Kindle or EPUB?

[McNutt]

DRM exists to protect the copyright. For the most part, publishers use DRM to prevent widespread sharing of their work, not to limit the individual user, which is often an unfortunate side effect. While the Digital Millennium Copyright Act prohibits the distribution of any method to circumvent DRM, removing DRM for your own private use has been looked at by the courts as fair use, so long as you own the original material.

Ethically I have no problem stripping DRM for the sake of creating a private backup of material you purchased. This is not the same as stripping DRM from a library book. But if you want to strip the DRM from Amazon books in case you decide to get a different reader, I don't think it's unethical and the courts have yet to rule against such activity.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by McNutt

DRM exists to protect the copyright. For the most part, publishers use DRM to prevent widespread sharing of their work, not to limit the individual user, which is often an unfortunate side effect. While the Digital Millennium Copyright Act prohibits the distribution of any method to circumvent DRM, removing DRM for your own private use has been looked at by the courts as fair use, so long as you own the original material.

I am not entirely sure that the only reason they use DRM is to protect copyright. They also have an interest in preventing customers from reselling the product.

Certainly I think that Amazon's insistence on using a propriatary DRM scheme is to achieve customer lock in. Most people will never remove the DRM. So when it comes time to replace their Kindle, they will have to get another Kindle if they want to continue to read their books which means they will continue to buy books from Amazon.

--
Bill

[McNutt]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Certainly I think that Amazon's insistence on using a propriatary DRM scheme is to achieve customer lock in.

True. Let me try to clarify a bit. DRM has two uses: To protect the copyright and to control the copyright. If your intent is to make a backup you are not going against the spirit of copyright protection. You are going against the spirit of copyright control, but that is not something with which I consider unethical. If I pay for a particular book I want to be able to enjoy that particular book, regardless of which reader I choose to buy in the future. And the courts have sided that breaking copyright control for private use is fair use, so they don't have a problem with it either.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by McNutt

While the Digital Millennium Copyright Act prohibits the distribution of any method to circumvent DRM, removing DRM for your own private use has been looked at by the courts as fair use, so long as you own the original material.

I don't think that this has ever been tested in US courts. Can you give a case reference?

I thought that the current situation was that legal opinion was divided over the legality of DRM removal in the US, the only definite exceptions being those granted by the Library of Congress acting under the DMCA.

There is an exception granted for ebooks:

(6) Literary works distributed in ebook format when all existing ebook editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling either of the book’s read-aloud function or of screen readers that render the text into a specialized format.

But note that this only applies if read-aloud has been prevented in all ebook editions of the book.

[McNutt]

In Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Vault sued Quaid for creating a program that allowed users to make backup copies of Vault software. The courts ruled that while Quaid's program could be used to enable infringement, its had substantial non-infringing use in that it enabled private backups and ruled in Quaid's favor.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by McNutt

In Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software Vault sued Quaid for creating a program that allowed users to make backup copies of Vault software. The courts ruled that while Quaid's program could be used to enable infringement, its had substantial non-infringing use in that it enabled private backups and ruled in Quaid's favor.

This case is from 1988, well before the DMCA made circumventing DRM illegal.

But in looking into this, I found a case that might be relevant

http://www.courthousenews.com/2010/07/23/29099.htm

Although I suspect that it doesn't apply, since DRM on ebooks is supposed to protect against infringement of copyright, not just to restrict access.

[McNutt]

I wasn't implying that circumventing DRM breakers was approved by post-DMCA courts. I was only stating that the court isn't concerned with users backing up private copies. The issue at hand was whether or not that was legal and/or ethical.

[boswd]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

I am not entirely sure that the only reason they use DRM is to protect copyright. They also have an interest in preventing customers from reselling the product.

Certainly I think that Amazon's insistence on using a propriatary DRM scheme is to achieve customer lock in. Most people will never remove the DRM. So when it comes time to replace their Kindle, they will have to get another Kindle if they want to continue to read their books which means they will continue to buy books from Amazon.

