Don’t Lament for Convert LIT

[Gee Mont]

Maybe it shouldn’t surprise me, but the eagerness and willingness for some people to justify (“fair use and all that”) using Convert LIT and lament its withdrawal from the public availability is disconcerting.

When an ebook is purchased, perhaps it is a wrong paradigm to believe it is something to be kept perpetually. It is something to be kept and used only while you hold the key, which for MS Reader is a valid Activation on specific devices.

If you were to rent a room for a weekend from a B&B, the innkeepers will give you a key, which you can use to enter and exit the room as much as you want for the duration of your stay. Do you think innkeepers would want you making an extra copy of the key so you could came back later? Do you think it would be okay if you only made a copy for your own “fair use” such as a key for me and a key for my wife? No matter how you try to justify it, I can’t imagine any innkeeper that would think it’s okay to make copies of the room key without their approval.

But perhaps that is not a good or clear example. If you buy a ticket to a movie, that gives you the right to see it once and its only good for one person in that theater. Even if it were technically possible, would any one believe that it would be okay make a copy of the ticket for you spouse so she could get in for free with you? If you wiggle and dance with your thoughts, some people might try to justify it with an idea like “Since we are married and we hold all property jointly, making a copy of the ticket for my wife is like making a copy for me, and that would be like letting me in, so that would be fair use since I have my ticket already.” Any one want to buy that bridge to Brooklyn?

When someone purchases a DRM LIT e-book, there are terms of use that apply, namely that you can only use it for devices with Activation for that specified purchaser. If you don’t agree to the terms of sale, don’t buy it. That means it would not be fair use to convert it to different format for my wife’s Clie. Sure, I could use Convert LIT, but that would be against the terms of sale. If she wanted to read a DRM LIT title I bought, she would have to borrow my PDA or one of the other devices with Activation. It would be like borrowing a paper bound book. A book is physical object that can be shared with other people, but it only was one existence; an ebook is, by its nature, is an intangible item, and only the device licensed to read it should be shared with others. If, for some reason, all the licensed devices were unavailable, the ebooks would become unavailable. If a paper bound book were to become unavailable (maybe you left it in the subway), you don’t get to go back where you bought it from and get a new copy.

If something were to happen to my current Activations and I had to start over with a new DRM passport, I wouldn’t like losing the ability to read what I’ve already bought, but that would be the legal option. So what would be so bad if I down converted my library to no encryption? Still my own fair use, right? Not by the terms of sale. That not to say I wouldn’t, it would be so easy, and very very easy to justify, even after all I’ve said. Now what happens if someone else wants to read the ebook? Do I let them borrow a device or just let them have a copy I've made?

I think the withdrawal of Convert LIT from the public is a good thing. The DRM is certainly fraught with difficulties and could be improved and made easier for honest users, but illegal conversions—even if only used for the buyer’s idea of “fair use”—will unlikely result in better circumstances for everyone.

[surur]

In this post, before editing, I expressed amazement that a new member would express the above views, which I found inflammatory to myself and, in my view, most normal people, without it being an intentional troll, or being in a disturbed state of mind.

I also expressed my wish that some-one would inform the above poster of the general sentiments as expressed in previous posts of the majority of the community here.

When e-books cost a tenth of a paper book, Ill happily accept the impermanence of my purchase. Otherwise get out of my way while I make a permanent copy of the BOOK I paid full price for, before microsoft et al abandons the technology, and I dont get any activations in 2010, when the DOJ breaks them up.


Surur

[dean_shan]

Well put Surur. Well put. :clap:

[drop]

I think Gee Mont is reasonable.

Cost of ebooks is high. Then let your wallet speak for you. Don't buy the electronic formats. Don't like all the conditions and restrictions that come with ebooks? Don't buy them. Get the paper ones. Allow supply and demand drives the publishers to lower the price. There are ways to make our displease known. The more agreement breaking going on, the more restrictions there will be.

[Kati Compton]

Cost of ebooks is high. Then let your wallet speak for you. Don't buy the electronic formats. Don't like all the conditions and restrictions that come with ebooks? Don't buy them. Get the paper ones. Allow supply and demand drives the publishers to lower the price. There are ways to make our displease known. The more agreement breaking going on, the more restrictions there will be.
While initially this sounds like the way to go, I think it is misinterpreted by publishers as a lack of demand for eBooks at any price... :(

[Gee Mont]

Seriously, is this a troll? ...

Some-one needs to be hit with a clue stick :twak:



Instead of trolls and clue sticks, perhaps I—perish the thought—speak my mind. Is everyone who disagrees trolling or clueless? Is there some unwritten covenant here that stipulates acceptance of circumventing DRM technology. Perhaps I’m just an atheist in the Foxhole, so to speak. I don’t believe that Convert LIT immune from criticism. If there is a rule that says, “Please don’t tip our Sacred Cows,” please accept my apologies. I know this a subject with strong convictions for some folk. I just wanted to point out that not every one holds to those convictions. Well, if that makes you think I’ve been hitting the bottle, so be it.

If you don’t like the terms of sale for DRM ebooks, why do you buy them?

Movies are as impermanent as they come, but many people will punk down $8.00 or $10.00 for two hours. Few ebooks cost more then $10.00; I think I’ve only bought one that was more then $12.00. A cheap seat for the symphony is about twice that. If you refuse to buy a movie, theater, opera, or whatever ticket on the grounds that you can’t make a recording of the performance while you are there, you are entitled to that belief, just don’t show up with a camcorder and not expect to be tossed out.

[surur]

As Kati said, if we dont buy because the price is too high for the rights we get, the market will never develop, and everybody will say "ebooks are dead" (ar-nt they saying that already?) So what I rather do is buy the book, support the innovative startup that took the chance on a new market, and treat the book as if its a physical book. As long as I dont upload to kazaa, I dont see the problem in cracking the DRM.

Many new markets need us early adopters to support them, but it doesn't mean we have to be stupid about it. Many new markets never pan out and collapse, and we dont have to be the ones who suffer because of this. As long as we dont actively sabotage the stores (e.g upload to kazaa) I dont see the problem.

To give you another example why its stupid to stick to unreasonable rules which hurt no one, in the UK its illegal to rip your CD's to MP3's (there is no such thing as Fair Rights Provision here), yet I have always done it, most people who know how do it, we do it for our own enjoyment, and we dont feel like criminals. Yet what we are doing is illegal...

Just understand, sometimes the rules (and even the laws) are wrong, and as long is you are not hurting anyone (and no, lost profit by not buying a copy of the book to give to your wife to read on her clie does not count) then I dont see any problem in breaking the rules.

