When is Sony's DRM going to be broken?

[nerys]

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.
-------------------------

That is a risk I take and I understand this. Just like so many people in history who took similar risk (MUCH greater risks than I take) for what they KNOW is right and for what "the people" wish to impose on you with there will. In the end they usually win (there cause at least) because as with this case its almost always the MINORITY with the MAJORITY POWER trying to impose there will. EXPLAIN the DMCA in terms a lay person can understand and then go find me ONE normal american who things that law is legitimte. A law that says You can not mess with your own PROPERTY and make sure you convert it to terms that properly describe it. You may not change the wheels on your car unless there FROM the people who MADE the car no matter what they wish to charge or conditions they wish to impose. You may not let a friend drive your car OR drive on any roads the automaker does not approve of.

A law that says in the end if the manfacturer decides to STOP supporting your product and LITERALLY turns your property off YOUR NOT allowed to do ANYTHING ABOUT IT not even TALK about it with other people in text or verbally. Your ONLY option is to GO PAY AGAIN for what you already purchased.

Find me ONE normal citizen without a vested interest in such condition who will say Thats ok with me.

These laws have NOTHING to do with the will of the people. ONLY the will of a FEW with the money and power and you think I should just BOW down to them just because??

The supreme court has already confirmed the constitution is EXPLICIT NOT implied. This means it has no implicit powers only EXPLICIT powers. IT does not need to say I do not have to pay it simply has to not say I need to which it does not. A reasonable fee is NOT the same thing as the MANY YEARS wages most lawyers would charge for a larger case.

----------------
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.
---------------

Thats just it. I do not have to show you. YOU have to show me. EXPLICIT not IMPLICIT is the law. and again more money than the average person makes in several YEARS is NOT something we can afford and NOT reasonable.

BUT just to play a little of this game I believe I can in fact SHOW how the constitution forbids this. First it needs to be understood that when the constitution forbids something it does not have to be LAW to be forbidden

Example. Free Speech. Congress can make no law regarding the right to free speech. This also mens they can not DO anything to infringe free speech whether they codify it in law or simply "state it" So if a government official or police officer infringes on your right to free speech he is violating the first amendment even if its policy and not law to do what he is doing. With that clear

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

This clearly states no law prohibition or abridgment of my right to petition the government for redress of grievances is permitted. NONE of any kind. its pretty explicity NO law NO prohibition NO abridgment. Not some not sometimes just NO. does not get much clearer.

This means ANY means to STOP me from doing this. Pay this fee you can not afford. You have to have a lawyer you can not afford. You have to goto school for 4 years and pay 10 times that lawyer fee you already can not afford educating yourself on the law so you do not need a lawyer or EFFECTIVELY requiring you to need a lawyer if your petition has any chance of going anywhere even if not DIRECTLY requiring it is therfore a DIRECT violation of my 1st amendment rights.

So not only have I hopefully educated you a little on the constitution and how it works but I EVEN managed to find your constitution proof you requested even though I did not need to at all (Explicit not Implicit)

Commercial Publishers have no rights. None whatsoever. They do not even have a copyright right. They have a TEMPORARY Privilege granted by the government to foster a balance between OUR rights there rights and innovation. You clearly have no conception over the difference between corporate rights corporate privileges. You clearly have no conception of the ORIGINAL INTENT of copyright law.

As for akin to government. I disagree you may be right legally but not morally. they are agents of the state to me AND the constitution applies regardless. WE ALL must abide by the constitution not just government.

"isn't an "illegal law" a contradiction in terms, by the way? No law can be illegal."

Your kidding right? if that were the case the supreme could not hear cases to determine the "legality" ie constitutionality of a law and strike it down if it fails.

The law did not "become" unconstitutional (and therfore illegal) at the moment the supreme court discovers it. IT was ALWAYS SO from inception.

Note my wording. The supreme court can not technically DECLARE a law unconstitutional. They simply DISCOVER after examination that said law is and always was ILLEGAL.

[LaughingVulcan]

Originally Posted by nerys

That is a risk I take and I understand this. Just like so many people in history who took similar risk (MUCH greater risks than I take) for what they KNOW is right and for what "the people" wish to impose on you with there will. In the end they usually win (there cause at least) because as with this case its almost always the MINORITY with the MAJORITY POWER trying to impose there will.

So long as you understand the "risk." But I lean towards libertarianism, so it's up to you to choose the manner of your destruction....

And sure, I have my own causes for which I would pledge my all. I believe that every person of integrity probably does. The DMCA ain't it for me, though.

EXPLAIN the DMCA in terms a lay person can understand and then go find me ONE normal american who things that law is legitimte. A law that says You can not mess with your own PROPERTY and make sure you convert it to terms that properly describe it. You may not change the wheels on your car unless there FROM the people who MADE the car no matter what they wish to charge or conditions they wish to impose. You may not let a friend drive your car OR drive on any roads the automaker does not approve of.

