How do you plan to wait out the coming ebook shakedown?

[thrawn_aj]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

I calls them as I sees them. Whether you intended them to be or or not, your so called polite posts came across exceedingly arrogant; otherwise I wouldn't have bothered to reply.

I understand. You're projecting. Since I'm not a shrink, there's not much I can do with that except leave you to your incorrect beliefs. At least I can reuse these posts when these wrong ideas inevitably resurface in some future discussion on DRM. Waste not, want not and all that ...

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by thrawn_aj

I understand. You're projecting. Since I'm not a shrink, there's not much I can do with that except leave you to your incorrect beliefs. At least I can reuse these posts when these wrong ideas inevitably resurface in some future discussion on DRM. Waste not, want not and all that ...

I'm not a shrink but I do have a degree in Psyschology which I do not need to tell when someone is full of it.

[thrawn_aj]

Originally Posted by TallMomof2

I've been backing up VHS tapes, CDs, DVDs, and purely electronic media for years and for me backing up a book is not much of a stretch. When my kids were small those backups saved me a bit of money as the kids were not as kind to the tapes and DVDs as they should've been. As long as it's for personal use, even if I have to circumvent DRM, I'm fine with it. It may or may not be illegal but it's definitely not immoral.

Originally Posted by FF2

See this is where the law has proved very stupid. It has turned or attempted to turn ordinary people in class one felons (not in the legal sense - maybe misdemeanants). Whether photocopying, or scanning or breaking drm - ordinary folks are being forced to become common criminals to protect the rights they have purchased.

Precisely.

Originally Posted by FF2

Oh, I just looked at two pbooks and neither contains language forbidding copying.

Not all of them do. But almost every single one I own (or have seen) appears to. Of course, the intent of the notice is to prevent piracy (which comes from distribution of the copied content to someone other than the legal owner). I respect that intent.

[NVash]

Originally Posted by rkomar

I have the plain 3600. I use WinXP/SP2 within VirtualBox on a Linux machine to run the scanner. I'm not that comfortable with Windows, so I haven't tried any of the post-scanning software that comes with the scanner. I just move the scans to my Linux partitions and deal with them there. The Windows software might very well be rubbish. The software that collects the scans is klunky and is Windows-only. On the plus side, you don't have to be at the computer to control the scanning, as each scan is initiated using the buttons on the scanner.

The Plustek website has drivers for Vista and Win7, but I've never used either OS, so I can't say if they work well or not. They were updated 09-30-2009, so maybe they've fixed the problems the Vista users had.

Thanks, I appreciate the information.

Originally Posted by Seanette

OK, one kind of non-standard clause there: requiring the author's permission rather than the publisher's.

That makes me laugh. How in the World is one expected to pull off getting the authors permission?

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by NVash

That makes me laugh. How in the World is one expected to pull off getting the authors permission?

Well, not in this context, but I've exchanged snail mail or email with a number of my favorite living authors. If you can't find an address for them, write to them care of their most recent publisher.

[Seanette]

Originally Posted by NVash

Thanks, I appreciate the information.



That makes me laugh. How in the World is one expected to pull off getting the authors permission?

Haven't tried it, but I'm guessing the publisher would forward letters/e-mail.

[NVash]

And how would one word such a letter?

'Dear (Author Name), I am a huge fan of your series and am writing you to request permission to copy it. My intentions are not in the vein of making money, I would just like to scan it and use it for my own personal use. I would like to read it on my Kindle, Nook, iPhone, Droid, whichever the case may be and your publisher does not offer me the chance to purchase it. Moreover I cant say that I would purchase it seeing as how I already own a copy as it is. I would be remiss to say that I believe in buying the same book twice. I blame neither you nor the publisher, I should have waited for an ereader version. However there is no release date for such a thing, saying one is even coming out. I would also like to scan some of your older books that are no longer being published. I purchased some off of EBay in a wholesale lot, Im not even sure the man knew what he was selling me but I got them. However they are water damaged and falling apart. I cant even read them, I picked up one book and half the pages fell out. With all of this said I would like to take it upon myself to make my own ereader versions. I will not sell it, it will be for my own usage. Please respond as I would greatly like to read your response.'

I know its very rough around the edges but honestly, anyone think something like this would fly? An author would really allow someone to copy their books because there isnt an ereader version and even if there was they would not purchase it because they dont want to buy the same book twice? I think no matter what way they read it theyll think lost sales. It may cause them to make an ereader version, it may not, but Im pretty sure they wont give permission to scan it.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by thrawn_aj

No takers? Great. I guess that was accurate and no such exemption exists. Hopefully, we won't have that incorrect argument (about book-scanning being the legal alternative to breaking DRM) brought up again and again in the future. Cheers
(If someone suddenly remembers something, please be sure to read the entire argument and not just the snippet above before posting a "rebuttal").

See my earlier post here. You can find even earlier posts of mine that cover the issue in greater detail. My layman's understanding is that the DMCA's preamble claims that it should not be construed to diminish any existing fair-use rights, while its body makes DRM-removal illegal. The apparent contradiction requires the courts to sort it out.

I have written advice-of-counsel (from an eminent IP lawyer, no less!) to the effect that, in her opinion, removal of DRM from legally acquired content for personal use only falls entirely within existing fair-use rights. This, and a couple of bucks, may buy me a cup of coffee. (Really, it establishes that I sought advice and intended to remain legal. But no more than that.)