Surur

[drop]

While initially this sounds like the way to go, I think it is misinterpreted by publishers as a lack of demand for eBooks at any price... :(

I agree. Many hands are involved in the future of eBooks. The Reader Developers ( some standards would be good ), publishers, marketers, users, etc. We each have to do his/her part. However, converting / copying is also not the way to ensure a bright future for eBooks.

[surur]

Movies are as impermanent as they come, but many people will punk down $8.00 or $10.00 for two hours. Few ebooks cost more then $10.00; I think I’ve only bought one that was more then $12.00. A cheap seat for the symphony is about twice that. If you refuse to buy a movie, theater, opera, or whatever ticket on the grounds that you can’t make a recording of the performance while you are there, you are entitled to that belief, just don’t show up with a camcorder and not expect to be tossed out.

You obviously dont understand that movies and books are not the same thing.. And that you pay more for the DVD (your permanent copy) than the projected movie (which is obviously less permanent). And that you get a lot more for your money when you watch the movie on the big screen (a night out, better sound system, bigger screen) which is why it costs as much as it costs.

Value for money obviously have no meaning to you. So should we be confiscating your full price car after one year, just because houses cost 10 times more, and you are prepared to pay for that. Stupid analogy, but your make about as much sense. :frusty:

Surur

[Gee Mont]

Just understand, sometimes the rules (and even the laws) are wrong, and as long is you are not hurting anyone (and no, lost profit by not buying a copy of the book to give to your wife to read on her clie does not count) then I dont see any problem in breaking the rules.

Surur

There are many stupid laws in any country. If you break them in private, then there is a good chance no one will bother you about the illegal deed. However, if you flaunt what you do, help others do the same, and taunt the people who want the stupid law, then maybe you should reconsider your approach when you see the hammer coming down. If you were to write your own version of Convert LIT and only use it for you own stuff, tell no one, the repercussions would probably be negligent.

If you want to support the ebook industry, use the purchases the way the terms of sale dictate. Support the multiformt editions available from places like Fictionwise more than the secure formats.

If you let it be known that DRM is being circumvented, then Corporate Executives will say “Add more security!” or “Ebook security costs us too much, remove the items from the marketplace.” That’s how they think.

If Corporate Executives see multiformt ebooks selling without encryption, and no apparent illegal uploads as file shares, then they’ll think of this Great Idea all by themselves: cut the security budget and staff, increase the bottom line, and give themselves a bonus with the funds they saved. That’s how they think. Wouldn’t it really work that way? Maybe not, but at least it is an attempt to use Corporate Executive psychology to achieve a desirable end. Taunts and flaunts will get you nowhere.

I’m not so sure I’d agree that ebooks cost too much. I wouldn’t buy them by the handfuls, like I do with old $1.00 to $3.00 used paperbacks, at the current costs, but many are around the same price as a new mass market paperback. I don’t buy new paperbacks by handful either.

[surur]

I’m not so sure I’d agree that ebooks cost too much. I wouldn’t buy them by the handfuls, like I do with old $1.00 to $3.00 used paperbacks, at the current costs, but many are around the same price as a new mass market paperback. I don’t buy new paperbacks by handful either.

I dont think anyone said ebooks cost too much. They just cost too much for what you get (i.e. piles of restrictions) When I buy an e-book at full price, I expect to get as much value as I would get from a full price paper-book.

I would gladly pay less for a restricted version, e.g one that times out after one month, as long as less is much less, like 5-10 times less. I would feel that akin to hiring a movie, which costs 5-10 times less than buying the same movie on DVD. I would also feel it would be wrong to make a copy of such a book, the same way its wrong to copy a hired movie. However when I buy something outright, it should be mine to do with what I want.

And just remember, if DRM ebooks take of in the current format, you will NEVER be able to buy those same books second hand, as the books will be tied to a device (Microsoft) or person (PDM). Something to think about.

Otherwise, I'm not surprised when the corps attack people who endanger their business model. I just dont applaud when it happens. Especially when the software in question helps to ensure what I feel to be my natural rights

Surur

[Gee Mont]

Gee mont, how old are you again?

I keep getting the feeling you are a child, as value for money obviously have no meaning to you. So should we be confiscating your full price car after one year, just because houses cost 10 times more, and you are prepared to pay for that. Stupid analogy, but your make about as much sense. :frusty:

Surur

Old enough to wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled. That, and worry about why the mermaids won’t sing to me. :razzing:

As for not having no value for money, I already stated that I don’t agree that ebooks cost too much, too much to buy handfuls, yes, but otherwise not too much; so maybe, to cut my statements short, I just make more of it than you do, and overly fret about the permanence of a $7.99 ebook.

[Kati Compton]

I’m not so sure I’d agree that ebooks cost too much. I wouldn’t buy them by the handfuls, like I do with old $1.00 to $3.00 used paperbacks, at the current costs, but many are around the same price as a new mass market paperback. I don’t buy new paperbacks by handful either.
If eBooks had the same rights as paper books, I could almost see paying the same amount (though it still is hard to believe it costs as much to produce a text file as a physical item).

But the complaints here are usually that not only do eBooks cost the same (or sometimes MORE) than the paper copy, they're "less good" because you can't read them how you want, you can't sell them, you can't loan them... Basically, you're paying more to be able to do less than you could with paperbacks.

[surur]

Old enough to wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled. That, and worry about why the mermaids won’t sing to me. :razzing:


???? :?:


As for not having no value for money, I already stated that I don’t agree that ebooks cost too much, too much to buy handfuls, yes, but otherwise not too much; so maybe, to cut my statements short, I just make more of it than you do, and overly fret about the permanence of a $7.99 ebook.

Ah that explains it. You must be rich . The alternative (that you are a sufferer of Stockholm synfrome, and have internalized the values of your DRM captors) is just too scary to think about.

Surur

[Kati Compton]

PS - Now with my moderator hat on...

I don't want to see any more insults.

Surur - I *strongly* suggest you go back and edit your posts to be less antagonistic. If you don't, I will remove them.

[surur]

Will do Kati. I was hoping I was winning him over though :)

Surur

[Jolard]

Personally I feel e-books should be significantly cheaper, ESPECIALLY if they are going to be more limited than a paperback.

When I buy an e-book, a number of things are happening. First, I am saving publishing costs. While there is cost involved in authoring and editing an e-book for distribution, this is pretty much a one time cost, and then the book can be duplicated for little to no cost each time it is purchased. For a paperback there is cost involved for every printing.

Second distribution. While server space and maintenance does cost money, the cost is significantly lower than the current distribution methods for paperbacks. Even the publishers admit that, they see a rosy future if they can get DRM nailed down, where their profits will be higher than ever because of cost savings for distribution.