Indeed you cannot change the wheels on your car, if you replace them with Ben Hur style spikes that have a high probability of taking out another car's tires or cutting someone off at the shins. You can't even make your own tires out of wood and demand the dealer change to them before buying the car. If you don't like the price of the car or its tires - don't buy it. Or (something I've actually witnessed in ride-alongs with State Highway cops,) you cannot have light displays on your car which could be confused with emergency vehicle lights. You will be cited to have them removed, and if you are caught a second time without having done so your car may be impounded and you will walk home.

A law that says in the end if the manfacturer decides to STOP supporting your product and LITERALLY turns your property off YOUR NOT allowed to do ANYTHING ABOUT IT not even TALK about it with other people in text or verbally. Your ONLY option is to GO PAY AGAIN for what you already purchased.

Find me ONE normal citizen without a vested interest in such condition who will say Thats ok with me.

These laws have NOTHING to do with the will of the people. ONLY the will of a FEW with the money and power and you think I should just BOW down to them just because??

Colorfully put. Do you have to "bow down?" No. But you do have to obey the law and the law of the land, or you face correction.

An opposite hyperbole for you: I am doing 55 miles per hour in a 35 zone. I can tell that there is no danger, I have plenty of visibility and can react to any hazard with ample time. I get pulled over. Do I protest that the law is unmoral because it limits my freedom to go just however fast I want to in a safe manner? Do I point out that part of my fine is going to support a court which enforces the DMCA and therefore is unjust? Do I claim that the Constitution never gave the government the ability to limit my speed?

Hell, no. I pay the damn fine and thank God I wasn't charged with Criminal Reckless Driving. Unless I live in Montana.

(BTW, never been pulled over for doing 20 over - never done 20 over intentionally.... But have been pulled over for speeding. :O )

And there are plenty of unvested people who don't care about DMCA -- otherwise elected officials would find themselves unelected and would change the law.

I'm snipping your discussion about the constitution in this reply.

Commercial Publishers have no rights. None whatsoever. They do not even have a copyright right. They have a TEMPORARY Privilege granted by the government to foster a balance between OUR rights there rights and innovation. You clearly have no conception over the difference between corporate rights corporate privileges. You clearly have no conception of the ORIGINAL INTENT of copyright law.

The ORIGINAL INTENT of copyright law matters not in the slightest, unfortunately. What matters is what the law is. And I'd expect a good intellectual property lawyer to know that. I don't want my advocate to go hoping about what the law should have been - I want him to defend my interests according to what the law is.

But, even should it matter, the law respects that corporations are legal persons. It may be a fiction, or something you loathe or do not respect, but in no way shape or form does it not mean that a Corporation cannot exercise copyright. Or, more specifically, enforce its purchased rights from the author of a work. And, more practically, that a Corporation can indeed sue you in a court of law for damages done to it by the taking of its' copyrighted material and not paying for it.

Best still, if you feel like you can overturn the system and are that passionate: Run for office. That would be the true test of whether or not "the majority of the people" feel that the issue is important and needs to be changed.

Or just do as you will. As I said before, you will probably find out what is and is not enforceable in the law.

[nerys]

You intentionally ignore my points and intentionally raise points of irrelevance???

Lights that confuse with emergency? Illogical comparison APPLES TO ORANGES

Lights in GENERAL would be correct. When it comes to lighting we have SAFETY concerns. Legitimate valid functional safety concerns. As long as what you want to change to MEETS these LEGITIMATE safety concerns you ARE FREE to change them.

AGAIN apples to oranges. I SAID MANUFACTURER making it illegal. YOU are not talking about the manufacturer of the car you are talking about the POLICE who have NOTHING to do with the manufacture of the car.

I can walk into pep boys right not and select from DOZENS of different tires and wheels to put on my car and FORD or Mercedes can not say a THING to be about it.

I IN FACT CAN walk into a dealership and say I do not like those wheels do you have others. almost all of them will say CERTAINLY and show me the range of wheels tire packages they have.

There is a DISTINCT difference between NOT HAVING TO OFFER (your example) and PREVENTING ME FROM DOING regardless of source (MY EXAMPLE)

YOU are not stupid. You clearly have enough intelligence to use the computer you typed your reply on and you seem able to coherently speak this language. SO since I can not call you stupid I must call you "trying to force your view" because you simply disagree with my view all while clearly not understanding MY view to begin with.

What property was taken exactly? I PURCHASE a book "crack" the DRM and put that book on a different reader. Please enlighten me as to what damages I incurred onto them and what exactly did I fail to pay for?

Once again. I also did not pay for the book at the library. I do not even pay a membership fee. SO what damages?

I borrow a book from a friend. I am READING IT without PAYING FOR IT. I should goto jail?

The law is wrong. This is not in dispute. anyone who stops and thinks about it will clearly understand this.