--
Bill

and that's the truth in a nutshell.
There is absolutley no reason for them to NOT have epub, none. Except to lock you in. And yes yes we all know the tech savy people here know how to "Beat the System" but the majority of consumer's either do not or do not want to go through the process. Go ahead and aske your co workers if they know about Calibre and if they would rather just buy a book and just sync it up to your e-reader or shoot it to another program and have it convert it and THEN side loade it. I'm not talking about the average poster here, I'm talking about the Average consumer which makes up about 70 % or if not more of these devices.

Grrrr, it's like the early and mid times of the iPod and iTunes all over again. Egads Amazon even the King of Walled Gardens, Apple, has epub on it's iPad.

There are too many just as good if not better ereaders out there to warrant any reason to buy a Kindle, I'm sorry it's just the truth, when you have to flirt with doing something illeagal and ethically wrong, that's a red flag. Waaaaaaaaaaaaay too many better ereaders out there to deal with the hassel.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by McNutt

I wasn't implying that circumventing DRM breakers was approved by post-DMCA courts.

I'm not quite sure what you meant to say here. In context of the thread, it seems that you're trying to say "I wasn't implying that circumventing DRM was approved by post-DMCA courts."

You may not have meant to imply that, but it is what you said:

Originally Posted by McNutt

removing DRM for your own private use has been looked at by the courts as fair use, so long as you own the original material.

If, however, you mean "I wasn't implying that circumventing DRM devices were approved by post-DMCA courts." I agree, but I don't think that was the issue under discussion.


To remove any confusion, my position is this:

As far as I know, no US court has ruled on whether removing DRM from digital media that you own is legal, except in the specific instances set out by the library of Congresss.

There are differing legal opinions on whether the DMCA makes all such circumvention illegal in the US.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by boswd

Grrrr, it's like the early and mid times of the iPod and iTunes all over again. Egads Amazon even the King of Walled Gardens, Apple, has epub on it's iPad.

Its not the format but the DRM that is the issue. Apple's version of ePub has its own DRM so it might as well be its own format.

Essentially, there are now 4 serious contenders for DRM'd formats.

1. Amazon's variant of Mobi (Alas, Mobi itself seems on the way out). Forces you to buy books from Amazon (if you want new books without stripping DRM) only dedicated readers that can be used is the Kindle line, but software is available for other platforms, including tablet computers.

2. Apple's variant of ePub. As far as I know, only works on Apple devices (But I could be wrong). Again, forces you to buy books from Apple.

3. Barnes and Noble ereader ePub. We know B&N will license its DRM to other device makers (works on the Jetbook and Jetbook-Lite at least). It does seem to be limited to B&N for book purchase.

4. Adobe DRM ePub. Since Adobe doesn't sell the books, it is probably the most available to third party stores and is also supported by the Nook (as well as the Jetbooks mentioned above) and most non-Amazon dedicated Readers.

In any case, after that... format doesn't matter if DRM is not present. ePub, mobi, .lit, ereader, .fb2 and even just plain html can all be easily converted to one of the other formats (and even others I didn't bother listing). Its the DRM that ties you to a store.

--
Bill

[boswd]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Its not the format but the DRM that is the issue. Apple's version of ePub has its own DRM so it might as well be its own format.

Essentially, there are now 4 serious contenders for DRM'd formats.

1. Amazon's variant of Mobi (Alas, Mobi itself seems on the way out). Forces you to buy books from Amazon (if you want new books without stripping DRM) only dedicated readers that can be used is the Kindle line, but software is available for other platforms, including tablet computers.

2. Apple's variant of ePub. As far as I know, only works on Apple devices (But I could be wrong). Again, forces you to buy books from Apple.

3. Barnes and Noble ereader ePub. We know B&N will license its DRM to other device makers (works on the Jetbook and Jetbook-Lite at least). It does seem to be limited to B&N for book purchase.

4. Adobe DRM ePub. Since Adobe doesn't sell the books, it is probably the most available to third party stores and is also supported by the Nook (as well as the Jetbooks mentioned above) and most non-Amazon dedicated Readers.

In any case, after that... format doesn't matter if DRM is not present. ePub, mobi, .lit, ereader, .fb2 and even just plain html can all be easily converted to one of the other formats (and even others I didn't bother listing). Its the DRM that ties you to a store.