Third, licensing. I am only able to read the book myself with DRM in its current form. If I want to share the book with a friend, I would nearly always have to also share my reading platform. I cannot buy e-books on the secondary second hand market. I cannot get e-books at the library. These are all limitations which reduce the value of an e-book over a paperback.

So if cost are minimal for publishers, and distribution is cheaper, and I have less rights to the final product, then absolutely, it should be cheaper. I have bought e-books many times, but mostly because I hope to help show that there is demand for them. However I am generally not a happy customer when I could have bought the book for the same or cheaper than a paperback, knowing that the publisher is making more on the deal.

So if all this is the case, then why aren't they cheaper? 2 reasons, piracy and greed. Because e-books are so easy to copy (even with DRM, which is broken constantly) the publishers need to make more on each sale in order to cover the lost revenues. Greed because the publishers see this as a way to increase profits, by charging the same even though their costs are less.

When I buy a book I am NOT renting it. I am a collector. I collected books before digital copies were available, and I collect books in their digital form. I want to be able to share books I love with family members. When my daughters get old enough, there are books I want them to read. In a paper world I just give them the paperback. In the world the publishers are trying to build, they would have to buy the book all over again. That is not acceptable.

If publishers want a system where we rent books instead of buying them, then they should be $1 to $2 for a rental. That is reasonable. I am not going to rent a book for $16 though. For that price I need to own the book, and be able to do with it all the things I can currently do with a paper book. Otherwise the value is way out of reasonable proportion.

Just my thoughts on the matter :)

[surur]

Hear,hear.

As some-one expressed before, the actual cost of a book has less to do with the costs of production (else why would they pulp books that dont sell, as apposed to giving them away) than the cost the market will bear. The problem is that e-books have the potential of disrupting the established business model of the publishing houses, in that it allows direct author to buyer publishing model at little expense. No wonder they are not encouraging the medium with lower prices (which they could easily afford).

In internet ebook publishing, what is missing is actually what a store front provides, promotion. Only if the internet can allow a good book to bubble up from the dross in the world, and become part of the awareness of a global audience, can it fully supplant the publishing houses.

I think the best way to do this is some kind of moderation system (ala Slashdot) where the best books rise to the top. I was in fact quite disappointed at the crudity of the fiction-wise system, as it did not allow sorting by score etc, but it may be a good start.

The second thing which need to change is more ubiquitous reader clients. I think this will be sorted by the rise of smartphones, and I hope some-one takes a chance soon on a ebook reader for symbian for example. People talk about the evils of small screen reading, but the main reason for the existence of smartphones is actually text, in the form of WAP, SMS and the internet. It might be alot more popular than people think it will be. (as an example, look at ring tones. They dont exactly preserve the hifi quality of a song, but people are often willing to pay many pounds for having the very degraded version of the tunes on their phone.)

Anyway, things may change much for the better soon, as I cant see things standing still for the next 5 years.

[dirtminer]

I don't believe the boycott by the knowledgeable approach will work as long as there are people who can tolerate the problems and trudge through it (early adopters anonymous). These people are buying enough ebooks in .LIT format so that publishers use it.

There is very little financial incentive for them to go DRM-less... the cost -- it's passed to the consumer. And the nightmare stories of how widespread piracy is will just keep them spending money on snake oil.

I relate this to copy protection on early computers... and like copy protection, DRM will probably always be with us.

Fortunately, most software now is not copyprotected. And it's not because of boycotts.. it's because copy protection became a torture for the honest folk.

The availability of convert lit has started down that path. However, Unlike tools like "locksmith" in the 80s, this time, the government is stepping in. Despite that, each revision of convert lit makes microsoft squirm. It makes everyone go through activation hoops. How long before Microsoft's code doesn't work on enough legit systems before everyone is irritated? At the same time, a lightbulb might go off in publisher's heads "you know.. our books WERE effectively unprotected, and they didn't end up widely pirated".

Finally, I'd have to sort of agree with the Original Poster -- IF I was buying a service and using a tool to enhance that, it's ethically questionable at best. Don't boost your cable modem speeds. However, the sites all tell me I'm buying a book, and I'm paying near or above paperback prices. I give someone money and get a file, I find it troubling that someones think they still should have control over that file. Sure, if I am selling copies of it -- come after me, and you know how much in damages to press for based on the money that I got. But if I'm converting it to a unsupported device (*cough* Gemstar *cough*), what business is it of Microsoft's or the US governments?

[dh]

Although I'm sure the original post was a troll, there are a lot of interesting questions raised.

I personally believe that I can do what I like with a file that I purchase, assuming it stays in one of my own computers. I also find it hard to believe that there is a huge amount of eBook piracy, they are not that popular in the first place.

The strange thing is, I have bought a lot of .lit books, just because of ConvertLit. I use Mobipocket Reader for reading my books but I prefer them to be DMS free. I therefore buy the .lit version and use ConvertLit to make an unprotected MP book. If ConvertLit is not available in future, I will just buy the books in MP format.

If I cannot convert the book to a format of my choice, I would not dream of buying a .lit book. I don't read books on my Laptop or desktop, only my PPC. How do I know that I will be using an MS device a year from now? No-one can say for sure that they will, so why buy a book that may be unreadable when you upgrade.

Unless MS starts to make their system easier to use, and make versions for POS and Linux devices as well, I would suggest that it is nuts to buy a book in .lit format, unless the means exists to change the file to text or HTML.

eBooks cost as much as print books, they should be as portable too.

PPC and Palm devices are so great for reading it's a shame that they are not promoted as such. Until I came to this site, I never even thought I could use my PPC for reading. Now my wife is cross with me just because I am reading until late every night. (Must keep up with what Robb, Jon, Jaime and all those guys are doing - shame about Jaime's hand!).

eBooks are suffering from crap marketing by all the companies in the handheld business. I just hope they get their collective act together.

[bibap]

I solved the issue, for me, by finishing all my Microsoft ebooks, and removing the latest version of Reader from my machine (and saving 2 Meg).

From now on it's Mobipocket and Palm Reader and the devil with Microsofts user-unfriendly DRM schems.

[Gee Mont]

Ah that explains it. You must be rich . The alternative (that you are a sufferer of Stockholm synfrome, and have internalized the values of your DRM captors) is just too scary to think about. –SURUR

I’m not rich until I have a manservant to carry 20 to 50 books with me where ever I go! Nor, despite common belief, have I “internalized” the of DRM captors. I’m just pragmatic about it.

Movies and books are not the same thing. –SURUR

True, but ebooks and books are not the same thing either, not really.


