Hacks kindlepid/kindlefix 0.2

[tompe]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

In that case, an ebook encrypted for the Kindle PID will only be for that kindle. How would changing the document type metadata to a value the kindle needs violate or circumvent that in any way? The protection is still there.

Circumvent does not imply remove. So I do not get yout point. The DRM scheme is the type meta data plus the encryption.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by tompe

The DRM is also supposed to prevent it to be used on a Kindle.

Originally Posted by JSWolf

If I have a Mobipocket eBook that has say 2 PIDs in it and I can view it with Mobipocket Reader and then I change the document type (one of the PIDs is for the Kindle) to say this can be viewed with a Kindle, I've just changed the DRM. I can no longer view it with Mobipocket Reader. So in effect, I have just changed the DRM. I have prevented this eBook from being read on the devices it was meant to be read on based on the PID and document type.

The DRM is no longer the same DRM it was before. The DRM tells me what I can and cannot read the eBook with. Changing just the document type is changing the DRM's permission. So in effect, you have changed the DRM to allow Overdrive Mobipocket eBooks to be viewed on a Kindle.

Persoanlly, I do not see any difference to changing the DRM to allow the eBook to be viewed on a Kindle as opposed to reading it with Mobipocket Reader. For library eBooks, the DRM is still going to expire so it cannot be read bast it's allowed time. But legally, this may not be acceptable.

This is where I am having the problem. With the idea that a document may only be viewed "on the devices it was meant to be read on." I purchase a DVD, meant to be viewed on a television, but I choose to view it on my computer. I'm am failing to see how the filmmaker, or the company that produced the DVD would be harmed by my decision. Even if I had to create a crack that allowed me to view the DVD on my computer, I would still have to purchase the DVD in order to view it.

The logic behind the law is really making me wonder about whether or not the lawmakers have any connection to the real world. Are they honestly that stupid??

And, seriously, I had someone try to argue (on the phone with me yesterday evening) that it is a violation of the DMCA to invite friends over to watch a DVD on my television because the license I purchased when I bought that DVD was personal to me only .... and did not extend to guests in my home. In addition, it was their contention that it was a violation of the DMCA for me to loan my DVD, or my iPod, or my Kindle to someone else.

To me .... that's a crap argument. You might as well say that lending libraries are illegal.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

This is where I am having the problem. With the idea that a document may only be viewed "on the devices it was meant to be read on." I purchase a DVD, meant to be viewed on a television, but I choose to view it on my computer.

I must circumvent the DRM to view a DVD on my linux computer. I do not see how you can argue that this is not circumventing the DRM. The DVD is meant to be played in players that have been certified and were the player manufacturer have payed for being allowed to play the DVD.

In specific cases some kind of cirmumvention might be legal such as in the DVD case (it is illegal in a lot of countries). But I have only argued that the activity is circumvention.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

This is where I am having the problem. With the idea that a document may only be viewed "on the devices it was meant to be read on." I purchase a DVD, meant to be viewed on a television, but I choose to view it on my computer. I'm am failing to see how the filmmaker, or the company that produced the DVD would be harmed by my decision. Even if I had to create a crack that allowed me to view the DVD on my computer, I would still have to purchase the DVD in order to view it.

The logic behind the law is really making me wonder about whether or not the lawmakers have any connection to the real world. Are they honestly that stupid??

When you view this DVD on your computer, the program you are using to view the DVD with has code to allow you to view this DVD by decrypting the DRM the same way your DVD player does. This is legal. But it might not be legal if the DRM had code that said only in a standalone DVD player can this be used. You'd need to have a program on your computer to read that and still allow it to be used on your computer.

When you shift the DRM so the eBook now works with a Kindle, you are changing the DRM. It's no longer the same DRM. When you downloaded the library eBook and fixed it so it could be viewed on a Kindle, you've just changed the bits in the book that lock it in place. The DRM has been altered, modified, changed. And if Amazon wanted you to be able to view Library eBooks, they would not have created AZW. And we all know AZW was created so Amazon could have total control over the DRMed eBooks for the Kindle. Why else would they change the document type? Amazon owns Mobipocket and if they wanted that to work as is on the Kindle, they would have programmed it to do so. But because that would take some of the control away from from Amazon, they created AZW.

Basically, when you change the DRM, you make the DRM no longer the same DRM as what it was. And thus you take control away from Amazon. This is something that Jeff does not like. I see Jeff as a megalomaniac out to control all the eBooks for the Kindle.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by tompe

I must circumvent the DRM to view a DVD on my linux computer. I do not see how you can argue that this is not circumventing the DRM. The DVD is meant to be played in players that have been certified and were the player manufacturer have payed for being allowed to play the DVD.

In specific cases some kind of cirmumvention might be legal such as in the DVD case (it is illegal in a lot of countries). But I have only argued that the activity is circumvention.

OK .... I see what you mean, and I am now reading a lot of information on the DMCA, which apparently makes even fair use of copyrighted material illegal. Which is completely insane. It stands copyright law on it's head and bitch slaps it.

