Amazon uses DMCA to restrict where you can buy e-books

[exreader]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

The sad thing is that these are just more of the same fights we've watched e-books suffer through for years, but ramped up by bigger players, and it's not getting us anywhere. How long will we have to put up with such myopic thinking and monopolistic shenanigans before we all wise up to common formats and pro-consumer business practices?

I pulled my e-books out of the Kindle store at the end of the year, because I wasn't happy with the way they treated me as an author. If you can't make authors happy, and you can't make consumers happy... how happy do you think the middlemen are going to be? Amazon, you're cruisin' for a bruisin'...

I bought nearly all of your books directly from you not long ago. Didn't know they were on Amazon, but I'm happier with the non-DRM versions. Much happier. Will be able to read them for years.

As for Kindle's .AZW, well, I maintain backups of my Kindle's files offline, and in 5-10 years, who knows. Kindle like devices likely will exist, but there are other options. Not worried for now.

Amazon really has to step up a bit, once the market matures, and try to wean themselves and publishers off DRM.

Also, they could trivially support MobiPocket DRM but it's probably a licensing issue (theirs/publishers)... ePub though... I wonder... they could do that do with some firmware updates. Just like Sony did. In full time, we'll see.


exreader

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That was my point, Jon - I don't believe that it does. The BeBook (and clones) support "standard" Mobi DRM but not - AFAIK - the "time limiting" version of DRM that libraries use.

What I have heard is that the BeBook does support it, but there is no way to set the clock. So bottom line, it won't work.

BOb

[Alisa]

Originally Posted by Gafle

The DMCA sounds like a typical Bush-blunder but was in fact signed by a democrat - Bill Clinton. So I guess the current US administration is supportive of it.

Just because some Dems supported it doesn't mean all of them have to.

[Alisa]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

What I have heard is that the BeBook does support it, but there is no way to set the clock. So bottom line, it won't work.

BOb

That was the same issue the Cybook had at first and they overcame it in firmware IIRC. Hopefully BeBook will do the same.

[hypothetical]

Hi. I’m new here and found this site when deciding which ebook reader to buy. I ended up with a kindle 2 and am very happy with it. When I purchased it, I knew it’s advantages and the limitations of the amazon store mostly due to the information provided by this site, which was, for the most part, accurate. Most importantly, it was fairly easy to discern facts from the personal bias that members had for particular readers.

After the events of last week, I was a little dismayed about how quickly some of you did a 180 on your feelings about amazon. Everyone here seems to be taking this very personally, even going so far as encouraging others to return their devices because of a grand conspiracy at amazon to oppress their rights (and possibly steal their children!)

I going to play the devil’s advocate here, in hopes we start looking for other possibilities instead of always assuming the worst possible case. I think that instead of breaking out the torches and pitchforks, maybe we should be working on getting companies to be less vague when communicating with community websites.


One of the main points of contention here is that a kindle’s PID is only use is for shopping at other stores. It’s still on the main page as I write this. I think that this is true for 95% of the people on this site, but lets remember that there are many sites with less scruples. It would be naive to think that useful tools used for legitimate reasons couldn’t possibly be used for illegitimate ones. A little google research found this:

I won’t post the entire script because of its purpose, but the command line arguments should be fair game and enough to make a point.

print "MobiDeDrm v0.05. Copyright (c) 2008 The Dark Reverser"
if len(sys.argv)<4:
print "Removes protection from Mobipocket books"
print "Usage:"
print " mobidedrm infile.mobi outfile.mobi PID"

This may be a different PID, but I doubt it. Regardless, this would probably scare any publisher that found it into contacting amazon and asking them to take action.

I did another, more targeted, google search for “MobiDeDrm”. The top hit is for this website. It’s for a forum thread that is simply instructing a member on how to execute python scripts (damning stuff, I know), but it still enough to make this site stand out as a source of information. If you were going to send out letters to sites requesting the removal of all the tools that could be used to rip and redistribute your books, wouldn’t you start at the top of the google results?

