Ethics and legalities of format shifting

[davidfor]

Originally Posted by ottischwenk

And what is the advantage of sideloading compared to the direct purchase option.
With the latter I am independent of the computer.
And it is simply not possible to read a kfx book on a Kobo, or a kepub on a Kindle.
In some countries you need illegal and definitely violating the terms and conditions conversions and a computer for that.
My question to Kobo and Kindle advertisers: are they paid for advertising, or are they so simple-minded to fall for such simple business models.

Originally Posted by ottischwenk

It is very easy to prove to the truth that anyone who removes DRM to read a file on an unauthorized device is suppressing payment for an additional license required.
And embezzlement is a criminal act.

Thus "defamation" is not applicable.

Yes it does. One of your first posts in this discussion, as quoted above with added emphasis, is clearly defamation. Your constant statements that people are thieves could easily be taken as defamation as well.

And I have no idea why you mention "embezzlement". Yes, it is a criminal act, but, nothing discussed here fits under that term. Do you care to explain this?

[PKFFW]

@ottischwenk can you truly, hand on heart, state you obey every single law, regulation and even TOS from every provider of every service you ever use?

Don't worry, that was a rhetorical question as of course the answer is No.

So these last 18 pages really comes down to you having a whinge that other people don't obey the rules that you personally choose to obey.

Do you actually have a point? (forgive me if you have mentioned an actual point, I stopped reading after the 3rd page as it seemed a pointless exercise to continue)

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by ottischwenk

It is very easy to prove to the truth that anyone who removes DRM to read a file on an unauthorized device is suppressing payment for an additional license required.
And embezzlement is a criminal act.

Thus "defamation" is not applicable.

We seem to have meandered from a civil matter of possible copyright infringement to accusations of a definitely criminal act of embezzlement.

How did we get from copyright infringement to embezzlement (unterschlagung)? Perhaps you could explain just how a person is stealing from their employer or misusing funds that were left in one's trust by format conversion? Enquiring minds are eager to know.

Oh, just by the way, a false accusation of embezzlement qualifies as criminal libel in this neck of the woods. This makes you a criminal and liable for up to a 5 year jail sentence. Of course, you could plead that you didn't know the claim was false which makes you liable for a 2 year jail sentence. Still leaves you as a criminal.

298 (1) A defamatory libel is matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published.

Mode of expression
(2) A defamatory libel may be expressed directly or by insinuation or irony

(a) in words legibly marked on any substance; or

(b) by any object signifying a defamatory libel otherwise than by words.

R.S., c. C-34, s. 262

Publishing
299 A person publishes a libel when he

(a) exhibits it in public;

(b) causes it to be read or seen; or

(c) shows or delivers it, or causes it to be shown or delivered, with intent that it should be read or seen by any person other than the person whom it defames.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 299 2018, c. 29, s. 31

Punishment of libel known to be false
300 Every person who publishes a defamatory libel that they know is false is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 3002019, c. 25, s. 118

Punishment for defamatory libel

301 Every person who publishes a defamatory libel is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Do you actually have a point? (forgive me if you have mentioned an actual point, I stopped reading after the 3rd page as it seemed a pointless exercise to continue)

I will admit to having lost track of his point, if any, after the first few pages. I think he was trying to argue that we all need an Android eInk reader so we can use various apps to allow reading ebooks from multiple sites without violating their licensing. Throw in a soupçon of accusations that everyone else is a criminal for DRM removal and/or format conversion. Then mix in the risible belief that no company will ever go out of business and shut down their DRM services.

From his logic, if I download a non-DRMmed epub from Kobo and convert it to read on a Kindle, I am committing a criminal violation of copyright law. This despite copyright being basically a civil matter under the laws in my area with needing to sell/rent/profit from copyright infringement being needed for criminal prosecution.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by DNSB

I will admit to having lost track of his point, if any, after the first few pages. I think he was trying to argue that we all need an Android eInk reader so we can use various apps to allow reading ebooks from multiple sites without violating their licensing. Throw in a soupçon of accusations that everyone else is a criminal for DRM removal and/or format conversion. Then mix in the risible belief that no company will ever go out of business and shut down their DRM services.

He seems to take it personally when people prefer Kindles or Kobos to Android eink tablets. Which is strange in itself, but not that uncommon on MR (another member here takes it personally whenever someone prefers a Kindle to a Kobo ). Many people take it personally when others don't share their preferences, and I think most of us have done so at least occasionally. But why those ludicrous accusations about theft, shilling etc... no idea. Perhaps he thought to scare all of us into buying his preferred devices.

Anyway, it's not in good taste to play the shrink on a public forum, so I promise I try not to do it anymore.

[ottischwenk]

Originally Posted by Ripplinger

I have to ask ottischwenk though, how exactly did you know that a book you had on your stolen reader appeared on a pirate site, and it was that exact copy from your reader? Did law enforcement come knocking on your door and accuse you of file sharing?

Yes, something like that happened

[ottischwenk]

Originally Posted by pazos

What a fun ride

Now remember that this whole thread started because ottischwenk tried to convince everyone that android e-ink devices were the best for everyone, because you can login with various providers.

The "strong" antiDeDRM arguments came later, as people explained him how they manage to overcome certain limitations on their favorite e-ink readers.

The truth is that ottischwenk is moving goals trying to keep his argument but he never cared about DRM at all.