Personally I feel e-books should be significantly cheaper, ESPECIALLY if they are going to be more limited than a paperback.--JOLARD

But the complaints here are usually that not only do eBooks cost the same (or sometimes MORE) than the paper copy, they're "less good" because you can't read them how you want, you can't sell them, you can't loan them... Basically, you're paying more to be able to do less than you could with paperbacks”—KATI COMPTON

I don’t necessarily see an ebook as something more limited than a paperback. You get different advantages and disadvantages with ebooks. You’re not paying for less, you’re paying for different things. With ebooks, I can carry 20 to 50 or more without a manservant. The only limitations are battery life and/or the availability or rechargers. I consider this quite and advantage. Standing in line at the DMV, waiting for a table when you’re going out to eat, etc, or—the big granddaddy advantage—waiting while my wife shops! (Unless you’re had to wait while a wife/girlfriend does her shopping, you may not fully realize how happy this can make you and her. No hubby telling her to hurry up. Okay, to be fair this works for women too waiting for her guy to finish his guy stuff.) Yeah, you can do this with a paperback, but the ebook on the PDA makes this much easier and provides instant choices for what ever suits my fancy at the moment. So unless you have a manservant, ebooks win in this advantage. Another advantage is immediate availability. You don’t have to drive to the book store or wait for Amazon to ship it to you. Ebooks, also, don’t take up bookshelf space and you don’t have to box them up and pay an company to move then when you buy a new home. If the movers drive the truck into a lake, the publishers will not replace them; the insurance company will pay me off and then I can rebuy them.

I don’t see ebooks as “less good.” I see that as not the same thing as paper books. So you can’t loan it or sell. If you want to have those choices, buy paper.

There are many books that I want to keep for a long time. This I usually buy in Hardcover for my collection; quality paperbacks make up a secondary collection; mass markets take up space. Many books that I might have bought in mass market before, I now buy as an ebook.

As for whether you are paying too much for the rights you are getting, I think that is a matter of personal opinion, and can't answer for you. I think, for the most part, I’m getting enough value for what I pay for. If you want to have all the advantages of the ebook and all the advantages the paper book, shouldn’t that make it cost more?

If publishers want a system where we rent books instead of buying them, then they should be $1 to $2 for a rental. That is reasonable. I am not going to rent a book for $16 though.—JOLARD

What is reasonable is what the market can support. Would I pay $16.00 to rent a book or ebook? Probably not. However, renting an unabridged Book On Tape is going to cost you. The 30 day rental for The Da Vinci Code is $18.95. Is that reasonable? Sure, if I was in the market to pay for a recorded book rental. Would that rental contract let me record my own copy as “fair use.” After all, maybe I’d want to listen to it again after my thirty days were done and the product returned.


Okay, that’s enough for now. I’m going out of town for the long weekend, so I better be off to buy a new ebook for the road trip. Have a good Holiday everyone.

[charleski]

When an ebook is purchased, perhaps it is a wrong paradigm to believe it is something to be kept perpetually.This is not the paradigm in force for ordinary book purchases, why should ebooks be different? You are merely reinforcing the attitude that ebooks are inferior to physical ones. People aren't going to buy an inferior product.

We are already seeing the effects of the unstable nature of commerce. Those who bought Rocket ebooks will no longer be able to read them after mid-2006. Too bad for those who thought that the point of buying a book (as opposed to getting one from a library) was that it would sit on your bookshelf and be instantly available as long as you wanted it.

If you were to rent a room for a weekend from a B&B, the innkeepers will give you a key, which you can use to enter and exit the room as much as you want for the duration of your stay. Do you think innkeepers would want you making an extra copy of the key so you could came back later? And if you buy a house, will you be happy to find that the previous owner comes around a couple of years later and changes the lock? Buying is buying, renting is renting.

Yes, maybe the ebook market as a whole would be better suited to moving to a library model. Many of the formats have time-limited distribution model, and there are several library systems available. But publishers are going to have to accept that people aren't going to pay the same to rent a book as to buy it. The majority of ebooks sell for as much or more than their physical counterparts, that's not a rental price.

When someone purchases a DRM LIT e-book, there are terms of use that apply, namely that you can only use it for devices with Activation for that specified purchaser. If you don’t agree to the terms of sale, don’t buy it. Hey, just what the market needs, someone encouraging people not to buy ebooks! The ebook market is bad enough as it is.

Of course the publishing community is worried by the Napster phenomenon. But if they don't want to fall into the same trap they need to avoid making the same mistakes. The RIAA was slow on authorising legal music downloads and ended up with a culture in which music is seen as a free commodity. Publishers already have the Harry Potter phenomenon as a salutary lesson in the danger of following the same path. Whatever DRM system ends up being dominant, no-one can stop a person with a scanner and an OCR program.

[Talyn]

Our new user certainly used some bad examples in his attempt at analogy. A movie? A symphony? A room at a B&B? These are all one-time experiences, and the customer knows this going in. No one expects to pay for one ticket of a movie which grants them unlimited access to repeatedly see that movie again. However, when we buy the DVD, now we do fully expect to be able to watch that movie any time we please.

Just because eBooks are an electronic medium does not mean we should expect limited usage of the product, no more than we expect our pBooks to disintegrate into dust after N readings. One has to look back no further than the Divx debacle a few years ago to see how the public feels about the idea of limited usage of a purchased product.

I have never used Convert LIT, primarily because once I discovered eBooks, it took no more than a few days to discern that MS Reader is an inferior product, and their DRM is the root of all evil (WalMart runs a close second, but that's another story! :lol: ) But I do feel that Convert LIT is a good idea, for exactly the reasons everyone uses it: it allows them to use the product they paid for hassle-free. It also is a demonstration to MS that their DRM is fairly simple to bypass. They can continue the cat-and-mouse game, which I'm certain they will for a time, or they can eventually redesign their DRM system, at which point Convert LIT will become irrelevant. Given the small, niche market that eBooks currently occupy, I highly doubt that there is a booming pirate market that MS, etc. need to have any immediate fear of.

The main problems are: marketing, devices, and the consumer awareness and willingness to try eBooks. Only the tech-savvy, future-thinking, or just plain geeks among us have embraced the technology thus far, for the most part. The vast majority of consumers probably don't even know eBooks exist. If they did, look how many people still have trouble with even the basics of computers. No instruction manuals are needed for pBooks.

[PetiteFlower]

I do not buy books that I do not wish to be able to keep forever and read over and over. If I just want to read something once, I go to the library and get it for free. So, I'm not going to buy ebooks from microsoft. I'll get them for Palm Reader. If I ever see another free ebook that I want, then I'll convert it. It's free, no one is losing money, as far as I'm concerned I'm not doing anything wrong. And if you disagree, I don't care. Why are we still arguing about this?

[ctmagnus]

Why are we still arguing about this?

Because you brought it up? :confused totally:

:wink:

[surur]

Why are we still arguing about this?