Can we now accept the possibility that this could be a legitimate (although mildly misinformed) concern for amazon. Is it now possible that all of this is the result of google research done by an underpaid intern, instead of the fact that this site posts instructions on how to use a kindle at a library or another store?



I know a lot of you don’t like Amazon’s business model and that’s fine. You seem very happy with other devices. And to those of you with kindles who want to buy or borrow books from other places, is this really going to stop you? The process isn’t a simple one. It involves running python scripts for each book, not exactly something my grandmother would be comfortable doing.

I’m guessing that those of you who are actually considering returning your kindle because of this probably never should have got one to begin with, and would have been much more comfortable with a more open product. One that uses that openness a selling point. I don’t remember anything on amazon’s site about being able to buy books elsewhere or borrow them from a library. That is an undocumented ability that you shouldn’t count on and that you should have never based a purchasing decision on.


I bought my kinlde for the simplicity and efficientness of the device and I’m quite happy with it.

[netseeker]

Originally Posted by hypothetical

After the events of last week, I was a little dismayed about how quickly some of you did a 180 on your feelings about amazon. Everyone here seems to be taking this very personally, even going so far as encouraging others to return their devices because of a grand conspiracy at amazon to oppress their rights (and possibly steal their children!)

With all respect, you should re-read the whole thread first.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Alisa

That was the same issue the Cybook had at first and they overcame it in firmware IIRC. Hopefully BeBook will do the same.

As I remember there has still not been an official fix but I have not checked the web page recently to see if the instructions are there. They also promised an interface to set the time. It was promised to appear a year ago or so.

[chrisophus]

Originally Posted by rhadin

Scotty, you have got it wrong. Amazon's contract, which I have read, requires that the publisher/author/rights holder agree to Amazon using DRM even if the publisher/author/rights holder doesn't want DRM used. The contract also permits Amazon to change DRM schemes whenever it wants. And, to add insult to injury, Amazon makes it very clear that the DRM clauses are nonnegotiable.

The enemy is Amazon, not the rights holders, when it comes to DRM.

That is very interesting, as Jeff Bezos responded to a question from Jon Stewart about DRM:

"...publishers get to decide if they want to encrypt the books, put DRM on or not... publishers get to decide whether they want to do that on different books and some do and some don't."

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by hypothetical

I bought my kinlde for the simplicity and efficientness of the device and I’m quite happy with it.

And THAT is really all that matters !!!!!

[wallcraft]

Originally Posted by hypothetical

One of the main points of contention here is that a kindle’s PID is only use is for shopping at other stores. It’s still on the main page as I write this. I think that this is true for 95% of the people on this site, but lets remember that there are many sites with less scruples. It would be naive to think that useful tools used for legitimate reasons couldn’t possibly be used for illegitimate ones. A little google research found this:

I won’t post the entire script because of its purpose, but the command line arguments should be fair game and enough to make a point.

print "MobiDeDrm v0.05. Copyright (c) 2008 The Dark Reverser"

This may be a different PID, but I doubt it. Regardless, this would probably scare any publisher that found it into contacting amazon and asking them to take action.

I did another, more targeted, google search for “MobiDeDrm”. The top hit is for this website. It’s for a forum thread that is simply instructing a member on how to execute python scripts (damning stuff, I know), but it still enough to make this site stand out as a source of information. If you were going to send out letters to sites requesting the removal of all the tools that could be used to rip and redistribute your books, wouldn’t you start at the top of the google results?

I agree that Amazon has a tiny sliver of justification for not liking KindlePID. It can be used to get a PID to use with mobidedrm, and this is a way to buy from Amazon and read on a non-authorized device (i.e. something other than a Kindle or an iPhone). It could even be used to post an illegal copy on the web, although for the ebooks that are already hosted by mobipocket.com (a large fraction of the total) mobidedrm is enough on its own (no need for KindlePID). So it is hard to see how protecting the PID helps to prevent true piracy.

