Hacks Amazon Kindle Hack: Read DRM-protected Mobipocket content - Page 6

DaleDe · 12-13-2007, 11:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrkai

...in this whole line of thinking I'm being obnoxious?

I think "smug" is probably more apropos. I'll cop to that.

So that is what all the smileys mean. I wondered.

mrkai · 12-13-2007, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DaleDe

So that is what all the smileys mean. I wondered.

That's just me. I'm a smiley kind of guy

(oops)

For most of how this has gone tho, and the logic I find...twisted, I think the emoticon that sums it all best would be this one:

-K

HarryT · 12-13-2007, 12:06 PM

What logic do you find twisted, mrkai? Not from me, I hope; I'm completely against stealing eBooks, but I don't regard the use of these tools as unethical. They certainly (AFAIK) aren't illegal - they aren't circumventing DRM, or anything like that. All they are perhaps doing is violating Amazon's terms of service.

jasonkchapman · 12-13-2007, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mrkai

...in this whole line of thinking I'm being obnoxious?

I think "smug" is probably more apropos. I'll cop to that.

No, "obnoxious" is right on target. If you have specific problems with specific things that people have written on this forum, or if you are accusing specific individuals of holding a double-standard regarding DRM and/or e-book piracy, then you should cite the posts and address those specific individuals. What you are doing is no different from those who cast aspersions on everyone as e-book pirates, or those who claim that anyone who isn't anti-DRM is some part of a shadowy conspiratorial cartel.

TallMomof2 · 12-13-2007, 12:15 PM

Morally, I have no problem with format conversion. I'm fairly sure it's a TOS violation. I've already paid for the book, just want to read it on my device.

Many thanks, Igorsk!

jasonkchapman · 12-13-2007, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TallMomof2

Morally, I have no problem with format conversion. I'm fairly sure it's a TOS violation. I've already paid for the book, just want to read it on my device.

I'm not even sure it's a violation of the TOS, as long as you load it via USB. The Kindle conversion, purchase, and direct download features are services. Disconnected, the Kindle is not. There is no service or subscription necessary to function in its capacity as a reader. As such, I'm not certain it can be subject to a TOS agreement.

HarryT · 12-13-2007, 12:46 PM

Thinking about the matter more, I guess that being able to read Kindle books on other devices is of less importance, for the simple reason that you can't (currently) buy a Kindle book unless you own a Kindle (I bet igorsk will tell me I'm wrong about that, too!

). I suppose you might want to be buy a book on your Kindle and be able to encode it for Mobi on your smartphone, but being able to buy a book from Mobi and read it on your Kindle would seem to be the more useful capability.

catsittingstill · 12-13-2007, 01:20 PM

FWIW, I think it's a great thing. Good for every honest player in the market.

Good for Amazon, because being able to play another format makes the Kindle more valuable, increasing demand for it. I don't think their book sales will even suffer, as their e-book prices are quite competitive with those of other sources, and the convenience of buying from them is unchanged.

Good for honest readers who bought Secure Mobipocket files because there is now one more e-book player on the market that can read their library.

Good for honest Kindle owners who now have more sources of readable ebooks.

The people that it hurts are people who hoped to cheat honest customers out of being able to read the books they paid for, in the hopes that their victims would pay all over again for the same content. The back of my hand to them; they deserve to suffer.

Though I do see one downside--I was figuring that the pool of Kindles that could only play unsecured mobipocket files would drive demand for non DRMed books like Baen's, and that increasing the availability of nonDRMed books would be good for everyone in the market. Now I'm not as sure that will happen.

But well done Igorsk!

Alisa · 12-13-2007, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by catsittingstill

Good for Amazon, because being able to play another format makes the Kindle more valuable, increasing demand for it. I don't think their book sales will even suffer, as their e-book prices are quite competitive with those of other sources, and the convenience of buying from them is unchanged.

I think it's a good thing for the Kindle, too, yet Amazon obviously does not. I really would like to know why. It would have been simple for them to support mobi books. They made a choice not to.

jharker · 12-13-2007, 03:38 PM

mrkai, at the risk of beating a dead horse even more, I wanted to put in a few words...

