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

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by taustin

It's a different sort of case.



Except that two paragraphs in the same section of Title 17 explicitly say you can strip DRM for certain purposes, including file conversion. ,

You missed my point completely. You have the right to create your own software to manipulate images. But you don't have the right to do so by stealing (part of) copyrighted work such as Photoshop. Change image manipulation program with drm removal - sure it may be legal to write such a tool, but not if to create it you have to reverse engineer and or copy copyrighted code frm elsewhere.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

You missed my point completely. You have the right to create your own software to manipulate images. But you don't have the right to do so by stealing (part of) copyrighted work such as Photoshop. Change image manipulation program with drm removal - sure it may be legal to write such a tool, but not if to create it you have to reverse engineer and or copy copyrighted code frm elsewhere.

Title 17 says otherwise for certain specific purposes.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by taustin

Title 17 says otherwise for certain specific purposes.

I call BS. Does it say by any means possible including illegal? Didn't think so.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

I call BS. Does it say by any means possible including illegal? Didn't think so.

Did I claim it did? No, I didn't. You lose. Try arguing with something someone actually said.

Note the first part - Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A) - that means this is an exception to the part that prohibits circumvention. It specifically allows reverse engineering of DRM for purposes of interoperability.

Title 17 › Chapter 12 › § 1201 (f) Reverse Engineering.—

(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.

(3) allows passing on information on how to others, as well, for purposes of interoperability.

There's also US 17 Chapter 12 § 1201 (d) which provides exceptions for archives, but in a rather more ambiguous way.

These are both gray areas, as I have said. There is no case law specific to stripping DRM from ebooks for format conversion.

It is not cut and dried that stripping DRM is illegal in all cases.

Feel free to make up what you wish I'd said so you can argue with that instead of responding to the actual law. Again.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by taustin

Did I claim it did? No, I didn't. You lose. Try arguing with something someone actually said.

All I said was that it is better if nobody EVER find out which laws exactly (if any) were broken in order to create and make available the tools (the ones that work as plugin for calibre specifically) to remove DRM. It doesn't even matter if there is exceptions that allow you to break a law for a specific purpose - until a case is brought to court it remains uncertain if the exception is legal to begin with in the first place.

And yes you did claim it by saying: oh, but section 17 allows reverse engineering. So it is perfectly legal to distribute it to others? Get real. And if you didn't know, the plugin for calibre we are discussing is very much distributed to others. And some even use it for the purpose of stripping DRM.

[Shades]

Originally Posted by taustin

Then it would be in a completely different case, since DRM removal was not the issue here. The issue here was telling people where to find the tools, not the removal itself.

No matter how many times you try to argue about something that isn't happening, it still isn't happening.

Different case, yes. That doesn't matter though because it would still have to go through the court system and be proven to not be a DeDRM software. That would probably cost thousands of dollars in fees to prove something that never needed to go to court in the first place. Aka a waste of time and money. Are you advocating that courts should listen to frivolous lawsuits that waste everyone's time?

[taustin]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

All I said was that it is better if nobody EVER find out which laws exactly (if any) were broken in order to create and make available the tools (the ones that work as plugin for calibre specifically) to remove DRM. It doesn't even matter if there is exceptions that allow you to break a law for a specific purpose - until a case is brought to court it remains uncertain if the exception is legal to begin with in the first place.

No, it's better to clearly establish exactly what the law says, and stop spreading misinformation that is harmful for the public to believe.

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

And yes you did claim it by saying: oh, but section 17 allows reverse engineering. So it is perfectly legal to distribute it to others? Get real. And if you didn't know, the plugin for calibre we are discussing is very much distributed to others. And some even use it for the purpose of stripping DRM.

I've never made a broad, sweeping statement. I've said reverse engineering is explicitly permitted for certain purposes. Perhaps you should read more carefully.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Shades

Different case, yes.

And it's pointless to argue about a case no one has filed, and that no one is likely to.

Originally Posted by Shades

That doesn't matter though because it would still have to go through the court system and be proven to not be a DeDRM software.

