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

[JSWolf]

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.

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...

Calibre should have been mentioned. But not like it was. It should have been mention because of the plugin. "There is a third party plugin for Calibre that will allow DRM to be stripped when an eBook with DRM is imported into the Calibre Library." or something like that. But not to say that it was Calibre that did the DRM removal. That was stupid and wrong.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by taustin

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

I meant that there were two points brought up in this thread. Not that there was an issue with Calibre and Kovid legally.

[ApK]

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.

To me it just shows that the judge in that case was not as smart or as sensible as the judges in the MGE v. GE case, who said otherwise.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

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

I like what you've posted in replay to Chris Meadows incorrectness. Let's now boycott Chris meadows until he fixes his errors.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by crich70

I meant that there were two points brought up in this thread. Not that there was an issue with Calibre and Kovid legally.

It seems some people have a hard time understanding that we can be talking about two things in the same thread.

But I think most people got what you are saying. In the first place.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

It seems some people have a hard time understanding that we can be talking about two things in the same thread.

But I think most people got what you are saying. In the first place.

It is possible that I mis-understood my fellow poster I grant you. Of course that's what makes the forums so interesting. The different pov's etc.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes, I know it was a different case,

It's a different sort of case.

Originally Posted by HarryT

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.

Except that two paragraphs in the same section of Title 17 explicitly say you can strip DRM for certain purposes, including file conversion. Title 17 › Chapter 12 › § 1201 (f) in particular. Some ambiguity can be argued, and it hasn't been tested yet in court to clarify. (d) arguably provides for it, too, because it doesn't define whether it applies to "A nonprofit (library, archives, or educational institution)" or "A (nonprofit library), archives, or educational institution," but it's a valid argument (win or lose) because the right to break copy protection on software for the specific purpose of making backups is long established.

Which is to say, as I have said befre, DMCA both says you can't, and you ocan, and it is unresolved. It is hardly a given that you can't strip DRM for fair use purposes (which include format conversion, and archiving).

[taustin]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Calibre should have been mentioned. But not like it was. It should have been mention because of the plugin. "There is a third party plugin for Calibre that will allow DRM to be stripped when an eBook with DRM is imported into the Calibre Library." or something like that. But not to say that it was Calibre that did the DRM removal. That was stupid and wrong.

And completely irrelevant, since the case wasn't about how to remove DRM, but rather about whether or not it is contributory infringement to point people to instructions on how to.

Obsessing on details that are not relevant is a good way for lawyers to get fined for contempt.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by crich70

I meant that there were two points brought up in this thread. Not that there was an issue with Calibre and Kovid legally.

This thread has gone down a lot of rabbit holes that are completely irrelevant to the legal case. Discussing them is pointless, since they are not part of the legal case.

[twowheels]

Originally Posted by Robotech_Master

And those Mobileread users who are likewise?

Some of us made a point to ensure that nobody misunderstood what Calibre really does:

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...60&postcount=4

[twowheels]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

It seems some people have a hard time understanding that we can be talking about two things in the same thread.

I sure miss the days of usenet and threaded readers, such as trn and slrn.

(yes, I know that usenet still exists, as a hollow shell of what it once was, yes I know that this forum supports a threaded view, which is less than ideal)

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by taustin

And completely irrelevant, since the case wasn't about how to remove DRM, but rather about whether or not it is contributory infringement to point people to instructions on how to.

Obsessing on details that are not relevant is a good way for lawyers to get fined for contempt.

The thing is, if Calibre gets said to be the tool that removes the DRM and DRM removal loses in court, the lawyers could then decide to go after Kovid for Calibre even though that haven't a leg to stand on.

So the solution is to get the word out that Calibre and the DRM removal plugin are not one and the same and Kovid has nothing at all to do with the DRM removal plugin.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by taustin

And completely irrelevant, since the case wasn't about how to remove DRM, but rather about whether or not it is contributory infringement to point people to instructions on how to.

Obsessing on details that are not relevant is a good way for lawyers to get fined for contempt.

Originally Posted by taustin

This thread has gone down a lot of rabbit holes that are completely irrelevant to the legal case. Discussing them is pointless, since they are not part of the legal case.

You too!

Originally Posted by eschwartz

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

...

Expecting the thread to continue narrow-mindedly in the footsteps of the OP is rather naïve IMHO.

...

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by twowheels

Some of us made a point to ensure that nobody misunderstood what Calibre really does:

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...60&postcount=4

Originally Posted by twowheels

I sure miss the days of usenet and threaded readers, such as trn and slrn.

(yes, I know that usenet still exists, as a hollow shell of what it once was, yes I know that this forum supports a threaded view, which is less than ideal)

[taustin]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The thing is, if Calibre gets said to be the tool that removes the DRM and DRM removal loses in court,

Then it would be in a completely different case, since DRM removal was not the issue here. The issue here was telling people where to find the tools, not the removal itself.

No matter how many times you try to argue about something that isn't happening, it still isn't happening.