John D MacDonald is Back!

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by CRussel

Or, you need to remove the DRM and convert to Kindle format, which is what I do.

This is stealing library books. This is not a good thing to do.

[CRussel]

I disagree. I use the library just as any other epub user does, but I convert to read the books on my Kindle. Now if I started redistributing the books, then I'm stealing. I even live within the time limits imposed by the library. I don't see anything wrong, or any way that is stealing.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by CRussel

I disagree. I use the library just as any other epub user does, but I convert to read the books on my Kindle. Now if I started redistributing the books, then I'm stealing. I even live within the time limits imposed by the library. I don't see anything wrong, or any way that is stealing.

Because you have removed the time-limiting DRM from the books. You can keep them forever. Removing DRM from books that you've legitimately bought is one thing, and I don't think too many people would argue with you about it. Removing DRM from somebody else's books that have merely been lent to you is an entirely different matter, and is (to my mind) just plain wrong.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Because you have removed the time-limiting DRM from the books. You can keep them forever. Removing DRM from books that you've legitimately bought is one thing, and I don't think too many people would argue with you about it.

You can keep them forever. And that would be wrong.
But just removing the DRM doesn't mean that you are going to keep them forever.
How is the argument any different to:
"You have removed the non-sharing DRM from the books. You could share them with other people."
It would be the act of sharing that was wrong, not the removal of DRM which would allow the act of sharing, surely?

Removing DRM from somebody else's books that have merely been lent to you is an entirely different matter, and is (to my mind) just plain wrong.

Not if the books are deleted at the point where the DRM would have kicked in to make them unusable.
If the books are not kept for any longer than the DRM would have allowed them to be read for, I can't see where the moral issue arises?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

If the books are not kept for any longer than the DRM would have allowed them to be read for, I can't see where the moral issue arises?

Because the temptation will be too great for most people. "I haven't finished this book. Where's the harm if I keep it just a few days longer..."

Sorry, but I stand by the viewpoint that there's a fundamental difference between DRM removal from your own books, and from library books.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Because the temptation will be too great for most people. "I haven't finished this book. Where's the harm if I keep it just a few days longer..."

Same applies to DRM removal from your own books.
"My friend might really enjoy this book, what is the harm if I just send them a copy to check it out?"

In any case, your initial response "This is stealing library books" is not true, and libelous.

[HarryT]

We must agree to differ. I think that removing library DRM is fundamentally dishonest. It's not your book - you have simply been lent the book by the library.

[CRussel]

Harry -- I can understand your view, though I disagree, obviously. However, I would counter with the argument that my library, paid for with my taxes, doesn't actually care what device I read it on, they're just living with the limitations of the software they have to use. Their concern is that it is loaned, not given, and I respect that. Yes, there's a temptation to keep forever. But honestly, there are a limited set of books I ever want to re-read, and I'm certainly fine with either buying at that point, or re-borrowing. I use library books for those authors I'm less sure about. And yes, I admit, I have kept a book longer than the 3 weeks my library normally limits to on one occasion. But only for an additional couple of days. And there isn't, unfortunately, a way to simply pay a late fee or renew the loan as I would for a pbook. Again, limitations of the software used, more than anything else.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Because the temptation will be too great for most people. "I haven't finished this book. Where's the harm if I keep it just a few days longer..."

Originally Posted by CRussel

And yes, I admit, I have kept a book longer than the 3 weeks my library normally limits to on one occasion. But only for an additional couple of days.

You've just illustrated the cause of my concern about this. I know that you're one of the "good guys" here, but even you just find it too tempting and think "where's the harm in just keeping it a few days longer...". What is an ebook novice likely to do? I think I'd do the same myself - it's just too much of a temptation.

I really wish that library books had a fundamentally different form of DRM, so that the "tools" we all know and love could not remove their DRM, in the same way they won't remove Amazon's "rental" DRM.

That's why I'm so dead set against stripping library DRM, and the reason that I keep an ePub reader in addition to my Kindle.

[cromag]

I've got to go along with HarryT on this. If I buy something, if I own it, I believe I should be free to modify it. If I borrow something, I don't think I have that right.

The really sad thing about the draconian DRM usage by sellers as it currently exists, is that questions like this will remain open questions.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by cromag

I've got to go along with HarryT on this. If I buy something, if I own it, I believe I should be free to modify it. If I borrow something, I don't think I have that right.

The really sad thing about the draconian DRM usage by sellers as it currently exists, is that questions like this will remain open questions.

But you are not borrowing the copy of the book. You can keep that copy how long you want. What you are borrowing is a kind of "token" that gives you the right to read the book.

[CRussel]

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree here. There are clear arguments from both sides, by people who are NOT thieves. Ultimately, one needs to make your own moral judgement. Mine comes down on the side of "my library paid for with my taxes", but I understand Harry and others who say I'm wrong. Doesn't change my mind, but I respect their position, and it's a good reminder to keep close track of the dates for the book. When it expires in ADE, it needs to come out of Calibre.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You've just illustrated the cause of my concern about this. I know that you're one of the "good guys" here, but even you just find it too tempting and think "where's the harm in just keeping it a few days longer...". What is an ebook novice likely to do? I think I'd do the same myself - it's just too much of a temptation.

And what, exactly, is the harm done by keeping the ebook a few days longer? Is there a sale missing that the publisher would otherwise get? Are there taxes not being paid that otherwise would support the government?

I can't see that stripping the DRM from a library book is any different from taping a TV show to watch it later. Copying for time-shifting purpose was ruled a legal and reasonable use of copying technology.

The issue with keeping a library book "too long" isn't that the reader still has it; it's that other patrons of the library don't have access. With ebooks, this is simple: other patrons get access when the lending period is over; whether the first borrower can still read it is irrelevant. (In some cases, the first borrower could keep access by resetting the date on their device and not connecting online.)

Nobody's life is improved by insisting that the first borrower should re-borrow to read the last three chapters.

Regardless of my ethical stance on this, my practical activities are simple: I don't deal with DRM at all. If someday libraries come up with a system for loaning ebooks that doesn't involve giving a swarm of data to third parties I might change my mind, but for now, I can stick to reading ebooks that don't require DRM. If I run out of things to read, I may reconsider.

[Stunatra]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Because you have removed the time-limiting DRM from the books. You can keep them forever. Removing DRM from books that you've legitimately bought is one thing, and I don't think too many people would argue with you about it. Removing DRM from somebody else's books that have merely been lent to you is an entirely different matter, and is (to my mind) just plain wrong.

The whole borrowing and returning eBooks in this day and age is asinine. They are copies of files. You can copy them endlessly. The guy has been dead for over 25 years. He isn't losing anything. And neither is the library. Such foolishness IMO.

If they are worried about this, then they should provide a goddamn file for each and every single ebook format that exists. Until then, they shouldn't bitch about what users have to do to the files they borrow and then "return" in order to use them!

An no one should have to pay $11.99 for a book (a file, really, that anyone can make, given the source material, a file by itself costs nothing, is worth nothing, you can't re-sell it) by a guy who has been nearly 30 years. Corporate greed is ruining this country.

/end soapbox.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

And what, exactly, is the harm done by keeping the ebook a few days longer? Is there a sale missing that the publisher would otherwise get? Are there taxes not being paid that otherwise would support the government?

It's copyright infringement, plain and simple. Once the loan period expires you are infringing copyright; you no longer have a license to read the book. It's no different to piracy.