Do purchased DRM'ed ebooks have any personal user info stored in them?

[Dutchbook]

I don’t doubt that there are opportunities for something like that, but wouldn’t we have already heard of it, if it was really implemented?

Amazon/Google/Kobo would just need to go after a couple of illegal uploaders to make an example of them, and give it much attention in the media, to at least make people afraid of the consequences of digital theft.

So far, that has not been the case

[sjfan]

Originally Posted by Apache

Before computers and GPS mapmakers used to add nonexistent streets to their maps. If another company published maps with those streets on them they could be easily sued for copyright infringement.
Apache

Trap streets were useful for tipping off a company that someone had copied information from their source, so that they could then look to see if copyrightable material had also been stolen. But they generally aren't copyrightable in and of themselves (at least in the US and UK), and courts have mostly shot down attempts to sue over infringement based on trap features themselves.

See Nester's Map & Guide Corp. v. Hagstrom Map Co., where the court held that

To treat "false" facts interspersed among actual facts and represented as actual facts as fiction would mean that no one could ever reproduce or copy actual facts without risk of reproducing a false fact and thereby violating a copyright. If such were the law, information could never be reproduced or widely disseminated.

And Alexandria Drafting Co. v. Andrew H. Amsterdam dba Franklin Maps which held that:

As noted above, the names of geographic features may not be copyrighted; thus, fictitious names may not be copyrighted. Similarly, the existence, or non-existence, of a road is a non-copyrightable fact."

[Little.Egret]

Originally Posted by Dutchbook

I don’t doubt that there are opportunities for something like that, but wouldn’t we have already heard of it, if it was really implemented?

Amazon/Google/Kobo would just need to go after a couple of illegal uploaders to make an example of them, and give it much attention in the media, to at least make people afraid of the consequences of digital theft.

So far, that has not been the case

See discussion above, what you are calling digital theft isn't theft, so only the publisher or author could complain for various breaches of copyright law.
NOT Amazon/Google/Kobo unless their servers were hacked or they were the publisher.

[Dutchbook]

Originally Posted by Little.Egret

See discussion above, what you are calling digital theft isn't theft, so only the publisher or author could complain for various breaches of copyright law.
NOT Amazon/Google/Kobo unless their servers were hacked or they were the publisher.

No, theft is the right word and the seller can sue. I'm not going to bother writing entire paragraphs of info, so the short version is this:

Breach of copyright consists of using the copyrighted without the copyrighters' consession. Buying a ebook is a sales agreement (License goes one way, money the other), which is governed by another set of rules. By buying an ebook, you do not get a license to use the copyrighted material; You get a license to read the stuff.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by Dutchbook

No, theft is the right word and the seller can sue. I'm not going to bother writing entire paragraphs of info, so the short version is this:

Breach of copyright consists of using the copyrighted without the copyrighters' consession. Buying a ebook is a sales agreement (License goes one way, money the other), which is governed by another set of rules. By buying an ebook, you do not get a license to use the copyrighted material; You get a license to read the stuff.

Actually, if theft *was* the right word, then the seller could have the "thief" arrested. Since it's not a criminal act, it's not really theft, it's breach of copyright, or of the terms of a contract (license agreement)...which is why the seller/author/rights-holder can sue, but not press charges and have anyone arrested. In a case of *actual* theft, the injured party would call the police and have the thief arrested. If you call the police for breach of copyright, you'll only get laughed at.

Shari

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Dutchbook

No, theft is the right word and the seller can sue. I'm not going to bother writing entire paragraphs of info, so the short version is this:

Breach of copyright consists of using the copyrighted without the copyrighters' consession. Buying a ebook is a sales agreement (License goes one way, money the other), which is governed by another set of rules. By buying an ebook, you do not get a license to use the copyrighted material; You get a license to read the stuff.

Not in the US. Civil not criminal matter.

[sjfan]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Not in the US. Civil not criminal matter.

It is certainly not theft in most states (which in most states requires intent to deprive the owner of possession, as well as appropriating the item yourself). But even in the 1980s home videos made it abundantly clear with their FBI Warnings that "Federal law provides severe civil and criminal penalties for unauthorized reproduction".

