The Wrong Goodbye of Barnes and Noble

[AnemicOak]

Show where in the law eBooks have ever been considered software. Some folks may relate the TOS on an eBook to the TOS/license agreement on software, but they aren't the courts.

[Sregener]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Copyright and publishing are in flux. You THINK you know what you are talking about but it is clear you don't. You have opinions and not very well informed ones as best I can tell.

Tell me exactly which provision of the DMCA permits the stripping of DRMs from eBooks under any and all circumstances.

From Amazon's Terms of Service:
1. Kindle Content
Use of Kindle Content. Upon your download of Kindle Content and payment of any applicable fees (including applicable taxes), the Content Provider grants you a non-exclusive right to view, use, and display such Kindle Content an unlimited number of times, solely on the Kindle or a Reading Application or as otherwise permitted as part of the Service, solely on the number of Kindles or Supported Devices specified in the Kindle Store, and solely for your personal, non-commercial use. Kindle Content is licensed, not sold, to you by the Content Provider. The Content Provider may include additional terms for use within its Kindle Content. Those terms will also apply, but this Agreement will govern in the event of a conflict. Some Kindle Content, such as Periodicals, may not be available to you through Reading Applications.

Limitations. Unless specifically indicated otherwise, you may not sell, rent, lease, distribute, broadcast, sublicense, or otherwise assign any rights to the Kindle Content or any portion of it to any third party, and you may not remove or modify any proprietary notices or labels on the Kindle Content. In addition, you may not bypass, modify, defeat, or circumvent security features that protect the Kindle Content.

From Kobo's Terms of Use for the iPhone (I couldn't find their terms for other products, though I assume they are similar):

2. Scope of License: Any product downloaded, purchased, viewed or any copy of any Submission or Literary Work (collectively a "Product") transacted through the Service which is accessed by you on any iPhone or iPod is licensed, not sold, to you for use only under the terms of this license, unless a Product is accompanied by a separate license agreement, in which case the terms of that separate license agreement will govern, subject to your prior acceptance of that separate license agreement. Kobo and its licensors ("Application Provider") reserve all rights not expressly granted to you. The Product that is subject to this license is referred to in this license as the "Licensed Application."

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Sregener

....
Am I the only one who sees the problems inherent in turning books into software? .....

There's yer problem Earl. Books are not software, nor is music or videos.

This topic has been discussed endlessly here and on hundreds of other internet websites and forums for years, you're a bit late coming to the table.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

Show where in the law eBooks have ever been considered software. Some folks may relate the TOS on an eBook to the TOS/license agreement on software, but they aren't the courts.

This.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Sregener

...
From Kobo's Terms of Use for the iPhone (I couldn't find their terms for other products, though I assume they are similar):
....

Yes, you are assuming many things grasshopper.

[fjtorres]

The key question is how enforceable those terms might be.
"Shrink-wrap" license terms have a mixed history in the US courts. They tend to do better with *hardware* than software and they haven't been tested too strongly with digital content, especially with walled gardens.
Post-sales changes tend to do less than well.

Me, I wouldn't bet the farm on either position; absent a Congressional law with explicit instructions both have equal chance of prevailing in one case and failing in another.

Lots of billable hours will be spent trying to settle it. After the *first* such case gets to court. And that is still in the future.

Here's a couple of semi-relevant reports:

http://corporate.findlaw.com/busines...able-mass.html

http://boingboing.net/2012/10/31/zap...-found-un.html

[Sregener]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The key question is how enforceable those terms might be.

I understand how, from one perspective, this is a key question. After all, if DRM is ultimately ruled to be unenforceable, then DRM on eBooks becomes a non-issue and we can move on to other, less obvious problems with eBooks. However, if one endeavors to live ethically, legally and morally, one would need to have a compelling reason to violate a law until such time, and I can find no compelling or urgent reason why I, having the means at my disposal to choose my ereader and purchases/leases, must remove DRM from an eBook.

Someone once famously said, "The medium is the message." And there's no doubt about it, an eBook is a different medium (in fact, it isn't really the medium - the type of device upon which you read eBooks is... of which there are several) than the printed book. The impact of this new medium is unknown. But it will not be the same as the printed book, a medium that has stood centuries of testing and proven to be the impetus for remarkable advancement.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Sregener

I understand how, from one perspective, this is a key question. After all, if DRM is ultimately ruled to be unenforceable, then DRM on eBooks becomes a non-issue and we can move on to other, less obvious problems with eBooks. However, if one endeavors to live ethically, legally and morally, one would need to have a compelling reason to violate a law until such time, and I can find no compelling or urgent reason why I, having the means at my disposal to choose my ereader and purchases/leases, must remove DRM from an eBook.

