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

[pdurrant]

When thing to note about removing DRM from eBooks: Whether or not it's illegal to do so in your country, in many places the distribution of the software that allows you to remove the DRM is illegal.

It is especially peculiar in the US, where the Librarian of Congress can grant exceptions that make DRM removal legal in certain circumstances, but can't make distributing the means to remove the DRM legal.

[Lynx-lynx]

Originally Posted by jl_carter

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

hi JL .... on reading the following I would say that removing DRM in order to read a purchased ebook may just fit into this Defence clause:
---------------------

COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 - SECT 132APC

Defence--interoperability

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to the person if:

(a) the person circumvents the access control technological protection measure to enable the person to do an act; and

(b) the act:

(i) relates to a copy of a computer program (the original program ) that is not an infringing copy and that was lawfully obtained; and

(ii) will not infringe the copyright in the original program; and

(iia) relates to elements of the original program that will not be readily available to the person when the circumvention occurs; and

(iii) will be done for the sole purpose of achieving interoperability of an independently created computer program with the original program or any other program.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/c...3/s132apc.html

--------------

Mmmm ....

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The BPHs want Amazon to fail as Amazon is the thorn in their feet. They agreed to become the price fix six because they wanted to stick it to Amazon.

No they didn't. Major corporations do not get to act like spoiled children.
They became the price fix six to regain pricing control of their products in an attempt to set the perceived value of ebooks and protect pbook revenues, not to 'stick it to Amazon'.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Much as I respect Mr Stross's views, I strongly disagree with him about that. I don't think the typical punter is even aware of DRM. They buy from Amazon because of their great bookstore and customer service.

And that is exactly what Stross said in his article about this which you ought to have read. But for SF books the case is much probably different especially for the mid list books.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

And that is exactly what Stross said in his article about this which you ought to have read. But for SF books the case is much probably different especially for the mid list books.

Why do you think it's different? I buy lots of mid-list SF books from Amazon. I also buy them from Baen.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Why do you think it's different? I buy lots of mid-list SF books from Amazon. I also buy them from Baen.

Read Stross article. I find his argument convincing. It has to to with who the readers are and how they look at books (they collect them). And as I said it is mid-list that this holds for.

[jl_carter]

Originally Posted by Lynx-lynx

hi JL .... on reading the following I would say that removing DRM in order to read a purchased ebook may just fit into this Defence clause:
---------------------

COPYRIGHT ACT 1968 - SECT 132APC

Defence--interoperability

(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to the person if:

(a) the person circumvents the access control technological protection measure to enable the person to do an act; and

(b) the act:

(i) relates to a copy of a computer program (the original program ) that is not an infringing copy and that was lawfully obtained; and

(ii) will not infringe the copyright in the original program; and

(iia) relates to elements of the original program that will not be readily available to the person when the circumvention occurs; and

(iii) will be done for the sole purpose of achieving interoperability of an independently created computer program with the original program or any other program.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/c...3/s132apc.html

--------------

Mmmm ....

If you want to know what Parliament intended, you should read the Copyright Amendment Act 2006 Explanatory Memorandum (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/c...23/memo_0.html).

Of most interest are pages 98-100 (Part 2--Reproducing copyright material in a different format for private use) and pages 210-1 (the sub-s 116AN(3) interoperability exception).

JL

[Ninjalawyer]

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.

Can you direct me to a case on point where courts have suggested that the anti-circumvention portion of the DMCA is not applicable?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Can you direct me to a case on point where courts have suggested that the anti-circumvention portion of the DMCA is not applicable?

The argument is, I believe, that the DMCA doesn't override the "fair use" provisions of copyright law, and some legal experts have offered the opinion that DRM removal for personal use is covered by fair use. But until a case comes to court it's just that - opinion. It's highly unlikely, though, that someone would be prosecuted for removal DRM for personal use. Nobody is being damaged by the practice.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The argument is, I believe, that the DMCA doesn't override the "fair use" provisions of copyright law, and some legal experts have offered the opinion that DRM removal for personal use is covered by fair use. But until a case comes to court it's just that - opinion. It's highly unlikely, though, that someone would be prosecuted for removal DRM for personal use. Nobody is being damaged by the practice.

Good, that was my understanding as well, but I was suddenly worried there was a case on it that I wasn't aware of. Canada is adding anti-circumvention language to its Copyright Act, so I want to stay current(ish) on what the U.S. caselaw says.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Can you direct me to a case on point where courts have suggested that the anti-circumvention portion of the DMCA is not applicable?

In that oft-cited 5th court decision we post about a lot, it says:

However, MGE advocates too broad a definition of “access;” their
interpretation would permit liability under § 1201(a) for accessing a work simply
to view it or to use it within the purview of “fair use” permitted under the
Copyright Act. Merely bypassing a technological protection that restricts a user
from viewing or using a work is insufficient to trigger the DMCA’s
anti-circumvention provision.

I see that as a wise and completely reasonable interpretation for a provision of a "COPYRIGHT LAW." It's only supposed to help protect copyright. No copyright violation, no foul.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by jl_carter

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.

If you did it privately on legally obtained stuff, for no commercial advantage or profit, what damages would there be?

[stonetools]

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?



Read those first couple of sentences again. Seriously. You've just indicated that there was an "ebook revolution" as far back as Microsoft Reader and the .LIT format. You've even indicated that there was a leading ebook seller before Amazon. I don't care about specific companies. I'm only addressing the fact that there were clear indicators that ebooks were going to be a big deal before Amazon or Apple or Sony ever entered the device/ereader/app picture. You just supplied further evidence of that. So can we drop the pretense that publishers were utterly blindsided by ebooks? Please?

There were harbingers. It was their industry. I don't know if they could have done anything about it—I don't really care. I just know they (or Shatzkin, or you) don't get to claim they got t-boned without warning by the ebook's popularity.

Well, you are moving the goalposts yourself. Your original claim was that the publishers should have somehow engineered ebook expansion. Now you are saying that they should have just foreseen that ebooks would be big. Well, I'm sure some of them did. But the point is that HOW the ebook expansion would happen was not something that the could have "engineered"-because that depends on technological innovation, which they had no part in.
Now could the publishers have been more welcoming to ebook expansion? Again, you should understand that their job is not to make ebook adopter's dreams come through. Their job is to maximize revenue for themselves and their authors.That is an entirely legitimate and worthy goal, btw.
You should further understand that despite the ebook expansion , eighty six per cent of book revenues are from print. For most authors, print is what puts the roof over their heads. For folks in the book industry, its still print first-by a country mile. That will change in a few years. But it hasn't changed yet.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Well, you are moving the goalposts yourself. Your original claim was that the publishers should have somehow engineered ebook expansion. Now you are saying that they should have just foreseen that ebooks would be big.

That's all I've ever been trying to say. Read back through the thread to check if you like.

Stonetools: Publishers couldn't have possibly predicted the explosive popularity of ebooks.
DiapDealer: Sure they could have. Others did.

[Joykins]

Originally Posted by ApK

If you did it privately on legally obtained stuff, for no commercial advantage or profit, what damages would there be?

Presumably the cost/s of you buying the ebook/s in another format, if you're stripping to format-shift or preserve access.