Adobe ADEPT DRM for PDF circumvented

[HarryT]

I'm feeling very gay this morning. The sun is shining and the birds are singing right outside my window. Oh, and I've just spotted that my daffodils are in flower, too. What reason not be gay on such a day?

[Patricia]

I agree with you Harry. There's no problem with a word having two meanings.
As far as I'm concerned gay can mean either light-hearted or refer to a person who is attached to people of the same sex.

But the tendency to use the word as a synonym for lame is different. It is an antonym of the gay=light-hearted meaning, so causes confusion.
Even worse, it is a pejorative term, so looks like an attempt to drive the gay people back into the closet.

I belive that I've already converted Nietzsche's The Gay Science. Perhaps I'll look for some more light-heartedly gay literature.

[montsnmags]

Originally Posted by Patricia

"Gay"??!!
What an extraordinary way of describing it. Some of our gay members may have something to say about that.

Oh, I don't know. Perhaps joblack just means the new stuff looked like Jeff Bezos with lipstick on:

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...495#post190495

It sounds like a pretty lame description to me though.

Cheers,
Marc

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

A DMCA takedown request is not "censorship". It is a legitimate request for removal of illegal materials. Distribution of tools to circumvent DRM is a crime under the DMCA.

But, Adobe has to realize that it's LEGAL to remove their DRM from PDFs. In Adobe Acrobat is a feature that's called Read Out Loud. This feature is disabled because Adobe's DRM does not allow the PDF document to even be loaded into Acrobat. Now, if you strip off the DRM, the Read Out Loud feature may work depending on the type of PDF. So what Adobe is doing is preventing disabled people from remove the DRM of PDF so they can assess Reading Out Loud. This is wrong and I would love to see this go to court and watch Adobe lose big time.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

But, Adobe has to realize that it's LEGAL to remove their DRM from PDFs. In Adobe Acrobat is a feature that's called Read Out Loud. This feature is disabled because Adobe's DRM does not allow the PDF document to even be loaded into Acrobat. Now, if you strip off the DRM, the Read Out Loud feature may work depending on the type of PDF. So what Adobe is doing is preventing disabled people from remove the DRM of PDF so they can assess Reading Out Loud. This is wrong and I would love to see this go to court and watch Adobe lose big time.

But, as you are very well aware, Jon, the DMCA exemption says that you are only allowed to remove that DRM if NO eBook version exists for which reading aloud is enabled. As long as the Kindle 2 can read aloud a book, it is not legal to remove that DRM. That's what you yourself have been telling us for I don't know how long, so I'm a little surprised that it's slipped your mind!

[TallMomof2]

Whatever happened to Fortran 77? Those were the days... punch cards and waiting hours or days for printouts.

[joblack]

Originally Posted by Patricia

"Gay"??!!
What an extraordinary way of describing it. Some of our gay members may have something to say about that.

I have nothing against gay people. In my experience they normally want to give me a massage and secretly want to take advantage of me.

This is kind of creepy and I heart this request a lot.

I let them alone if they don't hit on me anymore.

[Jellby]

Originally Posted by TallMomof2

Whatever happened to Fortran 77? Those were the days... punch cards and waiting hours or days for printouts.

I still use it (the language, not the punch cards)

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Please don't forget to delete the books once the checkout period has expired.

Also don't forget that when you "delete" a file on your PC, it doesn't actually remove the bits that make up that file, it just removes a pointer to them from the filesystem. It's fairly trivial to recover deleted files on most PCs. The only way to REALLY delete your copy of those digital 1's and 0's which represent that library ebook is to destroy your hard drive.

So to be fully legal/moral you need to destroy your hard drive each time one of your "loans" expires, or do a low-level wipe of the hard drive and reinstall your OS. Either that or realize that all this "equating digital files with physical property" stuff is just nonsense.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's as may be, but in this case, this is undeniably a DRM-circumvention tool, and therefore the takedown notice from a US-based server was entirely lawful and appropriate.

No, actually a DMCA takedown is a request for removal of copyright infringing materials. This is actually a misuse of a DMCA takedown.

Yes, distributing the tools is a crime under DMCA, but the scripts themselves are not copyrighted by Adobe so a DMCA takedown does not apply. In other words, in order to issue a DMCA takedown, Adobe has to claim that they own the copyright to the circumvention tools, which they obviously do not. A takedown is not a "free for all" to get rid of anything illegal. It's specifically to remove things that you claim are infringing on your copyrights.

If Adobe has a problem with the scripts, they need to prosecute, not issue a takedown.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Do you think this was a "copyright infringement" takedown? I'd have thought it much more likely to be a "this is an DRM-circumvention tool" takedown. I can't see whose copyrights might be infringed by a PERL script.

Same issue; the takedown notice isn't an announcement of guilt, it's an announcement of belief of guilt on the part of someone not legally qualified to decide.

DMCA takedowns exist to allow rights holders (of various types) to prevent further damage/loss before filing suit. If they don't decide to file, the loss/damage is presumed to be nonexistant, and the content is free to return.

DMCA 1201(c) Other Rights, Etc., Not Affected.—
(1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.

The person claimed to have a circumvention tool has the right to challenge that claim; that a tool obviously removes DRM doesn't automatically make it illegal. (If it's only used, or mostly used, to remove DRM to allow people to use their purchased files on a rebooted computer, no copyright law has been broken, and the tool is legit.)

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Do you think this was a "copyright infringement" takedown? I'd have thought it much more likely to be a "this is an DRM-circumvention tool" takedown.

There's no such thing as a "DRM-circumvention tool" takedown.

I can't see whose copyrights might be infringed by a PERL script.

The developer who wrote the script. But that's obviously not Adobe.

[Sonist]

Kind of on topic.

I am thinking of purchasing a PDF version of a travel guide, available from Lonely Planet.

The only reason I'd purchase it, though, is if I can be certain I can remove the DRM, so I can view it on my iRex (and attempt to convert it to mobi for my K2.) I need the file I end up with to be searchable.

Is there any reason why the scripts would not work on a LP PDF?

[Alisa]

I thought the Lonely Planet stuff was DRM-free. I could have sworn I bought one awhile back and converted it just fine. Have they started adding DRM recently?

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by Alisa

I thought the Lonely Planet stuff was DRM-free. I could have sworn I bought one awhile back and converted it just fine. Have they started adding DRM recently?

Oh, I haven't bought it yet - I just assumed it was DRM-ed. I guess I shouldn't always assume the worst:-)

Is it the same with Frommer's? The definitely list printing and copying restrictions.