DRM for Public Domain works at B&N

[Lo Zeno]

Originally Posted by Requiem

The DRM is currently the best way that the company can secure THEIR work on the public domain.

I dare object this: DRM is perceived as the only way the company can secure their work. It's not necessarily the best way, nor we can say other options have been fully explored so far.
My company produces software, and we sell licenses of that software. We do not "DRM" our software, we just adopt a "tight channel" to know who is downloading what from our distribution services everytime.
Technically, there is nothing that prevents one of our customer from copying our software and giving it away for free.
Incidentally, though, our profits increased shortly after we decided to drop our previous software protection.

I know it's more complicated than that (dropping software protection meant reducing costs, thus making the purchase more appealing), and I know that software is not books, but its still digital content, which can be copied, "pirated", illegally distributed.

And oh, I'm SURE that there are illegal copies of our software out there! There were before and there will be in the future. What matters is just that we increased profits, since we work for profit

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Requiem

The DRM is currently the best way that the company can secure THEIR work on the public domain.

Pure hilarity!

Obviously the MAFIAA's brainwashing campaigns have, in part, achieved their goals: Customer's demanding the right to have their rights curtailed and violated.

- Ahi

[Hellmark]

but DRM did kill my puppies. It locked them in a box, and they suffocated.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

but DRM did kill my puppies. It locked them in a box, and they suffocated.

An extra merit point shall be placed upon your file, Citizen!

- Ahi

[MaggieScratch]

B&N has a line of public domain "classics" to which they have added original material, such as explanatory notes and forewards by academics, that they publish in trade and mass market paperback editions. They are certainly entitled to copyright such works, and it's not out of the realm of reality to have DRM placed upon them if they change them into ebooks. I purchased one of their mmp Jane Austen titles and the forward and notes were very good. Such books would be useful to students who would like a less expensive edition of the books they have to read with good supplemental material.

I just wonder if one can read ebooks from some of the free providers using the B&N software? Then I think some criticism is valid. Consumers who are unsophisticated about ebooks and who try ebooks for the first time because they consider B&N a trusted name might not realize they can get perfectly nice "reading copies" of these books for free elsewhere. Some Kindle readers are the same way--they are only comfortable within the walls of their electronic garden and don't like to venture out to see the sometimes better stuff they can get "outside" for free. There's nothing wrong with that, though I think it's a shame.

[sircastor]

Originally Posted by dementrio

If I buy a public domain book, strip the drm and share or even sell it, am I breaking the law?

I didn't see anyone else answering this question, so I thought I would. The answer is yes, you're breaking the law, but probably not the one you're thinking of...

By stripping the DRM, you're violating the DMCA (Section 1201 deals with the circumvention of copyright protection schemes)

It should also be said that a public domain book is not inherently public domain. The words, in the associated order that make up "War of the Worlds" for instance, are in the public domain, but the method of assembly of the book, the file type, structure, format, etc, are not necessarily in the public domain. This is why life in the digital age has made copyright so tough to deal with.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Besides, public domain doesn't mean the title has to be sold for $0.00 or go without DRM.

Yes, adding DRM to public domain works is perfectly legal, but also completely stupid and pointless.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by sircastor

By stripping the DRM, you're violating the DMCA (Section 1201 deals with the circumvention of copyright protection schemes)

But DRM on a public domain work is NOT a copyright protection scheme. I don't think the DMCA would apply.

but the method of assembly of the book, the file type, structure, format, etc, are not necessarily in the public domain.

The method of assembly, file type, structure, format, etc, are not copyrightable. A company doesn't necessarily have to give away public domain books for free if it doesn't want to, but they don't own any rights protection on them either. If someone wants to buy the public domain eBook and then redistribute it, there's nothing to stop them.

Usually the way around this is that the publisher selling a public domain work will also include new material in their version of the book. Either a forward or some type of review/analysis that constitutes new original content. That part of the book would then be copyrighted, even though the rest of the content is public domain.

However, if they're just selling the public domain content "as is", then they can't stop any redistribution.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by MaggieScratch

B&N has a line of public domain "classics" to which they have added original material, such as explanatory notes and forewards by academics, that they publish in trade and mass market paperback editions. They are certainly entitled to copyright such works, and it's not out of the realm of reality to have DRM placed upon them if they change them into ebooks.

Exactly. In that instance, the new original material is copyrighted, even though the rest of the book is public domain. Any protection would apply to the new material only.

