Amazon and DRM changes

[A Lurker]

Originally Posted by djrx

I agree. Removing any DRM, regardless of the reason, is a type of piracy. Whether you buy a paperback and scan it, buy an ebook to remove the DRM so you can use it on another platform, or remove DRM from KU to keep "forever", etc., in the eyes of the law, you're committing piracy.

Let's say you make a single copy of a piece of media for yourself (an ebook, a DVD, a video game, a VHS tape, a CD, a vinyl album, whatever).

Is that technically illegal? Perhaps. But in the history of the world, no person has every been sued or criminal charged for making a single copy for personal use. It's never happened. Never.

In practice, the only people who are sued or prosecuted are those who produce and distribute mass copies of media.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by C-novice

Will Amazon sooner or later use Goodreads to showcase only its books?

That would be ridiculous and would lose them traffic. Now, they could likely focus advertising on their exclusive books. For all I know, they may do that already. I use adblock.

Will it soon become a membership space only -accessible for a fee?

That reminds me of the eternal "Facebook will begin charging fees..." meme.

Goodreads won't charge users because users are the product.

[lkmiller]

Originally Posted by ownedbycats

I noticed that Kobo links disappeared from GR some time after Amazon purchased it...

The link to Kobo is now "Walmart ebooks" (at least for me in the US.)

[Quoth]

Mostly I only see Amazon links on Goodreads now. It will remain free as a honeypot.

[John F]

Originally Posted by A Lurker

...

In practice, the only people who are sued or prosecuted are those who produce and distribute mass copies of media.

Going for memory, so I may be wrong, but I thought some Napster users (or Napster itself) was sued, and I don't think they "produced" any copies; they were sued for sharing copies?

[Stingo]

Originally Posted by TheOnlyDocc

I got the designation from this side (https://www.androidauthority.com/whi...-have-1073996/).
If this is not correct i will call it from now on KO3

OFGS. I abbreviate it KOA. I know that the initials are ko but it looks dumb to me since it is slang for a knock out punch and since a competitor is Kobo. In context most people would understands KOA means Kindle Oasis. Call it what you want as long as people understand.

[Quoth]

sharing copies = distribute mass copies of media.

The word "produce" in quote is erroneous. You produce originals, you make and distribute copies.

[Stingo]

Originally Posted by A Lurker

Let's say you make a single copy of a piece of media for yourself (an ebook, a DVD, a video game, a VHS tape, a CD, a vinyl album, whatever).

Is that technically illegal? Perhaps. But in the history of the world, no person has every been sued or criminal charged for making a single copy for personal use. It's never happened. Never.

In practice, the only people who are sued or prosecuted are those who produce and distribute mass copies of media.

It is not illegal to decrypt a piece of media and make a copy for personal archival purposes. It is illegal to distribute or share that copy.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Stingo

It is not illegal to decrypt a piece of media and make a copy for personal archival purposes.

That depends where you live.

[ownedbycats]

Originally Posted by John F

Going for memory, so I may be wrong, but I thought some Napster users (or Napster itself) was sued, and I don't think they "produced" any copies; they were sued for sharing copies?

Napster was peer-to-peer but they were sued for "contributory infringement."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%26M_...._Napster,_Inc.

Napster was also famously sued by Metallica, but I think that one was settled rather than going to court.

[jhowell]

Originally Posted by ownedbycats

Napster was peer-to-peer but they were sued for "contributory infringement."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A%26M_...._Napster,_Inc.

Napster was also famously sued by Metallica, but I think that one was settled rather than going to court.

Also Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset:

Capitol Records, Inc. v. Thomas-Rasset was the first file-sharing copyright infringement lawsuit in the United States brought by major record labels to be tried before a jury. The defendant, Jammie Thomas-Rasset, was found liable to the plaintiff record company for making 24 songs available to the public for free on the Kazaa file sharing service and ordered to pay $220,000.

[mitra1]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

That depends where you live.

For example in italy we can read this

Questo ebook contiene materiale protetto da copyright e non può essere copiato, riprodotto, trasferito, distribuito, noleggiato, licenziato o trasmesso in pubblico, o utilizzato in alcun altro modo ad eccezione di quanto è stato specificamente autorizzato dall’editore, ai termini e alle condizioni alle quali è stato acquistato o da quanto esplicitamente previsto dalla legge applicabile. Qualsiasi distribuzione o fruizione non autorizzata di questo testo così come l’alterazione delle informazioni elettroniche sul regime dei diritti costituisce una violazione dei diritti dell’editore e dell’autore e sarà sanzionata civilmente e penalmente secondo quanto previsto dalla Legge 633/1941 e successive modifiche.

Questo ebook non potrà in alcun modo essere oggetto di scambio, commercio, prestito, rivendita, acquisto rateale o altrimenti diffuso senza il preventivo consenso scritto dell’editore. In caso di consenso, tale ebook non potrà avere alcuna forma diversa da quella in cui l’opera è stata pubblicata e le condizioni incluse alla presente dovranno essere imposte anche al fruitore successivo.

(Diabolik 41)

This ebook contains copyrighted material and may not be copied, reproduced, transferred, distributed, rented, licensed, or broadcast in public, or used in any other way except as specifically authorized by the publisher, on the terms and conditions under which it was purchased, or as explicitly provided by applicable law. Any unauthorized distribution or use of this text as well as the alteration of the electronic rights regime information constitutes a violation of the publisher's and author's rights and will be sanctioned civilly and criminally in accordance with the provisions of Legge 633/1941 as amended.

This ebook shall in no way be subject to exchange, trade, loan, resale, installment purchase or otherwise disseminated without the prior written consent of the publisher. In the event of consent, this ebook may not have any form other than that in which the work was published, and the conditions included herein shall also be imposed on the subsequent user.

Translated with www.DeepL.com/Translator (free version)

In sinthesis it's illegal dedrm an ebook if i understood well and I am a criminal because i use dedrm software

[ownedbycats]

Specific to the United States, the DMCA forbids the removal of DRM under most circumstances (I think there's a few exceptions, e.g. for accessibility reasons). I'm a little vague on the actual details on this though.

[ottischwenk]

Originally Posted by mitra1

For example in italy we can read this

This ebook ..... may not be ..... transferred, distributed,
.......
and the conditions included herein shall also be imposed on the subsequent user.

Something is contradicting itself.

[Lys]

Originally Posted by ottischwenk

Something is contradicting itself.

Not really?

In the event of consent, this ebook may not have any form other than that in which the work was published, and the conditions included herein shall also be imposed on the subsequent user.

They key part is "in the event of consent". If the publisher allows you to resell/distribute the book, whoever ends with a copy of it (the subsequent user) is under the same conditions as if they bought/got the book from the publisher itself.