Copyright infringement in the US is a (criminal) misdemeanor for minor infractions or a felony for larger infractions, in addition to being a civil tort. It's probably unlikely someone will be prosecuted for minor infractions, but it's possible.

https://www.justice.gov/usam/crimina...nd-18-usc-2319

The principal criminal statute protecting copyrighted works is 17 U.S.C. § 506(a), which provides that "[a]ny person who infringes a copyright willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain" shall be punished as provided in 18 U.S.C. § 2319. Section 2319 provides, in pertinent part, that a 5-year felony shall apply if the offense "consists of the reproduction or distribution, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, with a retail value of more than $2,500." 18 U.S.C. § 2319(b)(1).

The 1992 amendments to section 2319 have made it possible to pursue felony level sanctions for violations relating to all types of copyrighted works, including computer software and other works written, stored or transmitted in a digital format, if the other elements of the statute are satisfied. Felony penalties only attach to violations of a victim's rights of reproduction or distribution in the quantity stated. A misdemeanor shall apply if the defendant does not meet the numerical and monetary thresholds.

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimin..._United_States

[shalym]

Originally Posted by sjfan

It is certainly not theft in most states (which in most states requires intent to deprive the owner of possession, as well as appropriating the item yourself). But even in the 1980s home videos made it abundantly clear with their FBI Warnings that "Federal law provides severe civil and criminal penalties for unauthorized reproduction".

Copyright infringement in the US is a (criminal) misdemeanor for minor infractions or a felony for larger infractions, in addition to being a civil tort. It's probably unlikely someone will be prosecuted for minor infractions, but it's possible.

https://www.justice.gov/usam/crimina...nd-18-usc-2319

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimin..._United_States

Yes...the operative phrase being "and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain" Someone who uploads an ebook to a torrent does not fit this description. A person running a website trying to sell pirated book will definitely be breaking this law, and someone running a free download site that is supported by ads may be as well. Someone who buys a book from Amazon and uploads it definitely is not, no matter how many books they upload, as long as they aren't getting any "commercial advantage or private financial gain".

Shari

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by shalym

Yes...the operative phrase being "and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain" Someone who uploads an ebook to a torrent does not fit this description. A person running a website trying to sell pirated book will definitely be breaking this law, and someone running a free download site that is supported by ads may be as well. Someone who buys a book from Amazon and uploads it definitely is not, no matter how many books they upload, as long as they aren't getting any "commercial advantage or private financial gain".

Shari

Example if I give you a copy of anything, it is unlikely the courts would bother. If I sold you a copy of anything, then yes we could both get in trouble, if you knew it was a copy. If you thought you were getting an original than only I could get in trouble.
*Note in this sense copy means not the original.

That said: I only know of one person that went to court for illegally downloading music. He lost financially but he wasn't arrested and he has no record because it was civil court.
*I think there was more to it than he was just downloading.

[Difflugia]

Originally Posted by darryl

As others have said, one should assume that there is some identifying information which survives DRM and even format conversion. Even if you were to take the trouble of converting to plain ascii text and painstakingly review the file you could still not be certain. There are so many different techniques developed over many years to detect the source of leaked versions which have potential application. For instance, circulating a paper using different words or phrases in different places so as to make each unique. This would not be detectable even theoretically without other copies of the work to test against. Even then it may prove difficult. And this is but one approach.

It is naive to assume that those who take the trouble to use DRM will put all their eggs in one basket. Eliminating any risk is both labour intensive and unreliable. One could never be sure that the book has been totally sanitised.

The assumption that this is not happening because no one has so far to our knowledge been prosecuted after being detected through such information is also an unwise one. There are many reasons for not resorting to legal action.

And, of course, even if such techniques are not being utilised now, they can be implemented at any time. I recall one of Fred Saberhagen's Berserker short stories made the point quite nicely. Whether a man's life was forfeit for treason was determined by a fake entry placed in the ubiquitous Galactic Encyclopedia to catch copiers.

