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

[TadW]

Originally Posted by NatCh

But what they're aggressively defending here is not their DRM, but their DRM's effectiveness in locking Kindle owners into buying books only from Amazon.

It looks like it. And it definitely feels like it (by them prohibiting kindlepid.py). But is it really what they are after? I have my doubts. They must have known about this tool for a long time, and they didn't bother to intervene. No, what they are really after is to prevent people from finding ways to exploit the iPhone Kindle app. And kindlepid.py is a small part of the equation.

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

Sad, isn't it?? The two most rabid Kindle fans on earth thinking about ditching their beloved Kindles.

All because someone at Amazon has their head up their ass.

It is. I don't think you could get any more 'rabid' than you and I, RM.

[wallcraft]

Originally Posted by Alexander Turcic

As some of you may already know, this week we received a DCMA take-down notice from Amazon requesting the removal of the tool kindlepid.py and instructions associated with it. Although we never hosted this tool (contrary to their claim), nor believe that this tool is used to remove technological measures (contrary to their claim), we decided, due to the vagueness of the DMCA law and our intention to remain in good relation with Amazon, to voluntarily follow their request and remove links and detailed instructions related to it.

Was this actually a DMCA take down notice? If so, don't you need to notify everyone who had their posts removed that you did so at Amazon's request? They then can send you a counter notice that the post did not violate Amazon's copyright and if Amazon does not sue them (not you) within 10 days then the material should be replaced. I am basing this on Wiki: Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (which obviously isn't legal advise on individual cases, and may not apply to "technological measures" takedowns). I sounds as if Amazon sent you something other than a take down notice, or they sent you a notice for specific material, kindlepid, which was never posted on mobileread (so far as I know and I follow kindlepid closely) and it was mobileread that removed everything else. How about posting their entire letter? I would love to see an official DMCA take down notice.

It is interesting that the actual software in question is still available from its original source. So either eBlogger is slower to respond to Amazon's "request" than mobileread, or Amazon will need to send an actual DMCA takedown notice for the software to be removed. At that point Igor will be able to respond. I'm not sure I would advise him to do so, but I would contribute to a legal fund to fight the takedown.

[lilac_jive]

I kind of want to send an email to Sony saying "thanks for not being this way, and I'm hiking my purchasing from $40 to $50 a month on the bookstore to support you more."

But I'm not sure I want to give them any ideas....

[mjh215]

Originally Posted by lilac_jive

I kind of want to send an email to Sony saying "thanks for not being this way, and I'm hiking my purchasing from $40 to $50 a month on the bookstore to support you more."

But I'm not sure I want to give them any ideas....

Unfortunately Sony is no saint in this arena either. We just have to keep reminding ALL the companies we won't stand for it and educate others while voting with our wallets...

-MJ

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by Barcey

If someone's intent is to strip off the DRM they wouldn't need KindlePID, they just need a valid Mobipocket PID. You can get one by downloading the free PC version of MobiPocket Reader or from any other device that supports Mobipocket.

You need a Kindle PID (or Kindle App PID) to strip DRM from books bought from Amazon.

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by TadW

No, what they are really after is to prevent people from finding ways to exploit the iPhone Kindle app. And kindlepid.py is a small part of the equation.

And the iPhone Kindle app is a much larger part of the equation ... and the one that Amazon probably has the most direct control over -- it's not our fault, but they're trying to make it our problem.

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

All because someone at Amazon has their head up their ass.

Please, the fact that someone at Amazon is evidently experiencing a rectal-cranial fusion incident, resulting in the development of an intra-colonic perspective on things, is no reason to descend to the use of such language.

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

You need a Kindle PID (or Kindle App PID) to strip DRM from books bought from Amazon.

But you can do it the other way round with just a mobi PID, if you buy directly from MobiPocket (which Amazon owns), rather than Amazon.

In fact, you must have a mobi PID to buy from Mobipocket at all, and you can get one from the Mobipocket desktop software.

More and more it seems that this isn't about preserving the DRM, but rather about preserving Amazon's lock-in efforts.

[lilac_jive]

Originally Posted by mjh215

Unfortunately Sony is no saint in this arena either. We just have to keep reminding ALL the companies we won't stand for it and educate others while voting with our wallets...

-MJ

I know my path isn't for everyone, but I trust Sony (for now) that I will have access to my files in the future and god forbid if I didn't for some crazy reason, it wouldn't be a heartbreaking loss (not a big rereader and I get rid of lots of books anyway). By buying their ebooks, I support their awesome device and keep the ball moving by giving them reoccurring revenue.

