegal because then we'll have to call this stuff we all like to do illegal and that could get ugly." Well, stealing is ugly. I hope you choose to stop doing it. If you're going to keep doing it I hope you'll quit lying to yourself about it and accept responsibility for your own behavior.

You wouldn't want someone stealing your work, don't steal anyone else's.

[Redcard]

No no no.

I'm not saying that we can't call it illegal. I'm just stating that if we're going to call it illegal, let's make certain we're not doing things that is also illegal. Two wrongs don't make a right. I'm not justifying my actions, but I am saying that people committing illegal acts while chastising others for committing illegal acts is kind of silly. And it all comes down to a matter of conveience. For example, legally, in the US and other countries (I don't know if Switzerland is one such place, which is where mobileread.com is registered), the act of shifting formats is illegal without permission. It's producing a derivative work. Yet this site has and promotes software to do it all day long. It's commonly used. HECK, Baen even recently used it to convert from one format into another. A major company is technically violating the law.

But.. that's because it's a matter of convenience. Like I said, what we are facing is a situation where convenience is intersecting with availability. I didn't say people are RIGHT for breaking the law. I did say that people who live in glass houses should watch how they throw the stones.

As for George Orwell, and 1984.. the book (and all his books) exit copyright in the European Union in 2020. That includes Switzerland. In the US, it expires in 2047. It is illegal to have it on this site, because this site is registered in Switzerland. If it's black and white, then the answer is anyone who downloaded that or any other George Orwell book here is a criminal.

[cmbs]

Originally Posted by Redcard

No no no.

I'm not saying that we can't call it illegal. I'm just stating that if we're going to call it illegal, let's make certain we're not doing things that is also illegal. Two wrongs don't make a right. I'm not justifying my actions, but I am saying that people committing illegal acts while chastising others for committing illegal acts is kind of silly. And it all comes down to a matter of conveience. For example, legally, in the US and other countries (I don't know if Switzerland is one such place, which is where mobileread.com is registered), the act of shifting formats is illegal without permission. It's producing a derivative work. Yet this site has and promotes software to do it all day long. It's commonly used. HECK, Baen even recently used it to convert from one format into another. A major company is technically violating the law.

But.. that's because it's a matter of convenience. Like I said, what we are facing is a situation where convenience is intersecting with availability. I didn't say people are RIGHT for breaking the law. I did say that people who live in glass houses should watch how they throw the stones.

As for George Orwell, and 1984.. the book (and all his books) exit copyright in the European Union in 2020. That includes Switzerland. In the US, it expires in 2047. It is illegal to have it on this site, because this site is registered in Switzerland. If it's black and white, then the answer is anyone who downloaded that or any other George Orwell book here is a criminal.

In that case, I'm with you.

[Nate the great]

This forum is in Canada, not the US. Escaping US copyright law is one of the reasons behind the move.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by Redcard

...

HECK, Baen even recently used it to convert from one format into another. A major company is technically violating the law.

Thank you, that was a good one.

Baen is the publisher of the works that it sells. They signed a contract with the various authors. Baen has the legal right to convert the works and sell them.

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by cmbs

If 1984 is not out of copyright in the US then nobody in the US should be downloading it, maybe this website shouldn't be hosting it.

actually, MR is hosted in Canada, where copyright is death+50. 1984 is therefore legal there, since Orwell died in 1950. Please verify such things by doing a minimum of checking, before making such accusations. MR goes to great pains to remain a legitimate site and regularly reiterates this policy in the forums.

[Redcard]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Thank you, that was a good one.

Baen is the publisher of the works that it sells. Baen has the legal right to convert the works and sell them.

Yes, but they don't have the right in the US to circumvent the LRF file format which is a proprietary held trade secret by Sony. Using a circumvention tool is against the DMCA.

Now, will Sony do anything? Nah. Why should they? Sells more readers.

But if we're going to get all technical about the law, let's be technical.

As for the server being physically in Canada, my apologies. I just went off NetSol Whois on that one . On a point of order, if anyone really did care, GoDaddy could shut down your registration on copyright complaints. They've been doing it recently.

Again, that's all I'm saying. If it's really black and white, then treating it like that shouldn't be a problem.

[cmbs]

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

actually, MR is hosted in Canada, where copyright is death+50. 1984 is therefore legal there, since Orwell died in 1950. Please verify such things by doing a minimum of checking, before making such accusations. MR goes to great pains to remain a legitimate site and regularly reiterates this policy in the forums.

First of all, I said IF and MAYBE.

Second of all, the original poster said it was illegal in the US.

Third of all, while people such as yourself often get huffy about how squeaky clean Mobile Read is, at the same time they often promote (the mods do), or allow others to promote, software that is made solely for the purpose of breaking the law. They provide instructions as to how to accomplish it. They also allow discussions where lots of people talk about how they think it's ok to steal ebooks, thereby supporting each other in their need to feel ok about illegal activities. In my opinion, if their intentions were so squeaky clean, they would not be allowing any of this on this site.