Because you brought it up? :confused totally:

:wink:

ctmagnus: love your avatar... from there's something about mary?

and the reason and cause for this whole thread, was some-one seemingly intelligent enough to use a pocketpc and write paragraphs of text, holding a view so diametrically apposed the community here and general, what I would call, natural freedom.

It blows the mind... :frusty:

Surur

[PetiteFlower]

Oh yeah, *I* brought it up, sure.

[ctmagnus]

ctmagnus: love your avatar... from there's something about mary?

Yep. :rock on dude!:

[Kati Compton]

Let's get away from Mary and back to eBooks, pricing, limitations, etc.

[Gee Mont]

I personally believe that I can do what I like with a file that I purchase, assuming it stays in one of my own computers. –DH

If I ever see another free ebook that I want, then I'll convert it. It's free, no one is losing money, as far as I'm concerned I'm not doing anything wrong. And if you disagree, I don't care. Why are we still arguing about this?—PetiteFlower

But I do feel that Convert LIT is a good idea, for exactly the reasons everyone uses it: it allows them to use the product they paid for hassle-free.--Talyn



What you think, personally, about what you can do with a file doesn’t change that fact that what you are doing is considered a violation of copyright. You purchased an ebook, disregarded the Terms of Sale, and modified the content. In essence, whether you paid for the ebook or downloaded it for free, you broke a contract. Some people would believe that is doing wrong. This isn’t some big issue for Civil Disobedience, you aren’t making a moral statement, you’re just cheating, plain and simple, because it is something you want to do. Wouldn’t it be nice for people to personally decide what laws and regulations apply to themselves?

When the encryption for secure items is so publicly broken and flaunted, the likely result will be more reactivation and security upgrades for those who are willing use the product as stipulated under the Terms of Sale. Okay, so you don’t like MS Reader or it’s DRM, that’s fine, don’t use it. Stick with Palm or Mobipocket. If there are titles you want that are only available in LIT, tough luck; if the free ebooks are LIT, tough luck. I do like my MS Reader, it works for me, sue me; while the DRM may not be the best it could be, I’m willing to put up with it to read certain titles. Why should I sit back quietly and let you pee in my pot? I don’t want to jump through the reactivations hoops again and again just because you have personal beliefs about what you can do with a file

If you absolutely must buy LIT files and convert them according to your own personal beliefs, do so in the privacy of your own abode, and write you own conversion program and keep it to yourself.

I also find it hard to believe that there is a huge amount of eBook piracy, they are not that popular in the first place.—DH

If ebooks were as popular as pop music, then they’d be pirated just as much. As the market for ebooks grows, the demand for pirated copies will likely increase. If the news media has its facts straight, it seems like music piracy is epidemic. Whether this is true or not, in the end, is relatively unimportant, it’s the perception that just about every kid or grandma with a computer is sharing music, which the music industry calls theft. Anti-piracy software (albeit not very good software) has already started shipping on CDs. This, I think, is only the beginning.

If publishers perceive that there is a potential for piracy for ebooks, then they’ll most likely want stronger, more cumbersome encryption. That’s more hassle for everyone. Even if not one ebook is pirated, there will still be encryption has long as the publisher’s perceive there is a risk to their intellectual product.


How do I know that I will be using an MS device a year from now? No-one can say for sure that they will, so why buy a book that may be unreadable when you upgrade. –DH


Do you know how much old equipment or software is no longer supported after a few years? This isn’t limited to Microsoft. Software and computer manufacturers come and go all the time.

Any computer or software is at risk of obsolescence relatively quickly. Should I fret and worry about buying software because I may switch to Mac or Linux next year? This year I need a firewall, e.g., on my home PC, I use XPP, so I needed to buy XPP a compatible firewall. In a year, maybe I’ll buy a Mac and need to reacquire all my pervious software that is not Mac compatible. This year I want to read ebooks on MS Reader PPC, so I buy LIT. Next year, if I switch to Palm, I’ll need to reacquire the ebooks I want for Palm. Why should the rules be different for ebooks than it is for software? You know what software can be used for when you buy it, so should you know what devices ebooks can be used.



You are merely reinforcing the attitude that ebooks are inferior to physical ones. People aren't going to buy an inferior product.—charleski

Just because eBooks are an electronic medium does not mean we should expect limited usage of the product, no more than we expect our pBooks to disintegrate into dust after N readings.



I’m not saying that ebooks are inferior to physical ones, I’m saying that are different, and that you can do different thinks with them. It is the idea that ebooks should be able to do everything a physical book can do that reinforces the attitude ebooks are inferior. For example, back in the early ‘80’s I purchased limited edition copy of Stephen King’s Gunslinger for $20.00--because there are only 10000 copies of that edition in the world, the value has gone up. I could easily sell it for a few hundred dollars on ebay. That’s because it is a physical object and can’t be duplicated. It doesn’t mean an ebook is inferior, it is just something by its nature it can’t do. As I said earlier, I think ebooks are more like software then physical objects, and need to treated as such.

People should buy products that suit their needs.

Here is a simple, by no means complete, charting the difference between books and ebooks. There are two columns for ebooks, Secure and Open.

BK SC OP
Annotate No Yes Yes
Loan Yes No Yes
Copies No No Yes
Portable No Yes Yes
Print Out No No Yes
Sell Yes No Yes
Collect Yes No No

There is rough parity between the advantages and disadvantages between a book and secure ebook, but the open source ebook has all but one advantage, it’s not collectable to increase its value or rarity. I’ve said this before, but if an open ebook could do more then a book, wouldn’t it make sense for it to cost more?


However I am generally not a happy customer when I could have bought the book for the same or cheaper than a paperback, knowing that the publisher is making more on the deal.—Jolard

eBooks cost the same (or sometimes MORE) than the paper copy.-- Kati Compton


I decided to put the idea that ebooks cost more then books to a test. I’ve listed every ebook I’ve bought that has an equivalent ebook available. I didn’t count titles published by e-publishers. For this test I bought all my real books from Amazon at the cheapest available edition with sale price. Ebook where tested at Amazon too, but titles marked (!) had to come from Fictionwise because Amazon didn’t sell it. My results was $29.28 in savings. Not one title was more expensive in ebook format.


