which format will win?

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

Could you explain what activities in relation to DRM are criminal, please?

full text http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...1----000-.html

TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 12 > § 1201
§ 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.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

Even if there was a "one time pad" mechanism (which seems unlikely ever to be practical for a mass market), you could circumvent the DRM by applying the data in the same way that the legitimate software does.

Thankyou for that very clear explaination. You certainly seem to know what you are talking about with regards to DRM.

The above seemed particularly pertinant to the discussion. It seems that even a "one time pad" DRM scheme could be broken and hence could not prevent one from backing up their ebooks.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

Could you explain what activities in relation to DRM are criminal, please? This isn't a snipe, I'm interested in the answer.

I went to look this up, as I thought that in the US any violation of section 1201 or 1202 of the DMCA was a criminal matter. But (IANAL) it seems that violations are only criminal if they are done "willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain".

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html#1204

(IANAL) But perhaps the plain language of the section actually means something else in legalese.

Any removal of DRM or Distribution of DRM removal software could be prosecuted under a civil action, with statutory damages of a minimum of $200 per removal violation, and $2,500 per distribution violation.

But only by a person injured by such violations. (IANAL) I don't see how anyone can claim to have been injured by a customer removing DRM from ebooks they have bought. Nor really by DRM removal software distribution.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

Could you explain what activities in relation to DRM are criminal, please?

In the UK, the relevant legislation is the amended Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 Part 7, section 296.

http://www.jenkins.eu/copyright-(sta...neral.asp#s296

In particular, sections 296ZA and especially 296ZB, where it seems it's an offence to distribute de-DRM software "to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the copyright owner", and the penalties are not more than three months on conviction in a Magistrates Court, or two years in High Court.

Interestingly, it seems that in the UK it's a criminal matter even if not done for commercial advantage or private financial gain.

Of course, there is the "affects prejudicially the copyright owner" requirement. IMO de-DRM software does not do this.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

It seems that even a "one time pad" DRM scheme could be broken and hence could not prevent one from backing up their ebooks.

Whether a particular scheme gets broken depends on whether someone with the skill to do so can be bothered, the likelihood of which is a function of how popular the format is.

DRM still makes it more difficult to produce a reliable back-up - and especially difficult to do so legally, it would seem.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

..

DRM still makes it more difficult to produce a reliable back-up - and especially difficult to do so legally, it would seem.

Uh, no. DRM has nothing to do with either actually. As had been thoroughly explained a backup is nothing but a copy of the file and DRM has no effect on copying the file. Nor does it have anything to do with legality. That depends on the particular copyright laws at the location the backup takes place.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I went to look this up, as I thought that in the US any violation of section 1201 or 1202 of the DMCA was a criminal matter. But (IANAL) it seems that violations are only criminal if they are done "willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain".

Originally Posted by pdurrant

In the UK, the relevant legislation is the amended Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 Part 7, section 296.

In particular, sections 296ZA and especially 296ZB, where it seems it's an offence to distribute de-DRM software "to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the copyright owner", and the penalties are not more than three months on conviction in a Magistrates Court, or two years in High Court.

Thanks for the info. As a fellow occupant of Airstrip One, this is a concern!

We appear to be in (what seems to be to be) a crazy situation, where you are at risk of imprisonment for a criminal offence if you purchase a book and strip the DRM to read it more comfortably, while being only at risk of a civil suit for not paying at all and downloading from the darknet.

It's surprising because a lot of people on the site speak blithely about stripping DRM, but are much more cagey about downloading without paying. Perhaps they fear moral censure more than the law.

[John F]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

But you should be able to go back to Sony and redownload that eBook in ePub which you will be able to view on your 505.

Maybe you missed my previous posts? I didn't purchase an epub ebook, I purchased an LRX ebook.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Uh, no. DRM has nothing to do with either actually. As had been thoroughly explained a backup is nothing but a copy of the file and DRM has no effect on copying the file. Nor does it have anything to do with legality. That depends on the particular copyright laws at the location the backup takes place.

Uh, no - DRM makes it more difficult to produce a reliable back-up, because a reliable back-up is one that you can rely on. And what do you rely on back-ups for? Restoring! And restoring is more difficult if there are extra steps required - like ensuring that you have the licenses for DRM.

The legality of it is because if you strip the DRM, it's easier to make a reliable back-up, but it's not legal.