The point of this tool is to allow Mobipocket DRMed e-books purchased from non-Amazon suppliers to be read on the Kindle.

Now, given that the Mobipocket DRM allows an e-book to be read on up to four devices legally (without breaking the DRM), then the actual addition of another "device" to your Mobipocket book is not illegal or immoral per se.

This leaves a few other possibilities for objections. You could say one or more of the following:

Figuring out the Kindle's Mobipocket ID is "wrong", because it's reverse engineering.
Using the Kindle to read books not purchased from Amazon is "wrong"*.
Using the Kindle to read DRM-ed books not purchased from Amazon is "wrong"*.

[ * In the above I've used the term "wrong" to mean "one or more of the following: illegal, immoral, or against the Kindle's TOS." ]

Let's take these on:

#1 may be true; it depends on exactly what needs to be done to learn the Kindle's DRM and what your definition of "reverse engineering" is.
#2 is obviously false, because it is too general. Amazon provides services to allow you to put your own documents (whatever they may be) on the Kindle.
#3, which is more specific than #2, may be true. Amazon might object to you buying books from someone else and then reading them on the Kindle.

Is #1 illegal, immoral, or against the TOS? I don't know; I'm not an expert. Let's skip this for the moment. (We can come back to it later if you like.)

#3 is more interesting. Let's consider some boundary cases.

Amazon sells subscriptions to various online blogs, newspapers, etc. I could subscribe and have the blog/newspaper downloaded to my Kindle every day. In this way I would be paying Amazon and Amazon would make money.

Yet, the blogs are also free via RSS feed on the Internet. I could just as easily write a script to download the latest RSS feed, convert it to html or doc format, and email it to my Kindle via Amazon. Aside from the $0.10 transmission fee, this is free: I get the blog on my Kindle, but Amazon doesn't make any money. But no one could argue that this is illegal, immoral, or against the TOS. There is no reason I must buy this blog from Amazon.
Another case: What if I buy a DRMed Mobipocket book from a non-Amazon seller, because Amazon doesn't sell this particular book? From Amazon's point of view, it doesn't matter whether I read that book on my Kindle or elsewhere: either way, I couldn't have bought it from Amazon. Amazon doesn't lose any money. This is certainly not illegal, and I would be very much surprised if it was against the TOS. Immoral? Personally, I don't think so.
The final case, of course, is: what if I buy a DRMed Mobipocket book from elsewhere, but I could have bought it from Amazon? Is reading it on the Kindle illegal? Immoral? Against the TOS? It is probably not illegal. Based on the cases above, I would tentatively conclude that it is also not against the TOS. Is it immoral?

I suspect that you think that case "c" is both against the TOS and immoral. Is that correct? And, if so, why do you think so?

Okay, that should provide some fuel for this argument...

Can you tell I'm avoiding my thesis?

jharker · 12-13-2007, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

Thinking about the matter more, I guess that being able to read Kindle books on other devices is of less importance, for the simple reason that you can't (currently) buy a Kindle book unless you own a Kindle (I bet igorsk will tell me I'm wrong about that, too!

)

Hey, HarryT!

I think that this functionality would be for more cautious or prudent book owners, who want to know that they will be able to read their Amazon-bought books even if and when the Kindle is no longer supported and the azw format is long gone. In general this is the argument in favor of data longevity and open formats. An e-book should (ideally) be readable for just as long as a p-book would be, if not longer.

I suppose this is only practically important for people who collect books or who re-read their books many times... but I'm one of those people!

Steven Lyle Jordan · 12-13-2007, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jharker

Another case: What if I buy a DRMed Mobipocket book from a non-Amazon seller, because Amazon doesn't sell this particular book? From Amazon's point of view, it doesn't matter whether I read that book on my Kindle or elsewhere: either way, I couldn't have bought it from Amazon. Amazon doesn't lose any money. This is certainly not illegal, and I would be very much surprised if it was against the TOS. Immoral? Personally, I don't think so.

