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

[LwoodY2K]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

And, what Amazon is doing is controlling where books read on the Kindle are purchased ... not published ... purchased.

Amazon is telling me, the user, that I may NOT purchase books from other vendors. Amazon is telling me, the user, that I am limited to viewing materials on my Kindle that Amazon sells.

You're saying that preventing you from breaking DRM to copy books to other devices is the same as preventing you from buying books from other sources? I do not follow your logic here.

[InlawBiker]

The script doesn't break DRM. It allows Mobipocket DRM to work on the Kindle, since the Kindle is essentially a crippled Mobipocket device. The DRM is still intact.

For example, Mobi e-books checked out from my local library can be enabled for the Kindle using the two scripts.

I think the key issue is that Amazon is invoking the DMCA to protect its business interest, not a copyright. If Amazon's business model revolves around a subsidized Kindle to sell their books, that's their choice. They still have no business telling me I cannot put library books on my Kindle.

[apenney]

I am EXTREMELY unhappy with Amazon over this issue. I used these scripts to enable me to read library ebooks from my local library, and now Amazon is trying to take this freedom away from me.

[TadW]

This all very much reminds me of the discussion we had just yesterday on the kindlepid/fix scripts:

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=41649

The tool by itself doesn't do anything to break DRM. On the contrary, it can be used for my Kindle to purchase books protected with DRM. On the other hand, some argue that because this tool spills out a PID number and because this number could be used with help of other tools to remove DRM, it is, in effect, also evil.

[legaleagll]

Originally Posted by NatCh

Thanks, it seemed clearer, at any rate.

But to sum up, if something like, say ... a piece of code allowed you to read a number off of a piece of hardware, which then allowed you to read a DRMed file on that piece of hardware without removing the DRM in question, then it would probably be the first category you mentioned.

But if you could then use that number, along with some totally other piece of code to remove the DRM that would put the first piece of code (the second being clearly "of the Dark Side") in the second category, and therefore in the, as yet, untested gray area.

Do I seem to be following you?

Yes, you are following me. If there were such a piece of code in existence, and you linked to that code, you could find yourself in category 1 and potentially category 2. The only way to really know which category you fall in would be to litigate it, which would cost time and money, and you could ultimately find out you are in category 2 and be in trouble.

I actually think it would be very hard to prove that just linking to the code that reveals the PID that doesn't itself remove the DRM would fall into anything but category 1. But I wouldn't want to find out I am wrong the hard way.

If you combined the 2 programs into 1 and it both revealed the PID and stripped the DRM I wouldn't say it was clearly on the dark side, but rather I would say you would be firmly in the gray area leaning to the dark side. Because even stripping the DRM could be justified for personal use, the problem is by stripping the DRM you also open it up for nefarious purposes.

[beezle]

Its amazing how these companies shoot themself in the foot. Not only to insult their customers, but to also come on heavy hande to a website dedicated to making ebooks and ereaders more popular. True genius.

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by Barcey

And I thought that all the script does is allow people to purchase Mobipocket DRM ebooks (A company that Amazon owns). Doesn't it just allow people to use the Kindle like I use my Cybook? ... and it violates the DMCA?

I'm actually surprised they would do this. It seems like a clear admission that they are using DRM for anti-competitive practices. Wouldn't it put them at risk of the American antitrust laws?

A don't forget to quote this when you send a letter to the FCC where they are studying the use of DRM.

DAle

[Leep]

I ditto Daffy4U. I really enjoy my Kindle and have been a good customer of Amazon and a free good-will-embassador. While KindlePID allows me to use public library books, I also regularly purchase books from Amazon and my family knew the perfect gift for me was an Amazon gift certificate. This will no longer be the case.

My purchased ebooks will come from other sources whenever possible and my friends looking at ereaders will be pointed in other directions where they have the freedom to purchase ebooks from competitive sources, as they please.

This may be one of the really poor business decisions Amazon has made. It will certainly not further the cause for ereader technology and hopefully Amazon will feel the backlash on their bottom line.

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

But without Kindlepid, you cannot get the PID of your iPhone or iPod Touch. And without the PID, there is no way to strip the DRM.

The PID is the key to unlock the door that is DRM. So if I have the key, I could use it. But without the key, the Kindle eBooks remain locked good and tight.

