Pointing users to drm stripping software isn't copyright infringment.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by crich70

I think that one is python based if I recall.

Yes, it is. It's a Python script.

[Robotech_Master]

Originally Posted by taustin

Except, of course, it's not. I cited the relevant section of Title 17, which has several exemptions.

And I linked a section from Wikipedia indicating that those exemptions tend to be honored more in the breach. Since I guess you didn't read it, I'll go ahead and quote it here (emphasis mine):

However, in a number of cases involving DVD decryption courts have held that there is no fair use defense in circumvention cases. In Universal City Studios v. Reimerdes, 111 F. Supp. 2d 294, 322 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), the court stated that "(i)f Congress had meant the fair use defense to apply to such actions, it would have said so."

Originally Posted by taustin

I expect the reason nobody has included an anti-circumvention claim is that their lawyers tell them not to, because they wouldn't likely win. There being exemptions for interoperability, and all.

If those exemptions were all that effective, we wouldn't have dozens of petitions every three years from people saying, "Allow us to break DRM for fair use purposes under the law, please."

[auspex]

Originally Posted by taustin

That would be a case against the end user who actually removes the DRM, which would be irrelevant as a counterclaim in this case. Helping people remove the DRM is contributory infringement, which is what they claimed here (and lost).

No. The copyright issues and DRM-removal are separate issues. It's illegal under the DMCA to tell someone how to remove DRM. What this judge effectively said is that telling someone how to remove DRM is NOT contributory infringement, and that they'll have to use the DMCA if they want to stop it. Whether they would go that route seems doubtful. A law that's on the books but untested is much more useful to the publishing houses than one that's been tossed by the courts.

As for the argument that DMCA doesn't permit exceptions to the regulation against DRM removal, I tend to agree with taustin: yes, the courts may have argued that there's no "fair use provision", but there IS a provision—it is not a matter of "fair use".

[Shades]

Originally Posted by auspex

No. The copyright issues and DRM-removal are separate issues. It's illegal under the DMCA to tell someone how to remove DRM. What this judge effectively said is that telling someone how to remove DRM is NOT contributory infringement, and that they'll have to use the DMCA if they want to stop it. Whether they would go that route seems doubtful. A law that's on the books but untested is much more useful to the publishing houses than one that's been tossed by the courts.

As for the argument that DMCA doesn't permit exceptions to the regulation against DRM removal, I tend to agree with taustin: yes, the courts may have argued that there's no "fair use provision", but there IS a provision—it is not a matter of "fair use".

Exactly this. What the publishers, MPAA, RIAA, etc. don't want is a precedent set that makes the DMCA look less scary and ultimately give the consumer more rights to what these organizations perceive as their property, the book, movie or music that you paid money for.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Robotech_Master

And I linked a section from Wikipedia indicating that those exemptions tend to be honored more in the breach. Since I guess you didn't read it, I'll go ahead and quote it here (emphasis mine):

The DMCA explicitly says:
"Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title."

So I think the judge you cited was simply wrong. It happens. That's why we have appeals.

As for the "If congress wanted it there they'd have put it there" argument in general? Um, no. A totally comprehensive and unambiguously phrased law? If that was the typical expectation, we wouldn't need all these courts and cases, would we?

If those exemptions were all that effective, we wouldn't have dozens of petitions every three years from people saying, "Allow us to break DRM for fair use purposes under the law, please."

Actually, we asked the Librarian to resolve an ambiguity, and one of the reasons those petitions were not effective* was because the Librarian only considers exemptions for things that, without them, were unambiguously prohibited. There is an argument to be made that we cannot get an exemption rule for something that's NOT already prohibited.

I, too, am not a lawyer.

ApK

*Another reason petitions like mine were not effective was that, while the process asks for "public comment" what it really called for was "formal legal analysis and argument." Oh well, live and learn.

[Little.Egret]

Originally Posted by Apache

True. Just as a when a no compete contract is not legal if it can stop you from making a living. They can keep you from competing within a defined area , say a small town or an area within a larger town.
Apache

World-wide non-compete contracts have passed muster.. mostly when a business was being sold.

Even these don't prevent you making a living in some different field or even in a field that the business isn't yet involved in.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

In the case of Calibre, has Kovid even acknowledged the existence of Alf? If he hasn't, I can't see how it would be considered as a nitpick.

Because it isn't relevant to the lawsuit over whether or not the defendant posted instructions on how to strip DRM. They did post such instructions, and neither side disputes it. What those instructions were doesn't matter.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Robotech_Master

And I linked a section from Wikipedia

Which, as noted in another thread, has a published policy that says they are not interested in actual facts, only what is commonly believed to be the facts. A popularity contest for factoids, as it were.

