Finally able to support authors

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

install KindleForPC (or MAC), have a physical Kindle, install and register ADE, configure DeDRM, etc.

Physical kindle OR KindleForPC. The registered eink kindle is much simpler.

No need to install or register ADE at all for Amazon. And for ACSM/ADE DRM downloads there is need to install or register ADE unless you are using it for a Library.

[John F]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Physical kindle OR KindleForPC. The registered eink kindle is much simpler.

...

But registered doesn't work, in some cases where KindleForPC does.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Physical kindle OR KindleForPC. The registered eink kindle is much simpler.

No need to install or register ADE at all for Amazon. And for ACSM/ADE DRM downloads there is need to install or register ADE unless you are using it for a Library.

Basically, there are a number of permutations to get your content. As @leebase has said, it's not easy. I'm agreeing if you are just starting out.

I found it easy but then I've been at it for some time and I've been keeping up with the changes, new features, new URLs, etc.

[Quoth]

Originally Posted by John F

But registered doesn't work, in some cases where KindleForPC does.

Registered works for every ebook that can be bought for eink, i.e. not Print Replica.

[John F]

Originally Posted by Quoth

Registered works for every ebook that can be bought for eink, i.e. not Print Replica.

And it doesn't work for some non-Print Replica ebooks.

[Cactus Chef]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

I get it, people may have little time and/or energy to constantly monitor the DRM threads here, both old and new. And then they're caught off guard when their set-up stops working, again. But there's no help for it other than to keep your information as up-to-date as possible.

As I think more about this, it strikes me that I paid 40 bucks to buy an old Kindle off eBay so that I would have a reliable method to get my books out, after the Kindle4PC method stopped working for me (broke on Linux, Wine wasn't reliable...will spare the details).

In light of that, it seems silly that this is what we encourage everyone to do, and yet we begrudge people who instead pay 50 bucks for a piece of software that obviates that step.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by Cactus Chef

In light of that, it seems silly that this is what we encourage everyone to do, and yet we begrudge people who instead pay 50 bucks for a piece of software that obviates that step.

I don't begrudge anyone who pays $50 to make it easier on themselves. I just found it extremely ironic that someone who was proud of finally being able to "support authors," felt no compunction whatsoever about rewarding Epubor: a company who refuses to support/recognize the authors of the code they use without attribution. You can't pay someone for illicit DRM Removal software and pretend to be on the side of the angels.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Cactus Chef

As I think more about this, it strikes me that I paid 40 bucks to buy an old Kindle off eBay so that I would have a reliable method to get my books out, after the Kindle4PC method stopped working for me (broke on Linux, Wine wasn't reliable...will spare the details).

In light of that, it seems silly that this is what we encourage everyone to do, and yet we begrudge people who instead pay 50 bucks for a piece of software that obviates that step.

That $50 software was stolen. The underlying code that does the work was not theirs. They stole it and are charging people for code they did not write and have no permission to sell. They are very sleazy. I begrudge them everything.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

That $50 software was stolen. The underlying code that does the work was not theirs. They stole it and are charging people for code they did not write and have no permission to sell. They are very sleazy. I begrudge them everything.

As someone who has contributed to that free codebase over the years, I don't care that they're using the code. I don't really even begrudge them charging for their derivative product. I do agree, however, that they are sleazy. But only because they don't give credit where credit is due. But then acting "dishonorably" isn't really a charge that carries a lot of weight these days.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Cactus Chef

In light of that, it seems silly that this is what we encourage everyone to do, and yet we begrudge people who instead pay 50 bucks for a piece of software that obviates that step.

Huh. You seem to be conflating "those who encourage people to overpay for buy a used Kindle" with "those who deplore paying for Epubor." I'm not at all convinced that there's much of an overlap there; certainly I'm in one camp and not the other.

As with everything online, you pick your sources.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

That $50 software was stolen. The underlying code that does the work was not theirs. They stole it and are charging people for code they did not write and have no permission to sell. They are very sleazy. I begrudge them everything.

Jon, there is no need to steal the code since the code is open source and they are free to use it. What they do not do is to give credit to the creators of that code which, in my eyes, is a sleazy act.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by Sirtel

I've been following any developments in deDRMing closely since 2011. Back then it was easy; now it's harder (the Amazon DRM part, that is), but if you regularly monitor the relevant threads and topics here, it's not that difficult either. And I say that as a person with no technical or IT background at all. It's only difficult if you don't keep track of various DRM threads and have to search for information every time something stops working.

I get it, people may have little time and/or energy to constantly monitor the DRM threads here, both old and new. And then they're caught off guard when their set-up stops working, again. But there's no help for it other than to keep your information as up-to-date as possible.

For what it may be worth, of the last 5 people I've helped either with direct contact or private messaging in setting calibre/DeDRM, none of them were particularly techie and all 5 managed to get calibre/DeDRM running with a bit of work on their part and a few pointers from me. For 2 of them, the important advice was pointing them at the NoDRM repository, the other 3 had already found it on their own.

[haertig]

I agree that original authors should be credited for their work. But I can also see problems in trying to provide that credit for a product that has no license or usage requirements that I can find, is not copyrighted or patented as far as I can find, and was written by someone known only by their pseudonym/alias. I think it is a fairly reasonable conclusion to draw that those who wrote DeDRM knew from the start that they would never be widely known for what they did. I also think it is reasonable to believe that this was intentional. Giving credit to a phantom who wants to remain a phantom is (1) not an easy task, (2) probably an inappropriate thing to attempt in the first place, given the authors apparent desire to remain a phantom. There is a bit of a moral dilemma in all this - you want to give credit where credit is due, but you don't want to drag someone into something that they did their best not to be dragged into. So which side do you cheer for? The side that says "Give them credit, even if it may harm them" or the side that says "Facilitate their anonymity, by not publicly acknowledging what they did". I'm don't think the choice is as clear-cut as some might make it out to be.

[Terisa de morgan]

Deleted post.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by haertig

No thanks is needed, because I didn't say that at all.

Actually, that is exactly what you said when you stated that his statement was not factually correct. Are you going to try to debate that making a factually incorrect statement is not an epitome of dishonesty? Trying to claim that his dishonesty was justified as a rhetorical technique does not make it any less dishonest.

Originally Posted by haertig

Hyperbole is a literary and oratory technique to make a point, it has nothing to do with truth. Intentionally taking things too literally only works well if one is the straight man in a comedy duo. When it is used to belittle and accuse someone of being a liar, it only makes the accuser look obtuse. I have seen enough of your posts to know that you are certainly not obtuse, but yet you do something like this and belittle another member for a simple and harmless statement. Unfortunately, this is a very common tactic for several people on these forums. Masters of minutiae. I see no reason to take innocent and well intentioned comments and posts and blow them up into ... I don't even know what to call what they're being blown up into. It's not very nice. But it happens around here. A lot.

Sadly, I regarded the discussion as a debate not as a political speech. Debates should be focused on facts. Hyperbole like many other logical fallacies does not have a place in a debate. Inventing untruths to support a contention is sceleris plenissime.

Anyhow, I think this discussion has been beaten enough times.