You can easily get the PID without Kindlepid. It is in your backup folder on your computer.

Dale

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by InlawBiker

I think the key issue is that Amazon is invoking the DMCA to protect its business interest, not a copyright. If Amazon's business model revolves around a subsidized Kindle to sell their books, that's their choice. They still have no business telling me I cannot put library books on my Kindle.

Well said.

I'm still not sure how a DMCA takedown even applies to Mobileread (other than being used as a strong arm tactic to intimidate small sites into removing anything they don't like), since Mobileread doesn't host any of Amazon's copyrighted material or even the kindlepid.py script. It sounds like Amazon is trying to use a DMCA notice to stop people from just talking about the script, which I don't think is even a legal use of a DMCA notice.

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Well said.

I'm still not sure how a DMCA takedown even applies to Mobileread (other than being used as a strong arm tactic to intimidate small sites into removing anything they don't like), since Mobileread doesn't host any of Amazon's copyrighted material or even the kindlepid.py script. It sounds like Amazon is trying to use a DMCA notice to stop people from just talking about the script, which I don't think is even a legal use of a DMCA notice.

it does sound that way doesn't it ?

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by scotty1024

Amazon? Amazon doesn't own the content: the Right's Holder's do. Amazon is undoubtably acting due to contractual obligations they took upon themselves when they agreed to distribute and collect money for the digital works.

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.

[xanlexian]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

I hadn't heard of kindlepid.py before this. Thank you, Amazon, for making me aware of the existence of this tool. I think it's very nice of them to help spread the word.

Hey, back in my teen years, the whole "War on Drugs" (specifically the "Just Say No!" campaign) is how I found out about drugs, which ones are cool, which ones are not....

I just recently found out that Sudafed could be used to make meth -- thanks to the cashier at my local pharmacy (had to buy some for the wife with her allergies). They took my ID and made me sign something (also on that note, it entirely violates the HPPA Standards -- being that I can see all the personal ID of everybody else that purchased Sudafed before me)

Also, all of the DRM is precisely why I do NOT recommend the Kindle to anybody. I'm quite happy with my PRS-505.

Keep restricting stuff! I'm learning all kinds of neat new stuff!!

[mjh215]

Originally Posted by xanlexian

I just recently found out that Sudafed could be used to make meth -- thanks to the cashier at my local pharmacy (had to buy some for the wife with her allergies). They took my ID and made me sign something (also on that note, it entirely violates the HPPA Standards -- being that I can see all the personal ID of everybody else that purchased Sudafed before me)

Same with Claritin D. I loved being treated like a criminal just to buy allergy medication... Most stores also restrict you from buying it til the last day(s) your last purchased amount will run out... Now this might not seem inconvenient for some, but since I shop afterhours and none of my local pharmacies are open that late I often had to make special trips just to go get them, within that short timeframe I was -allowed- to.

I still have to question this though... Have you ever priced out Claritin D? I think you could make more of a profit if you bought meth and reverse engineered it into Claritin...

Keep restricting stuff! I'm learning all kinds of neat new stuff!!

Keep making your customers feel like criminals til they finally decide, "Hey, if I'm being treated like a criminal anyway, I might as well just steal it!"...

-MJ

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by scotty1024

The same laws that protect Mobileread's freedom to publish public domain works also protects Amazon's publisher's rights to control how and where their copyrighted works are published.

File conversion for person use is not "publication," and is legal in the US.

I also suspect your attitude would be highly negative if I backed up a virtual dump truck over in the 10,000+ edition free ebook repository and started scooping up piles of content there and hauling them over to Amazon and putting them up for $.99 each.

The books here are individual publications of public-domain (and sometimes creative commons) content. Many of them are CC; some are public domain; and some are copyrighted by their designers, who have allowed them to be distributed here for free. There's no automatic right to distribute them elsewhere.

If you feel a law is too broad in it's powers you work to change the law, you don't break it. Because when you start breaking laws you may discover they protect things you do care about.

Breaking an unjust and pointless law is one of the ways we get our rights. Especially civil rights related to free speech--because it's not until it's widely understood that the law itself does no good, and that it's repressing useful and valuable activity. If nobody breaks it, it's much harder to get people to realize what they're missing because of it.

But aside from that--format-shifting for personal use is not against the law in the US. They're not trying to prevent crime; they're trying to prevent competition.