Price of ebooks and copyrights

[Liz Groot]

Originally Posted by nursedude

That's a great idea. Studios are already doing this with some movies being released. (Buy the Blu-Ray and get a digital copy for use on a portable device/computer). For me the only drawback to that idea is I don't want/need two copies of the same book.

Of course, you could simply choose to receive only the e-version. It is just people who are addicted to the lovely smell of paper and dust who would like to receive both. I also got the idea because I could get the paper version cheaper than the e-version ...

[Liz Groot]

Originally Posted by taming

It is very rare indeed for a book sold by Kobo (unless it is a fixed format book for the Vox reader) NOT to have an ePUB option to download into Adobe's ADE program and then transfer to readers that support that format. They generally have DRM, but it is the kind of DRM that people seem to routinely remove (google Apprentice Alf) and then change the format to one that can be used on the Kindle using a program like Caibre.

When you buy a book from Kobo, the page that the sale completion generates has a blue button to download the ePUB. The same button is present on the library listings for books bought on the Kobo website.

When I bought the book, I thought I could simply use Calibre to convert the epub-file for my Kindle. After complaining on mobileread.com, I did some more 'research' and found the good Apprentice Alf. So now I have removed the DRM. But I think that is piracy, even though I bought the book. Only, this act of piracy does not make me feel guilty, because I bought the book.

[Liz Groot]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

You mean you didn't go to the competitor's store to shoplift a pair of pants in the right size after buying a pair that was the wrong size?

Who goes shoplifting? You can go back to the shop and they kindly swap the sizes for you. Nevertheless, I like the comparison.
Do you think it is piracy to remove the DRM from a bought ebook? Please give me another comparison.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Liz Groot

When I bought the book, I thought I could simply use Calibre to convert the epub-file for my Kindle. After complaining on mobileread.com, I did some more 'research' and found the good Apprentice Alf. So now I have removed the DRM. But I think that is piracy, even though I bought the book. Only, this act of piracy does not make me feel guilty, because I bought the book.

Piracy and DRM removal a pretty different IMO. Piracy is taking something you have no legal right to against the legal owners wishes and/or willfully enabling and encouraging others to do the same.

DRM removal is altering something you may have legally bought so you can use it. Kind of like shortening the aforementioned pants. A little murky because of the EULA but far from piracy.

You stated in your first post that you were induced to piracy and made no mention of DRM removal. I assumed you actually meant piracy as this is not a DRM related thread.

DRM removal may be in many cases be used to faciltate piracy, but definitely not piracy itself.

Helen

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Piracy and DRM removal a pretty different IMO. Piracy is taking something you have no legal right to against the legal owners wishes and/or willfully enabling and encouraging others to do the same.

DRM removal is altering something you may have legally bought so you can use it. Kind of like shortening the aforementioned pants. A little murky because of the EULA but far from piracy.

You stated in your first post that you were induced to piracy and made no mention of DRM removal. I assumed you actually meant piracy as this is not a DRM related thread.

DRM removal may be in many cases be used to faciltate piracy, but definitely not piracy itself.

Helen

Not as different as you might think Helen because actually, under the anti-circumvention section of the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the "DMCA"), DRM removal is illegal, not just "murky".

From the DMCA:

1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems2(a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures. — (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. ...

And from the Electronic Freedom Foundation:

In a nutshell, the DMCA anti-circumvention provisions forbid the making, distribution and use of technologies that allow people to "circumvent," i.e., break, digital rights management (DRM) and "other technical protection measures" used to lock down copyrighted works. While this ban was meant to deter copyright infringement, many have misused the law to chill competition, free speech, and fair use.

How dare you make reasonable changes to software you bought to make it more useful to you! You filthy pirates disgust me.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Actually, under the anti-circumvention section of the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act, DRM removal is illegal, not just murky.

The poster who was talking about removing DRM, though, is in the Netherlands, so the DMCA is irrelevant. I don't know about Dutch law in particular, but I don't know of any EU country in which DRM removal for personal use is illegal.

In the US, a number of legal authorities have expressed the view that DRM removal is not illegal, because the Fair Use clause of copyright law "trumps" the DMCA but, until a case goes to court, both the "it's illegal" and "it's not illegal" camps are merely expressing an opinion.

[cfrizz]

Originally Posted by avantman42

Despite spending many hours on this forum, I didn't realise that I'd assumed that any ePub would work on any ePub-compatible device.

