removing DRM- is this legal?

Originally Posted by calvin-c

Ah, the old "it's only wrong if I get caught" argument. Fail-big time fail!

I wouldn't equate morality with the law. There is much that is legal, but immoral. There is much that is illegal, but amoral. I would consider removing DRM from a book as amoral, even though it is illegal in some jurisdictions. Unauthorized duplication and distribution of a work would be the immoral part. Likewise, there are many things that governments do that is legal but immoral. But that's best left for the religion and politics forum.

[Stitchawl]

Originally Posted by JoeD

It's going to get worse for you if you do business in the UK. Google the plans for orphaned works laws and consider how easy it is to remove meta data, claim you did a due diligence search and get away with using photographs commercially for free or at worst an industry standard fee.

This is why most photographers today are embedding their names into the photos in almost invisible locations (inside shadows, patterns, etc. and almost transparent) besides having a visible copyright name and mark. Someone can easily remove the visible stuff and the metadata, but unless they know where to look, they will never find the hidden markings. Thank goodness they aren't doing this with books as well!

Stitchawl

[Apache]

Mapmakers used to put fake streets into their maps to prevent other map makers from just copying theirs. If they found a map that was not theirs it was easy to prove copyright infringement by pointing out the false road.
Apache

[DiapDealer]

I'll leave the legalities and ethics to others, but.....

If you THINK you might want to remove DRM (and I'm not suggesting anyone do so), there's just no good reason to wait. In fact there's only risk by waiting. I can think of several ways that backup, DRMed copies of Amazon ebooks could be "stranded" with no way to liberate them. Leaving you to hope you'll still be able to download a new copy (and that the DRM scheme didn't change in the meantime).

I'm not saying there aren't steps you could take to make sure you have the best possible chance of still being able to remove the DRM sometime down the road, but at that point, you've really already begun the DeDRM process anyway. May as well finish.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Apache

Mapmakers used to put fake streets into their maps to prevent other map makers from just copying theirs. If they found a map that was not theirs it was easy to prove copyright infringement by pointing out the false road.
Apache

Totally off topic, but what the heck. Fred Worth, the guy who wrote "The Trivia Encyclopedia," tried a similar tactic. He seeded the book with some erroneous info like listing TV detective Columbo's first name as "Philip."

When the makers of the game Trivial Pursuit used that piece of info in the game, he sued for copyright infringement. The decision came down to basically "You dope, you published a reference book full of facts. Using it for info is called 'research.'"

Some people would equate the game maker's defense with "Stealing from one is plagiarism, stealing from many is research."

[forcheville]

As I understand it the DRM can only be removed by the original purchaser, or with their assistance.
Given this, publishers could cut down on piracy considerably by automatically coding a serial number that would identify the purchaser or borrower of the book in a number of very hard to find ways (such as steganography in the cover picture, blank space or via options that make no difference in the format codes etc.) but would not otherwise affect readability. These would remain in place after the DRM was removed.
This is a similar idea to the identifiers in phots and maps, except it would identify the purchaser.
Once word got around that ebooks could be traced then pirate uploads of deDRM'd books would dry up.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Normally, I would agree, but in case of removing DRM for personal uses, I don't.

Don't misunderstand me, it's the road I object to, not the destination.

I believe people should start with the assumption that laws should be obeyed, agreements should be lived up to, and other people's rights and the rules of one's society should be respected.

Then after reflecting upon matters of ethics, justice, the improper actions of others and the unfair infringement of one's own rights, then it's easy to come to the ethical conclusion that DRM should be removed.

Don't just start with premise that "I can do anything I want because they won't find out" or "I can do anything I want because I paid money."
Those premises are wrong, and those premises are bad.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by forcheville

As I understand it the DRM can only be removed by the original purchaser, or with their assistance.
Given this, publishers could cut down on piracy considerably by automatically coding a serial number that would identify the purchaser or borrower of the book in a number of very hard to find ways (such as steganography in the cover picture, blank space or via options that make no difference in the format codes etc.) but would not otherwise affect readability. These would remain in place after the DRM was removed.
This is a similar idea to the identifiers in phots and maps, except it would identify the purchaser.
Once word got around that ebooks could be traced then pirate uploads of deDRM'd books would dry up.