The important point, though, is that the primary purpose for KindlePID is to allow KindleFIX to work. This allows OverDrive MOBI ebooks (including lending library ebooks) to work on the Kindle or iPhone without removing DRM. Amazon has no standing to prevent this, and a non-infringing use such as this one is enough to make the software legal. Remember, KindlePID does not remove DRM - if it is a circumvention tool this is only the case because mobidedrm exists.

There was a difference on this site between mobidedrm and KindleFIX. Both are Python scripts that manipulate MOBI ebooks, but KindleFIX is legal and so it had its own Wiki pages and was discussed completely openly with no restrictions (until Amazon complained). This isn't the case with mobidedrm, if it was ever linked to the moderators would quickly remove the link and there have been several posts on mobidedrm deleted for going to far. This was self policing to stay within US law and mobileread's own policy. You could argue that mobileread's policing was too lax, but it does exist and does try to stay within the law. The same policy now applies to KindleFIX, which illustrates the power of Amazon to abuse the DMCA for its own ends.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by wallcraft

and a non-infringing use such as this one is enough to make the software legal.

This is not true. As has been pointed out in other threads legal fair use of material does not make DRM circumvention legal. And it is Amazon that owns the DRM-system so they can complain about DRM circumvention.

Remember, KindlePID does not remove DRM - if it is a circumvention tool this is only the case because mobidedrm exists.

Depending of what is considered to belong to the DRM system kindlefix could be considered to be technical cirmumvention of DRM.

[Alexander Turcic]

Originally Posted by netseeker

With all respect, i think we should follow Alexanders policy and don't forget that we are interested in a good relationship to Amazon.

[wallcraft]

Originally Posted by tompe

This is not true. As has been pointed out in other threads legal fair use of material does not make DRM circumvention legal.

So how does "PDF password recovery" software survive? This is probably 99.99% of the time used to break password protection, but if you forget your password it will get it back for you and so the software it is legal. Or am I missing some other legal loophole that allows this software to exist?

It isn't software (or the DMCA), but the classic example is Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. where "the technology in question had significant non-infringing uses".

Amazon could resolve the issue by getting OverDrive to refuse to authorize Amazon PIDs. They would then be on much stronger ground, and OverDrive should be applauded for resisting what I am sure has been intense pressure to do so.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by wallcraft

So how does "PDF password recovery" software survive? This is probably 99.99% of the time used to break password protection, but if you forget your password it will get it back for you and so the software it is legal. Or am I missing some other legal loophole that allows this software to exist?

Such software is illegal in the UK, and probably many other places too. You can buy lots of things which are illegal to actually use - eg "macrovision" decoder boxes for removing the copy protection from DVDs.

[rana]

Originally Posted by hypothetical

One of the main points of contention here is that a kindle’s PID is only use is for shopping at other stores. It’s still on the main page as I write this. I think that this is true for 95% of the people on this site, but lets remember that there are many sites with less scruples. It would be naive to think that useful tools used for legitimate reasons couldn’t possibly be used for illegitimate ones.

That argument goes for pretty much any "tool" you can think of. A simple kitchen knife can be used to kill someone ... are you recommending that all kitchen supply stores stop selling kitchen knives ?

DRM is one of those things that only gets in the way of legitimate users by taking away their fair use rights and increasing their levels of frustration with using products or services which are perfectly good otherwise.

DRM has *never* (and I stress NEVER) stopped real pirates from reaching their objectives. People who will set their minds on stealing intellectual properties, will always find out a way to do it.

It is a simple "lock-and-key" argument. I am not recommending not locking your house when you go on a trip; but when you have guests over for dinner, you probably don't want to strip search them either

I fully understand the need for having some reasonable restrictions on sharing contents ... but in most cases companies go to lengths that far exceed the minimal necessity and THAT'S WHAT gets in the way of legitimate users ... without creating an ounce of roadblock for the real pirates.