When a law is wrong you THROW IT OUT. If they refuse to through it out YOU OPENLY DEFY IT. Eventually they will reach a LIMIT on how many people they can SUE and the law becomes moot. AS IT SHOULD.

On top of that the DMCA is not even law. It illegal and was NULL AND VOID the moment it was conceived. The fact that it is "enforced" does not change that it is illegal. AND its illegality is NOT an opinion. It is an absolute FACT. there is ZERO ambiguity in the first amendment. It says CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW ....

Its not about the majority of the people agreeing with me (they do) its about them actually being motivated enough to CARE and actually stand up and say NO. We are a country of sheeple.

When the founding fathers formed this great nation they were CRIMINALS. This is indisputable fact. What they did was HIGH TREASON they can and should have been HUNG for it. They were TRAITORS. But what they did was the RIGHT thing to do.

NOTE once we formed our nation guess what we did? we made the VERY ACT that allowed this nation to be formed (secession) Illegal. Cute ehh?

YOU need to learn how FREEDOM works. its not FREE it will not be HANDED to you. When the law is WRONG people do not CHANGE to fit the law the LAW CHANGES to fit us. That is how it is supposed to work. When the normal system of checks and balances proves to be a complete and utter failure the ONLY patriotic option left MY DUTY as defined by said constitution is to DEFY said law. While not applicable to THIS situation directly its still good analogy.

Every wonder WHY the 1st amendment is what it is and the 2nd is what it is?

The 1st it to make clear to the government we will TELL you how it should be done.
The 2nd is if they IGNORE the first and now we will COMPEL them to do what is right.

Clearly THIS situation would never require guns but it will require bearing arms. The arms ie WILL to DEFY the law and say "now what?" The analogy is valid.

I do not do as the law commands. I do as my moral compass demands. In most cases there is no conflict between the law and my moral compass. In this one there is.

As to corporate rights. They are privileges. Only citizens have rights IE can not be taken away without just cause. Corporate rights are Granted by law and are therefore revocable by law. LAW CAN NOT REVOKE MY RIGHTS. Thats why they are called inalienable.

THE DMCA takes away my right to free speech. THIS IS NOT LEGAL. the 1st amendment makes this VERY clear. Therefore the DMCA is NOT LAW and is being illegally enforced. Period. Prove me wrong? SHOW me anywhere in the constitution where the 1st amendment was revoked?

SHOW ME the law that says that a corporation can dictate what I can do with my personal property in my own home (NOT counting stupid stuff like killing people)

Please show me this law? (not counting the DMCA since its invalid)

IF YOU CAN find a law explain to me how this would not be a direct violation of my 4th amendment rights? (remember NO contract is signed here)

I await your reply. Please try not to pick examples that you RIGHT WELL know are NOT relevant to this discussion. Safety lights???? Your kidding right?

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by nerys

THE DMCA takes away my right to free speech. THIS IS NOT LEGAL. the 1st amendment makes this VERY clear. Therefore the DMCA is NOT LAW and is being illegally enforced. Period. Prove me wrong? SHOW me anywhere in the constitution where the 1st amendment was revoked?

SHOW ME the law that says that a corporation can dictate what I can do with my personal property in my own home (NOT counting stupid stuff like killing people)

Please show me this law? (not counting the DMCA since its invalid)

Yeah, tell that to all the residents of D.C. who can't own guns because of local laws forbidding it, in pretty clear conflict with the 2nd Amendment.

The point is this, nerys: be it ever so unconstitutional, the DMCA is still the law. However much I agree with you that if it ever came before the Supreme Court it would be held unconstitutional and set aside, until that actually happens, it is the law, and it can be enforced, that is if somebody were to take a wild hair and do so.

I also would have thought that a law that says political ads can't be run within the 60 days leading up to an election would be set aside completely too, since that's about as contrary to the 1st Amendment as you can get, but it hasn't been yet, and it is enforced.

All folks are saying is that however right you may be, the actions you're discussing are contrary to a passed and enforceable law (ignoring for the moment that actually enforcing it would require the aid of magical fairies). The fact that the law would likely be set aside as unconstitutional by the Supreme Court doesn't change that.

[nerys]

As I have been trying to tell you Legal and enforceable are 2 different things. People have this fictional thought that if its enforced its law. The DMCA by constitutional definition is not law. I have already agreed it is enforced (illegally) I am trying to educate people to understand that just because its enforced does not change thats its illegal.

The supreme court can not declare a law illegal or they could just "declare" the 1st amendment illegal. They simply DISCOVER its illegal. Sadly they are proving to be about as corrupt as the rest of the system. I lost 100% of my faith in the supreme court when they decreed that eminent domain could be used to TAKE land from one private citizen to allow the state to GIVE it to another private citizen.

You fail to understand that many people sadly WILL believe a law is lawful if its enforced the logic goes how could they pass it into law otherwise?

