When is Sony's DRM going to be broken?

[HarryT]

Now posted. Looks like a good series!

[grimo1re]

Excellent!

[nerys]

Call me a bad person but I do not recognize DRM as legal or moral. its taking away my ownership rights to my property. When did society forget that OUR rights are "rights" and copyright is a temporary privilege (used to be at least) granted by the government. OUR rights are first because its OUR money. the ONLY DRM's books I have on my reader are the Free ones I got when I bought it. I would love to support sony and buy books but they will not sell me books and I refuse to rent or lease them. I will support them with hardware purchases because they did the right thing. The reader will accept native open file formats with NO software interaction or restriction IE just copy the files onto the memory card. Kudos Sony for this its the deal breaker reason I bought the reader.

I have no desire to crack sony's DRM because I will never have anything that uses there DRM in my possession to crack.

I guess I am a bad person I download ebooks online. So far any book I liked I purchased 100% of the time (I am a bit of a book addict) I LOVE my reader but no digital file can replace OWNING the book on my shelf :-)

My Sony reader has made me poorer :-) I have found dozens of new authors I would NEVER EVER have likely found otherwise and purchased many of there books as a result.

At $7 and MORE a pop for paperbacks (anyone remember $2 and $3 paperbacks??) I can not afford to willy nilly "buy" books and hope I like them.

Most of the books I buy I have already read on my reader and if I see something I have not read I can usually find it for my reader and not even have to crack the spine :-) it goes on my shelf. OR ebooks lets me get my fix NOW while I wait for the soft back to come out (hardbacks are soo desirable but soo expensive anymore :-(

Either way I spend a lot more money on real books now since I got my Sony Reader than I have in a long time. Its a win win win for me sony and publishers/authors.

I do however support cracking of any DRM as it RETURNS property rights where they belong. US the consumers.

Chris Taylor
http://www.nerys.com/

[HarryT]

This has all been discussed a million times already, Chris. If you are happy doing what you do, that's fine, but don't kid yourself that it's legal. Saying "I don't recognise DRM as being legal" is not going to help you if you end up in court charged with copyright infringement, as at least one member of this board has been.

The contents of a book are not "your" property; they are the author's property. Whether you buy a paper book or an eBook the situation is the same - you are being granted a rather limited licence to use those contents in specific ways. You "own" the book (the paper, ink, glue, etc), not the contents. Yes, you have a slightly different set of rights with an eBook compared with a paper book due to the nature of the medium - you probably won't be able to give away or re-sell the eBook as you can the paper book.

[Liviu_5]

Originally Posted by HarryT

This has all been discussed a million times already, Chris. If you are happy doing what you do, that's fine, but don't kid yourself that it's legal. Saying "I don't recognise DRM as being legal" is not going to help you if you end up in court charged with copyright infringement, as at least one member of this board has been.

That's a bit misleading statement since DRM has nothing to do with copyright infringement.

If you upload, download, yes that is related with copyright infringement, but stripping the drm for your own private use has not yet been tested in court as a prosecutable offense whatever the law says (there are laws against many things in many states here in the US that nobody would even dream to use for prosecution)

As far as I know nobody was yet prosecuted successfully for drm removal, even people who posted methods and such in public. Uploading or making available on p2p or on the Web of copyrighted material is a whole different issue, but let us not confuse the two.

[LaughingVulcan]

What I would love to see is some form of legal cross-conversion. I'd happily pay $1.00-$2.00 to be able to take a book I legally bought from eReader and convert it to Sony. If the format is still nominally secure, I can't see the "risk" to the content owner.

How this could be achieved I'm not sure of. The company doing the converting would have to have access to the encoding/decoding algorithms of both companies involved. And then there would have to be a fast and economical way of translating the format of both the text and the file in a relatively flawless way. Something tells me that the cost of negotiating the rights to that, even if possible, would probably outweigh any valid price point. And then you'd have to have a secure method to receive a) the file, b) the decryption key, and c) the encryption key for the new file.

And the environment of what's still secure would be fluid. I can't see Sony or Mobipocket or whomever agreeing to allow conversion to LIT or any other format that's been cracked.

Perhaps it is just a pipe dream, but I'd love to see it happen.