No one has said or implied that you must remove DRM from an e-book. But it has not been ruled illegal to remove DRM from an e-book. Removing DRM is no more stealing than 2+2=5. And terms of service are not laws.

As far as the ethics go, if a TOS said that to read the book, I must wear blue socks, I'd certainly disregard it. I don't see any difference with DRM. I paid for the book, and I'm not giving away copies of it. I'm simply reserving the right to read the book that I paid for. I can do that without the slightest ethical qualms.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Sregener

However, if one endeavors to live ethically, legally and morally, one would need to have a compelling reason to violate a law

Some of us consider ethics to be a higher standard than morals and both higher than law. Law is merely the consensus lowest standard of behavior that society tolerates at a given point in time. Which means that law can only properly regulate public behavior.

Private behavior is the realm of personal ethics and history has shown that every single time that law is used to compel personal, private behavior, conflict ensues as there can be no consensus on purely private behavior that impacts nobody but the practicioner.

I understand that there are religions and cultures in the world that make us responsible for other people's behaviors but in the western technological society I live in, the courts have generally upheld that *I* am the sole custodian of my conscience when dealing with the purely personal. (And often beyond it. C.f., the Military draft and conscientious objectors.)

And being a product of the philosophy that prevailed at Salamis, that is exactly how I like it.

DRM stripping of legally purchased content for purely personal use impacts nobody but the consumer. Much like CD-ripping or DVD-ripping. The first is generally understood to be fair use, the second has been "proscribed" through the legal work-around of the DMCA. Much as prohibition proscribed alcohol consumption and the current generation of moralizers would like to proscribe sweetened drinks. The latter two should enjoy as much success as the first.

I do now currently engage in DRM stripping (No need, and I'm lazy.) but I do have the tools and make an effort to stay current so I will be at nobody's mercy. Until somebody can prove to me that actual *unnecessary* harm will accrue to somebody else from DRM-stripping, I will have no problem in carrying through should the need arise. (Such as B&N actually saying goodbye in a year or three.) Until then, DRM-stripping for me is just a theoretical/philosophical exercise.

I don't advocate that others do so, but neither do I accept self-serving pronouncements from corporations and their advocates. It's my life, my conscience, my responsability. There is only so much power over my life that I will give to any outside power regardless of how many stand behind them.

My ethics are mine, others are free to theirs.
Peace.

[bearymore]

Originally Posted by kennyc

My experience is just the opposite. At least with Amazon. I find that their recommendations for similar books based on the one I'm looking at and suggestions based on my wish list or buying habits etc are excellent and give me much to browse and learn about, in fact I often find myself spending way too much time following suggestions, and browsing books.

This could never happen in a physical book store arranged by category and author.

Of course, it doesn't allow for serendipity. In a book store I frequently happen on something I would not have thought to read that turns out to be a gem. Amazon tends to put you into a plantation consisting only of titles in genres with which you are already familiar.

[kennyc]

That's not true either. I'm often given recommendations when I'm browsing or in email that I really don't know where they came from. Another wonderful way to find books by serendipity is to view others lists and favorites. I've found any number of books of interest that way.

[JoHunt]

Originally Posted by Sregener

However, if one endeavors to live ethically, legally and morally, one would need to have a compelling reason to violate a law until such time, and I can find no compelling or urgent reason why I, having the means at my disposal to choose my ereader and purchases/leases, must remove DRM from an eBook.

I remove DRM and still consider my ethics to be far superior to those of the publishers you are trying to protect who were sanctioned for price-fixing. However, since you believe that ignoring a TOS is violating the law, you may not agree.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Sregener

My arguments are not intended to be a defense of copyright law. My arguments are that under current copyright law, it is deemed theft to modify an eBook without the written consent of the publisher and/or author.

No it isn't, is it deemed to be a copyright violation.
That isn't theft.
You are simply using the wrong word.

[wizwor]

Originally Posted by joehunt

I remove DRM and still consider my ethics to be far superior to those of the publishers you are trying to protect who were sanctioned for price-fixing. However, since you believe that ignoring a TOS is violating the law, you may not agree.

Ethical<>Legal. Ethics are open to interpretation. People who work solely on ethics are vulnerable to the law and competing ethics.

[crossi]

Actually you can modify books without violating copyright. I scribble all over my text books with highlighters, margin notes, underlines, crossouts, grocery lists, ect. I can even sell the modified book.

With ebooks it's slightly different. I couldn't modify an ebook and sell the modified copy, but I can't sell an unmodified copy either. I see no problem with my personal copy with fixing typos, adding notes about the text or whatever I find useful.