TITLE BK EBK DELTA
AMR GDS $7.99 $7.99 $0.00
BLSSNG WY! 6.99 $6.50 $0.49
DRWN'S RD $7.50 $6.99 $0.51
EVRTHNGS EVNTL$7.99 $6.99 $1.00
FTSTPS HAWK $9.60 $6.99 $2.61
GOLDEN COMPSS! $6.99 $3.99 $3.00
GUNSLINGER $7.99 $7.99 $0.00
HUNGER $6.99 $5.99 $1.00
ORYX & CRAKE $18.20 $10.80 $7.40
PLAYER PIANO $11.16 $8.99 $2.17
SONG OF KALI! $10.47 $4.89 $5.58
WTHN BDDNG GRV$10.47 $4.95 $5.52

$112.34 $83.06 $29.28

Different people might have different results with the title they buy. I used about ten of the free MS give aways as different test and had the same results: Ebooks cost the same or were cheaper. I do know of one case where the ebook cost more, I didn’t buy it, but I was looking for it: Demons by John Shirley was $10.47 at Amazon for the book and $14.00 for the ebook. ($13.60 at Fictionwise).

Like I said, different people may have different results, some ebooks will be more expensive, but I’ve seen more cases where it isn’t true. I wonder if there is a myth of higher costs?

[dh]

Come on Monty, you can't equate music files with book files. You really believe that a punk with many GB of music files on his HD is going to do the same with books, then sit and read them? I think not!

It's sad that the DMCA has infringed on a lot of the "Fair Use" provisions of the old copywrite laws. Although a lot of people here might well change formats of eBooks from time to time, I don't believe anyone is interested in piracy - the thing the publishers want to prevent.

The eBooks I have fall into four catergories.

1. Books that I buy. At the moment I purchase them in .lit format and convert them to Mobipocket. If there is no ConvertLit in future, I'll just buy Mobipocket books, no big deal.

2. Free MS books. So what if I change the format of these? I'm grateful to MS for this promotion but they have made it so hard for regular people to read the books I bet as many were turned off as turned on to eBooks as a result.

3. Books I've downloaded or acquired. (don't tell anyone). Without exception these are books I own in print for which there is not a published eBook. Under Fair Use I could scan my own book and make an eBook, but I choose to acquire instead - same thing as far as I'm concerned.

4. Public domain books. I think anyone would agree that I can do as I choose with these.

Now, Monty, you might think my approach is wrong. However, I buy at least one new eBook a week and have done so for the last few months. It's me and hundreds of people like me who are driving eBook sales. It's me (and the others like me) that the eBook industry needs. People that are prepared to find a way to read eBooks and find a way around the curve balls that MS throws at us.

Someone said earlier that people don't want to rob authors because reading builds a relationship with them. That is 100% right. All I want to do is pay for the books I read, but know that I can read them in the future, regardless of the device I own at the time.

[Gee Mont]

You really believe that a punk with many GB of music files on his HD is going to do the same with books, then sit and read them? I think not!

Do you think people who read are fundamentally more honest than people who listen to music? Do you believe that there is no risk of priacy? Just because music is high volume and ebooks low volume doesn’t make a difference. I’ve download all the free MS Books, more then I’d probably ever read--what the hell, they were free. Some one with the mind to share illegal books wouldn’t stop with the small bother of not wanting to read them all.

At the moment I purchase them in .lit format and convert them to Mobipocket. If there is no ConvertLit in future, I'll just buy Mobipocket books, no big deal.

Why do you even bother with LIT if you read Mobipocket? Just buy the format you want to read in. Every one wins if you do that. You know MS will provide a patch to block ConvertLIT 1.5, so I’ll have to hokey-pokey with another reactivation. If 1.6 of Convert LIT ever hit the streets I’d have to go through it yet again.

They have made it so hard for regular people to read the books I bet as many were turned off as turned on to eBooks as a result.

Speaking from my own experiences, the only things made hard for me has been a result of Convert LIT and the security patches.

Under Fair Use I could scan my own book and make an eBook, but I choose to acquire instead - same thing as far as I'm concerned.

I’m not an attorney, but I don’t think that rational would fly too well.

Public domain books. I think anyone would agree that I can do as I choose with these.

You’re right if the books are offered as part of the public domain. There are free sites that offer public domain titles without a hitch. However, if someone could sell a secure Works of Shakespeare all the power to them. An end user who made the purchase would have to follow the Terms of Sale.

It's me and hundreds of people like me who are driving eBook sales. It's me (and the others like me) that the eBook industry needs. People that are prepared to find a way to read eBooks and find a way around the curve balls that MS throws at us.

I’m one of the buyers too, but MS isn’t the one throwing curve balls here. Other MS software rises my ire, but that is a different subject.

All I want to do is pay for the books I read, but know that I can read them in the future, regardless of the device I own at the time.

Sure, I’d like to keep my ebooks for possible future use too, but I’m sill going to play by the rules--I know when I buy a LIT book that it will be used for a LIT device. If MS goes under and all the reactivated MS Reader devices give up the ghost, then I suppose I’m SOL. If the demise of the company voided all Terms of Sale, EUA, or whatnot, then there may be legal justification for hacking into the product. Anything else is sticking an Ace up your sleeve for cards. That’s okay if you’re playing solitaire, but there are others in this game.

[PetiteFlower]

You're wrong that people HAVE to obey the "contract" they agree to when they buy/download a book. We don't. If we break the contract, and we get caught, then we have to deal with the consequences. But basically, there is no risk of getting caught if you convert a book and don't distribute it. And even if you did, there would be no consequences, because the publisher still got its money, so they could not sue you since they haven't suffered any kind of loss. Trust me, no one is going to court(civil OR criminal) over this....no one is going to waste their time on it! That's not to say that the ONLY reason to obey the law is for fear of getting caught, but I'll get back to unjust laws later. But if you're converting books that you paid for or otherwise acquired legally, then you're not stealing, plain and simple.

MS is trying to thrust this unenforcable "contract" onto us, for no good reason, which IMO infringes on our rights to fair use. Scanning in a book that you own and making it into an ebook for your own personal use is ABSOLUTELY legal, you are always allowed to make copies for personal use. So you dl it instead of scanning it in--you're still entitled to the copy, and were anyone to question, they would not be able to prove that you did NOT scan it in yourself. The end result of dl versus scan are indistinguishable. But anyway, this "user agreement" is the biggest joke in history, there's nothing behind it at all.

And it IS a moral/civil disobedience issue, I believe the DMCA is unconstitutional and goes way beyond the scope of copyright laws, and I think it SHOULD be challenged, and I will continue to challenge it at every chance I get. And not everyone who doesn't obey the DMCA is a software/music/ebook pirate, some of us are just supporters of REASONABLE copyright laws. I continue to believe in the concept of "fair use" and I do not think it should be any different for digital media then it is for printed media, and hopefully someday soon this horrible law will be struck down and we will be able to do what we like with our music and movies and ebooks again.

[dirtminer]

Ahoy, hoy, Mr Mont.

Now, I appreciate your stance, albeit unpopular. Despite paying for the laws, they are the laws. And whether or not we choose to obey them, they do exist. It is up to each person's morals and fears whether or not they violate the law.

BUT ....

