Can free e-books be pirated?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by ApK

Not quite as cut and dried as that, but there have been court decisions that supported the idea and some that have rejected it, at least under the specific circumstances that the decisions spoke to.
But it sure seems like fair use as far as I'm concerned.

That's my understanding as well. There are many, many things that are not completely clear under the law. You pays your money, and take your chances.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I believe it was only in conjuction with disabilities being overcome that format shifting was deemed legal. There was no flat "you may break DRM to format shift for personal use" edict. Not in the U.S. anyway.

That's two different issues.

1. Is format shifting an infringement of copyright.
2. Is circumventing DRM for non-copyright-infringing uses a violation of the DMCA.

We have many threads discussing the two contradictory opinions from the 5th and 9th circuit courts a few years ago on issue #2, but I'm not sure that even #1 is writ in stone in all cases.

[theducks]

Originally Posted by shalym

Hmmm...I thought that format shifting had been ruled to be legal in the US as long as it's for personal use?

Shari

AFAIK That only applies to pre-digital AUDIO content (Vinyl, tape). The DMCA closed that gap

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by theducks

AFAIK That only applies to pre-digital AUDIO content (Vinyl, tape). The DMCA closed that gap

I believe that ApK is correct. It's two different issues. DMCA doesn't address copyright.

[DiapDealer]

I just remember that nothing is cut dried (legally) with regard to format-shifting and drm-removal. There were fairly recent developments that some people interpreted as being "permission" for personal use, but I don't think those interpretations were based on a sound legal precedent.

I DO remember something about not being able to restrict a disabled person from format-shifting (IF the work was not already available in a medium that would allow them to consume it), though.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I just remember that nothing is cut dried (legally) with regard to format-shifting and drm-removal. There were fairly recent developments that some people interpreted as being "permission" for personal use, but I don't think those interpretations were based on a sound legal precedent.

I DO remember something about not being able to restrict a disabled person from format-shifting (IF the work was not already available in a medium that would allow them to consume it), though.

What I do know is I can make a working copy of a pattern but I have to destroy the copy if I sell the original. Though by the time I get through with the working copy, it is unusable anyway. Copyright is only violated on crafts if one sells the working copies or keeps a copy and sells the original.

[Difflugia]

Since the OP's question involved downloading books placed on websites by rights-holders even if they don't want them to be downloaded anymore, this article seems apropos.

O'Reilly's Security Power Tools has a somewhat longer section that makes similar points. You can read it on O'Reilly's site or Google Books.

[nabsltd]

Originally Posted by ApK

Since we named the concept of intellectual property in analog to physical property, it is perfect reasonable and proper to maintain the convention, and name other aspects by the same analogy, like calling infringement of intellectual properly right "theft."

Nope, it's completely wrong. Intellectual property rights can be infringed, but intellectual property cannot ever be "stolen".

"Infringe" is the correct, legal term, and that's what all the statutes use. "Theft" or "stolen" is never used.

Words have meanings, and lawyers have already agreed that "infringe" and "steal" don't have the same meaning. It's the companies who purchased the extensions to US copyright that use the word "theft" when they mean "infringe", because they don't understand that insulting your customers isn't a good way to keep them as customers.

[nabsltd]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

There was no flat "you may break DRM to format shift for personal use" edict. Not in the U.S. anyway.

Actually, in the US, the rulings have basically added up to someone who personally breaks DRM hasn't committed a crime by just breaking the DRM. After that, normal copyright rules apply, so you can't do things like distribute the material after breaking the DRM.

The "gotcha" is that you can't "traffic" in any software, hardware, etc., that allows someone to break DRM, which means you can't distribute it. You can, however, perfectly legally download/purchase such software/hardware, if you can find someone either willing to break US law to distribute/sell it, or get it someplace not covered by US law.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by nabsltd

Actually, in the US, the rulings have basically added up to someone who personally breaks DRM hasn't committed a crime by just breaking the DRM.

Sorry. I don't believe the current legality of "personally" breaking DRM in the US is that cut and dried. I know many people want it to be, but I don't think it is.

I don't believe anyone breaking DRM purely for personal use is likely to be prosecuted, but that's not the same thing.

[DiapDealer]

As to "words have meanings": well of course they do. Those meanings have never remained static, however. Words and language constantly evolve.

[Sydney's Mom]

I don't agree with sharing anything that isn't mine. However, will I remove the DRM and keep the book forever, and change it to whatever format works with my current reader? Yes. So I guess I support piracy lite.

[nabsltd]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Sorry. I don't believe the current legality of "personally" breaking DRM in the US is that cut and dried. I know many people want it to be, but I don't think it is.

All of the court cases were either about someone who created a DRM removal device or someone who used a DRM removal device and then distributed the resulting copyrighted material. The first type of case doesn't apply, but based on judges, rights holders, and even prosecutors (some of these cases were criminal/willful infringement) in the second type of case, there isn't anything about "fair use" that doesn't apply to personally breaking DRM, even when doing so to commit infringement afterward.

The judges have basically said that the two acts (breaking the DRM and the later distribution) are separate, and thus the DRM breaking has to be looked at on its own, which is still personal use at the point the DRM was broken. So, even in these slam-dunk infringement cases, nobody has been found guilty of breaking DRM because it's still protected by fair use, at that point.

The "anti-circumvention" part of US copyright law (17 USC 1201) spells it out: "Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title." That pretty much says it all...if removing DRM merely allows you to exercise "fair use", then it's not infringement. It's never been specifically tested in court any more than the hundreds of thousands of other obvious "fair use" events that never get to court, for the same reason...personal use (i.e., no distribution) is never infringement.

Last, there's another bit in copyright law that says the copyright holder cannot increase their rights under copyright law in any way (and it's even illegal to falsely claim rights under copyright that aren't really there). They can sign contracts with other parties that allow them recourse in the form of a lawsuit for breaking the contract, but even if the "shrink wrap" contracts that we supposedly "sign" when we download a DRM-laden ebook are enforceable, you're still not guilty of copyright infringement...only a violation of a contract.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by nabsltd

So, even in these slam-dunk infringement cases, nobody has been found guilty of breaking DRM because it's still protected by fair use, at that point.

Sorry. I don't believe that the former necessarily implies the latter. Mainly because DRM removal for personal use is untested in the courts. Like I said ... I know many people WANT that to be the legal interpretation, but nobody has proven to my satisfaction that it actually IS.

Nobody has been found guilty of breaking DRM for personal use because nobody is being indicted for breaking DRM for personal use. There's a difference.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by nabsltd

Nope, it's completely wrong. Intellectual property rights can be infringed, but intellectual property cannot ever be "stolen".

That you don't like it does not prevent it from being so.
Nor does simply stating it.

"Infringe" is the correct, legal term, and that's what all the statutes use. "Theft" or "stolen" is never used.

Please note the title of Public Law 105 - 147. So much for 'never.'
But these legalese was never in question, and it's not the issue anyway.

It's the companies who purchased the extensions to US copyright that use the word "theft" when they mean "infringe",

...and Copyright Office , and the FBI, and the legislators....and me (both a content creator and consumer), and likely a few million other folks.

So maybe some cites, or references to support your opinion when you want to insist on various "always" and "never" claims?
Cuz otherwise, I guess your statements need to be filed under (say it with me Jack!) "alternative facts."