[Redcard]

My whole point here was not to start a fight or anything. I'll accept I was wrong about the hosting and handling of 1984, it was based on an entry in GoDaddy's registrar info. No problem. I was wrong.

My point is, however, to point out that laws in different nations DO create shades of gray. For example, under US law, it's questionable for US registrars to offer DNS resolution to sites that break US copyright law. That's already been in action on many sites where resolution is done by Go Daddy. Sony holds patent applications (and some patents) on various aspects of the file system and reader, and have indicated that the file format is proprietary trade secret. In some nations, you're allowed to convert to LRF / reverse engineer it.. in others, you are not. As an owner of a PSP, I recall when Sony US was shutting down sites for offering Down Conversion software that would allow you to turn a DVD into a movie file that you would put on a memory card. The stated reason was that they had UMD format out for movies. Once UMD went away, Sony themselves started manufacturing movies on the memory stick. The company protects its file formats, and the DMCA holds that circumventing or reverse engineering file formats is against the law except for in certain cases. The case of "I want to make it look better" is not one of those cases.

Now, going back to the original subject.. YES. I do convert txt files to LRF. IN US terms, I am committing an illegal act because I don't have the license to use the LRF file format. No, I do NOT get illegally distributed ebooks.

I'm sorry I even brought it up. I'm not defending pirates here. I'm just pointing out that sometimes when laws intersect, there are areas of gray.

[JSWolf]

Yes there are gray areas. Format shifting is one of them. So if I buy a MS Reader file and remove the DRM and shit it to LRF, that is a gray area until someone goes to court over that very thing and a legal decision is made.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by Redcard

Yes, but they don't have the right in the US to circumvent the LRF file format which is a proprietary held trade secret by Sony. Using a circumvention tool is against the DMCA.

Now, will Sony do anything? Nah. Why should they? Sells more readers.

But if we're going to get all technical about the law, let's be technical.

I'm not so sure this is true. A trade secret only means "I know this fact, and I'm not telling anyone". It has no legal meaning. Sony could have a copyright on the LRF format, true. But if Sony tried to pursue an infringement suit against Baen, they would first have to prove that Kovid infringed upon the copyright. So far as I know, Sony has never released the specs for BBeB. So it would be rather hard to prove that someone infringed on something he'd never seen.

[kovidgoyal]

Originally Posted by Redcard

Yes, but they don't have the right in the US to circumvent the LRF file format which is a proprietary held trade secret by Sony. Using a circumvention tool is against the DMCA.

Actually, LRF is simply the binary compiled form of an "open" XML format (LRS) that SONY has published. The DRM enabled format from SONY is LRX. No tool on this site, libprs500 included, deals with LRX. As far as I know, the DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent copy protection. LRF has no copy protection. Again as far as I know, most DMCA like laws, including the DMCA itself don't make format shifting, or time shifting illegal.

[Redcard]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

I'm not so sure this is true. A trade secret only means "I know this fact, and I'm not telling anyone". It has no legal meaning. Sony could have a copyright on the LRF format, true. But if Sony tried to pursue an infringement suit against Baen, they would first have to prove that Kovid infringed upon the copyright. So far as I know, Sony has never released the specs for BBeB. So it would be rather hard to prove that someone infringed on something he'd never seen.

Right, but my point, Nate, is that the DMCA is about JUST that. One of the purposes it has is to protect file formats and hardware locks from being reverse engineered. The fact that you don't have the spec means you don't have the right to use it, unless there are some very limited factors. One such factor under the DMCA is that software no longer exists that can access the device. The DMCA was written to protect companies like Sony from people reverse engineering their technology. If you don't believe me, read it yourself. You'll see very clearly that converting to LRF is at best a dark gray area.. and if Sony pressed the point, they'd likely win. Courts have ruled that unpublished file formats are a form of security. A weak form, but a form nonetheless.

Illegal and unethical are often two different things. In the EU, programs like MakeLRF are perfectly legal. In the US, they are perfectly ILLEGAL.

It's just.. let's be wary in saying things are in Black and White. It's obvious that there's no PURELY wrong or PURELY right state, and that's obvious because what is legal in Canada now is illegal in the US now. (re, my example with 1984.)

[Redcard]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

Actually, LRF is simply the binary compiled form of an "open" XML format (LRS) that SONY has published. The DRM enabled format from SONY is LRX. No tool on this site, libprs500 included, deals with LRX. As far as I know, the DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent copy protection. LRF has no copy protection. Again as far as I know, most DMCA like laws, including the DMCA itself don't make format shifting, or time shifting illegal.

I'd be curious where this format is, because in a letter I wrote to Sony asking them stated it was not an open protocol in the slightest, in any format. I've been working myself on a few programs to convert my friend's blogs into something readable on the Reader. They stated I was more than welcome to use txt or pdf.

They also sounded like they really didn't know how to answer my question.

As for the DMCA making it illegal to circumvent copy protection.. it also contains language that make it illegal to circumvent device access. It's been used successfully, ironically, by Sony.. to take down instructions on how to modify the firmware of the PSP game system.