Hackers crack Amazon's Kindle DRM....

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

So I suspect it's either one of the first two scenarios (DRM is applied by either the publisher or the seller) or something I haven't yet thought of.

I don't know a lot about it either, but here's how I think it works (could easily be wrong).

Most of the time the DRM is managed by a third party (servers, keys, etc). Sometimes the Publisher will take care of that before the content is made available to retailers, but other times it will be the retailers responsibility (especially in cases where the retailer is also the DRM provider... aka Amazon).

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

Distributing de-DRM tools is, IMO, ethical-but distributing the de-DRM'd books isn't.

And because of the current legal state, distributing de-DRM tools is just as illegal, or maybe a bit *more* illegal, than distributing unauthorized copies of ebooks. (Some filesharing may be legal fair use, depending on circumstances, and some authors don't mind, even if they don't specifically authorize the sharing--which makes it not illegal; crackdown is a matter of copyright owner's choice, not obligation.)

Certainly it's easier to prosecute distribution of DRM removal tools, which run into a specific, single law, than to prosecute ebook sharing, which runs into individual author/publisher copyrights, such that each would have to file suit separately.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Certainly it's easier to prosecute distribution of DRM removal tools, which run into a specific, single law, than to prosecute ebook sharing, which runs into individual author/publisher copyrights, such that each would have to file suit separately.

Is the distribution of tools covered by the DMCA civil or criminal? I would have thought that it would be prosecuted by the individual copyright holders as well. Even if it is criminal, I'm not sure it's something that the feds are really looking for, or if they would just react to individual author/publisher complaints.

Anyway, I think "legal" and "ethical" are often different things. My guess is that calvin-c meant that distribution of de-DRM tools for personal use is ethical, while distribution of de-DRM'd books to the public isn't. IE, the primary difference is personal use vs non-personal use, not necessarily tool vs content.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Is the distribution of tools covered by the DMCA civil or criminal? I would have thought that it would be prosecuted by the individual copyright holders as well. Even if it is criminal, I'm not sure it's something that the feds are really looking for, or if they would just react to individual author/publisher complaints.

Must not be required to be attached to individual copyright owners, or Amazon wouldn't have been able to complain about Mobileread's links to the kindlepid script.

Skylarov was prosecuted under federal law for violating the DMCA, without any connecting copyright infringement charge.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Must not be required to be attached to individual copyright owners, or Amazon wouldn't have been able to complain about Mobileread's links to the kindlepid script.

Being able to complain about something and actually having a legal basis for it are entirely different things. I don't think Amazon really had any legal backing for their complaint against Mobileread. It was a fairly blatant (although common) misuse of a DMCA takedown request. The reason Amazon got away with it is that Mobileread, understandably, doesn't have the desire to stand up to them in court.

Skylarov was prosecuted under federal law for violating the DMCA, without any connecting copyright infringement charge.

I'm not saying you can't be prosecuted without any connecting copyright infringement, but I also doubt Skylarov would have even been tried if Adobe hadn't complained about it to the US government. I don't think this is something federal law enforcement is really looking for on their own. My point is that even anti-circumvention tool cases are probably triggered by individual publisher/artist complaints.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

My point is that even anti-circumvention tool cases are probably triggered by individual publisher/artist complaints.

I agree--but once triggered, DMCA anti-circumvention cases are more legally risky than direct copyright infringement cases. Distributing de-DRM tools is a criminal act; distributing copyrighted material is a civil violation. A handshake agreement with the copyright owner can make the latter vanish.

The law is arranged so that the action most people think of is more ethical, is easier to punish and more harshly penalized.

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

I don't know a lot about it either, but here's how I think it works (could easily be wrong).

Most of the time the DRM is managed by a third party (servers, keys, etc). Sometimes the Publisher will take care of that before the content is made available to retailers, but other times it will be the retailers responsibility (especially in cases where the retailer is also the DRM provider... aka Amazon).

Still sounds to me like making an ebook available in multiple DRM formats isn't a technical problem. Possibly economic (depending on the DRM licensing, as mentioned before) but more likely cultural, as in the 'corporate culture' that believes in limiting their customer's freedom of choice.

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I agree--but once triggered, DMCA anti-circumvention cases are more legally risky than direct copyright infringement cases. Distributing de-DRM tools is a criminal act; distributing copyrighted material is a civil violation. A handshake agreement with the copyright owner can make the latter vanish.

The law is arranged so that the action most people think of is more ethical, is easier to punish and more harshly penalized.

