4 ms·

To stay with the real world analogy: you also can't back up your book. You have that one copy and once it breaks, you are out of luck and have to buy a new one.

by pilif 14y ago

To stay with the real world analogy: you also can't back up your book. You have that one copy and once it breaks, you are out of luck and have to buy a new one. I compare the ebook readers as a physical object with the books (also physical objects). If I can read books on that device even when my credit card has expired or other things have disabled my account, then IMHO the parity to the real world exists: I have that one physical object which represents the content on it. If I lose it and don't have my account any more, well, too bad. Of course, by centralizing many books to one physical object, you risk losing much more content as you lose that physical object. But the advantage is that, in case it breaks, it can be repaired (which might be impossible with a physical book) Now. I know for a fact that this is how Kindle works: even if your account is gone, your books stay on your Kindle and you can continue to read them. I would assume it works the same for B&N in this case. Being able to infinitely redownload the books is a nice convenience that goes far beyond what a physical book would allow. Also, I haven't tried it, but these DRMed books are just files after all. It might be possible to back them up and later read them on the same device (again the physical book analogy) even if the account has been terminated.

chrischen 14y ago
I can photocopy or scan every page. It may not be easy, but it's doable, and the publisher does not have technology that actively prevents me from doing this.
- mcpherrinm 14y ago
  You can photocopy every page of your ebook too. Probably even easier to accomplish!
  - jlgreco 14y ago
    Unless I am mistaken, that would/could be legally considered circumventing DRM, and would therefore be technically illegal despite fair use (which would permit you to photocopy the print book legally).
    - edanm 14y ago
      I'm not sure there's a difference in photocopying an entire book and doing the same to a DRM book. Do you know specifically that there is a difference?
      - galadriel 14y ago
        One is a federal felony, other is a fair use. EDIT: Specifically, it is against the law to break DRM (unless for few cases outlined by library of Congress), and the law as written makes no exceptions for fair use. The courts have also held in positive that it was Congress intend to make breaking DRM a crime even if there is a fair use case.
        Elepsis 14y ago
        ... Except that's wrong. It's not fair use to photocopy an entire book and it never has been. Let's not lose sight of the actual laws in our blind rage against DRM.
        belorn 14y ago
        Making private complete copies is legal in most countries, in particular European ones. Private copying levy stems from this concept. Photocopy an entire book for private use only is thus perfectly legal if you are in one of those countries which allows it.
        josephlord 14y ago
        Not all of Europe. It certainly isn't allowed in the UK but we don't have a levy on recordable media. It isn't even legal to rip music to listen to on a computer or an mp3 player. Not that this law is widely followed (or to my knowledge enforced).
        belorn 14y ago
        There is discussion to create a global EU levy, but I didn't know UK did not already have it. To my knowledge, France, UK, Holland, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Norway has it, as well some of the baltic states.
- pilif 14y ago
  You can strip off DRM from an ebook. It's as illegal as photocopying every page, but slightly less cumbersome to do.
  - ekianjo 14y ago
    Where is it illegal to make a photocopy of your OWN book ? As far as I know, you are in your right to make a copy of something that you own for private use.
    - rhizome 14y ago
      They're probably referring to the scare-o-grams posted at and recited by employees of copy shops.
  - w1ntermute 14y ago
    Wrong. Photocopying for personal use is legal under fair use provisions. The only reason why it's not legal to do so with DRM-encumbered ebooks is because of the DMCA.
    - snowwrestler 14y ago
      The DMCA forbids circumventing an encryption system. Photocopying the words on an ebood screen would not seem, to me, to be circumvention since the content was decrypted entirely as designed to put those words on the screen. It might be copyright infringement, but would almost certainly be covered by fair use assuming it was not then distributed to others. I've never heard of a DMCA case prosecuted against someone who photocopied the screen of a ebook reader. If you know of one, I'd be interested to read it.
      - w1ntermute 14y ago
        > I've never heard of a DMCA case prosecuted against someone who photocopied the screen of a ebook reader. In practical terms, the DMCA doesn't result in prosecutions of people who break DRM for personal use. It results in the prosecution of people who produce/distribute software that breaks DRM to allow consumers to copy media for personal use, because there is no practical way to find people who are breaking DRM for personal purposes. I can't speak as to photocopying the screen of an ebook reader since that has never happened (to my knowledge), but here's a similar case: Blu-ray discs are encrypted with AACS[0]. If someone were to make a program that, in real time, takes screencaps of a movie being played back by a legal Blu-ray disc player and records the audio output from the player, then recombines that fully unencrypted data into a video file also without DRM, that person would most definitely get hit with a lawsuit on the basis of the DMCA. 0: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Access_Content_System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Access_Content_System