The final case, of course, is: what if I buy a DRMed Mobipocket book from elsewhere, but I could have bought it from Amazon? Is reading it on the Kindle illegal? Immoral? Against the TOS? It is probably not illegal. Based on the cases above, I would tentatively conclude that it is also not against the TOS. Is it immoral?

I don't see the inputting of a non-Kindle document (DRM'd or not) that you have purchased, into the Kindle that you also own, as wrong. If it is your purchased and legal document, "fair use" allows you to convert it to another format (which is essentially what you're doing when you're breaking the DRM) to use it in another device that you own. And Amazon's TOS does not disallow your inputting non-Amazon documents into the Kindle. "Fair use" is duly covered.

mrkai · 12-13-2007, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

They certainly (AFAIK) aren't illegal - they aren't circumventing DRM, or anything like that. All they are perhaps doing is violating Amazon's terms of service.

I think you are narrowing "Rights Management" here to "open readable format" when in fact as an end to end system it encompasses more than that.

There is device constraint, sales channel constraint, times-per-play, "time-to-live"...and a myriad of other fetters to consider, depending on implementation.

In this instance, the Rights chain is a seller/buyer/device one.

This whole thing is attractive because it breaks the sole-source rights chain in Amazons current model. Is there any doubt or question of Amazon's intent and implementation of this particular scheme?

I use "scheme" here in its broad meaning. I mean to imply nothing shady or shadowy here.

The established Rights Chain here is Clear: Purchaser/Customer (You) -> Sole Source provider/Vendor of "Premium" Content (Amazon Kindle Store) -> Limited Playback device (Kindle) * Number of Allowed devices in Scope of Allowed type.

Any part outside of this chain circumvents it. No part of their Digital Rights Management scheme as published, promoted or produced has secured AWZ content coming from anywhere *but* Amazon.

How this relates to other fair use scenarios is quite simple: Doing what is necessary to exercise fair use in one particular case outside the constrictions of whatever drm scheme/chain/copy control method implemented by the rights holder(s) isn't more legal/ethical/morally superior than any other one, Harry (since I have been asked to "name names" to avoid being "obnoxious") because the point is for the end user/customer to get to exercise fair use regardless of the intended business model!

My issue with you and many others here is that people are being tagged as "guilty" for exercising fair use because the end result or the process might render the control mechanisms Null and Void. The rationale here being used to laude this solution is that "its fair use because it still has drm". Fair Use has nothing to do with DRM, or if in fact the output lacks it and is a "clear" copy.

This does NOT MATTER. This is still Fair Use.

Redistribution is NOT fair use. That is copyright violation because the rights holders have exclusive distribution rights that they may assign.

The notion that it's Fair Use can't be if the person exercising "could possibly become a copyright violator" is in essence finding them guilty by association (because other people have done it before) or some notion of "thoughtcrime".

azog · 12-13-2007, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jharker

Yet, the blogs are also free via RSS feed on the Internet. I could just as easily write a script to download the latest RSS feed, convert it to html or doc format, and email it to my Kindle via Amazon. Aside from the $0.10 transmission fee, this is free: I get the blog on my Kindle, but Amazon doesn't make any money. But no one could argue that this is illegal, immoral, or against the TOS. There is no reason I must buy this blog from Amazon.

Actually it is against the terms of service:

"The conversion service on Your Kindle is meant for the receipt of personal, non-commercial documents only. You may not authorize the sending of documents from automated distribution services."

From the PDF Kindle manual on page 79...

mrkai · 12-13-2007, 04:14 PM

Good precedents on how vendors feel about the role of DRM as a protection mechanism for not only the "content" but the business model have already been seen, assuming we care about the rights holders. A couple that come to mind and are both relevant in different ways are Apple vs Real Networks and the Universal Garage Door Opener case.

In the Apple/Real instance Real figured out how to pretty much do what's being done here: get stuff bought from there store onto apple's device..while preserving the locks by transmogrifying them.A CLEAR consumer benefit...a win-win. Anyone here remember this?