This is extremely flawed and dangerous reasoning. People need to understand WE as a society (not individuals) do not BEND to the law. THE LAW bends to US. Its so critical that people understand that just because big company SAYS SO does not MAKE IT so even if they can BUY congress into passing it illegally.

ALL I am saying NatCh is you have to choose your battles but before you even do that you have to be knowledgeable on the RULES of this battle field.

DEFYING the DMCA in a morally justifiable way (cracking what I own and nothing mroe verse cracking an illegal copy or distributing it) are 2 different things and courts WILL recognize this difference.

NO reasonable court would ever convict me of cracking the DRM on my own property (such as RIPPING a DVD) if I own that DVD and did not SHARE IT (the cracked version ie upload copy and give out etc..) It would not even get past arraignment in a reasonable court and NO lawyer worth the retainer he is paid would go forward with such a suit. NOT ONLY would they lose but it would FORCE the issue to be brought up in court and they DO NOT want that to happen. This issue is not relevant if your otherwise breaking the law (uploading etc..)

MY RISK is low. The anti gun laws (all of them actually) are all illegal. there is NO exception in the constitution for ANY gun control laws. Congress Shall make NO LAW respecting the right to bear arms. That means even so much as requiring a permit or 7 day wait IS ILLEGAL. 100% of those laws are NOT in fact laws. They were void on inception. BUT again they are enforced. The ONLY exception MIGHT be a background check if you are no longer allowed to carry a gun (felony?? though I have yet to research the legality of that even)

Point of fact. I LIKE the "wait" period for hand guns. Its the ONLY gun law so far I have ever found that actually serves a legitimate almost lawful purpose. It stops or slows down crimes of passion. Its still illegal according to the 2nd amendment. It says NO LAW not some laws or only laws that make sense. NO LAWS.

Point is Defying the DMCA with my own property that does not violate any other laws WILL NOT result in harm to me financially or personally.

Defying the DC ban on guns would certainly land me in jail and possibly get me killed.

Little Movements is the way you do it. Little Movements.

Defying the DMCA and refusing "bag checks" as I exit shopping stores or not providing ID to an officer just because he asks for it are "little movements" with little risk BUT they have big chances to EDUCATE the populace. Not only by being public but by ... having little risk to "trying" them out. Think of it as shareware freedoms. Except once you try them you realize they were always yours but there not free. The cost is you have to FIGHT for them. DEMAND they not be violated.

With an educated populace larger movements become possible (constitutionally speaking we have a populace that is so uneducated as a whole its mentally retarded literally. :-(

If we had even a HALF educated populace the president would have been immediately impeached when he signed the patriot act into law illegally (an act of treason) Most of congress would have been chased out of office as well.

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by nerys

As I have been trying to tell you Legal and enforceable are 2 different things.

In that case, congratulations, we've gotten that point.

[LaughingVulcan]

Originally Posted by nerys

You intentionally ignore my points and intentionally raise points of irrelevance???

No, but it hardly seems worth discussing it with you at this point. Perhaps I have understand exactly everything you have said, and you have misunderstood me. It is very clear that we do not agree about many things. I'm for the most part comfortable with leaving it at that. But, oh well.... let's go for it....

<snip>
AGAIN apples to oranges. I SAID MANUFACTURER making it illegal. YOU are not talking about the manufacturer of the car you are talking about the POLICE who have NOTHING to do with the manufacture of the car.

Actually I was talking about the enforcement of the law. You seem to have the impression that if you don't agree with the law, or that if you differ in its' interpretation, your view should control. Not much more I can say about that, other than others who differ with you have made the laws. Others who file the lawsuits may disagree with you. And, as far as I can tell, others who would judge according to those laws will disagree with you.

I can walk into pep boys right not and select from DOZENS of different tires and wheels to put on my car and FORD or Mercedes can not say a THING to be about it.
<snip>

As long as those tires were manufactured according to product safety standards. In short, the law does dictate and give authority as to what kind of tires you can put on your car. I'd say that you were the first to introduce irrelevancies by trying to compare DRM and Copyright law to Tires. But, at any rate, you bet there are laws which are enforced in the manufacture, sale, and remanufacture and resale of tires.

YOU are not stupid. You clearly have enough intelligence to use the computer you typed your reply on and you seem able to coherently speak this language. SO since I can not call you stupid I must call you "trying to force your view" because you simply disagree with my view all while clearly not understanding MY view to begin with.

I'm not "forcing my view" on you. I personally couldn't care less if you agree with me or not. But I could care that someone comes along and reads this thread and figures they have a walkaround to the DMCA.

What property was taken exactly? I PURCHASE a book "crack" the DRM and put that book on a different reader. Please enlighten me as to what damages I incurred onto them and what exactly did I fail to pay for?

Once again. I also did not pay for the book at the library. I do not even pay a membership fee. SO what damages?