You may see a back-up as "nothing but a copy of the file", but any sane person knows that a back-up is a copy of a file for the purpose of being able to restore it.

Chambers: "a procedure for backing up data for security purposes"
OED: "to make a duplicate copy of (a file, program, etc.), esp. to safeguard against loss or corruption of the original."

Are you really claiming that back-up has nothing to do with restore? And if not, surely you can see that it's more difficult to restore files with the limitations placed on them by DRM?

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

We appear to be in (what seems to be to be) a crazy situation, where you are at risk of imprisonment for a criminal offence if you purchase a book and strip the DRM to read it more comfortably, while being only at risk of a civil suit for not paying at all and downloading from the darknet.

I'm not sure that this is the case in the UK or the US. It seems clear that in the UK, distributing or otherwise making available de-DRM software might be a criminal offence, whether for profit or not. I didn't find (or I didn't understand) any section that made the removal of DRM for personal use a criminal offence.

[Ben Thornton]

296Z B says "1) A person commits an offence if he - ... (iv) possesses, ... any device, product or component which is primarily designed, produced, or adapted for the purpose of enabling or facilitating the circumvention of effective technological measures."

This suggests to me that to possess a script which circumvents DRM would count as an offence under that law.

IANAL either, but my (admittedly somewhat cursory) reading of this was that DRM removal was covered by their description of an offence.

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

Thanks for the info. As a fellow occupant of Airstrip One, this is a concern!

We appear to be in (what seems to be to be) a crazy situation, where you are at risk of imprisonment for a criminal offence if you purchase a book and strip the DRM to read it more comfortably, while being only at risk of a civil suit for not paying at all and downloading from the darknet.

It's surprising because a lot of people on the site speak blithely about stripping DRM, but are much more cagey about downloading without paying. Perhaps they fear moral censure more than the law.

Yes indeed. “If that is what the law supposes then the law is an ass.” I actually do not feel even any moral misgivings about removing DRM from an e-book I have legitimately purchased when it is done for the purposes of assuring I will always have a useable copy and to allow me to view it on whatever device I choose. As I stated previously though if I then distribute the file with DRM removed to others allowing them a copy that they have note paid for I think I have committed a criminal act; as have they. Theft.

The mention of “one time pad” (sometime also called 'tear sheet') piqued my interest. The problem with looking at DRM only from an encryption standpoint is that generally the security of encryption depends on the fact that the intended recipient has equal interest in maintaining the security.; something not the case in the discussion here.

It is my opinion that the best the ebook sellers like Amazon can hope for is a carrot and stick approach. The stick is making breaking the DRM difficult enough and holding out the possibility of legal sanctions. The carrot is pricing the ebook downloads at a point that it is not worthwhile to make the effort to break the DRM for the purpose of illegally sharing the file.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

296Z B says "1) A person commits an offence if he - ... (iv) possesses, ... any device, product or component which is primarily designed, produced, or adapted for the purpose of enabling or facilitating the circumvention of effective technological measures."

This suggests to me that to possess a script which circumvents DRM would count as an offence under that law.

Note that (iv) is a sub-clause of (c) "in the course of a business -". So it's only an offence to possess de-DRM software if it's used in your business. So I think that possession for personal use is not an offence. (But, of course, IANAL.)

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Hamlet53

It is my opinion that the best the ebook sellers like Amazon can hope for is a carrot and stick approach. The stick is making breaking the DRM difficult enough and holding out the possibility of legal sanctions. The carrot is pricing the ebook downloads at a point that it is not worthwhile to make the effort to break the DRM for the purpose of illegally sharing the file.

If the price is low enough to make removing the DRM not worth it, I suspect it's low enough to make make searching on the internet for a free illegal copy not worth it.

There is no carrot for the consumer with DRM. There is only stick.

One stick that particularly irritates me at the moment is with DVDs. If I buy a DVD, I often am forced (by the DVD author, in combination with DRM and the monopoly on DVD players) to wait for some tedious anti-piracy message or advert to finish playing, before I'm allowed to watch actual contents of the DVD.

Of course, people who haven't bought the DVD, but have downloaded a copy, don't have this problem!

All stick, no carrot.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

I don't understand this line.

You have some copied data. You try and restore it. It doesn't restore (for whatever reason). What you had was useless, not a backup.

And no, you require a copy of the pad. Which is decoding, not breaking!


Ben Thornton - Yep, been saying that for ages.