Pointing users to drm stripping software isn't copyright infringment.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by ApK

Yes, it was an appropriately narrow decision. That's fine. I'm liking Judge Cotes more and more every time she makes the news here.

I also like that fair use is trumping DMCA (which is crap anyway).

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Robotech_Master

For whatever reason, apparently the publishers didn't see fit to press a DMCA claim. It's a little puzzling, really. All these years, the DMCA's anti-circumvention has been the bogeyman we tell stories about around our blog and forum campfires. It's illegal to crack DRM for any purpose, even if you want to make fair use. It's illegal even to tell people how to crack DRM.

But it was never so cut and dry. It was always a grey area. DMCA was never said to trump fair use which existed long before DMCA. So you cannot just say you cannot remove DRM because of DMCA because it can also be said that yes you can, fair use was there first. So when someone says in no uncertain terms that DRM stripping is illegal because of DMCA, laugh in that person's face and shout FAIR USE!

[taustin]

Originally Posted by auspex

Hey, I said I agreed with you. The DMCA does say it's illegal.

It also says it's legal

Originally Posted by auspex

That doesn't mean that the DMCA is the final authority, or that it doesn't have its own exceptions. I merely mentioned that the DMCA says that.

And I merely said it also says the exact opposite, with specific details that apply to ebooks. We can continue to repeat ourselves for a long time. Electrons are cheap.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

But it was never so cut and dry. It was always a grey area. DMCA was never said to trump fair use which existed long before DMCA. So you cannot just say you cannot remove DRM because of DMCA because it can also be said that yes you can, fair use was there first. So when someone says in no uncertain terms that DRM stripping is illegal because of DMCA, laugh in that person's face and shout FAIR USE!

Or the specific exemptions in the DMCA itself. The Library of Congress list is in addition to the exemptions writing in to the law, it does not replace it.

[curtw]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

In the case of Calibre, has Kovid even acknowledged the existence of Alf? If he hasn't, I can't see how it would be considered as a nitpick. He has created a piece of software that allows extensions. It isn't terribly different than Linux, OS X, or Windows being able to run software developed by a third party. (Doesn't Alf contain a standalone program in addition to the plugin?)
...

Kovid should turn the tables, and sue Abbey House for defamation.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by curtw

Kovid should turn the tables, and sue Abbey House for defamation.

In that case, might as well sue everyone who thinks Calibre does the DRM removal when it's the plugin that does it.

[curtw]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

In that case, might as well sue everyone who thinks Calibre does the DRM removal when it's the plugin that does it.

Well, not everyone who thinks it's so made that statement under oath, in a court of law.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by curtw

Well, not everyone who thinks it's so made that statement under oath, in a court of law.

True. Oh and might as well sue Teleread for being too lazy to get it right.

[Robotech_Master]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

True. Oh and might as well sue Teleread for being too lazy to get it right.

And those Mobileread users who are likewise?

Language is sloppy. People use shorthands all the time, because that's just how it works. If I say, "You can use a VCR to record a TV show" am I wrong wrong WRONG because the VCR won't record it unless you put a tape into it first?

If Abbey House says "You can use Calibre to remove DRM," and someone google "Calibre remove DRM" and finds Apprentice Alf, installs the plug-in into Calibre, and subsequently removes the DRM, was Abbey House wrong? How did they not use Calibre as part of that DRM removal process?

[crich70]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I also like that fair use is trumping DMCA (which is crap anyway).

I think fair use should (if it doesn't) include being able to convert an ebook (that someone has bought) from one format such as epub to another like Kindle, or vice versa. As long as it's just for their own use of course. If they then load it onto the net and start distributing it via torrent to anyone who wants it then they have stepped over the line.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Robotech_Master

And those Mobileread users who are likewise?

And you'll notice there too, someone made sure to clarify the matter.

That still doesn't mean anyone should be sued over it, but it never hurts to clarify things. As twowheels said there (and I said on Teleread) we don't want people to get the wrong idea and try to scotch calibre.

It only matters because it is always better to be careful when matters might potentially get legal.

But merely over semantics, that would be a pointless quibble.


FWIW, the MR veterans tend towards the non-sloppy end of things.

Language is sloppy. People use shorthands all the time, because that's just how it works. If I say, "You can use a VCR to record a TV show" am I wrong wrong WRONG because the VCR won't record it unless you put a tape into it first?

If Abbey House says "You can use Calibre to remove DRM," and someone google "Calibre remove DRM" and finds Apprentice Alf, installs the plug-in into Calibre, and subsequently removes the DRM, was Abbey House wrong? How did they not use Calibre as part of that DRM removal process?

A VCR has an intrinsic function to interface with tapes. Similar to the way a computer doesn't mean anything without a hard drive.
And VLC is fundamentally tied to its codecs.

calibre is not intrinsically tied to removing DRM, in fact it operates quite well without DeDRM plugins at all. It is thus factually wrong to say that "calibre" removes DRM, or even that it is part of the process -- any more than Windows was part of the process (assume for the sake of argument an example case of DeDRMing was done on a Windows PC).
Windows was also used as part of the process -- it served as a framework to launch a GUI, which in turn launched calibre, which in turn launched the DeDRM python library.
With a little extra manual labor, you can even remove calibre from the equation.

Again, this is all meaningless semantics, because we don't usually quibble about sloppy shorthand... except in this case, the potential confusion could have negative repercussions if the wrong people get confused. And that is not being fair to Kovid.

[Robotech_Master]

For all I know, Abbey House might well have intentionally chosen not to be too specific to reduce the chances they could get charged with "trafficking" in DRM anti-circumvention devices. "We just said they could use Calibre. That program doesn't remove DRM by itself..."

[meeera]

Originally Posted by Robotech_Master

For all I know, Abbey House might well have intentionally chosen not to be too specific to reduce the chances they could get charged with "trafficking" in DRM anti-circumvention devices. "We just said they could use Calibre. That program doesn't remove DRM by itself..."

I guess I don't see why they have to name any specific software. "People can remove DRM using DRM removal tools and plugins."

Originally Posted by Robotech_Master

If Abbey House says "You can use Calibre to remove DRM," and someone google "Calibre remove DRM" and finds Apprentice Alf, installs the plug-in into Calibre, and subsequently removes the DRM, was Abbey House wrong? How did they not use Calibre as part of that DRM removal process?

The problem is that blaming Calibre is somewhat dishonest.

Publishers may not like calibre because it is a library management tool that does stuff that they do not approve of, but DRM removal is not a part of the package. To my knowledge, calibre's website doesn't even acknowledge the ability to remove DRM with third-party tools and such tools are not listed in calibre's plug-in manager. If anything they go out of their way to suggest ways of buying DRM-free books.

The situation is more analogous to someone connecting two VCRs together to copy videocassettes. It's not part of the integrated functionality of a VCR. The VCR would operate according to its design without adding the second VCR. There are both legitimate and infringing uses in this two VCR scenario (just as there are with DRM removal). Even though it is a possibility, vendor's wouldn't promote or even acknowledge the infringing uses.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Robotech_Master

For all I know, Abbey House might well have intentionally chosen not to be too specific to reduce the chances they could get charged with "trafficking" in DRM anti-circumvention devices. "We just said they could use Calibre. That program doesn't remove DRM by itself..."

But they told people to use calibre "to remove DRM", at that point, claiming they didn't encourage DRM removal "because calibre itself doesn't remove DRM" is a bit of a red herring... as is your logic.

And once again, it is dishonest to say so, regardless of who else may have been dishonest.