As always, IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer), so do not place reliance on this opinion.

Xenophon

[thrawn_aj]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

See my earlier post here. You can find even earlier posts of mine that cover the issue in greater detail. My layman's understanding is that the DMCA's preamble claims that it should not be construed to diminish any existing fair-use rights, while its body makes DRM-removal illegal. The apparent contradiction requires the courts to sort it out.

I have written advice-of-counsel (from an eminent IP lawyer, no less!) to the effect that, in her opinion, removal of DRM from legally acquired content for personal use only falls entirely within existing fair-use rights. This, and a couple of bucks, may buy me a cup of coffee. (Really, it establishes that I sought advice and intended to remain legal. But no more than that.)

As always, IANAL (I Am Not A Lawyer), so do not place reliance on this opinion.

Xenophon

Thank you very much for this! Finally, some sage opinions based on actual lawyerly advice . I understand and accept your caveats - no worries there. Next time you're in the Bay area, drinks (well, coffee at least - I don't imbibe ) are on me .

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

I have written advice-of-counsel (from an eminent IP lawyer, no less!) to the effect that, in her opinion, removal of DRM from legally acquired content for personal use only falls entirely within existing fair-use rights.

Here in Canada, the current government tabled a bill about a year ago that would have clarified this situation. The bill would have made it legal to make back-ups for fair use purposes, and this was trumpeted by the government in the media. However, the same bill would have also made the breaking of _any_ DRM illegal, including the fair use cases. That part of the bill wasn't trumpeted to the media . There was some grassroots opposition to the bill, and it was removed from the table, for now.

The previous government pushed for a similar bill, so the lobbying seems to be party agnostic. It also seems to be country agnostic; international big-money is pushing this everywhere it can, using small gains in one country as leverage in others.

[taming]

Originally Posted by rkomar

Here in Canada, the current government tabled a bill about a year ago that would have clarified this situation. The bill would have made it legal to make back-ups for fair use purposes, and this was trumpeted by the government in the media. However, the same bill would have also made the breaking of _any_ DRM illegal, including the fair use cases. That part of the bill wasn't trumpeted to the media . There was some grassroots opposition to the bill, and it was removed from the table, for now.

For a small country, we sure do have huge confusion regarding this. Michael Geist, a law professor at the University of Ottawa where he holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law, gave a very good explanation of where the digital locks controversy stands at the moment just last week.

[thrawn_aj]

Originally Posted by rkomar

Here in Canada, the current government tabled a bill about a year ago that would have clarified this situation. The bill would have made it legal to make back-ups for fair use purposes, and this was trumpeted by the government in the media. However, the same bill would have also made the breaking of _any_ DRM illegal, including the fair use cases. That part of the bill wasn't trumpeted to the media . There was some grassroots opposition to the bill, and it was removed from the table, for now.

The previous government pushed for a similar bill, so the lobbying seems to be party agnostic. It also seems to be country agnostic; international big-money is pushing this everywhere it can, using small gains in one country as leverage in others.

Yes. I was following that issue very closely here in the US (mostly by keeping up with the Canadian podcast (Search Engine) by Jesse Brown. I found it amazing that he would get sitting ministers and other big shots to appear on his show and talk about these things in some level of detail (not just sound bites). Don't get to see that here so much . Very impressive show.

@Taming - Michael Geist has been mentioned a lot on that show (he was a significant part of the grassroots movement to kill that flawed bill if I recall correctly). He's appeared on it a few times too.

By the way, if you don't listen to it already, I would highly recommend that podcast . I believe you can find it on TVO. Got some rather intriguing information about ACTA and how the US (pressured by the RIAA/MPAA lobby groups - I wouldn't be surprised if the publishing industry isn't getting a piece of the action as well) is trying to export the abomination that is the DMCA to other countries, sometimes with blatant diplomatic threats. It's not enough that we have to tolerate that PITA - but to impose it on all and sundry? Haven't we soiled our image enough?

In fact, some Canadian activists have been accusing their government of simply rubber-stamping US/RIAA/MPAA recommendations for their version of the digital rights act instead of listening to what Canadians are saying.

I'm sure you have a much better idea of how true or false that is so I'd love to hear your perspectives on this.

[taming]

Originally Posted by thrawn_aj

I found it amazing that he would get sitting ministers and other big shots to appear on his show and talk about these things in some level of detail (not just sound bites). Don't get to see that here so much . Very impressive show.

If this amazes you, try some of our TV comedy shows. Politicians, including the PM, are on regularly. See our current PM on Rick Mercer's weekly CBC comedy: Rick Mercer's Sleepover with Steven Harper.(YouTube).

I was absolutely astonished by this sort of thing when I moved to Canada from the US. The Podcast you referenced is here. He is interviewing Michael Geist saying much of what is in the article I linked earlier.

[thrawn_aj]

Originally Posted by taming

If this amazes you, try some of our TV comedy shows. Politicians, including the PM, are on regularly. See our current PM on Rick Mercer's weekly CBC comedy: Rick Mercer's Sleepover with Steven Harper.(YouTube).

I was absolutely astonished by this sort of thing when I moved to Canada from the US. The Podcast you referenced is here. He is interviewing Michael Geist saying much of what is in the article I linked earlier.

Thanks! I'll check it out. Again, color me pleasantly surprised. That is what political leaders should be like. Not spoiled celebrities .

By the way, your podcast link just links to your post .