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

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by 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.

Well, yes and no. I do as you indicate and believe that is what is right, but the law does actually say otherwise in some cases.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Abisha

Let's just gnaw on the fact that unless our computers out live us, inevitably we the consumer will once again be defrauded by big business, and the literature and/or audio books that you worked so hard to pay for - and legitimately purchased will be stolen out from under you when you can no longer access the content.

Luckily I only downloaded a couple of freebies from that site so I can't even complain about being ripped off. (Not that I disagree with your premise.)

[AprilHare]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

TallMomof2: you committed a crime stripping the DRM off because you violated the license you agreed to.

If TallMomof2 (really? Tall *and* a mum of 2? How interesting!) did strip the DRM, then arguably the licence has not been legally tested yet. If her right to strip the DRM exists under, say, consumer law, then she hasn't broken a legal licence and she can do what she has done.
Not everything a lawyer writes and makes you sign is legal
This would depend on jurisdiction and legal climate, of course.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by AprilHare

I...
This would depend on jurisdiction and legal climate, of course.

And there is all the uproar about climate change that has to be taken into account as well.

[Grimm]

Originally Posted by kennyc

And there is all the uproar about climate change that has to be taken into account as well.

Hide the decline! Hide the decline! Sometimes those lawbreakers expose the spiders in the ivory towers.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

"DRM-contaminated eBook"

That nails it!

[Lemurion]

DRM = "Don't Read Me."

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

They have the legal right to prevent you from accessing the eBook in the future - because that's what the license said they could do.

No they don't, at least not in the US. They merely have the practical right to try. If you can get round it, there's nothing they can do as long as you don't resell or distribute the stripped ebook.

These so-called licenses do not deprive you of your fair use rights, no matter what they say.

This really is repetitious, of course, and I don't mean to hijack this thread for yet another session about DRM. But it is important for everyone to stop overstating the situation, and stop ceding the high ground to the corporations who are trying to convince us that we don't own what we have paid for.

Strip 'em if you got 'em!

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

TallMomof2: you committed a crime stripping the DRM off because you violated the license you agreed to.

There is no such crime in the US. The crimes that DO exist are (1) copying & distributing books without permission of the copyright owner and (2) distributing tools which are intended to be used to strip DRM - and I'm not entirely sure that's a crime in the US if the distribution is not commercial in nature.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

But, regardless of whether or not you agree that this is right, the fact remains that you made an agreement with HarperCollins as a condition for downloading the eBook. By removing the DRM, you violated that agreement and it's you, legally speaking, that are in the wrong.

Actually, in the US that's questionable for at least two reasons.

The first is that this kind of contract is what courts refer to as a "contract of adhesion." This means that it is a contract which the weaker party (in this case, the customer) has no ability to negotiate about. The courts will not enforce "unconscionable" provisions in such a contract. There are standards for deciding what fits this terminology, and I have little doubt that Harper loses this argument.

The second is that in similar circumstances, the courts have found "from all the facts" that what has occurred is a sale, not a license, and such a clause would be void.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by kennyc

And there is all the uproar about climate change that has to be taken into account as well.

What uproar? Everyone here in Chicago votes in favor of global warming. Early & often!

[TallMomof2]

Originally Posted by AprilHare

If TallMomof2 (really? Tall *and* a mum of 2? How interesting!) did strip the DRM, then arguably the licence has not been legally tested yet. If her right to strip the DRM exists under, say, consumer law, then she hasn't broken a legal licence and she can do what she has done.
Not everything a lawyer writes and makes you sign is legal
This would depend on jurisdiction and legal climate, of course.

Yep, just under 6 feet tall (cursed middle age shrinkage, used to be be 6 feet even) and have 2 children. Very literal not too imaginative but easy to remember.

My attitude is that I paid for it so I can do with the file what I wish for personal use. Won't be reselling the file or putting it in a torrent so I think I'm safe from the Man.

[tammycravit]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Actually, in the US that's questionable for at least two reasons.

Here's a third reason. The DMCA says (17 USC 1201(a)(1)(B) that the anti-circumvention prohibitions do not apply "to persons who are users of a copyrighted work which is in a particular class of works, if such persons are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by virtue of such prohibition in their ability to make noninfringing uses of that particular class of works under this title". Though, to my knowledge, this provision has not been well tested in court, I think you could argue that circumventing DRM which, because of an action by the publisher, bars you from reading an e-book you purchased, would render you "adversely affected" in your "ability to make noninfringing uses of that particular class of works."

However, until courts start seeing litigation about these issues, about the best that we can say about the DMCA is "this is what it says, and who knows what it means."

Tammy (disclaimer: I am a paralegal, but not an attorney)

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by tammycravit

Here's a third reason. The DMCA says (17 USC 1201(a)(1)(B) that the anti-circumvention prohibitions do not apply "to persons who are users of a copyrighted work which is in a particular class of works, if such persons are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by virtue of such prohibition in their ability to make noninfringing uses of that particular class of works under this title". Though, to my knowledge, this provision has not been well tested in court, I think you could argue that circumventing DRM which, because of an action by the publisher, bars you from reading an e-book you purchased, would render you "adversely affected" in your "ability to make noninfringing uses of that particular class of works."

However, until courts start seeing litigation about these issues, about the best that we can say about the DMCA is "this is what it says, and who knows what it means."

Tammy (disclaimer: I am a paralegal, but not an attorney)

Hmm. I'm not sure that's a point that stands on its own, but it certainly would be worth noting in support of the other two points. I'd have to check to see if that provision is subject to a determination by the Library of Congress, though. Some stuff in the DMCA is. (Working from memory here, so that might be a red herring.)

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by TallMomof2

Yep, just under 6 feet tall (cursed middle age shrinkage, used to be be 6 feet even) and have 2 children. Very literal not too imaginative but easy to remember.

My attitude is that I paid for it so I can do with the file what I wish for personal use. Won't be reselling the file or putting it in a torrent so I think I'm safe from the Man.

You missed the chance to use "Long Tall Mommy" ...

Well Long Tall Sally
She pretty sweet
She got everything that Uncle John need
Baby, yeah now baby
Woo baby, some fun tonight