This is one of those controversial subjects where Wikipedia is useless, and the only thing you can really be sure of is that whatever it says is wrong.

Originally Posted by Robotech_Master

indicating that those exemptions tend to be honored more in the breach.

And yet, nobody can find any lawsuits or prosecutions over that particular provision.

If you have an actual source, let's hear it. Wikipedia isn't one.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by auspex

No. The copyright issues and DRM-removal are separate issues. It's illegal under the DMCA to tell someone how to remove DRM.

Except, of course, when it's not, as has been noted. Can you name a single lawsuit or prosecution relevant to Title 17, Chapter 12, § 1201 in which (f) was ruled to not apply to format conversion? Nobody else can.

[Apache]

Originally Posted by Little.Egret

World-wide non-compete contracts have passed muster.. mostly when a business was being sold.

Even these don't prevent you making a living in some different field or even in a field that the business isn't yet involved in.

Not for individuals in the US. A contract saying an ex employee can not ply his trade anywhere in the US is illegal. You can not keep someone from making a living. You can enforce a non compete clause for a specific distance. For example within 50 miles of you current employer. You can not keep him from working in the same field in all 50 states and territories of the US. On the other hand, if it can be proven that the employee poached existing customers that could result in a lawsuit
Apache

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Apache

Not for individuals in the US. A contract saying an ex employee can not ply his trade anywhere in the US is illegal. You can not keep someone from making a living. You can enforce a non compete clause for a specific distance. For example within 50 miles of you current employer. You can not keep him from working in the same field in all 50 states and territories of the US. On the other hand, if it can be proven that the employee poached existing customers that could result in a lawsuit
Apache

I believe that Little.Egret is referring to something entirely different - when the owner of a company sells it, and signs a contract promising to not compete with the company they just sold for a certain amount of time. And those are enforceable, at least sometimes.

Employees and owners are not the same thing, though.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by meeera

Yes, Abbey House claims that Calibre is a DRM-stripping tool in their quote, and both the EFF and Teleread repeat that claim without interrogating it. Huh.

LOL. The DRM-stripping tools are utilities that can be run from the command line. Thus, they can be wrapped in any program able to execute external code. Therefore it's possible to create DRM removal capabilities for (almost) any program that supports a plugin architecture. Hell, it's probably possible to write an e-book DRM removal plugin for Photoshop.

[eschwartz]

It doesn't appear that EFF does comments, but I remarked on this at Teleread.


Chris Meadows says:

I didn’t really think it was worth quibbling over semantics. Even if a plugin does the actual work, it’s still Calibre that uses the plugin to do it. I’ll wager if you google “remove DRM with Calibre” you’ll find clear instructions on how to do it in the first result. And you can’t use the plugin without Calibre. So if they said enough that people were able to figure out what they meant and do it, why complain they got it wrong?

Anyway, it’s common usage to say that you’re going to do something with the overall program, rather than with a plugin. If I’m going to watch a movie on my computer, I’ll say “I’m going to watch [movie] in VLC.” I don’t say “I’m going to watch [movie] with the DIVX codec,” though it is, in fact, the codec plugin that does the actual work of translating the movie so VLC knows how to show it. I’ve seen plenty of people talk about “removing DRM with Calibre” and I always knew exactly what they meant.

I specifically compared calibre to Firefox (regarding plugins) and I get a response about how VLC codecs are integral to watching movies? VLC officially bundles them, calibre and Firefox don't officially bundle plugins...

[crich70]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

It doesn't appear that EFF does comments, but I remarked on this at Teleread.


Chris Meadows says:


I specifically compared calibre to Firefox (regarding plugins) and I get a response about how VLC codecs are integral to watching movies? VLC officially bundles them, calibre and Firefox don't officially bundle plugins...

True. Some plugins for things like counting pages and generating covers are offered here at MR as things that can be added on, but neither MR nor Kovid to my understanding directly link to the DRM plugin tool that Apprentice Alf provides. Nor do they give any instruction on how to use that plugin. They just tell people to google Apprentice Alf. What the person does afterward is up to them.

[auspex]

Originally Posted by taustin

Except, of course, when it's not, as has been noted. Can you name a single lawsuit or prosecution relevant to Title 17, Chapter 12, § 1201 in which (f) was ruled to not apply to format conversion? Nobody else can.

Hey, I said I agreed with you. The DMCA does say it's illegal. That doesn't mean that the DMCA is the final authority, or that it doesn't have its own exceptions. I merely mentioned that the DMCA says that.