Consumers @#$%$! by DRM Scheme Once Again: HarperCollins eBook Store Close

[Catlady]

I think I'm going to post my own Terms of Use on my Web page, stating that any time a bookseller accepts my credit card payment, I own the book.

[FF2]

Violating a contract, DARN IT, is NOT ILLEGAL. It is merely a breach of contract.

Probably similar to ripping apart a pbook and copying it in violation of the terms in the front of some books. You will not go to jail but you could be sued - DIFFERENT. It is not semantics - it is THE LAW!

[TallMomof2]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I have no idea what version of MS Reader I have. But I am using a 32-bit version of Windows 7. But, I am able to download MS Reader files from Fictionwise. So I think it's HC and/or Overdrive.

The key is to use the 32 bit version of Internet Explorer 8 (IE8).

[Richey79]

http://www.geek.com/articles/games/g...omers-20100416

and more seriously:

http://www.wired.com/politics/law/co...cuitcourt_0801

It is as yet a moot point whether these license agreements are legally binding, since the legal profession are aware they are being used to fleece the consumer, and that noone ever reads them.

Whether it is a civil or criminal issue is very important. To strip the DRM is not really illegal in many countries, it's just that someone has the right to challenge you to protect their IP and prove damages have been perpetrated against themselves in court. Of course, the first company to take someone to court for this issue will see their share of the market fall dramatically and rapidly, so the likelihood of it happening barely registers on the scale.

Of course, ACTA is an attempt to start another Orwellian 'total war,' as America did with the War On Terror. It will be a method of justifying any illegal action taken by the state against its citizens, because our way of life is under an unprecedented level of threat, according to POTUS.

[thrawn_aj]

Originally Posted by Grimm

I'm not playing anything with you. There is a world of difference between civil and criminal. To pretend there is not is disingenuous at best, outright ignorant at worst.

*Sigh* Oh Grimm, Don't waste your time on these anti-semantic individuals. They miss the point that when laws are written (literally) by lobbyists, semantics are the sole defense of the beleaguered masses. It's an ideological thing - not amenable to reason or (especially) consistency. For instance -

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

That warning on the tag applies only if you are selling the mattress. It does not apply to the end user.

How about the generic warning on paper books?

No part of this book may be reproduced or redistributed in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the publisher/author.

Or does that not apply to the end users either (specifically, the bookscanners)?

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

We weren't discussing penalties here, just whether something was illegal or not. In this instance, Grimm, your bringing the difference was semantical nitpicking. Too often here, I've seen legal semantics used as an argument to condone doing something illegal just because the penalties or the method of prosecution was different. However, it doesn't matter if one carries a lighter penalty (even to the point of being virtually nonexistant), if it's illegal, it's illegal.

Yes. Like the first half and (especially) the last sentence of this? Pot, kettle, etc...

[thrawn_aj]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

Then you didn't read the terms of use.
XII. DIGITAL CONTENT

By the way, this is brand new (this has always fascinated me). As of 2 weeks ago, there wasn't a single term like this (about DRM removal) anywhere in their terms of use (or anywhere else on B&N's website for that matter) - and I looked.

I guess their highly paid army of lawyers finally got off their butt and did some work for a change . Since terms of use aren't retroactive to previously purchased works, does this addition mean that the previous purchases are fair game for all those things?

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by thrawn_aj

*Sigh* Oh Grimm, Don't waste your time on these anti-semantic individuals...Pot, kettle, etc...

Unfortunately, MR's quote function won't reproduce entire quotes so I've done so below:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grimm
I'm not playing anything with you. There is a world of difference between civil and criminal. To pretend there is not is disingenuous at best, outright ignorant at worst.

*Sigh* Oh Grimm, Don't waste your time on these anti-semantic individuals. They miss the point that when laws are written (literally) by lobbyists, semantics are the sole defense of the beleaguered masses. It's an ideological thing - not amenable to reason or (especially) consistency. For instance -


Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald
Quote:
Originally Posted by edbro
I'm going to have to be more careful. I just got out of jail for ripping the tag off my mattress. I certainly don't want to go back.

That warning on the tag applies only if you are selling the mattress. It does not apply to the end user.

How about the generic warning on paper books?

Quote:
No part of this book may be reproduced or redistributed in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without permission in writing from the publisher/author.

