Tor/Forge Books Announces DRM-Free E-book Store

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

Thst's ONE reason of MANY.

That's the MAIN reason because Amazon's discounting was cutting into hardcover sales.

[Lynx-lynx]

Originally Posted by ApK

In the US, the DMCA has wording that may seem to make any circumvention of DRM illegal, but courts have disagreed on the meaning, and there is other language in the law that gives reason to disagree on the scope.
Terms of Service often contain "only on the one device" language but TOSes that try to unfairly infringe on consumer's rights are likely to be unenforceable.

APK that would be my general understanding of the operation of Consumer Law in Aus as well.

However, I'm unsure how 'tested' it is.

In the meantime it seems that if there is no legal clarification or actual statute on reading your purchased ebook on any device it seems to me that one can not be in violation for doing so.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

That's the MAIN reason because Amazon's discounting was cutting into hardcover sales.

So hardcover sales have recovered since then?

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

Thst's ONE reason of MANY and that doesn't equate to we want Amazon, one of top outlets for our product, to fail because they discounted a few hundred titles lower than we wanted.

Indeed. It isn't a general "We Want Amazon To Fail". It's "Oh My God! Ebooks are going to undercut our cash cow pbooks".

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Indeed. It isn't a general "We Want Amazon To Fail". It's "Oh My God! Ebooks are going to undercut our cash cow pbooks".

Amend your statement with...

"Oh My God! Ebooks are going to undercut our cash cow pbooks because Amazon is undercutting the price of pBooks."

Amazon is the first one to do the $9.99 bestsellers. Sure, other sites matched like Sony, but Amazon was first to do it and the one the publishers are after.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Lynx-lynx

Ninjalawyer when you say 'technically illegal' do you mean that the instance of removing DRM in order to view your purchased ebook on another device isn't specifically mentioned?

The DMCA says:

No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

The Act defines what it means in Section 1201(a)(3):

(3) As used in this subsection— (A) to "circumvent a technological measure" means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and (B) a technological measure "effectively controls access to a work" if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Amazon is the first one to do the $9.99 bestsellers. Sure, other sites matched like Sony, but Amazon was first to do it and the one the publishers are after.

So.. Buying at wholesale prices and *maybe* losing some money on a few sales is reason to destroy a company? Is that what you're saying the BPHs had planned? So when B&N marks down their paper books, also purchased at wholesale, that's fine, but Amazon is somehow a monopolistic, evil corporation for doing exactly the same thing? Is that right?

And once again, unless you have inside information, which I seriously doubt, you have *no* idea what the BPHs had in mind when the instituted Agency pricing other than to save their precious paper sales (which they pretty much admitted to).

[JSWolf]

There are exceptions to the DMCA in terms of removing DRM and there is no legal ruling if DMCA trumps fair use So this is why it's a gray area.

[plib]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I don't doubt it. And yet this is the guy we're supposed to bow to when it comes to industry knowledge in general?

Curses! You beat me to it!

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'm not sure your numbered points are relevant to your final question, Barcey. Are you asking me how I could have predicted ebooks would have taken off the way they did despite my best efforts to put speed bumps and spike-strips in their (ebooks') path?

I was just saying that the ebook marketplace the BPH envisioned was so dysfunctional it couldn't grow very fast. They had no initiative to fix it so from their view they couldn't predict it would succeed or grow so fast. Amazon made it succeed despite the shackles and that's why they're evil.

[Lynx-lynx]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

The DMCA says:

The Act defines what it means in Section 1201(a)(3):

Thanks Elfwreck ... it seems from reading the US law then that one CAN break the DRM provided they are not violating the rights stated.

Breaking DRM in order to (merely) read the purchased ebook on a reader of choice is not in itself violating any rights as stated in that excerpt.

But heh, that's just my observation .....

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

The DMCA says:

The Act defines what it means in Section 1201(a)(3):

It also says in that section:
`(c) OTHER RIGHTS, ETC., NOT AFFECTED- (1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.

So if making personal non-commercial copies of works is usually held to be fair use....

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Lynx-lynx

Thanks Elfwreck ... it seems from reading the US law then that one CAN break the DRM provided they are not violating the rights stated.

Breaking DRM in order to (merely) read the purchased ebook on a reader of choice is not in itself violating any rights as stated in that excerpt.

But heh, that's just my observation .....

In one notable decision from each, the 5th circuit court seems to agree with you and the 9th seems to disagree.

By the way, this specific issue is currently under review by the US copyright office for possibly being added as a class of exempted works.

There were a series of hearings over the last month with various civil libertarians speaking for this exemption, and several content-producer's lawyers arguing against it.

http://www.copyright.gov/1201/hearin...nda/index.html

Here's rooting for class 10B!

ApK

[Lynx-lynx]

Originally Posted by ApK

In one notable decision from each, the 5th circuit court seems to agree with you and the 9th seems to disagree.

By the way, this specific issue is currently under review by the US copyright office for possibly being added as a class of exempted works.

There were a series of hearings over the last month with various civil libertarians speaking for this exemption, and several content-producer's lawyers arguing against it.

http://www.copyright.gov/1201/hearin...nda/index.html

Here's rooting for class 10B!

ApK

ApK thank you and yep here's to common bloody sense prevailing!!!! (Although life experience suggests that 'common' sense isn't that common)

"10B. Legally acquired digital media (motion pictures, sound recordings, and e-books) for personal use and for the purposes of making back-up copies, format shifting, access, and transfer."

[jl_carter]

Originally Posted by Lynx-lynx

If this question has been asked and answered oft times before, then please excuse my ignorance in advance .....

Does your country (each person's) specifically have rules / regs / laws / that say one can not break DRM on a purchased ebook in order to read said ebook on a device of their choice? (I am not talking about copying the book to other persons)

If there is some kind of caveat written by the seller into the purchase 'agreement' of the ebook stating that one can't read the ebook on any other device, and no State / Federal law regarding this issue, then any inconsistency would more likely than not (?) go in favour of the State / Federal law than the selling agent's intentions - that is no binding reason why a person can not remove the DRM.

I'm not sure that Australia has a law that says that I can't remove DRM in order to read a book that I have purchased on any device I choose.

The Copyright Act 1968 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/c...act/ca1968133/) sets out both civil and criminal sanctions against the circumvention of DRM:

COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 - SECT 116AN
Circumventing an access control technological protection measure

(1) An owner or exclusive licensee of the copyright in a work or other subject-matter may bring an action against a person if:

(a) the work or other subject-matter is protected by an access control technological protection measure; and

(b) the person does an act that results in the circumvention of the access control technological protection measure; and

(c) the person knows, or ought reasonably to know, that the act would have that result.

COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 - SECT 132APC
Circumventing an access control technological protection measure

(1) A person commits an offence if:

(a) the person engages in conduct; and

(b) the conduct results in the circumvention of a technological protection measure; and

(c) the technological protection measure is an access control technological protection measure; and

(d) the person engages in the conduct with the intention of obtaining a commercial advantage or profit.

Penalty: 60 penalty units.

The relevant exceptions and defences are set out in subsections (2) to (9) in each section.

So, if you do it for commercial advantage or profit, you're breaking the law: if you do it privately, you could be sued for damages in the unlikely event that the copyright holder knew about it.

JL