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

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

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."

You're comparing apples and oranges.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

You're comparing apples and oranges.

You really don't see it?
You are trying to say that your copying is ok because there is an opt out for libraries, and you classify yourself as a library.
Then you complain that other people are using semantic nitpicking to justify what they are doing.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

You really don't see it?
You are trying to say that your copying is ok because there is an opt out for libraries, and you classify yourself as a library.
Then you complain that other people are using semantic nitpicking to justify what they are doing.

Whatever.

[Critteranne]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Has anyone who purchased any eBooks (in MS Reader format) from HarperCollins been able to download them using Windows 7 and MSIE 8? I already have all of them downloaded from before. But on Windows 7 with MSIE 8, I cannot download them. I do not know who's side the issue is on. It is the first time I've tried to download MS Reader eBooks using Windows 7.

Not quite.

Using the instructions they give for Vista, I finally managed to activate Microsoft Reader on my PC on Windows 7. (I had to right-click Internet Explorer in the Start Menu and click "Run as administrator," then paste the URL http://das.microsoft.com/activate/en-us/default.asp into the new IE window that opened, etc. Some trial and error, mostly error.

But then I still got an error message when I tried to download. I'm only somewhat annoyed because the only books I bought from them were three free (or bargain) e-books. But it would be nice to be able to read the suckers.

Edited to Add:
I e-mailed the error code to the Overdrive tech support address provided on the HarperCollins ebook site, and I got an automated response telling me that the HarperCollins ebook store had been discontinued. Well duh. Now tell me how to download the books, support doofi.

[Selcien]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

If you want this to stop, then stop paying money for eBook licenses. Stop paying them to defraud you. When their bottom line hurts because of their fraudulent practices, they will change.

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

Then the publishers will have won, because the ones that do infest their books with DRM are the ones that don't want to publish ebooks in the first place.

No, buy those DRM infested books and announce that you'll strip the DRM. That way they do see that you want books, but that whatever they do to protect it, however much money they invest in it, it's wasted, because people will remove the DRM anyway.

But never distribute.

I quoted these two posts because I find myself torn in between the two sentiments.

On one hand I do not like the idea of telling publishers and authors that I'm okay with their DRM by buying their e-books (or buying the license to their e-books, whichever you prefer), the money should go to the publishers and authors that are fighting for DRM free e-books. At the same time there are publishers who are doing their best to save their hardcover industry who will undoubtedly interpret poor e-books sales as being proof that they are correct. It just seems that you're damned either way.

The best I could come up with is to put more emphasis on DRM free authors and publishers than I have been (I'm reading my first e-book from Baen), yet still strip the DRM from e-books that I just cannot make myself skip.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

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.

You have to read the whole thing:

B. All content on the Service, including but not limited to designs, text, graphics, pictures, video, information, applications, software, music, sound and other files, and their selection and arrangement ("Site Content"), save and except for any literary works are the proprietary property of Borders or its licensors with all rights reserved. No Site Content may be modified, copied, distributed, framed, reproduced, republished, downloaded, displayed, posted, transmitted, or sold in any form or by any means, in whole or in part, without Borders' prior written permission. Provided that you are eligible for use of the Service and subject to these Terms of Use, you are granted a limited license to access the Service and the Site Content and to download or print a copy of any portion of the Site Content to which you have properly gained access solely for your personal, non-commercial use, provided that you keep all copyright and other proprietary notices intact.

[GreenMonkey]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

You really don't see it?
You are trying to say that your copying is ok because there is an opt out for libraries, and you classify yourself as a library.
Then you complain that other people are using semantic nitpicking to justify what they are doing.

Yeah. I'm with you. It's hilarious - she pulls the lawful good breaking the law destroys society type arguments about how breaking DRM is illegal, yet classifies herself as a library to avoid taking responsibility for the copyright breaking that she is doing herself.

At least I admit I'm breaking what I see as a morally unjust law.

And I'm with the other guys that say: you're not buying the book. With the DRM schemes it's basically a rental for an indeterminate amount of time. The only way to make it stop, and assert your rights to a product you purchase, is to stop buying DRM'd material. Industry is attempting to turn everything into a license and not a physical product with no rights of first sale. Don't let them.