I fear that you are trusting too much in what you are being told and not what the law has been shown to be.

We have three blocks of law to consider
A. Copyright Law
B. Contract Law
C. DMCA

These are pretty much totally seperate.

So.. when you say "What you think, personally, about what you can do with a file doesn’t change that fact that what you are doing is considered a violation of copyright. You purchased an ebook, disregarded the Terms of Sale, and modified the content. In essence, whether you paid for the ebook or downloaded it for free, you broke a contract. "

you are confusing the issue between two laws.

First, is there a contract involved. In the case of buying ebooks, I dont' even believe there is a shrink-wrap style agreement. I don't recall clicking through something to download the free books. Further, even the terminology and beliefs make it unlikely this is a contract --- *BUYING* a book! Shrink-wrap licenses have had a mixed history in court, and it is questionable whether some provisions would hold up. Further, contract law has a lot of odd points (including whether both parties entered into it willingly, both people have to be of age... so if a 17 yr old bought ebooks, he would not be held to the contract. if I bought them while intoxicated, it might be possible to void the contract).

In general, for end-user purchases of digital media the contract issue is untested. In specific, LIT books dont' appear to have a contract attached.

Next, we come to copyright. In a nutshell, this is fairly simple. You don't republish the book. "Copying" into memory is likely not going to fly in real cases, so any use of the material on the one system you own isn't violating copyright. Use of it on multiple systems that you own may be questionable ... since ebooks SPECIFICALLY can be enabled for up to 6 devices, I don't believe they would press this issue.

So as long as you don't POST your books into a pirate haven, you aren't generally violating copyright..

This means you can EDIT it -- you can censor you ebook version of the bible so it isn't filled with sex and violence and might actually be appropriate for your child to read.. This means you can DELETE it.
Making a "backup copy" in general is considered fair use, and along with the idea that copying will likely be linked more with PUBLISHING than internal copies, even copying to DVDs is likely to be ok -- this DESPITE shrinkwrap licenses that say you are limitted to one backup copy. Of course, this is not legal advice. But there are no court cases against individuals doing any of these things for their own use. AND editting a copy for someone else as long as they bought a copy is most likely legal according to two current cases.
Finally, "format shifting" has been determined to be fair use in the RIAA versus Diamond Rio case.

To conclude -- Converting LIT files doesn't violate copyright law based on existing case law.

That leaves the new law, the DMCA -- this is an extension to copyright, BUT is seperate, and doesn't have the same provisions for fair use. For right or wrong....
This says that "no person shall circumvent".... so you, in the privacy of your own home, still can't really circumvent! But -- "Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title. "
So... format shifting is likely a fair use right (based on case law, but impossible to determine without a law suit), and this law is somewhat contradictory... you have fair use rights, but need to circumvent to use them.

Whether or not US _users_ of Convert Lit are violating the law is a job for the lawyers. I find it inconceiveable that such a case WOULD be brought -- both in terms of the money involved, and the risks that it would cause parts of the law to be shown unenforceable.

Finally, yes.. Convert Lit is the root of many of your troubles with Microsoft Reader ... but if Microsoft hadn't backed down on their promises and actually supported the early readers, maybe it wouldn't have been written. As it is, I'm grateful that such a tool exists... if I forget my passport password, I'll still be able to re-read books I purchased.

[davidspalding]

Few ebooks cost more then $10.00; I think I’ve only bought one that was more then $12.00.

Wrong. You're just not buying your eBooks at Amazon.com et al, then, are you?

If you absolutely must buy LIT files and convert them according to your own personal beliefs, do so in the privacy of your own abode, ...

Um, that's what some of us are doing.

If publishers perceive that there is a potential for piracy for ebooks, then they’ll most likely want stronger, more cumbersome encryption. That’s more hassle for everyone. Even if not one ebook is pirated, there will still be encryption has long as the publisher’s perceive there is a risk to their intellectual product.

Don't you find it oddly intriguing that, of all the secure eBook formats, only Microsoft's has a widely known "DeDRM" tool in the wild? Mobipocket, PDM/Peanut, Adobe ... no one seems to want to crack those. Hrm ... must because the DRM and pricing does not seem to deter or interfere with readers' enjoyment. I think that answers your dilemma. Publishers using Mobipocket, PDM and other formats are pricing their eBooks at a level that buyers are comfy with. Secure .LIT Reader versions always seem to be priced ~ with hard cover editions. ... Which breeds an ongoing interest in a DeDRM tool.

Speaking as someone whose working PPC will NOT support secure .LIT files, but has several secure Mobipocket titles, my response to your argument is, yes, vote with your wallet. I don't buy secure .LIT files, period. I think that publishers who have been conned into the Microsoft Plan are seeing the eBook market as a dead end, and (to read Reuters) seem to be blaming consumers. You seem to blame the author (and users) of Convert LIT. Wrong on both counts. Blame MS for having an uncompetitive Reader program, overly annoying activation schemes, and repeated "updates" which eat up PPC owners' RAM.

Microsoft hadn't backed down on their promises and actually supported the early readers, maybe it wouldn't have been written.

Pretty much why I use Convert LIT. My PPC won't run the new Reader, won't read secure .LIT books that I've bought or otherwise have a license to read. C-LIT lets me exercise that license by reading the ebook.

[spursdude]

How do I know that I will be using an MS device a year from now? No-one can say for sure that they will, so why buy a book that may be unreadable when you upgrade. –DH


Do you know how much old equipment or software is no longer supported after a few years? This isn’t limited to Microsoft. Software and computer manufacturers come and go all the time.

Any computer or software is at risk of obsolescence relatively quickly. Should I fret and worry about buying software because I may switch to Mac or Linux next year? This year I need a firewall, e.g., on my home PC, I use XPP, so I needed to buy XPP a compatible firewall. In a year, maybe I’ll buy a Mac and need to reacquire all my pervious software that is not Mac compatible. This year I want to read ebooks on MS Reader PPC, so I buy LIT. Next year, if I switch to Palm, I’ll need to reacquire the ebooks I want for Palm. Why should the rules be different for ebooks than it is for software? You know what software can be used for when you buy it, so should you know what devices ebooks can be used.

I really don't think this analogy works. When you buy software, it's so you can make your specific machine work better.

To me, buying an e-book is more like buying a DVD. It's meant for personal enjoyment over and over again. If you upgrade your DVD player, it should play just fine on the new player, and it should be legal to watch your DVD on a new DVD player. It's yours - you should be able to enjoy it as much as you want.

Sure, if a new video format comes out, DVDs won't play on it. But the problem is, it's not like we're changing e-book formats when we move from one Pocket PC to another. Hardware stays the same; "software" ebooks stay the same; ebooks should be meant for unlimited personal use; it really seems like the entire DRM / activation scheme is just idiotic.

