Dutch BooXtream watermark cracked

[eschwartz]

@Katsunami,

Well, if you can proudly tell me that you don't own things that aren't dispensable/replaceable, then why are you attempting to imply that you, specifically, are the yardstick by which to judge the generic "people" I referenced?

Also, why am I bothering to respond when it is such an obvious waste of time?

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You presumably accept, though, that there are valid reasons for being able to trace a car back to its owner?

Of course, but a car is not an e-book.

To my mind, when something can be trivially duplicated, as digital goods can, there are valid and proper reasons for being able to tie those copies to the original purchaser.

Agreed, it's the 'best' form of DRM, but I still don't have to like it, because the fact that it's there marks me as a potential wrong-doer, and I dislike that.

Are you aware of the hypothetical situation you describe ever having happened?

Yes/No. One of my colleagues lost his e-reader a few weeks ago by forgetting it on a plane. What has happened to the contents is unknown.

The fact that people do pirate digital goods is far from hypothetical; it happens every day, and there are (IMHO) compelling reasons for being able to trace the origin of such items.

While you're right, it's not something I have to like, and I would thus remove such as a watermark, as I do with all DRM.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

@Katsunami,

Well, if you can proudly tell me that you don't own things that aren't dispensable/replaceable, then why are you attempting to imply that you, specifically, are the yardstick by which to judge the generic "people" I referenced?

Because, in my view, accepting one form of DRM over another is a double standard, something which you claim you don't have. It fine to accept watermarking because it doesn't prohibit you to use the books as you wish, and reject encryption DRM because it locks the book, but it still is a double standard.

Also, why am I bothering to respond when it is such an obvious waste of time?

I don't know.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Agreed, it's the 'best' form of DRM, but I still don't have to like it, because the fact that it's there marks me as a potential wrong-doer, and I dislike that.

I'm guessing that you lock your door when you go out of your house. Doing so is not branding your neighbours as burglars; it's simply a practical acknowledgement of the fact that there are people out there who are likely to steal your possessions if you leave your door open. The same with watermarking; it's not labelling you as a thief, but simply acknowledging that there are thieves out there.

[Katsunami]

Granted, I haven't looked at watermarking in that way.

And I do agree, it is the most usable form of DRM at this moment; maybe it's even the most effective, because of the 'we can find you, if you share/swap books on the internet' threat/possibility.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Because, in my view, accepting one form of DRM over another is a double standard, something which you claim you don't have. It fine to accept watermarking because it doesn't prohibit you to use the books as you wish, and reject encryption DRM because it locks the book, but it still is a double standard.

Non sequitur.

And on that note, there really is nothing further I have to say to you. Not when we have reached that level of sheer unconnectedness.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm guessing that you lock your door when you go out of your house. Doing so is not branding your neighbours as burglars; it's simply a practical acknowledgement of the fact that there are people out there who are likely to steal your possessions if you leave your door open. The same with watermarking; it's not labelling you as a thief, but simply acknowledging that there are thieves out there.

Apparently, Katsunami does not own a house and has nothing that isn't disposable.

So it doesn't make much sense to lock a door that doesn't exist.
Much less to protect possessions that either don't exist or are disposable.

[GeoffR]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

This is exactly how activists get a bad name.

Criminals don't have a right to privacy from the authorities, and watermarks don't violate your privacy unless you upload them to the public in a criminal act.

It can be legal to share parts of a book though, covered under fair use. For example I can post a quote from a book, a screenshot of one page in a 300 page book, a snippet from the stylesheet etc. and expect to be covered by fair use.

If the watermark has been hidden then I might unknowingly reveal my identity when I legitimately share parts of the book on a public site. This could well be a breach of the privacy of a legitimate owner of the book engaging in a perfectly legal activity of sharing protected by fair use.

[eschwartz]

Screenshots and copy-pasted quotes of the text will not carry watermarks with them... unless maybe you are referring to the proposed watermark that involved changing the story subtly for each purchaser. I don't think that one got much traction.

And if you did post the watermarked CSS, or perhaps used the ScrambleEbook calibre plugin and uploaded the results? The only people who will know who you are, are the publishers/vendors who have the restricted user database which matches watermarks to users. And not only do I very much doubt they care enough to find that book, I cannot feel too fussed about the privacy reveal involved.

But... point taken. For a very, very, VERY arguable value of "point".

[GeoffR]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

And if you did post the watermarked CSS, or perhaps used the ScrambleEbook calibre plugin and uploaded the results? The only people who will know who you are, are the publishers/vendors who have the restricted user database which matches watermarks to users. And not only do I very much doubt they care enough to find that book, I cannot feel too fussed about the privacy reveal involved.

It isn't always necessary to have access to the publisher's database to find the identity associated with the watermark, it could be that someone posts a part of the book containing the hidden watermark under their real name in one forum (say as Professor of Literature in a student forum) and another post anonomously in another forum (say as a member of the 50 Shades of Grey fanclub.) Then the identity could be revealed just by the fact that the watermarks match.


Also there are legitimate activities that have nothing to do with privacy that could be hampered by the presence of a watermark. For example a legitimate owner of an ebook might want to share corrections for publisher's mistakes with other legitimate owners of the same edition of the ebook, which could be done by sending a contextual diff taken between the original and corrected book. The diff file would contain snippets of the original book, perhaps including markup and stylesheet. But if all the books had a different watermark then the diff might not match, which would be an inconvenience to the legitimate owners of the ebook.

On the other hand if a group of people who had pirated the ebook from the same site might all have the same watermark, and they could then share their corrections via contextual diff without being inconvenienced in the way that the legitimate owners were.

I think this is a good enough reason for legitimate owners to want to remove all watermarks from their ebooks, or to avoid buying ebooks that have watermarks when other alternatives are available.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

And on that note, there really is nothing further I have to say to you. Not when we have reached that level of sheer unconnectedness.

Then don't. The only thing I care about is creating as few dependencies as I possibly can. DRM, any DRM, causes a dependency, so I either remove it, or don't buy products where it can't be removed.

And yes, while I don't own anything I'm so attached to that it can't be replaced, suggesting that I don't care if it is stolen is just sheer idiocy, because it either costs me time or money or both to replace it.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Of course, but a car is not an e-book.

Fair analogy though, if your car is stolen and used as a getaway car in a bank robbery the police are much more likely to knock on your door than if your ebooks are uploaded.

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Agreed, it's the 'best' form of DRM, but I still don't have to like it, because the fact that it's there marks me as a potential wrong-doer, and I dislike that.

I've just worked out that every time I got a book signed by an author it was for tracking purposes, cheeky sods.

Originally Posted by Katsunami

Yes/No. One of my colleagues lost his e-reader a few weeks ago by forgetting it on a plane. What has happened to the contents is unknown.

It became better traveled as well as better read?
Sorry

Originally Posted by Katsunami

While you're right, it's not something I have to like, and I would thus remove such as a watermark, as I do with all DRM.

Sure remove it, I don't think I'd bother to remove watermarking personally.
I do, of course, reserve the right to change my mind when someone gets convicted purely on watermark evidence.

[Cinisajoy]

I do hope your colleague unregistered the device.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

I do hope your colleague unregistered the device.

Hmm...how does one go about unregistering a Kobo remotely? I know how to do it with my Kindle, but I can't find a way to do it for my Kobo.

Shari

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by shalym

Hmm...how does one go about unregistering a Kobo remotely? I know how to do it with my Kindle, but I can't find a way to do it for my Kobo.

Shari

I think you have to call Kobo.
I can't even find a way to unregister mine on the device.
Why I do not have a credit card there.