[nerys]

I am sorry HarrT but I will never agree. The law is wrong. I OWN the book. it is my property. I do not even slightly agree or recognize this "license" crap. The author does NOT own that book. Not one molecule of it. he ONLY owns the intellectual property rights for the content. Nothing more (I really do not care what the law says)

When I purchase a piece of property I can and will do anything I wish with it for my own use. Could you imagine buying a book where if someone else looked at it the pages went blank? or if you left your house or country the pages "blanked" etc..

NO court would ever convict me of any offense if they took me to court for downloading X novel and I brought in my 5 year old purchased copy of said novel. (as long as I WAS NOT distributing copies of it IE uploading etc.. because THAT DOES violate IPR which does not belong to me)

Liviu 5 and no one will be because its not illegal to remove DRM the DMCA is illegal. it was void the moment it was signed. Now if you are familiar with law you know that laws mean nothing enforcement is everything. SO while the DMCA is illegal and void on inception it is ENFORCED but the DRM aspect as least on an individual basis will be left unchallenged because they know it will be tossed if it gets to court since it is a direct violation of the 1st amendment. (there can be no exception to the first amendment it says congress shall make no law not congress can sometimes make law)

I do not suggest directly anyone do what I do. Again laws are meaningless enforcement is everything.

But I have principles and I will NOT permit my PROPERTY rights to be taken from me.

When I buy a CD I OWN that CD and everything on it. Period
When I buy a DVD I OWN that DVD and everything in it. Period
When I buy a BOok I OWN that book and everything in it. Period
When I buy a Watch I own that watch and everything in it. Period
When I buy a Car House Fish whatever I OWN those things and everything in them. Period

These things are NOT different from each other. Contrary to the propoganda engine and distortion field these companies have constructed owning a book or cd is absolutely NO different than owning a car or the watch on your wrist.

ALL objects have 2 forms of property ownership. I call these IPR and PPR

PPR is Personal Property Rights ie we own what we buy
IPR is Intellectual Property Rights

IPR applies EQUALLY to both material and intellectual. its called PATENTS and COPYRIGHT

When I buy a ford van I can and will do anything I want to it. Change the wheels Modify it alter it and this is all legal. Convert it to diesel etc..

When I buy a book the SAME THING applies. Alter it transcode it (txt format etc..) its MY BOOK I can and will do as I please.

NOW of I start selling that text copy (even for free ie $0) I am now NOT dealing with my PPR but the authors IPR because now I m generating new works and distributing.

THE SAME as if I went to china with my ford van had it copied and started selling and or giving away copies of it.

BOTH illegal and rightly so because they violate IPR which I DO NOT OWN.

NO license NO terms NO contracts. JUST the law simple as that.

Corporations have ALTERED reality and created this FICTIONAL NON EXISTANT "license" to the content. Your not buying the content (like hell I am not) crap that some sheeple have just accepted as fact when its in fact fiction.

NOW as for P2P thats another issue while I do use it out of necessity I do not delude myself. its 100% illegal to share copyrighted content without permission (I do not however believe so firmly its illegal to download I refer to the upload though under current law its also illegal to download)

This is because you generated NEW COPIES of a work and your selling them (yes your selling them for $0 but thats semantic and irrelevant as you do not have to profit to violate)

As far as I am concerned you can make as many copies of your property as you want so long as you do not share them.

People need to wake up and understand this or they will LOSE there rights and not even know it.

A book from a legal perspective is NO different than a CD OR DVD

ask a judge if there is a "license" on that book. Can the publishers dictate if you can cut pages out of it? Scan it into your computer to blow up so your grandmom can read it? Restrict where and who can read it?

He might even laugh at you and go off course not. SO how does this suddenly "change" when its Music or Video? it does not but they WANT it to.

There is No "license" on books cd or dvd or even software when you buy it thats a FICTION put forth by corporations.

I do not recognize them Will not accept them. I also do not recognize one sided non negotiable contracts. Thats what we call ultimatums not contracts.

When I RENT a dvd or cd fine have a license thats why I do not like renting. :-)

My statements may not be enforcible but I consider them to be legal and moral.

Again lawful and legal are meaningless ENFORCEABLE is everything.

Consider the DMCA Patriot Acts Gun Laws Speech laws are all illegal. But they are enforced. see the difference :-)

I walk a fine line. Example I do not recognize "activation" of my operating system as legal. I install "cracked" copies of windows XP on all my computers. IN my desk draw I have 5 shrinkwrapped copies of windows xp PRO. (I even bought a copy for my laptop that came with XP Home because my cracked copy is PRO so I bought another pro copy)

That is where they will stay. I am confident no judge would ever convict me if I showed by computers running XP and 5 legal copies of XP still in shrinkwrap.