[kennyc]

Well, well. All the more reason to never purchase an ebook that you can't strip DRM off of.

[thrawn_aj]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

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?

I see I've made my point - you're already at the "ad hominem rant" stage. Suffice to say that I take no pleasure arguing with a chessboard flipper - nor is there any intent to harass - I'm not responsible for your persecution fantasies . If I see logical abuse, I'll point it out. Don't like it? Stop doing it or simply admit it's your personal opinion instead of pretending it is objective fact and I'll be happy to leave it alone. But more importantly, if you can't take it, don't dish it out. "Harrass" indeed . Gimme a break.

As for "dredging up references" - the thing about the internet is that it never forgets . Don't be surprised if blatant inconsistency between threads is rewarded with references to past arguments. I have neither the time nor the patience to repeat myself when the text is all right there, just waiting to be cited. Besides, I'm merely following your past advice to search for old threads because it's all been argued before (sound familiar? ).

Well, I think I've saved everyone here at least two days of arguing into the void by getting you to the inevitable "whatever" stage much earlier than usual. It was a warning to the others that you have a history of not arguing in good faith and of not admitting mistakes.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by thrawn_aj

I see I've made my point - you're already at the "ad hominem rant" stage. Suffice to say that I take no pleasure arguing with a chessboard flipper - nor is there any intent to harass - I'm not responsible for your persecution fantasies . If I see logical abuse, I'll point it out. Don't like it? Stop doing it or simply admit it's your personal opinion instead of pretending it is objective fact and I'll be happy to leave it alone. But more importantly, if you can't take it, don't dish it out. "Harrass" indeed . Gimme a break.

As for "dredging up references" - the thing about the internet is that it never forgets . Don't be surprised if blatant inconsistency between threads is rewarded with references to past arguments. I have neither the time nor the patience to repeat myself when the text is all right there, just waiting to be cited. Besides, I'm merely following your past advice to search for old threads because it's all been argued before (sound familiar? ).

Well, I think I've saved everyone here at least two days of arguing into the void by getting you to the inevitable "whatever" stage much earlier than usual. It was a warning to the others that you have a history of not arguing in good faith and of not admitting mistakes.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

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

But since this warning is in the eBook and there is no proper cover, does this mean the eBook is illegal?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Critteranne

Not quite.

Using the instructions they give for Vista, I finally managed to activate Microsoft Reader on my PC on Windows 7. (I had to right-click Internet Explorer in the Start Menu and click "Run as administrator," then paste the URL http://das.microsoft.com/activate/en-us/default.asp into the new IE window that opened, etc. Some trial and error, mostly error.

But then I still got an error message when I tried to download. I'm only somewhat annoyed because the only books I bought from them were three free (or bargain) e-books. But it would be nice to be able to read the suckers.

Edited to Add:
I e-mailed the error code to the Overdrive tech support address provided on the HarperCollins ebook site, and I got an automated response telling me that the HarperCollins ebook store had been discontinued. Well duh. Now tell me how to download the books, support doofi.

If I didn't already have these eBooks downloaded, I would not be able to do so now. So why didn't HC tell us of the impending shutdown before they actually shut down? This is one very good reason why DRM needs tog o away forever.

And this is just another good reason to download all eBooks right after purchase. Then strip the DRM right away so you can use your eBooks when you want to.

[Grimm]

Originally Posted by thrawn_aj

*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.

It's no problem. After all, I can safely strip DRM to make two more copies of any e-book I purchase (three for archival purposes, right?). Why? Because "since library isn't defined, who's to say that my large collection isn't a library(e-books in my case)?"

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Grimm

It's no problem. After all, I can safely strip DRM to make two more copies of any e-book I purchase (three for archival purposes, right?). Why? Because "since library isn't defined, who's to say that my large collection isn't a library(e-books in my case)?"

Can I open a franchise?

[CyGuy]

This thread is humorous. Seriously, the very first thing anyone should do the very instant they purchase a DRM infected book is remove the infection. Whether or not it is “legal” is really irrelevant if it is for personal use. Purchasing an eBook makes it yours to read, on the device of your choice, using the software of your choice.