Of course, the article doesn't mention this, so I have no idea whether or not there is any "new material" in the public domain books that they are talking about.

[rixte]

Originally Posted by =X=

I did and you are correct but they are not talking about Google books they're talking about the five free "B&N Classics" that are given when creating an account ( Dracula, Little Women, Pride & Prejudice). Those books do have DRM.

=X=

In which case, I think that is the entire point of the DRM - I'm guessing that they're doing it to show how easy it is to use/access the books. And while I'm not a huge fan of DRM in general, I think it's a good idea to let people try it out before locking them into a purchase.

[Argel]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Any protection would apply to the new material only.

In the UK, at least, there is copyright in format and typography, even if the underlying material is not copyright.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by sircastor

I didn't see anyone else answering this question, so I thought I would. The answer is yes, you're breaking the law, but probably not the one you're thinking of...

By stripping the DRM, you're violating the DMCA (Section 1201 deals with the circumvention of copyright protection schemes)

It should also be said that a public domain book is not inherently public domain. The words, in the associated order that make up "War of the Worlds" for instance, are in the public domain, but the method of assembly of the book, the file type, structure, format, etc, are not necessarily in the public domain. This is why life in the digital age has made copyright so tough to deal with.

Whether you are violating the DMCA (or not) remains to be seen (er... ruled on in court)! As I've posted many (MANY) times before, legal opinion is thoroughly split on this question. A few things are perfectly clear:

• Providing DRM removal software to someone else is a violation of the DMCA.
• Providing DRM-stripped content to others is very likely a violation of the DMCA (and probably also other copyright laws)
• Telling others where to get DRM-removal software may be a violation of the DMCA.

But using DRM removal software to remove DRM from legitimately acquired content for personal use only (more strictly -- staying within existing fair-use guidelines) may or may not violate the DMCA. Plenty of legal authorities say it's clearly OK. Plenty of others say it's clearly a violation. Yet others say it's not clear.

We won't really know until a court rules. And that would require a plaintiff stupid enough to take such a case to court! Can you see the judge's expression: The defendant bought this eBook, and then stripped the DRM so they could use it on a different device (or share with spouse, or...). They didn't upload, they didn't violate copy-right more broadly. You'd have a heck of a time convincing a DA that the case was worth pursuing...

Xenophon

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

But using DRM removal software to remove DRM from legitimately acquired content for personal use only (more strictly -- staying within existing fair-use guidelines) may or may not violate the DMCA.

This example even goes beyond that. We're talking about content that isn't copyrighted. In such a situation, I don't think the DMCA even applies.

The DMCA is specifically about preventing the circumvention of DRM protection on copyrighted works. The question asked was about works that are public domain. No copyright means no DMCA.

[Requiem]

Originally Posted by ahi

Pure hilarity!

Obviously the MAFIAA's brainwashing campaigns have, in part, achieved their goals: Customer's demanding the right to have their rights curtailed and violated.

- Ahi

The funny thing about this is that is not what I was saying. Another is what gives YOU the right to curtail someone else's right? It is my belief that the cost benefit ratio makes the DRM the most easily applied partial solution to the problem from a company stand point.

And yes Companies have rights too, along with the people employed by those companies.

I am not a DRM advocate but as I see it, as long as it is implemented correctly, it is a necessary evil. I for one do not want my prices to go up to keep the company producing said goods in the black, due to prolific pirating of their products. If you will remember the GPL also allows such redistibution and selling of individual distros of Linux for example. What is the great difference here? Why is that ok and it isn't to repackage a PD (which is related, if not in the same ballpark) and sell for a profit?

Sometimes I think people just look at themselves and how they are affected by things like this. Didn't anyone ever have their parents tell them "Nothing in Life is Free"?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

We won't really know until a court rules. And that would require a plaintiff stupid enough to take such a case to court! Can you see the judge's expression: The defendant bought this eBook, and then stripped the DRM so they could use it on a different device (or share with spouse, or...). They didn't upload, they didn't violate copy-right more broadly. You'd have a heck of a time convincing a DA that the case was worth pursuing...

Minor technicality, but there wouldn't be a DA involved. Such a case would fall under civil copyright infringement, not criminal (at least in the US). This would have to be a private suit brought by the plaintiff.

They may still get an odd reaction from the judge, but they wouldn't have to convince a DA to pursue the case.