I borrow a book from a friend. I am READING IT without PAYING FOR IT. I should goto jail?

Now you are talking apples and oranges.
You check out a library book. You do not own the content. You do not have the right to go to Kinko's and photocopy the contents of the book, put it in a binder, and put it on a shelf.

The same applies if you borrow a book from your friend: It does not give you license to photocopy it. It does not even give you a right to take a paper and pencil and rewrite the whole thing on graph paper because you want to change the format of it.

In either case, the only "right" you have is to copy and/or republish a limited portion of the book for certain specific purposes as outlined in fair use doctrine.

Aside from the issues relating to the DMCA which clearly says you are wrong if you circumvent the DRM: IF the publisher has republished it in the format you are converting to, you have invalidated the capital investment the publisher made in the technology to republish the work in said format. Maybe a fractional, tiny amount, but there nonetheless.

In addition, the publisher has the right for the work to appear in the format they have determined it should be published in. Perhaps the company made a decision that they do not want to support lrf format for tactical business reasons. "We're in competition with {Sony, Adobe, Palm, whatever}. You, in deciding to republish our work in that format, are affecting our business interest - which is to dominate the market share. We do not want our work on the Sony Reader, and your having made it available in that format -- even for your own use -- has hurt our support of the Mobipocket format."

Let's say you have converted it. But, like a lot of copies that are circulated via filesharing, it's a butt-ugly job of conversion. Typos. Misformatting. Etc. (I'm not saying you're filesharing it, just that your conversion looks like crap compared to the original version.) You show it to a friend. The friend decides that any author who makes typos like that shouldn't be read. The friend decides that they aren't going to purchase that book. So, by your effort of conversion, you have denied the possibility of a royalty for that author.

One other way it can damage an author: Let's say that author John Goodwriter knows one heck of a lot about publishing, and has a smart agent. Mr. Goodwriter's bestseller, How to Publish eBooks, is in a print version, but the author retains the copyright.

(An aside: It does happen - Robert Heinlein, for example, owned the copyright to most if not all of his works of his works, and now his estate does.)

Back to Mr. Goodwriter.... So, he decides at first to not allow eBook publishing rights. It ain't out there on Fictionwise, Mobipocket, Connect, you name it. After a year or two of stellar sales Mr. Goodwriter decides to sell the rights for the eBook to Sony, exclusively. He makes a lot more money allowing first eBook rights to Sony.

But you're impatient. Eh, I hate Sony and want to read it in LIT format. So you crack it and convert it.

Now, six months later, Mr. Goodwriter needs to pay for his garage. So he resells the rights (because his contract with Sony allows it,) to Microsoft. Microsoft releases a LIT version. But, of course, you owned the Sony version. Mr. Goodwriter doesn't need a new garage anyway. He doesn't need your money, right?

Let's make one more adventure in copyright, a short one: You own a paper copy of a book. It's a good book. You spill coffee on it, though, and leave it in your storage shed all summer where it molders. Do you have the right to get out your old Smith-Corona manual and retype the whole thing? It's only for your benefit, after all, right? Answer: No. Just as in the library/lending examples above. You own the physical medium. You do not own the information contained therein.

Here lies the difference between Copyright, Patent, and Trademark.

The law is wrong. This is not in dispute. anyone who stops and thinks about it will clearly understand this.

Maybe so. Hot flash for you: I don't like DRM. I don't like the DMCA. I don't like the idea of buying eBooks for texts that I have sitting on my bookshelf. And I don't like having some really fine books on that shelf that I can't get for my Reader.

And I even agree with you: I think that if you own a paper book, you should have the right to have an eCopy of it. And that if you have an eBook in one format, you should be able to place it into another format - especially since there are platforms that only use certain kinds of books.

I think you should have all these rights. But, if the law as it is specifically prohibits that course of action, then that is what the law is. Talking about civil disobedience is fine. If you're right you will indeed succeed. And if you're wrong.... well, what's that worth to you?

On top of that the DMCA is not even law. It illegal and was NULL AND VOID the moment it was conceived. The fact that it is "enforced" does not change that it is illegal. AND its illegality is NOT an opinion. It is an absolute FACT. there is ZERO ambiguity in the first amendment. It says CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW ....

Can it be "illegal"? Fine, whatever. Until it is overturned, it is the law. Until it is overturned, you may be fined and jailed for violating it. To me, it is that simple.

So if you want to try overturning it, great. If you want to ignore it and keep going until and unless it is enforced on you, great. As I said earlier, I don't really care. But please show me any action in which, "I don't buy it because it doesn't fit my moral compass," has been successfully employed as a defense.

And I do know how freedom works. It is not free. Nor is it unlimited. There are limits on rights, from the classic example of, "I can shout fire in a crowded theatre," to, "I can walk down main street New York with a sixgun on my hip." (The second is a bad example: You can actually walk down main street Phoenix with a sixgun on your hip.) Your right to make a fist ends at the moment it swings towards my nose and I reasonably believe you are throwing a punch.

