Pointing users to drm stripping software isn't copyright infringment.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Robotech_Master

Begging your pardon, but the "actual issue," as explicated in the very first post in this thread, is

You're the one who wants to take it off into anal-retentive semantic land...

According to the First Law of internet forums, the topic is forbidden to remain the topic for more than 4 consecutive posts.

Currently, we are discussing the shoulds and should nots of people conflating calibre + DeDRM. You (generic you) can tell, because it is in the very post you (R_M) quoted in your previous post (which initiated mine).

Perhaps you were unaware of this rule, hence your general confusion, hence your delusion that responding according to the original topic was somehow relevant.

Expecting the thread to continue narrow-mindedly in the footsteps of the OP is rather naïve IMHO. Particularly when it is in marked contrast to the posts you are attempting to respond to -- then it devolves to flat-out silly, since you are talking past each other.

Enjoy your anal-retentive obsession with the original post, by all means.
No wonder we aren't getting anywhere.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by crich70

I imagine murg was just pointing out that Calibre isn't first and foremost a DRM removing tool. Yes, there is a plugin that works with Calibre to do that but generally it's a tool to convert text to different formats as well as to keep an ebook library sorted properly.

Which is still irrelevant to the case being discussed. DRM removal tools do exist, and Abbey House did point people at one of them. No detail matters. The details were not, in any way, at issue. The issue was whether or not telling people how to strip DRM was legal. Turns out, it is.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Shades

If they were focusing on the real issue, there was no reason to name Calibre. The fact is, it was named when there was no reason to do so. You saying it doesn't matter means nothing when, for some reason, it did matter to these groups to specifically point out Calibre. They didn't have to, but they did, in a court of law.

Sufficient details have to be provided to prove the accusation that instructions were provided. What those instructions were was not the issue. Only that they were provided.

And if they had filed the lawsuit with some vague claim of "they told people how to strip DRM" without any specifics as to how, you'd be just as outrage (which doesn't matter), and so would the court (which does). Lawyers get punished for that sort of nonsense.

But precisely what the instructions were was not at issue. Only whether or not it was legal to provide them.

Originally Posted by Shades

Regardless of whether it matters in this case or not, this has the potential to tarnish Calibre's name. It has the potential make Calibre synonymous with DeDRM and illegal activities. That's the point I'm upset with, not the fact it was mentioned. Honestly, attorneys need to do a lot more investigation on the cases they present in court...

I find myself less than concerned at who some guy on the internet who is outraged on behalf of someone they've never met and never will gets worked up over. Is Kovid upset? Do you have any idea?

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Robotech_Master

The "how" of it isn't important.

And more important, wasn't at issue in the suit.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Robotech_Master

Begging your pardon, but the "actual issue," as explicated in the very first post in this thread, is

You're the one who wants to take it off into anal-retentive semantic land...

I can't tell who you're talking to there, or even what side.

Originally Posted by taustin

I can't tell who you're talking to there, or even what side.

People don't always have to take a side. When they do take a side, they don't have to do so for the same reasons.

[murg]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Of course, thus far I have been roundly ignored there...

I think that 'roundly' may not be the right word here...

[Alexander Turcic]

Moderator Notice
Alright, here is just a friendly reminder to stay all nice and cuddly together. No personal attacks please.

Cheers,
Alex

[crich70]

Originally Posted by taustin

Which is still irrelevant to the case being discussed. DRM removal tools do exist, and Abbey House did point people at one of them. No detail matters. The details were not, in any way, at issue. The issue was whether or not telling people how to strip DRM was legal. Turns out, it is.

Actually there were two issues (IMO). The issue of if telling someone how to strip DRM was legal and the (IMO misleading) idea that Calibre is first and foremost a DRM stripping tool. While it can be used for that it isn't a DRM stripping tool in itself.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by taustin

Which is still irrelevant to the case being discussed. DRM removal tools do exist, and Abbey House did point people at one of them. No detail matters. The details were not, in any way, at issue. The issue was whether or not telling people how to strip DRM was legal. Turns out, it is.

Maybe it is. It is legal to point out what to look for to find a tool that removes drm. The specific instructions on how such a tool does the job exactly and instructions to write your own tool is another issue altogether. You will notice that you have a hard time finding out which laws were broken to create the tools in the first place. And it is better if nobody ever knows (other than the party responsible) if and how laws were broken to create the tools.

There is a difference in giving instructions on how to use a tool that fell from the sky and giving instructions on how to create such a tool from scatch.

Also note that nobody yet managed to crack the DRM, only to remove it.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by crich70

Actually there were two issues (IMO). The issue of if telling someone how to strip DRM was legal and the (IMO misleading) idea that Calibre is first and foremost a DRM stripping tool. While it can be used for that it isn't a DRM stripping tool in itself.

If Calibre was an issue, Kovid would have been a defendant. Since he wasn't, it wasn't.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Maybe it is. It is legal to point out what to look for to find a tool that removes drm. The specific instructions on how such a tool does the job exactly and instructions to write your own tool is another issue altogether. You will notice that you have a hard time finding out which laws were broken to create the tools in the first place. And it is better if nobody ever knows (other than the party responsible) if and how laws were broken to create the tools.

There is a difference in giving instructions on how to use a tool that fell from the sky and giving instructions on how to create such a tool from scatch.

Also note that nobody yet managed to crack the DRM, only to remove it.

Actually, creating (and distributing) tools to remove DRM is explicitly allowed under DMCA for certain specific purposes (such as format conversion). I'm not aware of a single lawsuit challenging that right. Are you?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by taustin

Actually, creating (and distributing) tools to remove DRM is explicitly allowed under DMCA for certain specific purposes (such as format conversion). I'm not aware of a single lawsuit challenging that right. Are you?

What about the "Real Media" case, where Real were prevented from selling their DVD backup software? In that case the judge ruled that, although consumers had the right to back up their DVDs, they didn't have the right to remove DRM in order to do so.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by HarryT

What about the "Real Media" case, where Real were prevented from selling their DVD backup software? In that case the judge ruled that, although consumers had the right to back up their DVDs, they didn't have the right to remove DRM in order to do so.

That was over DVDs, not ebooks, which brings a different host of issues. There were also licensing violation involved, and RealNetworks was found to have deliberately destroyed evidence. It's a lot more involved that just DMCA issues. It was also about distribution, not production or use. (DMCA prohibits trafficking, but no possession or use, per se.)

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by taustin

That was over DVDs, not ebooks, which brings a different host of issues. There were also licensing violation involved, and RealNetworks was found to have deliberately destroyed evidence. It's a lot more involved that just DMCA issues. It was also about distribution, not production or use. (DMCA prohibits trafficking, but no possession or use, per se.)

Yes, I know it was a different case, but it did appear to establish a principle that you don't have the right to break one law in order to exercise your rights under another. ie Even though format conversion is perfectly legal, it doesn't necessarily mean that removing DRM in order to permit format conversion is OK.