I'm not sure I understand your last statement, but copyright infringement can be prosecuted as a criminal act. I believe the limit is something like $25,000 which wouldn't be hard to reach. Say I de-DRM'd 1000 of my books & distributed them. If the prosecutor chose to value each book at $25, then I've reached the requirement for prosecution as a criminal act. Even if they assign an 'average' value of $15 then all they need to prove is sufficient activity that 2 copies of each book were downloaded. (That's a little vague, but in criminal cases it depends on the jury's belief which can be more or less than the evidence actually proves. And can be overturned on appeal, making the entire issue of 'proof' rather vague anyway.)

I'll certainly agree that copyright infringement seldom is prosecuted as a criminal act, but that's because individuals can't prosecute criminal acts-only the State can do that, and few prosecutors are really interested unless it's truly a major case. Individuals, OTOH, can pursue civil litigation at will, regardless of the amount. (Subject to acceptance of the case by the court, of course. Some cases are rejected as frivolous, but more often they're rejected for technical reasons, such as filing the case in the wrong court.)

The last time I recall hearing about criminal copyright infringement was a 'counterfeiting' ring in LA that was busted with tens of thousands of copies of Windows & Office. Don't remember the year, but think it was Windows 98.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I agree--but once triggered, DMCA anti-circumvention cases are more legally risky than direct copyright infringement cases. Distributing de-DRM tools is a criminal act; distributing copyrighted material is a civil violation. A handshake agreement with the copyright owner can make the latter vanish.

The law is arranged so that the action most people think of is more ethical, is easier to punish and more harshly penalized.

Tell that to Jammie Thomas, who was penalized 2 million dollars for civil copyright infringement.

You do have a point in that criminal cases are supposed to be more risky than civil. Unfortunately, the copyright laws have been perverted to the point that this is no longer the case. Not only are the punishments much harsher than they are really supposed to be, but the standard of proof is much lower. Hmmmm, wonder who lobbied for those laws?

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

I've never been that interested in music so don't know what was done with DRM on it-but it sounds, from this, Real was stripping the DRM, converting the format, and then re-applying the DRM, which implies that the distributor had control of the DRM. That's not, as I understand it, the case with ebooks.

They didn't have "control" of the DRM either per-se. That's why they couldn't do Windows Media files, and there was a cat and mouse game with, for example, Apple on being able to change their DRM.

It was a server-side product, though, so the user never had a DRM-free product and it survived several legal challenges.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Tell that to Jammie Thomas, who was penalized 2 million dollars for civil copyright infringement.

Really, though, you do have to admit that she brought it entirely upon her own head. She was offered a reasonable out-of-court settlement, refused it, and then tried to make a fool out of the jury, which the jury duly punished her for. In any legal system in which damages are decided by the jury, that sort of thing is liable to happen.

[DawnFalcon]

No, not really. If it was up to me in a jury-based system I'd go for x3 value. The issue is "statutory damages", not "jury-based". When you can ask for that kind of amount in the first place, and the minimum is already very high...

Also "reasonable" out of court settlement again depends on your definition of reasonable. Again, under current UK law you're looking at, usually, valuex3+costs, which is far less than the American settlements (And one major reason we've seen far less lawsuits of that nature over here).

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Really, though, you do have to admit that she brought it entirely upon her own head. She was offered a reasonable out-of-court settlement, refused it, and then tried to make a fool out of the jury, which the jury duly punished her for. In any legal system in which damages are decided by the jury, that sort of thing is liable to happen.

Granted, in this case the defendant was an idiot. But the fact that such penalties are even possible in a civil trial, with a much lower burden of proof, could easily be argued as being unjust.

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

They didn't have "control" of the DRM either per-se. That's why they couldn't do Windows Media files, and there was a cat and mouse game with, for example, Apple on being able to change their DRM.

It was a server-side product, though, so the user never had a DRM-free product and it survived several legal challenges.

I don't think I understand. If they didn't have any control over the DRM then I don't see how they would have been able to convert the format. They might not have had 'full' control over it, i.e might not have been able to alter it, but it sounds to me like they had enough control over it to remove & re-apply it. (And, apparently, to do so in a legal manner.) I don't see any reason why it wouldn't survive a legal challenge, unless the control was obtained in an illegal way. As long as Real applied contractually-allowed DRM before distributing the modified file they would have been OK. (And if all the contract doesn't specify the type of DRM allowed then any DRM should be OK. No DRM would probably violate the contract under 'failure to use due care' or something like that, unless it's specifically allowed.)

[David Derrico]

Originally Posted by wallcraft

Your ebooks are DRM-free on the Kindle, e.g. B001V9K6ZS has "Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited". However, so many ebooks on the Kindle have DRM that most people are not aware of the DRM-free ones.

Thanks for pointing that out... I thought that meant that people still could only use it on devices registered through Amazon, just that they could register as many devices as they wanted. Does it actually mean that there's no DRM at all and it will play on any device at all, registered or no?