Its not about the majority of the people agreeing with me (they do) its about them actually being motivated enough to CARE and actually stand up and say NO. We are a country of sheeple.

Then, as I said, run for office and become one who changes it. If you can. Or back someone who will do what you feel is right.

I do not do as the law commands. I do as my moral compass demands. In most cases there is no conflict between the law and my moral compass. In this one there is.

But your moral compass is not the law. The law is. And if I support the law, and the majority of my community, state, and nation does, I will let you guess which one will swing first.

As to corporate rights. They are privileges. Only citizens have rights IE can not be taken away without just cause. Corporate rights are Granted by law and are therefore revocable by law. LAW CAN NOT REVOKE MY RIGHTS. Thats why they are called inalienable.

THE DMCA takes away my right to free speech. THIS IS NOT LEGAL. the 1st amendment makes this VERY clear. Therefore the DMCA is NOT LAW and is being illegally enforced. Period. Prove me wrong? SHOW me anywhere in the constitution where the 1st amendment was revoked?

As I said above: Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). Wikipedia Article Revoked? No. But limited, with Justice Holmes establishing the Clear and Present Danger doctrine. Modified by Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), which holds that the violation must cause violence faster than a law officer can be summoned. But, still, you cannot incite to riot and claim that it's your free speech to do so.

And by current U.S. law, you can be sued by a Corporation. That's pretty much what matters.

SHOW ME the law that says that a corporation can dictate what I can do with my personal property in my own home (NOT counting stupid stuff like killing people)

Please show me this law? (not counting the DMCA since its invalid)

IF YOU CAN find a law explain to me how this would not be a direct violation of my 4th amendment rights? (remember NO contract is signed here)

I await your reply. Please try not to pick examples that you RIGHT WELL know are NOT relevant to this discussion. Safety lights???? Your kidding right?

And you also are making deliberate misunderstandings. Can I make you do something (or not do something) with your personal property in your home? Define "make."

Can I walk into your home and make you turn down your stereo which is playing too loudly? No. Can I call the police, and have them make you turn down your radio? Yes.

Can I stop you from mounting a spotlight with a bat on the roof of your house? No. Does that give you the right to shine it straight up into the air? Not if you live in my neighborhood, which is an exit corridor for our local airport.

Can Microsoft corporation walk into your house and unplug your computer because you decide to break a LIT book and convert it to unencrypted PDF? No. Can they sue you for violations of the DMCA and copyright infringement? Well, I'm not going to try.

Edited to Add: Are legal and enforceable two different things? Of course they are. Are all laws enforceable? No. Are all laws "legal"? Until they are overturned. That simple.

[Nate the great]

I wasn't going to touch this topic, but there are so many things wrong with this post I had to respond.

Originally Posted by LaughingVulcan

...If the publisher has republished it in the format you are converting to, you have invalidated the capital investment the publisher made in the technology to republish the work in said format. Maybe a fractional, tiny amount, but there nonetheless. Why should I the customer be responsible for his capital decisions? It's his job to make a profit, not mine.

In addition, the publisher has the right for the work to appear in the format they have determined it should be published in. Perhaps the company made a decision that they do not want to support lrf format for tactical business reasons. "We're in competition with {Sony, Adobe, Palm, whatever}. You, in deciding to republish our work in that format, are affecting our business interest - which is to dominate the market share. We do not want our work on the Sony Reader, and your having made it available in that format -- even for your own use -- has hurt our support of the Mobipocket format."

Back to Mr. Goodwriter.... So, he decides at first to not allow eBook publishing rights. It ain't out there on Fictionwise, Mobipocket, Connect, you name it. After a year or two of stellar sales Mr. Goodwriter decides to sell the rights for the eBook to Sony, exclusively. He makes a lot more money allowing first eBook rights to Sony.

But you're impatient. Eh, I hate Sony and want to read it in LIT format. So you crack it and convert it.

Now, six months later, Mr. Goodwriter needs to pay for his garage. So he resells the rights (because his contract with Sony allows it,) to Microsoft. Microsoft releases a LIT version. But, of course, you owned the Sony version. Mr. Goodwriter doesn't need a new garage anyway. He doesn't need your money, right?

Let's translate this to paper. Mr. Goodwriter's first novel was released as a paperback. In order to make it fit in with my collection of leather bound books, I convert the paperback to a leather bound book. A few years later, the novel is re-released as a collectible leather bound book. According to you, I should not have done this. Instead I should run out and buy a copy. Why?

Let me give you another example. Mr. Goodwriter's first 3 novels were released in one cover. I would prefer to have them as separate books, so I split them up and rebind them. Later, the novels are released individually. According to you, I should not have done this. Instead I should run out and buy them. Why?