I just do not recognize "Licenses" and "terms" and "activation" as lawful.

Since I can not alter the "laws" I can only defy them and do what is right. When enough people defy them the laws will change or become moot.

I will never buy a DRM'd book I will never buy a DRM'd CD

I will never buy n HD Movie (until it is thoroughly and completely cracked like DVD is)

I was very late in buying a DVD player because I refused to buy DRM. I am taking a harder stance on HD I will probably NOT buy HD movies until they are offered UNPROTECTED. I will NOT voluntarily give up my Property Rights. I do not recognize there right to TAKE them from me.

[HarryT]

Your view of the law bears has very little in common with reality, Chris. I sincerely hope that you don't come to grief over it.

Isn't an "illegal law" a contradiction in terms, by the way? No law can be illegal. It can be unjust; in your country it can be deemed to be unconstitutional and revoked. But by definition it cannot be illegal.

NO court would ever convict me of any offense if they took me to court for downloading X novel and I brought in my 5 year old purchased copy of said novel.

That's not what you said in your original message - you said that you downloaded books and bought the ones that you liked. You surely aren't going to claim that it's legal to download books and then, after the fact, buy the ones that you happen to like, are you?

[DrMoze]

Chris, as an IP attorney, I would also like to point out that your views on "ownership rights" bear little relation to the law. A word of friendly advice (*not* to be construed as *legal* advice! ) is: don't try to support your 'opinions' on ownership rights in any court of law or other legal forum. Seriously. You are dead wrong on this one.

[nerys]

I am sorry DrMoze but I am 100% right. I may be illegal according to enforced law but I am still RIGHT.

Right and Legal are not the same thing. Sadly the law stopped following right and wrong a long time ago.

I am right but illegal the law is wrong but legal.

When our representatives refuse to listen to our will the only thing a citizen can do is defy the law.

Our founding fathers are traitors. Indisputable Fact. what they did was still RIGHT. see what I mean?

ALL I can do is try to balance my morals as best I can. the law "will not" define my morals.

I will defy any attempt otherwise. Off course they can compel me with force and as is my duty as a US citizen I will resist with as much energy as I can.

Its all I can do. WE define the law not the other way around. When the LAW conflicts with the Citizens THE LAW CHANGES not the citizens. More and more people seem to forget this. :-(

NO harry I never said it was legal. but from a moral perspective I see no difference between downloading a book and reading it and getting it out of the library and reading it. Any difference is semantic only. Only the medium is changed.

Most of the books I download and then buy (I say almost because I can not be sure so far its seems to be 100%) are UNAVAILABLE new. I have to find used copies on ebay or amazon.

Which explain why I downloaded first. Since they do not appear to exist in my book stores I never "find" then till I "find" it online and go HEY thats good. I would NEVER likely otherwise have encountered that book in any form.

I am the kind of person who Downloaded an album of "move" (Japanese Band) and went so far as to finagling my way through a japanese website to "order" the cd for $26 from japan. (I had to actually load the source code for the HTML so I could figure out what fields I had to fill in and what buttons to press since the page was in japanese but the CODE is in english :-)

I am the kind of person who can download Move's second album anytime I want but have NOT done so in 2 years and never will because I KNOW I will never BUY the CD (there Second CD is copy protected and I refuse to honor such purchases) so it would be morally wrong to download a CD I know I will never buy. I suffer without that CD of a band I love so much but its the morally right thing to do.

ANY Idea what those 5 copies of XP cost me!! not cheap! but it was the MORALLY right thing to do.

Back to the read and then buy. People do this everyday when they read a friends book or borrow it from the library. Are they criminals if they do not buy it after reading it? then why am I for downloading it regardless if I buy it or not?

I do not buy it because I have to. I buy because its the right thing to do and I want to REWARD the author. Many times if I have to buy a used copy I will goto the bookstore and BUY another book of theres if available just because it might be good and I know they get nothing from used book sales.

Its just the way I am. THE LAW needs to change. NOT ME.

as far as I am concerned even according to LAW DRM is illegal. I consider it to be a direct violation of my 4th amendment rights to prevention of illegal seizure.

The 4th applies to congress the 9th and 13th IIRC apply this to the states. Corporations as entities of the state are therfore also compelled to comply. (thats the way I see it)

BY applying DRM they are SEIZING my property.