One would think so, but that is not the case. If you have a Sony reader, you cannot load B&N ebooks onto the Sony.

This is the reason I had no interest in getting a Nook. I'm not interested in being locked into their store any more than I am interested in being locked into Amazon's store.

[Catlady]

But the Nook can read epubs from stores other than BN, so there's no lock-in to the BN store as there is with Amazon.

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by avantman42

My understanding is that a format is considered a standard if it is ratified by a standards body. I believe ePub has been ratified by such a body, and Mobi hasn't.

What body is that? Genuine question.

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by Catlady

But the Nook can read epubs from stores other than BN, so there's no lock-in to the BN store as there is with Amazon.

The Kindle can read mobis from stores other than Amazon.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

What body is that? Genuine question.

The International Digital Publishing Forum (IPDF). See:

http://idpf.org/

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The poster who was talking about removing DRM, though, is in the Netherlands, so the DMCA is irrelevant. I don't know about Dutch law in particular, but I don't know of any EU country in which DRM removal for personal use is illegal.

In the US, a number of legal authorities have expressed the view that DRM removal is not illegal, because the Fair Use clause of copyright law "trumps" the DMCA but, until a case goes to court, both the "it's illegal" and "it's not illegal" camps are merely expressing an opinion.

That's partially true, but actually in the U.S. the anti-circumvention section of the DMCA has been used to, among other things, stop certain computer research. In 2001, a programmer was jailed for a few weeks after speaking at a conference. The programmer wasn't accused of infringing copyright, merely working on software tools that could be used to break DRM. The anti-circumvention section has also been used in lawsuits to stifle competition.

The point is the language in the DMCA has real world consequences in the U.S., it's not just some interesting puffery for academics to argue about.

[HarryT]

I agree with you; just saying that the person asking the question isn't actually in the US.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Not as different as you might think Helen because actually, under the anti-circumvention section of the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the "DMCA"), DRM removal is illegal, not just "murky".

From the DMCA:



And from the Electronic Freedom Foundation:



How dare you make reasonable changes to software you bought to make it more useful to you! You filthy pirates disgust me.

Kind of murky in Canada, just as copying/downloading is unless recent laws have been passed that I am unaware of.

Years ago, Canada passed laws imposing an exra charge on cassette tapes, photocopy paper, CD recorders/copiers and the within last ten years blank CDs Ipods et. al, and hard drives.

The money collected this way was to go to a fund to compensate musicians/writers etc. Can't imagine that the money was distributed in a fair and equitable manner, but maybe it was. My understanding (from an article I read years ago) was that if they distributed the money to everyone deserving it, that they would all have to give back change from a penny.

I think that these charges were levied, not to protect musiicians/authors etc., but to allow the sale of cassette recorders, photocopiers for public use (at several thousand a pop way back when). The main beneficiaries were large electronic manufacturers.


These laws made things murky in Canada at least, as it was no longer illegal to copy copyrighted works as the originators were supposed to be getting compensated according to government imposed standards. It was illegal to sell these copies, but this did not slow many down while the hardware was relatively expensive, profits were high, and the internet was young.

Perhaps instead of suing individuals, who are mostly not capable of paying huge fines or even court costs, (not saying whether it is right or wrong to sue them, jut low ROE) but the companies who developed and sold the devices to us, the masses, should be made responsible. Could get pretty ugly with some companies having to sue themselves.


Sorry to stray so far off topic, can't stop myself at times.

I still contend that the small amount going to the copyright holder is unlikely to severely impact the proud owner of an ereader but that is just as off topic as defined by the OP.

Oh well, once the Electronic Freedom Foundation has freed all of the electronics, things will be different I am sure.

Helen

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

That's partially true, but actually in the U.S. the anti-circumvention section of the DMCA has been used to, among other things, stop certain computer research.

I tried to google this, but am failing to find research project(s) that were stopped. What did I miss?

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

In 2001, a programmer was jailed for a few weeks after speaking at a conference.

Googling shows this was Dmitry Sklyarov. He turned states evidence against his employer, which was nonetheless acquited.

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

The programmer wasn't accused of infringing copyright, merely working on software tools that could be used to break DRM.

He wrote a commercial product to remove Adobe PDF DRM (this was before ePUB).

Further googling shows that the software he wrote, and his employer marketed, had its own customized scheme to prevent unauthorized copying of the software. And, ironically -- at least it's ironic to me -- the DRM breaking software's own DRM was broken.