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sh...postcount=1169

Google can enlight us with the words "ottischwenk drm" about his own self-dubbed "criminal acts"

A wonderfully illogical contribution:

If I prefer a device that I can use to log into a wide variety of providers, that means I don't have to worry about DRM, there is no reason beyond that - or could you pull someone else by the hair?

And beyond that, I've already described the benefits of DRM.
So why can I inquire about DRM removal?

Surely not to use it?

Right: out of interest!

[ottischwenk]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

@ottischwenk can you truly, hand on heart, state you obey every single law, regulation and even TOS from every provider of every service you ever use?

Of course I can't know all the laws, but as far as I know them, consciously yes - it has happened that I have overlooked a street sign or speed limit, for example.
Also, I don't read all terms and conditions - so I've certainly broken some of them. In addition, I do not adhere to them if they restrict laws known to me.

Is that enough as an answer?

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by ottischwenk

Of course I don't know what you're up to.Well, through a criminal breach of the law

Accusing someone of a criminal act is serious. At the most DRM removal for personal use is a civil offence under any of the jurisdictions I've checked (USA, UK, Canada).

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by barryem

I asked if it was okay to buy a spare Kindle to use to loan books to my neighbors in my retirement home. Both times I was told by Kindle support that Amazon has no objection and that they're aware that a lot of people do this.

At the time I asked Kobo about this issue, I also asked Amazon. They told me explicitly that so long as the book was on a device authorised to my account, I could let anyone read my copy of the book:

"In this case, I can confirm that in most cases, Paid Books have on average 6 Licenses and Free books have on average 99 Licenses.

Publishers choose whether they apply digital rights management software (DRM) to their content. There is no limit on the number of times a title can be downloaded to a registered Kindle device or Kindle-compatible device running a Kindle application, but there may be limits on the number of Kindle devices and applications (usually 6) that can simultaneously use a single book. If the limit is less than six Kindles devices or applications for a specific title, you'll see the message "Simultaneous Device usage: Up to X simultaneous devices, per publisher limits" on the website detail page.

This means that your Spouse's, Children's and even your friend's Kindle can be registered to your account and can download and read your books from you Archived items. Provided they do not exceed the limit of licenses.

Therefore, you can buy one copy of a book and have it available to be read on up to six devices (if it is a paid book) and up to 99 devices if it is a free book.

In terms of use, you have purchase a copy of a book with us, and it is your copy. You may authorize any one you wish to read it, but that person's device must be registered to your account to do so.

Should you have any further issues, please do not hesitate to contact us again."

[ottischwenk]

I think it's funny the energy with which a violation of the law is defended here, which goes so far that I have been personally accused of libel.
I have deliberately not accused anyone of theft or embezzlement directly.
However, I entered Google Translate in the sense of if / then and copied the result here - English is not a particularly important foreign language for me.
If someone has felt affected by this, that's his problem.

[davidfor]

Originally Posted by ottischwenk

I think it's funny the energy with which a violation of the law is defended here, which goes so far that I have been personally accused of libel.
I have deliberately not accused anyone of theft or embezzlement directly.
However, I entered Google Translate in the sense of if / then and copied the result here - English is not a particularly important foreign language for me.
If someone has felt affected by this, that's his problem.

So, all these accusations of theft, embezzlement and all the other crap is not your fault? It is because Google Translate doesn't work very well?

Sorry, but that is a load of BS. And it does not excuse you in any culpability. One or two posts, maybe. But, you have made far to many post arguing in this thread to really believe this claim, or to be able to make the claim that the language used is not your responsibility.

[ottischwenk]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

.....

And that is a falsification of the quotation.
The part after the period was a response to a second statement.
I don't need to go into the rest of the article.

[Sirtel]

Originally Posted by ottischwenk

I think it's funny the energy with which a violation of the law is defended here, which goes so far that I have been personally accused of libel.
I have deliberately not accused anyone of theft or embezzlement directly.
However, I entered Google Translate in the sense of if / then and copied the result here - English is not a particularly important foreign language for me.
If someone has felt affected by this, that's his problem.

I think it's funny you've wasted so much energy in trying to make people feel guilty about what they do. Which failed, of course, because 1) your arguments were pretty muddled and kept changing from one post to the other, and 2) most of us know perfectly well what we're doing and why we're doing it. As you're no doubt aware, having been an active member here for a long time. So why did you bother? To make yourself feel superior and morally righteous? Eh. Whatever you say, it has started to sound quite hypocritical anyway.

[davidfor]

Originally Posted by ottischwenk

A wonderfully illogical contribution:

If I prefer a device that I can use to log into a wide variety of providers, that means I don't have to worry about DRM, there is no reason beyond that - or could you pull someone else by the hair?

And beyond that, I've already described the benefits of DRM.
So why can I inquire about DRM removal?

Surely not to use it?

Right: out of interest!

It does surprise me that you would waste time on such a specific question. Knowing if the DRM removal tools work or not is one thing. But, if you have no plan to use them, wanting to know the exact line that needs to be changed to fix them seems pretty pointless.

What I am also curious about is why you use Calibre Companion. I mean, it is a tool to allow you to copy ebooks from other machines, principally a machine running calibre, to a central location on an Android device. So, as you seem to be claiming you don't use a computer for you ebooks, I don't see much use in it. Plus, as apparently you only by books with DRM, I'm absolutely stunned that Calibre Companion will work with them. I mean, how does Calibre Companion give a reading app a book that has Adobe DRM in it?

Of course, maybe you don't use Calibre Companion and all those posts of yours telling people how to use it are just guesswork. If so, you really should mention that so that people will know how much they are actually worth.