removing DRM- is this legal?

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by AlexBell

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.

Part of it is exaggerated paranoia—fear of pirating—but much of it is what the publishers fear will be a loss of sales. They would rather you buy a copy each for each device and format you have, something you wouldn't have to do if you removed the DRM.

[AlexBell]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

Part of it is exaggerated paranoia—fear of pirating—but much of it is what the publishers fear will be a loss of sales. They would rather you buy a copy each for each device and format you have, something you wouldn't have to do if you removed the DRM.

But we could argue over whether it is morally right for them to insist that I buy a second copy of a book just to have a backup or to read it on an new ereader. I don't think it is. They still wouldn't lose a sale because I would not buy a second copy.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by AlexBell

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.

They want more than one sale. One thing that was learned while music went through the various format changes was that people would keep buying the same stuff over and over again. It was easy money for the publishers. They want the same thing for books. If you can keep a copy forever, that's only one sale. If you have to buy it again when your ereader dies and the DRM update service is no longer being provided, then it's money in the bank for them. Not being able to legally resell and even lend the books in many cases is also a form of control that they never had over paper books.

I'm not saying you should have a guilty conscience over breaking the DRM, but I am saying that they have the law on their side, and that can have consequences for scofflaws. Fair or not, they play by the rules of the legal system, and DRM-breakers very likely don't. The fact that they spent reasonably large amounts of money to influence the laws means that they think it would make a difference. It's not about harm, but rather about power.

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by ApK

Paul or DD might chime here, but I don't believe that is universally true. In some systems, if you cannot access the the server at that future date, you can't access your content to do the stripping. MS's LIT was a prime example of this happening in real life.

Remember that none of the current stripping solutions actually "break" the DRM in a cryptography cracking sense. They merely use the access you legitimately have in a novel way.

ApK

I'm not sure that's accurate. As long as you can read the DRM'd material on your computer, it implies your computer has the required keys to unlock the material and it's those keys that most DRM removal programs make use of. With MS lit if you still have the lit reader installed and able to read the DRM'd books you can likely strip it. If you don't however, you might not be able to install it now (assuming the drm servers are gone, which I think they are with .lit?)

This applies to the kindle too although I don't want to go into any more details in case this discussion gets too close to this sites T&Cs.

Either way, if the OP doesn't want to strip DRM right now, they'd just need to check what they need to strip it in the future. The risk of course is that your computer crashes, you may still have the book access but if you don't have a computer authorised to read them and the DRM servers are shut at that point, then you really are out of luck.

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by rkomar

They want more than one sale. One thing that was learned while music went through the various format changes was that people would keep buying the same stuff over and over again. It was easy money for the publishers.

One difference there is that music generally increased in quality rather than just being a pure format shift. Although some may argue it lost quality moving from vinyl. Going cassette to CD was an improvement. CD to mp3 however was not (convenience yes, quality, no). I could understand wanting people to rebuy cassette to CD, but not CD to mp3.

Same for movies, going vhs to DVD to Bluray are all quality improvements and you should rebuy if you want them. However, is someone is happy with DVD quality and want to just convert that to their phone/tablet/computer they shouldn't need to rebuy imo.

If you buy the bluray you should be free to convert that down to any quality you want for any device freely. If you however want to get a 2k/4k/3d version in the future, expect to pay.

imho of course I also agree with you that publishers want to sell each and every format. If they could i expect they'd lock content to one device only and one reader and require you to rebuy for future devices even of the same type.

With books, going paper to ebook or between ebook formats should be legal.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by JoeD

I'm not sure that's accurate. As long as you can read the DRM'd material on your computer..

It is accurate. The possibilty of losing the ability to read it is precisely what I'm talking about. That's what losing access to it is.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by cromag

I don't fully agree.

Sounds like we fully agree to me. I agree with everything you said.

[Howlingwolf]

Originally Posted by AlexBell

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.

How on earth did you get from the thoroughly dishonest bleating about how sorry they are when they get caught to this?

[Xanthe]

Originally Posted by ApK

It is accurate. The possibilty of losing the ability to read it is precisely what I'm talking about. That's what losing access to it is.