It's called watermarking, or social DRM. Discussed around here quite a bit. Currently most notably used by JK Rowling.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

If you THINK you might want to remove DRM (and I'm not suggesting anyone do so), there's just no good reason to wait. In fact there's only risk by waiting. I can think of several ways that backup, DRMed copies of Amazon ebooks could be "stranded" with no way to liberate them. Leaving you to hope you'll still be able to download a new copy (and that the DRM scheme didn't change in the meantime).

A personal example.

Last year sometime, I purchased three L. Sprague de Camp books from Amazon. All three were published by English publisher Gollancz, on their Gateway imprint. Sometime between then and now, they were no longer offered in the U.S. and they now longer appear on my "Manage Your Kindle" page. If they hadn't been download and DeDRMed, I would no longer have access to books I paid money for.

I download and remove DRM.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by Stitchawl

This is why most photographers today are embedding their names into the photos in almost invisible locations (inside shadows, patterns, etc. and almost transparent) besides having a visible copyright name and mark. Someone can easily remove the visible stuff and the metadata, but unless they know where to look, they will never find the hidden markings. Thank goodness they aren't doing this with books as well!

Stitchawl

Actually they are. It's called digital watermarking. Pottermore is one that is using them.

[cromag]

Originally Posted by ApK

Don't misunderstand me, it's the road I object to, not the destination.

I believe people should start with the assumption that laws should be obeyed, agreements should be lived up to, and other people's rights and the rules of one's society should be respected.

Then after reflecting upon matters of ethics, justice, the improper actions of others and the unfair infringement of one's own rights, then it's easy to come to the ethical conclusion that DRM should be removed.

Don't just start with premise that "I can do anything I want because they won't find out" or "I can do anything I want because I paid money."
Those premises are wrong, and those premises are bad.

I don't fully agree. Some laws are overturned on appeal, and that comes only after someone who believes the law is wrong tests it. I'm not a lawyer, but the courts have held in the past that a person with a legal work has the right to make a copy for archival purposes, etc. Granted, these decisions come from the analog world, but I feel entirely justified in making sure I can access, and continue to access, an ebook that I have purchased.

To emphasize, I'm not "doing anything I want" -- I'm ensuring that I can read an ebook on an ereader. (I want to be able make copies for friends, but I don't.) There's no guarantee which way the courts will find if/when the law is tested, but I believe I'm justified under the previous legal decisions.

[forcheville]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

Actually they are. It's called digital watermarking. Pottermore is one that is using them.

Glad to hear it! There should be more of this. It doesn't really stop people from removing DRM for own use, but it greatly discourages people from sharing ebooks that have had the DRM removed.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by forcheville

Glad to hear it! There should be more of this. It doesn't really stop people from removing DRM for own use, but it greatly discourages people from sharing ebooks that have had the DRM removed.

Actually, the digital watermarking is the only DRM. While the liars at Pottermore will tell you can't copy your downloaded books, you actually can. If you order the epub version, you can read it on any reader that reads epubs without having to defeat anything. The downside to digital watermarking is, if you lose your e-book reader or someone hacks into your computer or they otherwise obtain your copy of the book and spreads it over the internet, Pottermore will be holding you responsible. Since you had to buy it with a credit card, they have access to who and where you are.

[AlexBell]

Originally Posted by rkomar

Some people paid good money to have those laws enacted, and they'll want to see some return on that investment. What is "wrong" is that you are circumventing their costly rent-seeking schemes.

I'm sorry, I don't follow you. Who is harmed if I remove DRM to make a backup copy, or to put the ebook on a different reader? No one loses a cent whether I do it or not - they still have the sale.

[AlexBell]

Originally Posted by Howlingwolf

Indeed. And they are always so eager to say 'sorry' when they do get caught

So those people who did teach slaves to read and helped slaves to escape were doing wrong? Both actions were serious criminal offences at the time.

For what it is worth if I'd been around at the time I would have been ashamed of myself if I hadn't taught slaves to read, or to escape. And though I may well have been sorry if I'd been caught - until I was lynched - I hope I wouldn't have been sorry for doing either action.