- curiousdannii 14y ago
  @pilif, you're allowed to backup CDs and DVDs, why not books?
  - e12e 14y ago
    Are you allowed to do that in the US? I thought backing up a (movie) DVD would be considered circumventing DRM (CSS in this case) ?
    - Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
      I'm not sure it's ever been tested (and potentially never will be as it's unlikely anyone would be taken to court over genuine backups I suspect). Isn't this one of those areas which even if it is potentially technically illegal is likely to practically never be an issue?
- Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
  I'm not sure what DRM your publisher is using that actively prevents you from backing things up if you're willing to exert a modest amount of effort (probably less than photocopying an entire paper book).
bad_user 14y ago
Digital storage is far more unreliable ... when we'll have content that survived in digital form for thousands of years (or heck, I would be happy with 20 years), then we'll be able to compare apples to apples. Also, even though I have a child at home, I never had a book that "broke" - as there's nothing that some glue can't fix. The only real danger for the preservation of books in physical form is fire. > by centralizing many books to one physical object, you risk losing much more content as you lose that physical object No, you got it wrong. The far bigger danger is that the eBook reader is a device running on integrated circuits and battery, which will break in only a couple of years and those B&N servers will not be online forever (I would be quite surprised if they are still online in 10 years), it's only a question of when that will happen. And making this whole thing defective by disallowing people to backup their books however they want is the most evil and stupid thing I've ever seen. DRM is defective by design and no matter how much you try painting this crow, it's still a crow.
- dllthomas 14y ago
  > The only real danger for thhe preservation of books in physical form is fire. Also water.
  - bad_user 14y ago
    If we are talking about valuable books, then content can be recovered at least partially from a wet book, depending on how good the printing ink and paper were and how long that book stayed under water. Fire is more dangerous than floods and historically we've lost more books by fire than from anything else, although I'm pretty sure there are effective methods to recover content partially from books that are only partially burned. The durability of physical books is amazing and the only thing going for digital content is that the cost of copies is zero, which means you can easily make backups in multiple places of this world instantly and retrieve those backups with whatever device you happen to have in front of you. Unfortunately that's exactly what DRM is trying to prevent.
  - DanBC 14y ago
    Also bugs.
ljf 14y ago
The difference is, my bookshelf space at home is something I can choose - the internal space on my locked down device is not - so to carry on buying new books, I have to remove old content. This is saying I cannot get my content back (content I PAID for) without a CC on file. The real world analogy does not work here - as I can carry on storing the books I want, and am fully aware that when I choose to remove a book, then I no longer have it - the expectation with a digital purchase, is that they hold my virtual bookself. If they don't then they need to make that clear, and provide ways for me to take on that responsibility.
- boboblong 14y ago
  >This is saying I cannot get my content back (content I PAID for) without a CC on file. You didn't pay for a book in the abstract. You paid for a DRM-protected file, and you got it.
  - Dylan16807 14y ago
    No. Unlimited (non-abuse-level) downloads are part of the original understanding. There are services that give you a single copy of a file but they are rare.
    - boboblong 14y ago
      I'm sure that maintaining your account is part of the original understanding too. Just for the record, I think that anti-circumvention laws are absurd, and that EULAs aren't worth the RAM they consume. But I also think it's childish to buy a DRM-protected e-book from a company, terminate your account with that company, and then expect them to let you download another copy of the e-book for free.
      - ljf 14y ago
        The issue wasn't account termination - the account was still live, just without a valid CC on file. Which does not equal termination.
prof_hobart 14y ago
>you are out of luck and have to buy a new one. Yes. A new version of that book, not a new version of every book in your library. >Of course, by centralizing many books to one physical object, you risk losing much more content as you lose that physical object. But the advantage is that, in case it breaks, it can be repaired (which might be impossible with a physical book) Which is irrelevant if the company doesn't allow you to redownload the data, as in this story.