Like I said, I know that a lot of people don't agree with that, and that's OK. I'm informed at least and making a decision based on my own preferences, and wouldn't tell others to do the same unless they had all the facts as well.

[ankayeb]

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the removal of the SD card slot in the K2 regards to this. I keep all of my non-Amazon content on my SD card in my K1 and remove the card when I connect to whispernet. As far as I can tell, the information regarding where I am, and what books I'm reading, from my SD card is kept on the card with the books. I do really like the Kindle, but I don't want to be restricted to only Amazon content, nor do I need Big Brother keeping tabs on my other reading habits. It would be a shame to have a Kindle, and then not being able to access all the book Samples by not using whispernet in order to keep Amazon from spying on you.

[shelleyp]

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.

As with iTunes: Apple was not the enemy, DRM came off when the Rights Holders allowed it to happen.

Bashing Amazon here accomplishes nothing except releasing useless heat and light. Tor, Doubleday, Random House... please take the battle to the real supporters of DRM.

Too often being critical is equated to 'bashing' or some equivalent. Folks here are being critical of Amazon's action in this regard, as is their right, and in fact, their responsibility if they're concerned consumers.

Apple isn't the best example, primarily because they were about the only company that was providing a DRM-based music product. When Amazon provided DRM-free versions of the same songs being sold with DRM on iTunes, we saw that the decision wasn't solely based on the music producers.

Even then, you could make versions of the iTunes DRM-music for playing on any device, and rip CDs, legally, to put on iTunes.

In this case, what Amazon is saying, in effect, is that the company is not allowing DRM-protected books purchased elsewhere on the Kindle. If we're using an Apple analogy, it would be same as saying you can only use Apple created software on a Mac. Now, does that sound reasonable to you?

The tool does not crack or remove the DRM. It does not violate copyright. It allows owners of legally purchased books to read those books on their legally purchased reading devices. No where does it enable one to make DRM-free versions of the book for streaming on Pirate Bay.

It's really equivalent to being able to buy MP3 music at Amazon, and be able to load it into itunes, and hence to our iPods. If Steve Jobs came out with his lawyers and told people no, you can't play your Amazon purchased music on our music devices, would you be as quick to defend Apple?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by epiphany

Off topic rant:

And if you have no hope of changing a bad law then bad luck? Do you disprove of abolitionists who helped slaves escape from the south or northern officials who disobeyed the Fugitive Slave Act? What about blacks that violated Jim Crow laws? They should have worked to "change the law" while enduring intolerable racism? What about people with debilitating diseases who could receive some relief from medical marijuana? I'm not willing to say they should suffer because of some crummy law.

I'm not saying that copyright is the moral equivalent of the evil laws I mentioned above but I can't stand the claim that one should always follow the law or change it. Even in a democracy people have very little, if any power to change the law. Breaking unjust laws does not lead to the destruction of civilisation and it is sometimes your only option.

I just want to say that I totally agree. This argument that you should always follows the laws was really bothering me and you have stated the problem with it pretty clearly.

[mjh215]

Originally Posted by tompe

I just want to say that I totally agree. This argument that you should always follows the laws was really bothering me and you have stated the problem with it pretty clearly.

I'll third that sentiment...

-MJ

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

I'm seriously considering sending my K2 back and getting a iLiad. It's worth the extra $300 to me to not have this carp going on.

I'm quite happy with my iLiad, but be aware that support is largely a community effort right now. (Then again, the community developers have been making more progress and are more responsive than iRex ever was.)

Originally Posted by shelleyp

In this case, what Amazon is saying, in effect, is that the company is not allowing DRM-protected books purchased elsewhere on the Kindle. If we're using an Apple analogy, it would be same as saying you can only use Apple created software on a Mac. Now, does that sound reasonable to you?

Actually, that sounds rather like another software company... one that charges you for their OS for every computer you buy that could possibly run it, whether or not you buy their OS, and tries to convince you that their proprietary web browser can't be removed from their OS without breaking everything.

Today I found some information about a book I'm interested in online. Normally my next step would be to go check the price at Amazon. I went to the B&N site instead (though I'll also check Powell's, of course). Unfortunately, I already paid my "Prime" membership this year, but I just turned off auto-renewal. Maybe if enough of us do that, it will start to send a message. I've bought my textbooks from Amazon for the past few years, as well as other incidental books not available as ebooks. That's a fair piece of change. That business will be going elsewhere until/unless this is resolved.

Edit: I just realized that my Prime membership had renewed on March 10, and nobody had used it yet... so I cancelled it.

[GeneS]

Having perused this thread thoroughly, I have duly and forthwith expunged the kindle from my list of choices for my next ebook reader purchase and certainly cannot, in good conscience recommend it to others.