You're probably right in general, but ADE doesn't do this now and is unlikely to unless they change the encryption scheme, and maybe not even then.

With the exception of the rights.xml file, each server serves the same encrypted book to every recipient. After decryption, the information in rights.xml is discarded by The Tools. The resulting files are identical except for a few timestamps, which match the decryption time.

I just checked again a few minutes ago. From Kobo and eBooks.com, the same decrypted books from multiple accounts are identical.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Dutchbook

Amazon/Google/Kobo would just need to go after a couple of illegal uploaders to make an example of them, and give it much attention in the media, to at least make people afraid of the consequences of digital theft.

So far, that has not been the case

I think those disastrous RIAA lawsuits from the early 2000's have made companies gun-shy when it comes to suing individual up/downloaders. Going after the pirates sounds good. But when the public sees a grandmother or twelve year old being sued by a faceless corporation, support switches.

I believe they now go after file sharing sites while holding out the threat that individuals *could* be sued. When Megaupload was seized, the MPAA (among others) threatened to sue individual users, but to the best of my knowledge it never happened.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I think those disastrous RIAA lawsuits from the early 2000's have made companies gun-shy when it comes to suing individual up/downloaders. I believe they now go after file sharing sites while holding out the threat that individuals *could* be sued.

When Megaupload was seized, the MPAA (among others) threatened to sue individual users, but to the best of my knowledge it never happened.

Court costs at least $25 per suit, lawyer to do paperwork $50 hour (who knows how many hours), $10 per summons (IIRC), vs cost per song $1. Nope not worth bothering since the judge may or may not award court costs. Plus what you mentioned.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Court costs at least $25 per suit, lawyer to do paperwork $50 hour (who knows how many hours), $10 per summons (IIRC), vs cost per song $1. Nope not worth bothering since the judge may or may not award court costs. Plus what you mentioned.

On that, no. They can sue for thousands of dollars per file/work infringed. I remember there were people charged with downloading less than ten songs that were sued for a quarter of a million dollars (I can't remember specifics, but Google is your friend). So it is definitely worth bothering with.

From memory, it was the immediate and severe PR backlash that ended the wholesale lawsuits against file sharers.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

On that, no. They can sue for thousands of dollars per file/work infringed. I remember there were people charged with downloading less than ten songs that were sued for a quarter of a million dollars (I can't remember specifics, but Google is your friend). So it is definitely worth bothering with.

From memory, it was the immediate and severe PR backlash that ended the wholesale lawsuits against file sharers.

The question becomes did the courts grant that $250,000? Or was this like a class action suit where all those people charged were tried at once? If so, then it was not $250,000 per person but if they went after 250 people that is $1000 per person.
Big difference there. Actually I thought it was 1000 people and they each had to pay $250.
I know the end figures were 250 and 1000. I just don't remember which way.
Either way, that sounds like RIAA was suing for court costs on top of song value.

Now I do know Metallica sued one boy and won.
*They might have lost if the jury had liked the mom's defense. (I'm a single mom, he had to steal them because I can't afford to buy him music.)

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

The question becomes did the courts grant that $250,000? Or was this like a class action suit where all those people charged were tried at once?

As mentioned, Google is your friend. These lawsuits are easy enough to find:

Minnesota woman to pay $220,000 fine for 24 illegally downloaded songs

12-year-old settles music swap lawsuit

And there's this: After an Internet subscriber's identity is discovered, but before an individual lawsuit is filed, the subscriber is typically offered an opportunity to settle. The standard settlement is a payment to the RIAA and an agreement not to engage in file-sharing of music and is usually on par with statutory damages of $750 per work, with the RIAA choosing the number of works it deems "reasonable." For cases that do not settle at this amount, the RIAA has gone to trial, seeking statutory damages from the jury, written into The Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999 as between $750 and $30,000 per work or $750 and $150,000 per work if "willful."

These are of course old stories since my point was that even though industry groups have sued individual pirates, and won, the backlash was so great that it is a rarity nowadays.