Or does that not apply to the end users either (specifically, the bookscanners)?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald
We weren't discussing penalties here, just whether something was illegal or not. In this instance, Grimm, your bringing the difference was semantical nitpicking. Too often here, I've seen legal semantics used as an argument to condone doing something illegal just because the penalties or the method of prosecution was different. However, it doesn't matter if one carries a lighter penalty (even to the point of being virtually nonexistant), if it's illegal, it's illegal.

Yes. Like the first half and (especially) the last sentence of this? Pot, kettle, etc...

Your comments here continue to support my belief you are an arrogant piece of work. Your mocking of what I had to say about the mattress tag, for example. What I said is true. If you aren't too lazy, you could just Google it but here are a couple of linls for your convenience:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_label



http://www.articlesbase.com/home-and-family-articles/do-not-remove-your-mattress-tag-under-penalty-of-law-270578.html

The tag issue has nothing to do with the book warning issue.

At no time did I say the difference between civil and criminal law was not significant. I only pointed out that the difference was not applicable in the case of the original argument. At this point, based on this post of yours, I'm convinced you don't care and are just using it as an opportunity to further harrass me because the truth about your arrogance hurts (and, at this point, ignorance can be added to the list). Otherwise, what would be the purpose of dredging up references to my bookscanning?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

And if you bothered to read the terms of use on the site, they say, under section 9. Literary Works:

Stripping the DRM from the eBook is, without question, modifying the work.
Creating a version that you can read on a different eBook reader is creating a derivative work.

When you downloaded the eBook, you agreed to these terms.

But it also says that it is illegal to transfer or display. So I am not allowed to even download it and if I did, I'm then not allowed to display it. So really, that is a bunch of nonsense. Also, with a book, we have the right to cite from it. So if that went to court, It would lose big time because it's just stupid. Borders is breaking the EULA by transmitting the eBook to me. Just reading it breaks the EULA. So really, the EULA is useless.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

You are not even allowed to transmit it! So, how are you going to put it on your first device anyway (unless you have a 3G or wifi enabled device...)

3G or wifi.. still used to transmit so no, that won't work either. And since Borders is breaking the EULA by transmitting the eBook to you, the EULA has be be void.

[JSWolf]

On some eBooks, I get the notice saying that if it doesn't have a cover, it's not legal.

Well, a lot of eBooks don't actually have a proper cover. So that makes the seller in violation of selling me an illegal eBook.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

On some eBooks, I get the notice saying that if it doesn't have a cover, it's not legal.

Well, a lot of eBooks don't actually have a proper cover. So that makes the seller in violation of selling me an illegal eBook.

Uh...you are aware that ebooks with the no cover warning have those because they were scanned from a paper book and the warning, which applies only to the paperbook, wasn't edited out?

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

ebooks with the no cover warning have those because they were scanned from a paper book

Not necessarily. Some publishers don't bother to change the contents of the frontmatter when converting to an ebook.

[ShortNCuddlyAm]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

On some eBooks, I get the notice saying that if it doesn't have a cover, it's not legal.

Well, a lot of eBooks don't actually have a proper cover. So that makes the seller in violation of selling me an illegal eBook.

I'd never noticed that! You'd've thought they'd bother to check if the paper notices are correct for the e version!

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

The tag issue has nothing to do with the book warning issue.[...]Otherwise, what would be the purpose of dredging up references to my bookscanning?

He seems to make a pretty good case that what you did in that case is exactly what you are saying others are doing now, semantical nitpicking.

"Media shift and archival is permitted in other intellectual work and is not specifically prohibited in books. In fact, libraries are specifially permitted to have up to one paper copy of a book or three digital copies for archival purposes as long as only one is in use at any time. Since library isn't defined, who's to say that my large collection isn't a library. I have always referred to it as one.
[...]
Unless, you're a lawyer (and, considering comments we've seen from an individual claiming to be one, that wouldn't hold much water with me), tread carefully. Show me one case where someone has been prosecuted, let alone convicted, for media shifting books without distribution."

Really? That doesn't sit too well with:

"We weren't discussing penalties here, just whether something was illegal or not. In this instance, Grimm, your bringing the difference was semantical nitpicking. Too often here, I've seen legal semantics used as an argument to condone doing something illegal just because the penalties or the method of prosecution was different. However, it doesn't matter if one carries a lighter penalty (even to the point of being virtually nonexistant), if it's illegal, it's illegal."

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Not necessarily. Some publishers don't bother to change the contents of the frontmatter when converting to an ebook.

You are correct.