removing DRM- is this legal?

[theducks]

Stitchawl
How do you know the ream of paper was not being (mostly) used for a work project?

I print many work related documents:
on MY printer
using MY toners (and drum life)
on MY paper
using MY computer for research and editing
using MY broadband.
on MY personal time (I am part time/hourly and lucky to have any paid work)

I know many of my neighbors have everything used at (but their SALARIED time) supplied by their employers.

[Bittybye]

If I'm not mistaken the only people who are "allowed" to remove DRM are people who need to to access the read aloud function.

But honestly how are "they" going to find out?

[voracious71]

I strip DRM. Does this make me a bad person? Maybe, but I don't care. I also try my best to treat people with kindness, help where I can and contribute to society. I think in the grand scheme of things, stripping DRM is a minor thing.

Originally Posted by Bittybye

But honestly how are "they" going to find out?

There are multiple possibilities. I believe that possessing software that circumvents DRM is illegal in Canada and the U.S.. The act of downloading the software is traceable.

A lot of reader software and devices collect reading data and synchronizes that data with a vendor's servers. Vendors are probably using at least some of that data for marketing purposes. Depending upon the data collected, it may be possible for them to infer when the DRM has been removed.

[Xanthe]

And if they start going after people who strip DRM for their own use, then the publishers will start losing people who will stop buying ebooks and either return to the public library system or start using the second-hand market.

I've got thousands and thousands of books that I've bought over the years; I don't need to buy another book to keep me in reading material. I wonder how many publishers will come and go in the time it would take me to re-read all of them?

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

There are multiple possibilities. I believe that possessing software that circumvents DRM is illegal in Canada and the U.S.. The act of downloading the software is traceable.

Cite?

A lot of reader software and devices collect reading data and synchronizes that data with a vendor's servers. Vendors are probably using at least some of that data for marketing purposes. Depending upon the data collected, it may be possible for them to infer when the DRM has been removed.

Cite? So much conjecture. So little fact.

[JoeD]

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

That doesn't help you though. Once someone has removed the easily visible mark via cropping or meta data removal, they or others can claim it's orphaned and use it without your direct permission. After a reasonable search to try to locate the original author, but that may not be easy to do (finding the original photographer) even for those who honestly try.

Hidden watermarking may help you prove they've used your photo, but having the originals/raw files would do the same, neither stop them using it and getting away with paying a standard fee only if you catch them.

Hopefully it doesn't happen and people use the system as they should, but human nature being what it is there'll be plenty of people more than happy to remove metadata/crop to use something. Unless there's some very early prosecutions over people abusing the system in that way it'll probably run rife.

[Stitchawl]

Originally Posted by 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.

I'm sure your rationalizations make you feel more comfortable.

That would be as dumb as equating an extra ten minutes at lunch with stealing from the cash drawer.

Three times a week... say a total of just 30 minutes... perhaps $10.00 worth a week times 50 weeks... $500.00 a year... Yep, I'd equate that with stealing from the cash drawer if I were the one losing that from HOW MANY employees? Just imagine a company with 5,000 employees... If only 20 out of the 5,000 were doing it, it adds up to a loss of $10,000.00 a year. Even pencils added up to a lot of money lost by large companies. But people rationalize it by saying "gosh, I only took a pencil. That's not stealing, is it?" As I said, I'm sure their rationalizations make them feel more comfortable.

Originally Posted by theducks

Stitchawl
How do you know the ream of paper was not being (mostly) used for a work project?

Because, as I said in my post, I know the fellow who was doing it. He does NO work at home for his company. But to him, taking a ream of paper from the supply room, when he sees 20-30 boxes, each filled with a dozen reams, is justified by saying 'gosh, it was only a ream of paper. It's not as if I really stole anything!' I'm sure his rationalizations make him feel more comfortable.

We've all done it, at one time or another, and never thought of it as 'stealing.' Over-changed at the check-out counter, taking home supplies from work, taking a wee bit of extra company time for personal use... That's why when giving polygraph tests for job interviews, the examiner asks 'have you ever "knowingly" stolen from an employer."

Theft is theft. It's up to the individual to acknowledge it or not.


Stitchawl

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by Stitchawl

Theft is theft. It's up to the individual to acknowledge it or not.
Stitchawl

One of the companies I worked for in the (distant) past, had clauses in their contract that said things such as this:

"Overwork up to one hour per day will not be paid unless the total overwork time in one week is more than three hours."

"The company may plan meetings after regular working time. A notification will be sent out at least two days beforehand. Attendance is obligatory."

The manager could ask you: "Could you do such and such, before morning?" And he'd do so about 5 minutes before closing time, knowing that it'd probably not take an hour. If a meeting was shorter than one hour, it didn't need to be paid for as it was schedueled as "overwork".

There some times that I was loosing 2-3 hours a week, which adds up to 8-12 hours a month. I'm not even counting the fact that I was often *just* missing public transport (which would not happen if I would be able to leave at the normal closing time), which would add another lost half hour for that day.

To sum it up, working 10 hours hours or so extra a month for no pay, saved that company a fair sum of money. A few hundred euro's at least.

"But it was in your contract when you signed it."

Yes, it was. Extra work is normally occasional, and it always was, up to the point where we got a new manager. He started to exploit that clause, where he tried to just grab up to three extra hours a week per employee, trying to stay *just* under the limit each month, as of which this extra work would be regarded as "structural" by law, and therefore undesirable and against the law.