by pilif 14y ago

chrischen 14y ago

I can photocopy or scan every page. It may not be easy, but it's doable, and the publisher does not have technology that actively prevents me from doing this.

mcpherrinm 14y ago
You can photocopy every page of your ebook too. Probably even easier to accomplish!
- jlgreco 14y ago
  Unless I am mistaken, that would/could be legally considered circumventing DRM, and would therefore be technically illegal despite fair use (which would permit you to photocopy the print book legally).
  - edanm 14y ago
    I'm not sure there's a difference in photocopying an entire book and doing the same to a DRM book. Do you know specifically that there is a difference?
    - galadriel 14y ago
      One is a federal felony, other is a fair use. EDIT: Specifically, it is against the law to break DRM (unless for few cases outlined by library of Congress), and the law as written makes no exceptions for fair use. The courts have also held in positive that it was Congress intend to make breaking DRM a crime even if there is a fair use case.
      - Elepsis 14y ago
        ... Except that's wrong. It's not fair use to photocopy an entire book and it never has been. Let's not lose sight of the actual laws in our blind rage against DRM.
        belorn 14y ago
        Making private complete copies is legal in most countries, in particular European ones. Private copying levy stems from this concept. Photocopy an entire book for private use only is thus perfectly legal if you are in one of those countries which allows it.
        josephlord 14y ago
        Not all of Europe. It certainly isn't allowed in the UK but we don't have a levy on recordable media. It isn't even legal to rip music to listen to on a computer or an mp3 player. Not that this law is widely followed (or to my knowledge enforced).
        belorn 14y ago
        There is discussion to create a global EU levy, but I didn't know UK did not already have it. To my knowledge, France, UK, Holland, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Norway has it, as well some of the baltic states.
pilif 14y ago
You can strip off DRM from an ebook. It's as illegal as photocopying every page, but slightly less cumbersome to do.
- ekianjo 14y ago
  Where is it illegal to make a photocopy of your OWN book ? As far as I know, you are in your right to make a copy of something that you own for private use.
  - rhizome 14y ago
    They're probably referring to the scare-o-grams posted at and recited by employees of copy shops.
- w1ntermute 14y ago
  Wrong. Photocopying for personal use is legal under fair use provisions. The only reason why it's not legal to do so with DRM-encumbered ebooks is because of the DMCA.
  - snowwrestler 14y ago
    The DMCA forbids circumventing an encryption system. Photocopying the words on an ebood screen would not seem, to me, to be circumvention since the content was decrypted entirely as designed to put those words on the screen. It might be copyright infringement, but would almost certainly be covered by fair use assuming it was not then distributed to others. I've never heard of a DMCA case prosecuted against someone who photocopied the screen of a ebook reader. If you know of one, I'd be interested to read it.
    - w1ntermute 14y ago
      > I've never heard of a DMCA case prosecuted against someone who photocopied the screen of a ebook reader. In practical terms, the DMCA doesn't result in prosecutions of people who break DRM for personal use. It results in the prosecution of people who produce/distribute software that breaks DRM to allow consumers to copy media for personal use, because there is no practical way to find people who are breaking DRM for personal purposes. I can't speak as to photocopying the screen of an ebook reader since that has never happened (to my knowledge), but here's a similar case: Blu-ray discs are encrypted with AACS[0]. If someone were to make a program that, in real time, takes screencaps of a movie being played back by a legal Blu-ray disc player and records the audio output from the player, then recombines that fully unencrypted data into a video file also without DRM, that person would most definitely get hit with a lawsuit on the basis of the DMCA. 0: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Access_Content_System http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Access_Content_System
curiousdannii 14y ago
@pilif, you're allowed to backup CDs and DVDs, why not books?
- e12e 14y ago
  Are you allowed to do that in the US? I thought backing up a (movie) DVD would be considered circumventing DRM (CSS in this case) ?
  - Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
    I'm not sure it's ever been tested (and potentially never will be as it's unlikely anyone would be taken to court over genuine backups I suspect). Isn't this one of those areas which even if it is potentially technically illegal is likely to practically never be an issue?
Tyrannosaurs 14y ago
I'm not sure what DRM your publisher is using that actively prevents you from backing things up if you're willing to exert a modest amount of effort (probably less than photocopying an entire paper book).

