New version of DRM removal tools ("DeDRM")

[j.p.s]

OK, I guess I just have a personal hangup. I never got comfortable beyond the very basics of SCCS, RCS, and CVS. But once I got over my dread of how difficult or unwieldly git might be to give it a try, I was pleasantly surprised at just how comfortable, easy and downright fun git is. I still have to use CVS for some projects at work and a shiver goes down my spine when I see those initials.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

I still have to use CVS for some projects at work and a shiver goes down my spine when I see those initials.

Fair enough.

I just meant versioning systems in general.

[JSWolf]

The thing to do is put DeDRM back up on Githib but dump Readium DRM removal.

[jhowell]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The thing to do is put DeDRM back up on Githib but dump Readium DRM removal.

Are you volunteering?

[Lynx-lynx]

Has our new person actually been banned or barred from that site ? If they remove whatever they're good to go aren't they?

[jhowell]

Originally Posted by Lynx-lynx

Has our new person actually been banned or barred from that site ? If they remove whatever they're good to go aren't they?

I am curious about this also. It might not be that simple. According to the take down notice the owner of the repository was given the opportunity to remove the offending content and apparently failed to do so. I wonder if that means it is too late to do it now.

[odamizu]

Does the DeDRM plugin use Qt 5? Does Calibre's upcoming migration to Qt 6 mean the plugin won't work with Calibre 6 unless some kind soul picks up the DeDRM baton?

Also, the take down notice says the owner of the repository was only given "approximately 1 business day" to remove the offending content. Perhaps that wasn't enough time. Perhaps the easier path would be to create a new repository or re-fork Apprentice Harper's repository under a different user name?

In any case, this is all rather dismaying.

[noDRM]

Hi everyone :P

Initially, I didn't want create an account on this site and keep all discussion on GitHub (the fewer accounts one has, the easier it is to stay anonymous ...), but I guess with the GitHub being gone, it's about time to answer some of the questions here ...

Maybe GitHub hasn't been the best choice for a platform, but I didn't expect there to be DMCA claims when there have been none over the recent years in Apprentice Harper's repository. I guess, in the long term, I should move to another platform.

I received the first message from Github about the DMCA claim on January 4th in the late evening, with a time line of 24h to remove the "offending" content. Of course that deadline is rather short - I am obviously not using my "main" mail address for stuff like this, so I didn't check this account every single day, and only found out the repository was blocked (some time on January 6th) when I checked this forum thread and saw the discussion on January 7th.

The GitHub FAQ states that when one misses the 1-day window to make requested changes, one can request an additional time of 1 day to perform the changes. I requested that by mail on January 7th, but so far the GitHub support hasn't gotten back to me yet. Right now, I see the same page that you all see - repo unavailable due to DMCA. They could have at least given the repo owner access to update the code, but they didn't.

Rather disturbing that they are allowed to block a repo after just one day of no response (they could have given me a notification on the Github page itself, in addition to the mail, then I would have seen it before the deadline was over ...), and then don't respond to the topic for multiple days, but maybe their support doesn't work on weekends and they don't consider stuff like this urgent now that the repo's down and they did what they legally have to do ...

The goal is to hopefully get Github to restore the repository once they finally read my mail, then remove the offending code from the repository, and have the plugin no longer contain the offending LCP code on Github to comply with the DMCA request.

The DMCA request mentions nothing about the difference between library books and bought books. The request states that the original repositories (apprentice harper and so on) are not part of the takedown - not because they have blocks for library books, but because they don't support LCP at all. So I doubt adding a block for library books would have prevented this takedown (or, would be an acceptable solution to get the repository back). The guys behind LCP know how easy it is to edit Python code to remove such blocks, and I think with this plugin being the first public solution for LCP DRM removal, I guess they are more concerned with people knowing the algorithm, and they think that with a DMCA request for this repo they can remove that from the entire internet.

I don't want to piss off GitHub (and Readium?) even more by now creating a new account or repository. Even though it's probably fine as far as the DMCA goes (if there's no LCP code in the new repo), it certainly violates Github TOS to just make a new repo when there's a pending takedown. So I'm going to wait for the support to respond, which they are supposed to according to their own FAQ. If they don't, I guess the plugin moves to another platform.

As for the other topics being discussed here in the last couple days:

- Someone mentioned that based on the description of LCP in the takedown notice, this DRM doesn't sound so bad - maybe it doesn't, but there's one thing they are purposefully omitting in that description, and one they either deliberately or accidentally explained wrong. They are claiming that LCP is oh-so-open and doesn't lock the user into a proprietary environment.
Yeah, LCP is not as proprietary as Adobe or Amazon, but it's still proprietary. Yes, they have the source code available on their GitHub, but still require you to pay huge amounts for licenses if you want to use the code. A critical piece of source code for the project is missing on their Github, and you only get this code (with a very restrictive license) if you pay them. So, the code on the GitHub is useless, as if you forked it and built the code yourself, it wouldn't work.
And the other thing they omitted is the fact that there's (almost) no reader support. They claim the DRM doesn't hurt content accessibility, it lets users share content with friends, and so on. But that's only true if you're reading on a phone or computer, or if you have a very new eReader from particular vendors.
If the codebase would have *really* been open-source (meaning, I take the source code, built it, and get a 1:1 100% identical binary to the one they give to users, without paying for a license), AND Readium had support on all eReaders, I doubt I would have deemed it necessary to add LCP support. The main reason I added this support was not to "crack" books and share them with the world, it was getting them to work on MY readers ...