I'm not one to complain quickly, and if occasional work needs to be done, I'll often be the first one to volunteer. If properly paid, I'll work 10 extra hours in a week, instead of a month, if something needs to be really finished. No problems with that. You pay, I work.

However, overwork with no pay goes on long enough purposefully staying *just* within the limits of the law, I'm starting to view that as theft of my time, even if it's still (barely) legal. The workweek in the Netherlands is 40 hours, and sometimes longer, and it can be (partly) unpaid, on occasion. An occasion should not occur every week. Certainly not unpaid.

Combine that with the fact one would catch flack and got reprimanded if coming in 5 minutes late, for whatever reason (often with reprimands like "You know, if everyone would do that, the company would lose X amount of money.", or "In this way, you're stealing working time from the department."), then you expect me to go looking for another job, and you can look forward to my letter of resignation.

===

(Of course there are also contracts for management functions high up on the ladder, that say things like: "Your salary includes payment for any overwork, which can be up to X amount of hours a week", where X can sometimes be up to 15-20 hours a week. If you sign that, then you shouldn't complain; but in that case, you're probably earning salaries that will make you a millionaire, in time.)

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Cite?

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/a.../FullText.html

Section 41.1 makes it illegal to distribute such technologies, devices, and components within Canada. It also makes it illegal to import such technologies, devices, and components.

Or did you want citations on downloading software being traceable? If you believe that downloads are not traceable, I suggest picking up a tool like Wireshark and seeing how much information can be gleaned from your Internet connection.

Cite?

We know that companies like Amazon and Kobo are synchronizing reading data with their servers. Amazon stores, as a minimum, where you left off reading as well as highlights and annotations on their servers. If you have an Amazon account, you can verify this for yourself at http://kindle.amazon.com. Kobo's reader software also collects a lot of statistics at least some of which are synchronized with servers. I would have to do some experimentation to figure out how much information since it has been a while since I looked into it.

So much conjecture. So little fact.

About the only conjecture is that vendors can use the data collected to surmise which books have had DRM removed. We know that these companies collect data about what and how we read. It is something that people can easily verify for themselves. At least some of that data is used for marketing purposes. Again, it is something that you can easily verify for yourself by looking at marketing materials from the vendors. None of that is conjecture. All of that is fact. You would be a fool to believe otherwise. What we don't know is the depth of the data collection and data usage. It may be a case of what we see is what is happening, or it may go much deeper. We simply don't know because the process is opaque. The possibility does exist though.

Originally Posted by Katsunami

There some times that I was loosing 2-3 hours a week, which adds up to 8-12 hours a month.

You are lucky to get away with that little unpaid overtime. The BBC has had a number of articles on this issue over the years. Punch "unpaid overtime site:bbc.co.uk" into your favourite search engine and be dazzled by the number of hits. A particularly telling article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4273169.stm

At least two Canadian provinces (BC and Ontario) have declared a war on teachers and legislated teachers to do voluntary work, most of which is unpaid and takes place outside of normal business hours. That is unionized teaching. Ununionized teachers often face a lot worse. (I was typically doing 20 to 40 hours per week of unpaid labour while teaching on reserves, but that is a very special circumstance.)

[shalym]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/a.../FullText.html

Section 41.1 makes it illegal to distribute such technologies, devices, and components within Canada. It also makes it illegal to import such technologies, devices, and components.

It's illegal to distribute, but is it also illegal to possess? As far as I know, it isn't illegal to possess the software in the U.S., only to distribute. I'm not sure about Canada, though I thought it was the same.

Shari

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

You are lucky to get away with that little unpaid overtime. The BBC has had a number of articles on this issue over the years. Punch "unpaid overtime site:bbc.co.uk" into your favourite search engine and be dazzled by the number of hits. A particularly telling article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4273169.stm

At least two Canadian provinces (BC and Ontario) have declared a war on teachers and legislated teachers to do voluntary work, most of which is unpaid and takes place outside of normal business hours. That is unionized teaching. Ununionized teachers often face a lot worse. (I was typically doing 20 to 40 hours per week of unpaid labour while teaching on reserves, but that is a very special circumstance.)

Average of 10-12 hours of overtime for teachers? That means 10-11.5 hour workdays. This can happen on occasion (and has to be granted by an overseeing organization if it's for a longer time), but it's certainly not unpaid. That's illegal in the Netherlands. If a company is structurally causing employees to work 10+ hours extra a week without paying extra (excep for the special high level positions as mentioned), they'll be in trouble at some point.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by shalym

It's illegal to distribute, but is it also illegal to possess? As far as I know, it isn't illegal to possess the software in the U.S., only to distribute. I'm not sure about Canada, though I thought it was the same.

Yep. Distribute, not possess. And I'm curious if anyone has ever been prosecuted for distributing, seeing as the number of available DRM removal software available in a simple google search is pretty long.

Originally Posted by jgaiser

Yep. Distribute, not possess. And I'm curious if anyone has ever been prosecuted for distributing, seeing as the number of available DRM removal software available in a simple google search is pretty long.

The law basically says you can't obtain it from within the country (since it is illegal to distribute within the country) and you can't import it from outside of the country. That pretty much means that the software is illegal to possess, it is simply a matter of who is going to be charged.

It should also be noted that I'm not claiming that law enforcement or corporate lawyers are going to start charging (or suing) people. The original comment simply implied that it would be impossible to catch DRM removal. While the process of removing DRM may be impossible to detect, it is possible for you to be caught for related crimes. Again, I'm not saying that it will happen. I'm just saying that the tools are there if someone decides to do so.