Just ask the google video folks who BOUGHT videos from google and who are now having those PURCHASED videos SEIZED since google is shutting down (at which time the videos will stop working) I do not want $2 coupons I want my video (I never bought any)

I would sue google for "theft" and violation of the 4th amendment. I would lose but I would do it anyway because its the RIGHT thing to do.

I would also not hire a lawyer and NOT pay any court fees since the constitution states it is my RIGHT to redress of grievances NO where does it say only to those who can pay.

People need to start standing up for there RIGHTS and what IS right.

[LaughingVulcan]

I'm glad you believe you're right. Don't be surprised when society believes you are wrong and proves it by enforcing its will on you. I just hope you feel equally satisfied when you are broke and/or in jail.

[slayda]

Originally Posted by nerys

(anyone remember $2 and $3 paperbacks??)
http://www.nerys.com/

Showing my age here but I can remember when paperback books cost $0.45. Also when penny post cards cost 3 cents.

On your other issues, you may be right, but is\f so, you are "dead right". Sometimes (we hope always) laws follow morality. Unfortunately we live more by this version of the golden rule - "Those who have the gold make the rules." So the publishers make the rules on copyright.

IMHO an even more pertinent example of legal vs moral is satellite TV/radio. They have the "legal right" to bombard me with their signal with no regard to any possible adverse consequence to me but I don't have the "legal right" to do anything with that signal without their permission (i.e. paying them). High voltage power lines are another example.

[Kilarney]

Originally Posted by nerys

The 4th applies to congress the 9th and 13th IIRC apply this to the states. Corporations as entities of the state are therfore also compelled to comply. (thats the way I see it)

While I appreciate your passion, anyone who has spent one day in a constitutional law class will know that this is not true. Private corporations are not akin to governmental agencies for Constitutional purposes.

Originally Posted by nerys

I would also not hire a lawyer and NOT pay any court fees since the constitution states it is my RIGHT to redress of grievances NO where does it say only to those who can pay.

If you have no money, you can file in forma pauperis and bring a lawsuit at no charge. Can you show me where in the Constitution it says that a reasonable fee can not be charged if you can afford it? To save you some effort... you won't find that in there.

Again, I appreciate your passion. However, I cringe when I see the Constitution misinterpreted.

The way I see it is that you can vote with your $$$. If you don't like DRM - don't buy DRMed books. Nobody is forcing you to. Buy a hard-copy version. Surely it's "fair use" to scan that into your Sony Reader for your own enjoyment. (Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong.)

I have quite a bit of sympathy for the publishers and authors. After all, they are the ones that produce the content we crave. On the other hand, I have no sympathy for companies that won't admit that technology exists and refuse to adapt.

Look at all of the music companies dropping DRM. Shouldn't book publishers learn something from this? Some people will always pirate. Period. Many others, however, want to be law-abiding citizens. The key is to make the product attractive (no-DRM) and price it reasonably. E-book publishers need to understand that their product is competing with the non-DRM copies of the same book available to be pirated. Is it so hard to understand why people may gravitate towards a superior product? (the non-DRM version) Make your product just as good and make the price attractive. I truly believe that this reduce pirating and increase profits. Bottom line: make a good product and price it so that pirating the same product isn't worth the hassle.

Bottom line: Don't pirate. Vote with your wallet. Vote on election day. That's about all you can do.

[DrMoze]

You clearly have no conception of the rights which go to the authors of creative works, which our laws are designed to protect. But you are so self-convinced of your righteousness (in direct conflict with existing laws of the land) that I see no room for discourse and will not post further on this topic. Again, for your sake, DON'T try to expound on and rely on your views of what's "right" in any legal forum. You will lose because you're wrong.

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Isn't an "illegal law" a contradiction in terms, by the way? No law can be illegal. It can be unjust; in your country it can be deemed to be unconstitutional and revoked. But by definition it cannot be illegal.

While avoiding the overall discussion entirely, I would like to address this one point.

While it's rarely put in terms of being "illegal," an unconstitutional law could, I think, be properly said to be "illegal," but it's a finicky definition.

Because the Constitution is, effectively, the the foundational "law" (though, again, rarely called by that term) of the U.S., anything that violates it is contrary to that "law," or illegal.

So, while not commenting on the current discussion directly, I'd agree conceptually that any law which is unconstitutional, is an "illegal law." Though, I probably wouldn't actually use that expression myself.