Real was told to cut it out or head to court because this was in violation of the DMCA, but more telling was that it revealed how the vendor (in this case, Apple) viewed DRM as not simply a copy control mechanism, but a supply chain one. As apple wasn't the content originator their interests lay in controlling and constraining the supply chain for "Premium" digital music.

Look familiar?

This was seen with the Garage Door openers as well...a CLEAR consumer benefit. The problem again is that it broke that sole source chain. They used the fact that the control codes were (very poorly) encrypted and obscured to make that go away...

This case more interesting in another way as they OEMs were the content providers, that content being the control codes.

12-13-2007, 03:38 PM	#85
jharker Developer Posts: 345 Karma: 3473 Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Brooklyn, NY, USA Device: iRex iLiad v1, Blackberry Tour, Kindle DX, iPad.	mrkai, at the risk of beating a dead horse even more, I wanted to put in a few words... The point of this tool is to allow Mobipocket DRMed e-books purchased from non-Amazon suppliers to be read on the Kindle. Now, given that the Mobipocket DRM allows an e-book to be read on up to four devices legally (without breaking the DRM), then the actual addition of another "device" to your Mobipocket book is not illegal or immoral per se. This leaves a few other possibilities for objections. You could say one or more of the following: Figuring out the Kindle's Mobipocket ID is "wrong", because it's reverse engineering. Using the Kindle to read books not purchased from Amazon is "wrong". Using the Kindle to read DRM-ed* books not purchased from Amazon is "wrong". [ In the above I've used the term "wrong" to mean "one or more of the following: illegal, immoral, or against the Kindle's TOS." ] Let's take these on: #1 may be true; it depends on exactly what needs to be done to learn the Kindle's DRM and what your definition of "reverse engineering" is. #2 is obviously false, because it is too general. Amazon provides services to allow you to put your own documents (whatever they may be) on the Kindle. #3, which is more specific than #2, may be true. Amazon might object to you buying books from someone else and then reading them on the Kindle. Is #1 illegal, immoral, or against the TOS? I don't know; I'm not an expert. Let's skip this for the moment. (We can come back to it later if you like.) #3 is more interesting. Let's consider some boundary cases. Amazon sells subscriptions to various online blogs, newspapers, etc. I could subscribe and have the blog/newspaper downloaded to my Kindle every day. In this way I would be paying Amazon and Amazon would make money. Yet, the blogs are also free via RSS feed on the Internet. I could just as easily write a script to download the latest RSS feed, convert it to html or doc format, and email it to my Kindle via Amazon. Aside from the $0.10 transmission fee, this is free: I get the blog on my Kindle, but Amazon doesn't make any money. But no one could argue that this is illegal, immoral, or against the TOS. There is no reason I must buy this blog from Amazon. Another case: What if I buy a DRMed Mobipocket book from a non-Amazon seller, because Amazon doesn't sell this particular book? From Amazon's point of view, it doesn't matter whether I read that book on my Kindle or elsewhere: either way, I couldn't have bought it from Amazon. Amazon doesn't lose any money. This is certainly not illegal, and I would be very much surprised if it was against the TOS. Immoral? Personally, I don't think so. The final case, of course, is: what if I buy a DRMed Mobipocket book from elsewhere, but I could have bought it from Amazon? Is reading it on the Kindle illegal? Immoral? Against the TOS? It is probably not illegal. Based on the cases above, I would tentatively conclude that it is also not against the TOS. Is it immoral? I suspect that you think that case "c" is both against the TOS and immoral. Is that correct? And, if so, why do you think so? Okay, that should provide some fuel for this argument... Can you tell I'm avoiding my thesis? Last edited by jharker; 12-13-2007 at 03:49 PM. Reason: Less ambiguous wording.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
How to back up DRM-protected content?	motjebben	General Discussions	33	07-19-2010 04:44 PM
Classic Can DRM-protected ePub content from Overdrive be viewed using nook app on iPhone?	doog_smith	Barnes & Noble NOOK	9	02-05-2010 03:29 AM
Amazon Insists on DRM for Mobipocket eBooks	JSWolf	News	47	03-03-2009 06:28 PM
DRM protected Mobipocket books?	helten	Bookeen	11	07-17-2008 07:59 AM
Kindle DRM hacked to allow protected Mobipocket ebooks	pilotbob	Amazon Kindle	1	12-13-2007 01:38 PM