I especially like the quote from Timothy B. Lee, in a paper written for the Cato Institute:

"The DMCA is anti-competitive. It gives copyright holders — and the technology companies that distribute their content — the legal power to create closed technology platforms and exclude competitors from interoperating with them. Worst of all, DRM technologies are clumsy and ineffective; they inconvenience legitimate users but do little to stop pirates."

That's not even taking it far enough .... it criminalizes legitimate users.

[InlawBiker]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

This is something that Jeff does not like. I see Jeff as a megalomaniac out to control all the eBooks for the Kindle.

Well, I agree with that part.

At this point it's a matter of opinion and only a court can settle it. I can see the logic of both sides. But, the whole question of DRM is murky. Amazon's intended use of the device may or may not matter, because I own the device. Nobody can really prove that anybody was financially harmed.

Hopefully it doesn't come to Amazon strong-arming libraries into removing Kindle support. If they do this they'll lose a customer for life.

Greg

[JSWolf]

The problem with the DMCA is that is take our rights away from us and trashes them. The problem is that if this ever got to court, would the Judge go with fair use or the letter of the law? I should ask my cousin who is a federal court judge about this someday.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by InlawBiker

Well, I agree with that part.

At this point it's a matter of opinion and only a court can settle it. I can see the logic of both sides. But, the whole question of DRM is murky. Amazon's intended use of the device may or may not matter, because I own the device. Nobody can really prove that anybody was financially harmed.

Hopefully it doesn't come to Amazon strong-arming libraries into removing Kindle support. If they do this they'll lose a customer for life.

Greg

Very true, nobody was financially harmed. But the DMCA does not say it's ok to remove the DRM only if nobody is financially harmed. Now Amazon may have possibly taken away our LEGAL rights to strip the DRM. Because their eBooks now will work on a K2 that has TTS, the DMCA exception may no no longer be valid. So once again Jeff could be screwing us over big time.The only way we can be sure to get our rights back is to get Amazon to remove the TTS.

[Thomas Ryan]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

That is also my understanding. It does not substitute a different PID. It allows the user to indicate what the correct PID for the device is so that they can read the book.

I liked "pre-edit" post better.

Are you a lawyer?

If so, when you say damages, you'll notice I previously asked "is there victim?", because I am not a lawyer, and I think "damages" has a legal definition. We're on the same page - Is there a victim? (damages?), if not who cares, except maybe Homeland security,...kidding.

In any case, and I am agnostic to the answer, simply curious - Could Amazon claim "we applied the DRM" (or our agent mobipocket did), it's been "circumvented", and the damages are that since we didn't sell directly via amazon.com, which was our intention, we made less money (assume they demonstrate that), we didn't collect the marketing information so we lost the "up-sell" or "cross-sell", we lost the advertising revenue opportunity (worth n$), and so on? Or simply, or intention was to make people pay twice once for Palm, once for Kindle, it's our prerogative to do so, whether you like it or not, and you just stole ~1/2 the potential revenue in this situation? - See? the babies are starving.

I wanted to leave this alone, but it's too easy to poke once more.

Frankly - at a "real use" level for normal people, this is all moot, they'll kindlefix and/or mobidedrm away in the privacy of their own home anyway, just like they make "back up" copies of their DVDs.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

When you view this DVD on your computer, the program you are using to view the DVD with has code to allow you to view this DVD by decrypting the DRM the same way your DVD player does. This is legal. But it might not be legal if the DRM had code that said only in a standalone DVD player can this be used. You'd need to have a program on your computer to read that and still allow it to be used on your computer.

When you shift the DRM so the eBook now works with a Kindle, you are changing the DRM. It's no longer the same DRM. When you downloaded the library eBook and fixed it so it could be viewed on a Kindle, you've just changed the bits in the book that lock it in place. The DRM has been altered, modified, changed. And if Amazon wanted you to be able to view Library eBooks, they would not have created AZW. And we all know AZW was created so Amazon could have total control over the DRMed eBooks for the Kindle. Why else would they change the document type? Amazon owns Mobipocket and if they wanted that to work as is on the Kindle, they would have programmed it to do so. But because that would take some of the control away from from Amazon, they created AZW.

Basically, when you change the DRM, you make the DRM no longer the same DRM as what it was. And thus you take control away from Amazon. This is something that Jeff does not like. I see Jeff as a megalomaniac out to control all the eBooks for the Kindle.

And, for once, I entirely agree with you. So, why did they make the Kindle able to read *.prc files?? Why make it read or view HTML?? If they wanted to limit the Kindle to *.azw files, why not just do that and be done with it?

Why lie to the consumer and advertise that the Kindle is not limited to books purchased at the Amazon Kindle Store, when they plan to criminalize anyone who reads a book on their Kindle that is not in *.azw format?

