Disabling text-to-speech (TTS) triggers DMCA exemption: YOU ARE ALLOWED TO REMOVE DRM

[wallcraft]

If the Kindle TTS is disabled the copyright holder has explicitly chosen to do so and it is reasonable to assume that all other ebook versions also have TTS disabled. So, absent information about "authorized entities" (who make ebooks available to the visually impaired), this exception does apply at a minimum to removing the DRM for TTS on the Kindle. To me, if you want to use the Kindle'sTTS and are prevented from doing so you are adversely affected. Re-enabling the Kindle's TTS involves leaving the encryption in place and deleting one entry in the metadata. This is minimal intrusion on the DRM, and so far as I can tell entirely legal for personal use in the US. Actually, there is no possibility of non-personal use since the ebook is still tied to a single Kindle by the DRM.

[kamm]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

How could you not see it? I quoted it:

Did you read your quote?

(...)that noninfringing uses by persons who are users of a copyrighted work are, or are likely to be, adversely affected,

[slayda]

If you wear glasses, I would maintain that you are obviously visually impaired otherwise there would be no need to wear glasses to correct your vision. Or is there a legal definition somewhere that provides a quantitative definition of visual impairment, as is the case for "legally blind"?

[kamm]

Originally Posted by wallcraft

If the Kindle TTS is disabled the copyright holder has explicitly chosen to do so and it is reasonable to assume that all other ebook versions also have TTS disabled. So, absent information about "authorized entities" (who make ebooks available to the visually impaired), this exception does apply at a minimum to removing the DRM for TTS on the Kindle. To me, if you want to use the Kindle'sTTS and are prevented from doing so you are adversely affected. Re-enabling the Kindle's TTS involves leaving the encryption in place and deleting one entry in the metadata. This is minimal intrusion on the DRM, and so far as I can tell entirely legal for personal use in the US. Actually, there is no possibility of non-personal use since the ebook is still tied to a single Kindle by the DRM.

Exactly my point: in cases like this they ought to look at what the DMCA wanted to achieve - and that's prevent making unathorized copies etc.

Since Kindle books are already tied to a single device there's no meaningful ground to attack a person who removes the DRM to enable TTS.

Of course, in my understanding the exemption is already there so any way I look at it I think a sane judge should throw out a case about this immediately.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

If you do not _need_ the TTS ability (by being visually impaired, for example) then you are not adversely affected by its absence. Wanting the ability is not the same thing.

The law does not say anything about "needing" TTS due to a disability, etc.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

In the exception that group is defined as the visually impaired.

Where? I see nothing in the exception that defines the group as visually impaired. The words "visually impaired" don't even appear anywhere in it.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

How could you not see it? I quoted it:

Maybe I'm blind and don't know it. But I don't see "visually impaired" anywhere in your quote.

The law says users who are adversely affected, it does NOT define what that means. Your notion that "adversely affected" means "visually impaired" is your opinion only. It is not what the law says.

[Jellby]

They could easily prevent this kind of legal circumvention by releasing a TTS enabled version at $1000

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by Jellby

They could easily prevent this kind of legal circumvention by releasing a TTS enabled version at $1000

Or they could just get out their trusty cassette recorder, dust it off, and record a playback of TTS on their own book before disabling it. They could then offer to sell the cassette tape.

Dale

[whitearrow]

Originally Posted by kamm

Well, unfortunately the jury-based system, is anything but a solid ground for even the most obvious cases...

Actually, no. This is a legal question that would be decided by a judge.

[kamm]

Originally Posted by whitearrow

Actually, no. This is a legal question that would be decided by a judge.

I was referring to a case-by-case basis... if you're referring to precedents you're probably right.

[kamm]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

Or they could just get out their trusty cassette recorder, dust it off, and record a playback of TTS on their own book before disabling it. They could then offer to sell the cassette tape.

Dale

That's not an ebook, sorry.

[kamm]

Originally Posted by Jellby

They could easily prevent this kind of legal circumvention by releasing a TTS enabled version at $1000

Quite the contrary such a move would be devastating for them: it'd immediately show their real intent, namely to eliminate the TTS option to protect their revenues from the sales of audiobooks - most likely it would be oil to the exemtion fire, wider and wider exemptions would be introduced because of this.

No matter what they do it's a lost cause for them, to block TTS.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by kamm

I was referring to a case-by-case basis... if you're referring to precedents you're probably right.

I still don't think it matters. A jury decides guilty or not guilty. The judge decides on points of law. The judge would be the one that provided the legal interpretation of "adversely affected" to the jury, probably as "jury instructions" before their deliberation.

I don't think it would be up to the jury to decide what the definition of "adversely affected" is.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Nope. You need to see the related section of the DMCA. You can only remove the DRM if you are in the affected group. This means you have to be visually impaired.

Just a second, I will go dig it up.

I do wear glasses for distant vision when I drive or go to the movies. But as for reading close up, I can see fine. But technically, this does make me visually impaired. And thus, legally able to strip the DRM.