Adobe ePub DRM cracked?

[doctorow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The only "general claim" that I'm making is that to buy books with DRM gives the wrong message to publishers - that customers don't mind buying books with DRM. If you feel differently, that's fine with me; it's purely a personal viewpoint and I'm not asking you or anyone else to agree with me!

It has nothing to do with how you or I feel. It has to do with the fact that the average joe who likes to read the latest John Grisham has no choice but to buy DRM protected e-books.

We were talking about the case of someone who was arrested while entering the US for breaking Adobe DRM. I simply said that to be arrested for breaking the law in one country even though what you were doing was legal where you actually did it wasn't unique, and used the example of "sex tourism" of another example of such arrests being made (simply because it's something which crops up in the British press from time to time). That is in no way whatseover "equating" the two activities.

Someone mentioned before that sex tourism in Thailand is illegal. This fact alone makes your example invalid. Even if it had been valid, I don't see how pointing out such an extreme would help this discussion in any way.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by doctorow

Someone mentioned before that sex tourism in Thailand is illegal. This fact alone makes your example invalid. Even if it had been valid, I don't see how pointing out such an extreme would help this discussion in any way.

I take that person's word that it is indeed illegal. The newspapers here report otherwise (which is where I got my story from). As I said before, newspapers are not a terribly reliable source of information, and I was obviously misinformed.

BTW, unless they've appeared very recently, you can't buy John Grisham eBooks legally either with or without DRM. I think he's announced that they will become available in the near future but, AFAIK, they aren't available yet.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

With all due respect, I think the best way to "fight" DRM is not to buy from those publishers who use it. Buy books from those publishers "enlightened" enough to sell DRM-free material. Buying DRM-protected books and then removing the DRM sends entirely the wrong "message" to the publisher.

If we were to stop purchasing eBooks with DRM, should we then go back to purchasing pBooks instead? Should we give up reading what we enjoy reading because of DRM? Is DRM going to dictate to us what we can and cannot read?

If we let the publisher know in no uncertain terms that we do not want DRM and we will strip it if you use it, then maybe they'll get the message that it's not actually working and stop bothering. But if we just stop purchasing DRM infected eBooks without informing the publishers just what we are doing, all that will happen is they will think eBooks do not sell and won't bother. So we'll be the ones to lose out. Before there is a boycott of any kind, we HAVE to let the publisher and the eBook shops know that we WILL NOT be purchasing eBooks as long as they have DRM. And to prove this, we also MUST purchase more eBooks that are sans DRM.

This means no Sony eBookStore, no Amazon.com, no library withdrawals, etc. So if it has DRM and you would have purchased it, then informing the publisher and vendor who is selling (if different from the publisher) why you will not purchase is what we'd have to do instead of just stopping the purchase.

Or We could just purchase eBooks like we do know and then contact the publisher every time we purchase an eBook where we strip off the DRM to format shift/protect our investment that we have done so. Let them know that their locks are broken and the key has gotten out and been copied.

I would go for the second option since the first option prohibits me from content I do want to read that is infected with DRM. The second option allows me to read what I want while letting the publishers know that their locks do not work and that to keep using them is a waste of money.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

If we were to stop purchasing eBooks with DRM, should we then go back to purchasing pBooks instead? Should we give up reading what we enjoy reading because of DRM? Is DRM going to dictate to us what we can and cannot read?

Personally, I believe that if you genuinely believe DRM to be a bad thing, that would be the best thing to do, yes. Obviously, though, the choice is yours.

If we let the publisher know in no uncertain terms that we do not want DRM and we will strip it if you use it, then maybe they'll get the message that it's not actually working and stop bothering.

And how are you letting them know that?

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by doctorow

This discussion is very amusing. Some argue that it is illegal to circumvent DRM just as it is illegal to speed or it is illegal to have sex with a child. It's illegal because it says so in the law.

Fine. We all know what happens when you get caught speeding. We also know what happens when you get caught having sex with a child. Can anyone please tell me what happens when you get caught stripping DRM from an e-book for your own use? All these people who cry foul at the mere idea of breaking the law, please help me shed some light on what will happen to me if I get caught stripping DRM.

I grant that many MR participants and ebook customers reside outside the US, but we here in the US seem to have forgotten that the US wasn't founded in order to protect, promulgate and respect the "LAW". We were founded to get out from under a system that abused "the LAW" to keep colonists under the thumb of a distant and uncaring government. It's about time we got back to our roots and started getting rid of all these "laws" that have been created for the sole purpose of making personal activity "illegal".

Derek

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The exception does not state that you actually need to use the read-aloud feature. It just says that it is legal to strip the DRM so the read-aloud works.

And so we need to tap-dance faster??? Let's stop the dance competition and get rid of the law that creates such a stupid situation.

Derek

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by doctorow

When I asked what would happen to me if I got caught stripping DRM from an e-book for my own use, I meant that in the most practical terms.

Again, I was asking: what would happen to me?

Can we agree that there is not a single known case of a person who has been held responsible for stripping DRM from a legally purchased e-book for personal use? And if that is so, how dare we compare it to such atrocities as child abuse, where the consequence of getting caught should be clear to every sane person? Why fuss so vehemently over a law that, for our purposes, has not even been tested in court?