12-13-2007, 12:06 PM	#78
HarryT eBook Enthusiast Posts: 85,544 Karma: 93383043 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: UK Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6	What logic do you find twisted, mrkai? Not from me, I hope; I'm completely against stealing eBooks, but I don't regard the use of these tools as unethical. They certainly (AFAIK) aren't illegal - they aren't circumventing DRM, or anything like that. All they are perhaps doing is violating Amazon's terms of service.

12-13-2007, 12:15 PM	#80
TallMomof2 Kindlephilia Posts: 2,017 Karma: 1139255 Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Snowpacolypse 2010 Device: Too many to count	Morally, I have no problem with format conversion. I'm fairly sure it's a TOS violation. I've already paid for the book, just want to read it on my device. Many thanks, Igorsk!

12-13-2007, 12:46 PM	#82
HarryT eBook Enthusiast Posts: 85,544 Karma: 93383043 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: UK Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6	Thinking about the matter more, I guess that being able to read Kindle books on other devices is of less importance, for the simple reason that you can't (currently) buy a Kindle book unless you own a Kindle (I bet igorsk will tell me I'm wrong about that, too! ). I suppose you might want to be buy a book on your Kindle and be able to encode it for Mobi on your smartphone, but being able to buy a book from Mobi and read it on your Kindle would seem to be the more useful capability.

12-13-2007, 01:20 PM	#83
catsittingstill Guru Posts: 643 Karma: 551634 Join Date: Dec 2007 Device: Kindle 1.0.8, iPod Touch, Kindle Keyboard	FWIW, I think it's a great thing. Good for every honest player in the market. Good for Amazon, because being able to play another format makes the Kindle more valuable, increasing demand for it. I don't think their book sales will even suffer, as their e-book prices are quite competitive with those of other sources, and the convenience of buying from them is unchanged. Good for honest readers who bought Secure Mobipocket files because there is now one more e-book player on the market that can read their library. Good for honest Kindle owners who now have more sources of readable ebooks. The people that it hurts are people who hoped to cheat honest customers out of being able to read the books they paid for, in the hopes that their victims would pay all over again for the same content. The back of my hand to them; they deserve to suffer. Though I do see one downside--I was figuring that the pool of Kindles that could only play unsecured mobipocket files would drive demand for non DRMed books like Baen's, and that increasing the availability of nonDRMed books would be good for everyone in the market. Now I'm not as sure that will happen. But well done Igorsk!

12-13-2007, 04:14 PM	#90
mrkai Bit Wrangler Posts: 181 Karma: 415 Join Date: Oct 2007 Device: Sony PRS-505	Good precedents on how vendors feel about the role of DRM as a protection mechanism for not only the "content" but the business model have already been seen, assuming we care about the rights holders. A couple that come to mind and are both relevant in different ways are Apple vs Real Networks and the Universal Garage Door Opener case. In the Apple/Real instance Real figured out how to pretty much do what's being done here: get stuff bought from there store onto apple's device..while preserving the locks by transmogrifying them.A CLEAR consumer benefit...a win-win. Anyone here remember this? Real was told to cut it out or head to court because this was in violation of the DMCA, but more telling was that it revealed how the vendor (in this case, Apple) viewed DRM as not simply a copy control mechanism, but a supply chain one. As apple wasn't the content originator their interests lay in controlling and constraining the supply chain for "Premium" digital music. Look familiar? This was seen with the Garage Door openers as well...a CLEAR consumer benefit. The problem again is that it broke that sole source chain. They used the fact that the control codes were (very poorly) encrypted and obscured to make that go away... This case more interesting in another way as they OEMs were the content providers, that content being the control codes.

Advert

Advert