A third and final example. Mr. Goodwriter's novel was released as a trade paperback. It’s too big for me, so I cut it down and rebind it. Later, the novel is released as a paperback. According to you, I should not have done this. Instead I should run out buy a copy. Why?

If all of these examples are things I can reasonably do to format shift my paper book, then why can’t I format shift my ebook? The same property rights apply! I may not own the “contents” of the ebook file, but I do own the file in exactly the same way I own the paper.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by LaughingVulcan

And I even agree with you: I think that if you own a paper book, you should have the right to have an eCopy of it.

I'm sorry, but this "logic" completely escapes me. It's no different from saying "if you have a hardback version of a book, you should have the right to have a paperback version of it". WHY? They are different formats! If you buy a hardback, you don't have a "right" to a paperback - if you want a paperback, you go out and buy one. If you have a paperback, you equally don't have a "right" to an eBook - if you want an eBook, you go out and buy one.

Read the first page of virtually any printed book and you'll find a sentence in it specifically prohibiting the reproduction of that book by any means or in any form. Buying a paper book does not give you some "God-given right" to create or download an eBook, any more than buying a hardback gives you a "right" to a paperback.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

If all of these examples are things I can reasonably do to format shift my paper book, then why can’t I format shift my ebook? The same property rights apply! I may not own the “contents” of the ebook file, but I do own the file in exactly the same way I own the paper.

They are different things entirely.

Rebinding a book is simply doing things to the medium that you do indeed own - you're not changing the contents.

Changing the format of an eBook is not doing something to the eBook file (which you equally own), but is changing the contents of that file. In copyright terms, you are creating a "derived work", and you cannot do that without the permission of the copyright holder. After converting the content, you have two files - the original and the converted one. Compare that to rebinding a book, where you are doing things to the original only.

Of course, in practical terms, nobody is going to be bothered if you change the format of an eBook for your own private use, but you certainly can't pass that converted file on to anyone else, or re-sell it.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by HarryT

They are different things entirely.

Changing the format of an eBook is not doing something to the eBook file (which you equally own), but is changing the contents of that file. In copyright terms, you are creating a "derived work", and you cannot do that without the permission of the copyright holder. After converting the content, you have two files - the original and the converted one. Compare that to rebinding a book, where you are doing things to the original only.

Please explain how changing from LIT to LRF alters the content. I do not see how changing an ebook from one file format to another is any more a derived work that cutting down a trade paperback to make it a massmarket paperback.

I do agree that you end up with two files. That is the one part that would cripple my argument if not for the fact that there is little established law on this point. The closest precedent that I can find is the accepted right to make a archival copy of software. If you designate the original as the archival copy, then the format conversion is almost certainly legal.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Please explain how changing from LIT to LRF alters the content. I do not see how changing an ebook from one file format to another is any more a derived work that cutting down a trade paperback to make it a massmarket paperback.

Because, as I explained in the previous message, when you cut down a trade paperback you are doing nothing other than physically altering the medium - the paper - and you own that; you can do whatever you want to it.

When you convert a file format, you're creating a NEW file - a "derived work". At the end of the process, you have two files; the old and the new.

As I said, nobody's going to prosecute you for doing this, but it's akin to, say, photocopying a book. You're creating a second copy in the process, which you don't have the right to redistribute. You can, on the other hand, freely give away or re-sell your cut-down paper book.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Because, as I explained in the previous message, when you cut down a trade paperback you are doing nothing other than physically altering the medium - the paper - and you own that; you can do whatever you want to it.

When you convert a file format, you're creating a NEW file - a "derived work". At the end of the process, you have two files; the old and the new.

As I said, nobody's going to prosecute you for doing this, but it's akin to, say, photocopying a book. You're creating a second copy in the process, which you don't have the right to redistribute. You can, on the other hand, freely give away or re-sell your cut-down paper book.

Sorry, I missed your previous post.

I think we should simply agree to disagree. This is not yet an established point of law, and we are not lawyers.

[LaughingVulcan]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

I wasn't going to touch this topic, but there are so many things wrong with this post I had to respond.


Let's translate this to paper. Mr. Goodwriter's first novel was released as a paperback. In order to make it fit in with my collection of leather bound books, I convert the paperback to a leather bound book. A few years later, the novel is re-released as a collectible leather bound book. According to you, I should not have done this. Instead I should run out and buy a copy. Why?

First, as Harry pointed out - will you be sued or prosecuted for doing so? Probably not. And, as nerys pointed out, enforcement and legality are different issues.

And also there is the argument as stated that you have not copied the work, which is what Copyright primarily exists to protect. In my examples - copying, handwriting, and typing - you are acting as a publisher of the work, even if it is for your own internal use.

If you convert the file from one format to another, again, you are acting as a publisher. You are publishing the work. Even if it is for your own use.