bad_user 14y ago

Digital storage is far more unreliable ... when we'll have content that survived in digital form for thousands of years (or heck, I would be happy with 20 years), then we'll be able to compare apples to apples. Also, even though I have a child at home, I never had a book that "broke" - as there's nothing that some glue can't fix. The only real danger for the preservation of books in physical form is fire. > by centralizing many books to one physical object, you risk losing much more content as you lose that physical object No, you got it wrong. The far bigger danger is that the eBook reader is a device running on integrated circuits and battery, which will break in only a couple of years and those B&N servers will not be online forever (I would be quite surprised if they are still online in 10 years), it's only a question of when that will happen. And making this whole thing defective by disallowing people to backup their books however they want is the most evil and stupid thing I've ever seen. DRM is defective by design and no matter how much you try painting this crow, it's still a crow.

dllthomas 14y ago
> The only real danger for thhe preservation of books in physical form is fire. Also water.
- bad_user 14y ago
  If we are talking about valuable books, then content can be recovered at least partially from a wet book, depending on how good the printing ink and paper were and how long that book stayed under water. Fire is more dangerous than floods and historically we've lost more books by fire than from anything else, although I'm pretty sure there are effective methods to recover content partially from books that are only partially burned. The durability of physical books is amazing and the only thing going for digital content is that the cost of copies is zero, which means you can easily make backups in multiple places of this world instantly and retrieve those backups with whatever device you happen to have in front of you. Unfortunately that's exactly what DRM is trying to prevent.
- DanBC 14y ago
  Also bugs.

ljf 14y ago

The difference is, my bookshelf space at home is something I can choose - the internal space on my locked down device is not - so to carry on buying new books, I have to remove old content. This is saying I cannot get my content back (content I PAID for) without a CC on file. The real world analogy does not work here - as I can carry on storing the books I want, and am fully aware that when I choose to remove a book, then I no longer have it - the expectation with a digital purchase, is that they hold my virtual bookself. If they don't then they need to make that clear, and provide ways for me to take on that responsibility.

boboblong 14y ago
>This is saying I cannot get my content back (content I PAID for) without a CC on file. You didn't pay for a book in the abstract. You paid for a DRM-protected file, and you got it.
- Dylan16807 14y ago
  No. Unlimited (non-abuse-level) downloads are part of the original understanding. There are services that give you a single copy of a file but they are rare.
  - boboblong 14y ago
    I'm sure that maintaining your account is part of the original understanding too. Just for the record, I think that anti-circumvention laws are absurd, and that EULAs aren't worth the RAM they consume. But I also think it's childish to buy a DRM-protected e-book from a company, terminate your account with that company, and then expect them to let you download another copy of the e-book for free.
    - ljf 14y ago
      The issue wasn't account termination - the account was still live, just without a valid CC on file. Which does not equal termination.

prof_hobart 14y ago

>you are out of luck and have to buy a new one. Yes. A new version of that book, not a new version of every book in your library. >Of course, by centralizing many books to one physical object, you risk losing much more content as you lose that physical object. But the advantage is that, in case it breaks, it can be repaired (which might be impossible with a physical book) Which is irrelevant if the company doesn't allow you to redownload the data, as in this story.