So, I've really got to ask myself why I ever recommended the Kindle as a reading device ... hell, why do I own three of them? I've got a lot of books that I obtained, legitimately, either by purchase or for free, that were from sources other than the Kindle Store.

I'm sorry .... but that is just plain creepy. I do not remember giving Jeff Bezos authority to determine what I am and am not allowed to read, on my Kindle or anywhere else.

[Thomas Ryan]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

OK .... I see what you mean, and I am now reading a lot of information on the DMCA, which apparently makes even fair use of copyrighted material illegal. Which is completely insane. It stands copyright law on it's head and bitch slaps it.
[,,,]

That's not even taking it far enough .... it criminalizes legitimate users.

Wow! Welcome to the real world. It's been this way for a while.
Yes, our U.S. law-makers got "bamboozled" or were simply paid-off, and now we have an idiotic law. Be careful with the term "fair use". What's "fair" for you may not be fair under laws like the DMCA.

[sirbruce]

Again, the exemption for hardware dongles is illustrative. Some computer software only works if you have a particular hardware dongle plugged into a machine. Now, obviously, back in the old days, you bought the PC software and a PC dongle. Now, if you have a different computer, like a Mac, and you run a PC emulator, logically you 'should' be able to use the PC software you 'rightly' bought. But the dongle won't work on your Mac. So you can't.

DMCA says that's just fine, and you have to live with it. So it does seem as though it's okay for a seller to sell a software product that *only* works on a particular platform. Not just OS, mind you, but something that physically can support a dongle. On the other hand, DMCA has allowed exemptions to this if said dongle is no longer manufactured. So if it's *impossible* to use your software because the dongles are not available anymore, then you can break the DRM.

So if you have a DRMed ebook that *no* reader can read, then you can break the DRM. But just because *one* reader can reader it and not another, that doesn't normally warrant an exemption. *However*, these rules are revised every 3 years and I wouldn't be surprised for an exemption to be made specifically for ebooks so they can be read on any platform.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

OK .... I see what you mean, and I am now reading a lot of information on the DMCA, which apparently makes even fair use of copyrighted material illegal. Which is completely insane. It stands copyright law on it's head and bitch slaps it.

Exactly. The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind by James Boyle is a good book related to this.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by tompe

Exactly. The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind by James Boyle is a good book related to this.

Sounds like a book I am going to have to read. This whole idea of any person or company being allowed to prevent me from accessing ideas or information -- that I have PAID to be allowed to access -- makes me nuts!!

How is the Kindle ever supposed to be taken seriously as an educational tool if the only textbooks you can read on it are those that Amazon decides you should be able to read?? Why should anyone be expected (especially in this economic climate) to purchase every type of ebook reader that is out there, just in case you want to read a book that's not from Amazon? Right ... need to have this type of reader for this DRM and this other type of reader for this other type of DRM.

I bought a Kindle thinking (foolishly, apparently) that it would mean simplifying my life .... not making it more complex. Good grief, even Apple saw the sense in allowing people to convert the music they purchased from iTunes into mp3 and play it from regular CDs or on another device. They still sell plenty of iPods AND, they get people with regular mp3 players to purchase music from iTunes as well. Smart move that. Stupid move on the part of Amazon.

[Thomas Ryan]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

And, for once, I entirely agree with you. So, why did they make the Kindle able to read *.prc files?? Why make it read or view HTML?? If they wanted to limit the Kindle to *.azw files, why not just do that and be done with it?

Why lie to the consumer and advertise that the Kindle is not limited to books purchased at the Amazon Kindle Store, when they plan to criminalize anyone who reads a book on their Kindle that is not in *.azw format?

So, I've really got to ask myself why I ever recommended the Kindle as a reading device ... hell, why do I own three of them? I've got a lot of books that I obtained, legitimately, either by purchase or for free, that were from sources other than the Kindle Store.

I'm sorry .... but that is just plain creepy. I do not remember giving Jeff Bezos authority to determine what I am and am not allowed to read, on my Kindle or anywhere else.

Kindle reading is not limited to Amazon-only purchases - as you note in your 3rd paragraph about your own legitamate content acquisition. Nobody is lying. You're falling apart; take a deep breath. BTW - don't admit to being a criminal on-line.

The DMCA almost certainly reads that 'it's a violation to "bootleg" DRM'ed content onto your Kindle'. Like it or not. Believe it or not. Somebody bothers to enforce it or not.

Amazon said - mobipocket is one store, not for Kindles. Amazon.com is another store, for Kindles (and now iPhone). The devices are different, the files are "different". Somebody figured out that the difference is 28 bytes, and how to align those 28 with a program named kindlefix. We wouldn't be having this discussion if the difference was "the whole file" is different, and nobody figured out to make them compatible.

In fact, though, non DRM mobi files from mobipocket are supported by Amazon on Kindle, so you could thank them for that. Ha. Ha. Lighten up.

You ask "why did they (be so mean-spirited, and "unfair")..."? Start another thread. This one is about kindlefix.