Now, you could ask, "What harm have I done? I'm not putting it up on P2P, or posting it to a website!" And you'd probably be correct - I'm not sure about DMCA or copyright, but most torts have to cause damage before it's a problem. It is a grey area I believe. But rattling on about how the law is inherently unjust almost never works - and it certainly doesn't work until you've gotten to the level of the Court of Appeals.

Let me give you another example. Mr. Goodwriter's first 3 novels were released in one cover. I would prefer to have them as separate books, so I split them up and rebind them. Later, the novels are released individually. According to you, I should not have done this. Instead I should run out and buy them. Why?

A third and final example. Mr. Goodwriter's novel was released as a trade paperback. It’s too big for me, so I cut it down and rebind it. Later, the novel is released as a paperback. According to you, I should not have done this. Instead I should run out buy a copy. Why?

Now why should you go out and buy it again? Because the state of the publishing industry depends upon publication rights being sold again and again. It's part of the system. The author's income isn't derived solely from typing into the night. It's also derived from the author being smart enough to sell those rights incrementally. First publishing right. Serialization. Magazine version. Hardback. Paperback. Special edition. eBook. Translation. Audiobook. TV rights. Movie rights. Each of these has a value that (hopefully) enrich the author separately.

Another example: You own the hardcover. Does this give you the right to check out the audiobook from the libarary and copy it?

If all of these examples are things I can reasonably do to format shift my paper book, then why can’t I format shift my ebook? The same property rights apply! I may not own the “contents” of the ebook file, but I do own the file in exactly the same way I own the paper.

I'm not sure - what exactly are you "owning"? Even conceding that, copyright is not conveyed by ownership of the physical medium. That's also why copyright in the digital age is complex: There's no longer a physical element to reference. Do you own the electrons buzzing around in your computer? You own the memory chips it's stored on. But what are you really "buying" with an eBook? I'd suggest you're buying the right to have that configuration of text - those particular configurations of electrons - on your computer. So how much can you change them without creating something different?

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm sorry, but this "logic" completely escapes me. It's no different from saying "if you have a hardback version of a book, you should have the right to have a paperback version of it". WHY? They are different formats! If you buy a hardback, you don't have a "right" to a paperback - if you want a paperback, you go out and buy one. If you have a paperback, you equally don't have a "right" to an eBook - if you want an eBook, you go out and buy one.

Read the first page of virtually any printed book and you'll find a sentence in it specifically prohibiting the reproduction of that book by any means or in any form. Buying a paper book does not give you some "God-given right" to create or download an eBook, any more than buying a hardback gives you a "right" to a paperback.

I'm not saying that there is a "God-given right" to it. But I am saying that it is frustrating to own a paper book and not have any legal method to enjoy it electronically.

Aside from that, there is a principle in law that harm must be caused (in most cases) for a civil tort to be actionable. The question that is asked again and again by filesharers and others (and used as a self-justification) is, "What harm have I caused?" Have I deprived the publisher or author of income?

If an author/publisher goes their whole life without publishing an electronic version, then what harm has been caused by making one for personal use? But, of course, the copyright can vest with the estate as well. And there is always the opportunity to sell the electronic version.... So I guess you could say there's always the potential of a new revenue stream there.

Nerys has another valid point: The DMCA is the first time that I'm aware of that reverse engineering or decryption has carried a criminal penalty. To me, that's just wrong. If I've deprived someone of income, the remedy should be civil, not criminal. (I think that's what was being gotten at with the appeals to the First Amendment, anyway.)

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Please explain how changing from LIT to LRF alters the content. I do not see how changing an ebook from one file format to another is any more a derived work that cutting down a trade paperback to make it a massmarket paperback.

I do agree that you end up with two files. That is the one part that would cripple my argument if not for the fact that there is little established law on this point. The closest precedent that I can find is the accepted right to make a archival copy of software. If you designate the original as the archival copy, then the format conversion is almost certainly legal.

The other aspect, though, is that the file format system itself involves different revenue streams. Who wins if you make an eCopy of something into lit? You do, of course. But also Microsoft - you have used their format. You have the ability to show off to friends how nice your version of Mr. Goodwriter's book looks. You (presumably) have the ability to take a screenshot of it and post it to your blog.

Now, if Mr. Goodwriter wants to make his living by limiting himself to Sony, that's his choice as the author. (In fact, Mr. Goodwriter might object simply to your converting it to a format whose DRM is broken, thus allowing for the possibility of filesharing.)

Do I think that the publisher and author should enjoy the right to determine when, how, and if a book is released to electronic format? I'm undecided. I don't like it, but I can see how it matters to them economically.

[HarryT]

We are not lawyers, but I am in the business of selling software, and hence have a good "practical knowledge" of what copyright law permits one to do, and not to do, with digital media (eg I recently successfully went after someone who was re-selling my software on eBay).

As you say, though, we can certainly agree to differ. As a purely practical matter, nobody's going to come after you for converting the format of eBooks that you're legally purchased. Just don't try to re-sell them .