--
Bill

I know what you are saying and I agree 100% but my point is that the Kindle not supporting epub at all in any capicity further locks in the average consumer.

For example if I don't want to be locked into BN's DRM'd epub I have the option to buy my books from Borders/Kobo, Sony, Fictionwise etc and not have to worry about my library and can take it with me.

[McNutt]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I'm not quite sure what you meant to say here. In context of the thread, it seems that you're trying to say "I wasn't implying that circumventing DRM was approved by post-DMCA courts."

You may not have meant to imply that, but it is what you said:




If, however, you mean "I wasn't implying that circumventing DRM devices were approved by post-DMCA courts." I agree, but I don't think that was the issue under discussion.


To remove any confusion, my position is this:

As far as I know, no US court has ruled on whether removing DRM from digital media that you own is legal, except in the specific instances set out by the library of Congresss.

There are differing legal opinions on whether the DMCA makes all such circumvention illegal in the US.

I think you're confusing my points. There are two things being discussed - the legality of DRM breakers and creating personal backups. The Quaid case I referenced might be old, but it is important because it considered creating a private backup fair use and not copyright infringement. DMCA is about making DRM breakers available and not about using a DRM breaker. Plus the DRM breaker is prohibited when it infringes upon a creator's copyright and I don't know that private backups have ever been reclassified as copyright infringement.

[=X=]

Originally Posted by nowthenmobile

So, if you reckon that I cannot convert Kindle to Nook, then if Amazon were to stop providing support for Kindle and stop selling Kindle, I could end up losing my entire ebook collection?

Without DRM it is very easy to convert(shift) book formats from one to another.

There are many other reasons where you can lose access to your books, that are even more likely than you given scenario.

Some are an author or publisher chooses to pull a book. You lose access to your account, Amazon revoked it, you got hacked, etc... DRM scheme changes. Disputes between publishers and retailers.

In all of the examples I listed, save losing access to accounts, I've lost access to my books. The process of liberating a book is really the only guarantee you will have access to you books in the future.

Originally Posted by nowthenmobile

Are modern EPUB books all DRM protected? What does the DRM do? Does it tie an EPUB to a particular brand of eReader? If I bought it for a Nook, could I then transfer it to a Sony?

You just asked a very simple question that is going to generate a confusing answer.

DRM=Digital Rights Management.
What this does is encrypts a book so only devices with compatible DRM can read them.
Right now ePUB has 3 different DRM schemes on them, and can have more. Currently the vendors are Adobe, Nook, Apple). Adobe is the most supported at this time. Nook reads Adobe ePUB.

Kindle only has 1

The best way to think of formats is Format+DRM. Remove the DRM and life is easy.

Also in regards to nook lending. Don't think of it as (ePUB lending) since nook supports two formats PDB and ePUB. You can lend nook books but only to another nook device.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by McNutt

I think you're confusing my points. There are two things being discussed - the legality of DRM breakers and creating personal backups. The Quaid case I referenced might be old, but it is important because it considered creating a private backup fair use and not copyright infringement. DMCA is about making DRM breakers available and not about using a DRM breaker. Plus the DRM breaker is prohibited when it infringes upon a creator's copyright and I don't know that private backups have ever been reclassified as copyright infringement.

Ah. OK. Yes. DRM circumvention devices are illegal under the DMCA. Where we disagree is whether using one is illegal under the DMCA.

I believe you are mistaken when you say "DMCA is [...] not about using a DRM breaker".

§ 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems
(a) VIOLATIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES.—(1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.

The undecided question is whether section (c)

‘‘(c) OTHER RIGHTS, ETC., NOT AFFECTED.—(1) Nothing in this
section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to
copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.

means that section (a) doesn't apply to what one might call "fair use" circumvention.

[McNutt]

Yes, that is a good point. My contention is that the work is not protected since it's considered a private backup and fair use. Whether or not a 2010 court would agree with the fair use label is anybody's guess, but I'm pretty certain that using it to make backup a personal copy would not go to court and if it did would be found in favor of the defendant. I think anyone wanting to backup personal copies can do so with a clear conscience.

Of course someone should not proceed with an activity they feel uncomfortable about just because some guy named McNutt said it was okay.