- The latest release of the plugin (10.0.2) does not yet support QT 6 / Calibre 6, but the latest commit on master already does. I doubt there's many people that have that downloaded, with the repo now gone. Though, even if GitHub decides to block the repo permanently and I don't find any other useful hosting, the plugin only required very small changes in two or three places that became apparent when reading the error messages, so it should be easy for others to fix that, if needed.

[darryl]

Welcome @noDRM. I think the tools have been tolerated by Adobe and Amazon for a number or reasons. The DMCA is an unbalanced and far over-reaching piece of legislation. Whilst its application is limited to US jurisdictions in practice its influence is far wider. The tools arguably offend the very wide "anti-circumvention" provisions, which, thanks to the US, are mirrored in the copyright legislation of other major western jurisdictions. Adobe has not so far taken any similar action against the tools. The readium takedown notice reads almost as though you have violated an unwritten truce in respect to library books etc. I suspect Adobe is simply realistic. They already had the bulk of the DRM market when the tools first appeared and seem to have realised that those removing DRM are very much a minority who cost them little or nothing. It is significant that even Readium specifically excluded Apprentice Harper's repository from their notice, and clearly do not want to attract publicity and risk alienating the community. I think their problem is that they are seeking to establish their business in opposition to Adobe, and are slowly expanding, mainly but not exclusively in Europe and amongst libraries. They obviously felt their business model was threatened and perhaps some marketing advantages lost. Personally I agree with most of your reasoning. However, DiapDealer's point that making it now only possible but trivial and accessible to remove DRM raises the stakes to the point where actions such as readium's are much more likely. So, for instance, whilst modifying the old code to make it decrypt library books seems to be very easy, reading and changing Python Code in a plugin is way beyond many, with many more simply not interested. When a product does this "out of the box" it is likely that many more will do it. Hopefully taking your excellent readium decryption code out of the plugin will address their concerns and enable the repo to be reinstated. It may also be worth reinstating the code relating to library books.

If the tools are to actually go in the direction you intended I don't see that they have a development future on Github or in US and similar jurisdictions. Probably development would need to be taken up by non-US developers and development move outside of the mainstream.

[odamizu]

Hello @noDRM! Thank you for popping in and sharing your thoughts, and thank you for your contributions to the tools. I look forward to seeing you on GitHub again or following you elsewhere should that become necessary.

Originally Posted by darryl

... The readium takedown notice reads almost as though you have violated an unwritten truce in respect to library books etc.

The way I'm reading the takedown notice, this has nothing to do with library books specifically and everything to do with Readium LCP as a whole.

Readium describes LCP as a DRM solution for "Ebook distributors, e.g., public libraries and online booksellers", and their grievance is that noDRM's plugin is being used to "circumvent the LCP protection ... [for] both library loans and one-off purchases". [emphasis added]

There doesn't seem to be anything in the notice that indicates circumventing LCP library loans is more egregious than circumventing LCP purchases. The issue appears to be LCP under any circumstance.

... It is significant that even Readium specifically excluded Apprentice Harper's repository from their notice ...

From the takedown notice: "[Apprentice Harper] does not provide circumvention material for the LCP solution, therefore it is not part of our request for takedown."

The way I'm reading it, Readium cannot initiate a takedown request for Apprentice Harper's repository because they have no standing there. Per step 1 of the takedown process, only the copyright holder can initiate a takedown request, and Readium doesn't hold copyright for any DRM being circumvented by the Apprentices's tools — i.e., only Amazon, Adobe, and Kobo can request a takedown of Apprentice Harper's repository.

I suppose Readium's takedown might inspire Amazon, Adobe, or Kobo to do the same — but I think Amazon's response is KFX, and Adobe's response is their "hardened DRM".

In any case, removing the LCP material should be enough to make Readium's grievance moot, and hopefully that will be enough for GitHub to reinstate noDRM's repository.

[Ken Maltby]

Amazon would loose a good deal of money, from me, if they made it so I wouldn't be able to use the ebooks I buy from them. They must know that there are many who are converting purchased ebooks to other formats, epub especially. It can't be in the best interest of ebook sellers, to cut out a segment of their readership.

Luck;
Ken

[Uncle Robin]

Originally Posted by Ken Maltby

Amazon would loose a good deal of money, from me, if they made it so I wouldn't be able to use the ebooks I buy from them. They must know that there are many who are converting purchased ebooks to other formats, epub especially. It can't be in the best interest of ebook sellers, to cut out a segment of their readership.

Luck;
Ken

Considering that Kindle sales are effectively the tip jar of Amazon's business now, as is everything non-AWS, I doubt they'll be losing much sleep over any refuseniks.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Uncle Robin

Considering that Kindle sales are effectively the tip jar of Amazon's business now, as is everything non-AWS, I doubt they'll be losing much sleep over any refuseniks.

But then on the other hand, why purposely make changes that will lose business if nobody is complaining now?

[Uncle Robin]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

But then on the other hand, why purposely make changes that will lose business if nobody is complaining now?

Oh sure, but my post wasn't in response to that, just the "if they do X, I'm off" threat. It MIGHT be the flap of a single butterfly's wing that starts a typhoon, but I wouldn't stake my house on it

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Uncle Robin

Oh sure, but my post wasn't in response to that, just the "if they do X, I'm off" threat. It MIGHT be the flap of a single butterfly's wing that starts a typhoon, but I wouldn't stake my house on it

I don't think it was a threat. I'm in the same boat as Ken. If books are no longer strippable, I won't buy from Amazon. I'm sure there are many people in that boat.

No, Jeff won't be in the poorhouse or have to stop building penis rockets. But they will lose money and customers.