Or shown to be one the exceptions specifically allowed in Title 17, as has been explained multiple times.

Originally Posted by Shades

That would probably cost thousands of dollars in fees to prove something that never needed to go to court in the first place. Aka a waste of time and money. Are you advocating that courts should listen to frivolous lawsuits that waste everyone's time?

When the law is ambiguous, as it is in this case, the way it gets less ambiguous is by going to court and getting case law established. In this case, the ambiguity is harmful. Whether it is harmful to the content industry (as would be the case if stripping DRM for file format conversion is prohibited), or harmful to the consumer (if it's not), it should be clarified.

So, I utterly reject your premise that it is a frivolous lawsuit and that it doesn't need to go to court. It does need to go to court, and be clarified, and the sooner the better. Yes, it will be expensive. So? Are you advocating a legal system in which only the rich can have justice?

[Shades]

Originally Posted by taustin

So, I utterly reject your premise that it is a frivolous lawsuit and that it doesn't need to go to court. It does need to go to court, and be clarified, and the sooner the better. Yes, it will be expensive. So? Are you advocating a legal system in which only the rich can have justice?

It is a frivolous lawsuit because it wouldn't be about the ambiguity of dedrm software, it would just be a suit that proves Calibre isn't dedrm software and has nothing to do with dedrm. That's the point. It would prove nothing at all about the law and it wouldn't set any precedents for dedrm.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by taustin

I've never made a broad, sweeping statement. I've said reverse engineering is explicitly permitted for certain purposes. Perhaps you should read more carefully.

Then tell me exactly where it says that reverse engeneering, for example, is permitted for the purpose of distributing such a piece of software derived from it.

And since you cannot read any more careful than me, do you actually believe that reverse engeneering was the only law that was broken in creating dedrm tools?

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Shades

It is a frivolous lawsuit because it wouldn't be about the ambiguity of dedrm software, it would just be a suit that proves Calibre isn't dedrm software and has nothing to do with dedrm. That's the point. It would prove nothing at all about the law and it wouldn't set any precedents for dedrm.

Now you've changed the subject yet again.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Then tell me exactly where it says that reverse engeneering, for example, is permitted for the purpose of distributing such a piece of software derived from it.

You tell me where I - or anybody else - said it did.

Thanks for playing, but if you're just going to make shit up, you can join the rest of the trolls in my Ignore list.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by taustin

You tell me where I - or anybody else - said it did.

That will most definitely make Apprentice Alf's tools ILLEGAL to distribute. You don't even grasp the severity, do you? It may even be illegal to download, to have on your computer, to use. Doesn't matter who allowed anyone to create such a tool (presumably for own personal use) if it can't be shared (made availlable for download for free, aka distribute to others).

That is why it has not been tested in court if it ever will. It is on too shaky a ground.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Thank you. Just so you know, it is a pleasure to be on your honor list of being ignored. Shows how stupid you are.

That will most definitely make Apprentice Alf's tools ILLEGAL to distribute. You don't even grasp the severity, do you? It may even be illegal to download, to have on your computer, to use. Doesn't matter who allowed anyone to create such a tool (presumably for own personal use) if it can't be shared (made availlable for download for free, aka distribute to others).

That is why it has not been tested in court if it ever will. It is on too shaky a ground.

It's also a cinch that it will never be offered as a purchased program (so long as DRM is a problem) because of that gray area of legal/illegal. If it was then the developer would be guilty of making a profit from it and would really be in legal trouble.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by crich70

It's also a cinch that it will never be offered as a purchased program (so long as DRM is a problem) because of that gray area of legal/illegal. If it was then the developer would be guilty of making a profit from it and would really be in legal trouble.

I very highly doubt it was the intent to make money off of it in the first place - not only for legal reasons. The other beauty of the thing is that it is a plain python script - the program is its own source code. Forward thinking on the developers part - if, for some reason, Apprentice Alf gets shut down there will be enough copies floating around that don't require any reverse engineering skills to translate.