Happened to me with some music I had purchased some years ago - being the good consumer and buying the singles instead of getting them via P2P. The DRM was tied to my computer at the time of purchase/download. When I got a new computer after the HD on the old one died, I lost access to the music and the seller would not reauthorize to the new computer. Needless to say, I was PO'd.

After I lost those purchases, I made sure that I either bought non-DRM products, or stripped the DRM off to ensure that I would retain the ability to access what I had bought no matter what device I used.

[CRussel]

Originally Posted by Xanthe

Happened to me with some music I had purchased some years ago - being the good consumer and buying the singles instead of getting them via P2P. The DRM was tied to my computer at the time of purchase/download. When I got a new computer after the HD on the old one died, I lost access to the music and the seller would not reauthorize to the new computer. Needless to say, I was PO'd.

After I lost those purchases, I made sure that I either bought non-DRM products, or stripped the DRM off to ensure that I would retain the ability to access what I had bought no matter what device I used.

We've all been there and been just as PO'd as you. And that is why I made a personal decision to strip all the content I buy.

Oh, and fjtorres: "Either you're comfortable doing it or you're not.
The legal liability issue is a moot point either way."

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by CRussel

Oh, and fjtorres: "Either you're comfortable doing it or you're not.
The legal liability issue is a moot point either way."

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Ooohh, Wikipedia (among others) thinks it means exactly what I meant:

In American law, a matter is moot if further legal proceedings with regard to it can have no effect, or events have placed it beyond the reach of the law. Thereby the matter has been deprived of practical significance or rendered purely academic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moot_point

The thing is, I'm not british.

[AlexBell]

Originally Posted by Howlingwolf

How on earth did you get from the thoroughly dishonest bleating about how sorry they are when they get caught to this?

I'm sorry, I don't understand what it is that you don't understand.

If I read the post to which I responded correctly it was a slur about those who break DRM, with the implication that if it's the law it must be right. And if I read your post correctly - forgive me if I don't - you are calling me thoroughly dishonest for breaking DRM because you think DRM is justified by law.

The laws enabling a slave owner to rape one of his slaves and sell his child and making it an criminal offence to help a slave to escape were just as much laws as the law governing DRM. But they were unjust immoral laws, and if I had lived at the time I hope I would have had no qualms about breaking them. Would that have made me thoroughly dishonest, do you think?

Of course the law on DRM is nowhere near as serious as the slavery laws I've mentioned. But the principle is the same.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by AlexBell

If I read the post to which I responded correctly it was a slur about those who break DRM, with the implication that if it's the law it must be right.

This may be part if the confusion. You did not read the post correctly. It had nothing to do with DRM. It was a slur against the argument that "breaking the law is OK as long as you don't get caught.".

(Which is also basically what I was objecting to, BTW.)

[Stitchawl]

I'm always amazed at the different ways people view 'theft.'
For many, it's wrong to do XYZ, but perfectly OK to to do ABC. A fellow I know thinks nothing of sticking a ream of printer paper into his brief case at work when no one is looking, but is shocked when he sees a homeless man steal a sandwich from a convenience store. How many fudge (stealing from the company) an extra 10-20 minutes at lunchtime a couple of times a week, yet would never in a million years think of stealing money out of the petty cash drawer (the same 'stealing from the company.)

It always reminds me of the scene in 'Casablanca' where Rick is talking with Ugarte, Ugarte saying that Rick despises him, rationalizing that he performs a service for the people at a lower rate than the other crooks, and Rick responds with; "I don't mind a parasite. I object to a cut-rate one." We all have our own rationalizations for the petty criminal acts we do, convincing ourselves we aren't breaking any 'real' laws. How many pens and pencils do you have at home that came from work? Is that really costing your company anything? If you work for a major multi-national, and every employee took home one cheap pen a week for a year, do you have any idea how many thousands of dollars that would add up to?!?

Let's face facts. Diogenes is still searching for his honest man.


Stitchawl

[ApK]

Do you really believe in the sort of blind, unthinking absolutism you just spouted?
You can use extreme fringe cases to illustrate a point, but to suggest all cases ACTUALLY are the same, is silly.
We might forgive and allow the hungry man's taking a sandwich, that does not mean we take the same attitude when he kills some one to get the sandwich. That would be as dumb as equating an extra ten minutes at lunch with stealing from the cash drawer.