I think it's mainly a case of no one wanting to be as shafted as the first person prosecuted under all those stupid RIAA-protecting laws. Would you? I know *I* wouldn't. Thus I make sure that I only do my DRM-cracking in a dark, locked room, at midnight, with the shades drawn shut.

Derek

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by delphidb96

I think it's mainly a case of no one wanting to be as shafted as the first person prosecuted under all those stupid RIAA-protecting laws. Would you? I know *I* wouldn't. Thus I make sure that I only do my DRM-cracking in a dark, locked room, at midnight, with the shades drawn shut.

Derek

Now they know when and where to come looking for you...

[slayda]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'll leave that one for you to figure out, Slayda .

Common sense (and I know that "law" and "common sense" don't always coincide) would suggest that it's aimed at blind people, don't you think?

Sure but it says impaired, not blind or visually impaired. Point to consider.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by slayda

Sure but it says impaired, not blind or visually impaired. Point to consider.

I am legally required to wear spectacles to drive. That would make me "Visually impaired". I believe my license is a legal document.

Anyone else impaired?

[Liviu_5]

Originally Posted by Phogg

I am legally required to wear spectacles to drive. That would make me "Visually impaired". I believe my license is a legal document.

Anyone else impaired?

Me too - have a wear glasses note on the license too, and of course it would be suicidal not to use them considering I barely can see half a meter clearly without - reading books at candles as a child and teen since your electricity was stopped for hours on winter evenings in order to build socialism does that to you

Of course that makes one hate socialism and governmental stupid restrictions too

So three cheers for the super-programmer that cracked ePub and hope he/she follows up with the big enchilada of cracking pdf drm too

[hybernation]

Originally Posted by Phogg

I am legally required to wear spectacles to drive. That would make me "Visually impaired". I believe my license is a legal document.

Anyone else impaired?

Absolutely I am. I HAVE to remove the DRM on all my ebooks and use the Calibre tools, setting the --base-font-size higher than normal to be able to read. I cannot read most p-books because of the small font size, nor can I read ebooks without upsizing the font.

(ok, after paying $4K for Lasik 5 year ago, I REFUSE to wear reading glasses, hence I am impaired )

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by Phogg

I am legally required to wear spectacles to drive. That would make me "Visually impaired". I believe my license is a legal document.

Anyone else impaired?

I'm literally 'blind as a bat' without my specs. Reading small font gives me headaches.

[soilwork]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Because, as I keep saying, I think that the very act of buying a book with DRM sends entirely the wrong message to the publisher of that book. It's only by NOT buying from those publishers that they'll get the message that customers don't want DRM.

If my memory serves me, you are making these two arguments repeatedly over several threads. I will rephrase in my words not quoting you exactly.

1. Only way to show our dissatisfaction with DRM is not to buy DRMed books and buy non-DRMed books (e.g. Baen)
2. Publishers will not have incentive to drop DRM if DRMed books sell well.

I think they are both wrong. For argument's sake, I will set side the legality issue.

1.

1. Only way to show our dissatisfaction with DRM is not to buy DRMed books and buy non-DRMed books (e.g. Baen)

This does not hold since books offered without DRM are of different types from those offered with DRM. For example, good guys like Baen specialized in SF/Fantasy while bestsellers are sold with DRM.

If Baen's non-DRMed books sell well but not DRMed bestseller, the publishers cannot tell between two explanations:
a) ebook readers are more partial to SF/Fantasy genre (or more specifically Baen authors) and/or bestseller readers do not want them in ebook.
b) People hate the inconvenience of DRM.
If publishers conclude a) (no ebook market for bestseller), they may stop publishing them in ebook.

In contrast, by buying books with the most easily circumvented DRM (e.g. lit or now epub), consumers can clearly signal to publishers that we are willing to pay for ebooks but hate DRM.

How will publishers know that consumers hate DRM if DRMed books sell well? For example, if the epub sales goes up after the new de-drm tool is available, it will signal b) but not a).

(BTW, I would love to do this analysis with proper data but I am not sure whether they are available).


2.

2. Publishers will not have incentive to drop DRM if DRMed books sell well.

Even with successful sales of DRMed ebook, publishers have incentive to drop DRM since implementing DRM costs money. Once the ebook market is established with sizable sales, publishers can increase their profit by reducing cost by dropping DRM. Apple iTune can be an example of this.

[SpiderMatt]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

The Sony vs Universal case, a.k.a. "the Betamax case" ruled that potentially copyright-infringing tech is legal if it as substantial non-infringing use. In the case of "read aloud" functions, making books accessible to the blind is non-infringing; that makes the technology to read them aloud, and to break anti-readaloud DRM, legal.

In order to prosecute for copyright infringement, the IP owner would have to move against the individual end user, claiming s/he made an illegal copy. Since format shifting for personal use is legal in the US (that was the non-infringing point of the Betamax case: you can timeshift TV shows to watch them later, & format shift them to your own device), there's no infringement.

Both the DRM-breaking tech, and the act of breaking that kind of DRM, are legal. (IMHO. IANAL.)

Agreed. And if/when it is ever contested in court, I'm sure that will be the outcome.