[Gee Mont]

Whether or not US _users_ of Convert Lit are violating the law is a job for the lawyers. I find it inconceiveable that such a case WOULD be brought -- both in terms of the money involved, and the risks that it would cause parts of the law to be shown unenforceable.—dirtminor



I don’t think it is likely to see lawsuits either, not at this time. How and where it will end is anybody’s guess.



Finally, yes.. Convert Lit is the root of many of your troubles with Microsoft Reader. As it is, I'm grateful that such a tool exists... if I forget my passport password, I'll still be able to re-read books I purchased.



I guess it boils down to this: you (and others like you) are grateful for a tool that makes your life easier when you want to switch devices, when you forget your password, etc etc, and I (and others like me) are left with the Sisyphusian security updates. So be it. I’ve had my say; Gunter Grass once said, “It is the duty of every citizen to keep his mouth open.” I’ve done that, the Opposition has had its turn, now I can go on.

If Convert LIT ever finds a new home elsewhere, I’ll deal with 1.6 when the time comes. I’ve said elsewhere that people should be aware of what they buy and not buy it if they don’t like the Terms of Sale. I need to apply that philosophy to myself. When buying secure LIT files, I must be prepared for the possibility of another round of security updates, it is just part of the game. If I don’t like it, I can buy Palm. Nobody seems to bother poor Palm.



And it IS a moral/civil disobedience issue, I believe the DMCA is unconstitutional and goes way beyond the scope of copyright laws, and I think it SHOULD be challenged, and I will continue to challenge it at every chance I get.--PetiteFlower


Generally speaking, classic civil disobedience would involve violations of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. The DRM doesn’t hinder your Civil Rights, clearly, but some one might argue about violations of Civil Liberties where the power of the state is unduly restraining or dictating the actions of individuals. I’m not pretending to be a Civil Activist or attorney in the know, so I won’t press the issue, all it would take is one weird court case to set a precedence and prove otherwise. But for now allow me my smirk at the thought.


You're just not buying your eBooks at Amazon.com et al, then, are you?

Secure .LIT Reader versions always seem to be priced ~ with hard cover editions. ... Which breeds an ongoing interest in a DeDRM tool. – davidspalding


True, I tend to buy from Fiction wise most of the time, and Amazon.com occasionally. While Amazon.com may offer a wider selection of e-books over $12.00 then I initially believed, mostly premium commercial titles of new releases, many seem on par with whatever edition is being sold. The Al Franken book was $10.00 more in ebook format at Amazon, but that is probably one of the exceptions. Different people will have different results, but I’ve still never paid more by buying the ebook format in every case. If Palm is cheaper, switch to that reader, it seems that is what people want to do anyway.

[davidspalding]

You're just not buying your eBooks at Amazon.com et al, then, are you?

Secure .LIT Reader versions always seem to be priced ~ with hard cover editions. ... Which breeds an ongoing interest in a DeDRM tool. – davidspalding


True, I tend to buy from Fiction wise most of the time, and Amazon.com occasionally. While Amazon.com may offer a wider selection of e-books over $12.00 then I initially believed, mostly premium commercial titles of new releases, many seem on par with whatever edition is being sold. The Al Franken book was $10.00 more in ebook format at Amazon, but that is probably one of the exceptions. Different people will have different results, but I’ve still never paid more by buying the ebook format in every case. If Palm is cheaper, switch to that reader, it seems that is what people want to do anyway.My experience was searching Amazon, BN.com, SimonSays.com, and I think Powells.com too, looking for eBooks of titles that I had heard about and wanted to read immediately.

Without exception, every eBook was within $1 of the current lowest priced paper edition, and several were priced with the hardcover editions, even though there were softcover editions available -- free shipping, no tax, too -- at the same time. So your experience with the Al Franken book was no aberration. ... I'm not making this up, I found four eBooks in a row > $20, on par with the hardcover, even though softcover editions were available for less. Not just Amazon, too, but several "book" sites. I honestly think that they don't care. THEY are to blame for the slow growth of eBooks, not the silly consumers who are expected, lemming-like, to pony up $20 or more for a eBook when $8.00 - $12.00 brings you a longer-lasting softcover edition. :evil: (And this is why I continually argue for lower eBook edition prices. They're not the same as a paperback which I can share with my wife, discuss over dinner, let a friend borrow, then give to the library.)

I finally gave the #*(@ up on the big "book" sites ... and, like you, latched on to Fictionwise.com at Crystal's suggestion. Have been nibbling there ever since.

[PetiteFlower]

So, if the "do not circumvent" clause of the DMCA DOES still have provisions for fair use, then someone using C-Lit to convert a book they own is totally legal.

However, the person who WROTE the program may be, and so may the people who are helping to distribute the program. This is kind of odd to me. That's like making it illegal to sell a bong, even though it's totally possible to use it legally(for tobacco), just because it's more commonly used for illegal drugs. And I'm not even sure if C-Lit is used more commonly for stealing or not--seems to me that most of the people I've heard from on the subject are using it legally, but I think the sample we get on this board is probably biased in that respect. But at this point it seems to be illegal just because it's POSSIBLE for it to be used illegally. So yeah, I think that's a little weird. I mean, guns are legal, they're a hell of a lot more dangerous when used illegally then this program!

[davidspalding]

So, if the "do not circumvent" clause of the DMCA DOES still have provisions for fair use, then someone using C-Lit to convert a book they own is totally legal.

My understanding is that the DMCA has no provisions for fair use, academic research, et al, which is why there are so many recurring nightmares in which companies are taking citizens, programmers and academics to court over "violations" of copy protection.

For a recent, blatant example of common misuse of the law, see http://www.freedom-to-tinker.com/ for some commentary on SunnComm versus academic Alex Halderman. Just discovering how to defeat SunnComm's copy protection (hold the SHIFT key down, or disable Windows' AutoPlay feature), and publishing a discussion of this, earned Halderman chest-beating threats from SunnComm prez Peter Jacobs,... including an ill-advised, and later retracted, threat of DMCA suit.

[PetiteFlower]

Read what was posted earlier"

That leaves the new law, the DMCA -- this is an extension to copyright, BUT is seperate, and doesn't have the same provisions for fair use. For right or wrong....
This says that "no person shall circumvent".... so you, in the privacy of your own home, still can't really circumvent! But -- "Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title. "
So... format shifting is likely a fair use right (based on case law, but impossible to determine without a law suit), and this law is somewhat contradictory... you have fair use rights, but need to circumvent to use them.

So clearly there IS a provision for fair use.....but discovering and PUBLISHING ways to circumvent protection is not covered under fair use, so people who do that are getting heat. However ACTUALLY circumventing is not against this law if it falls under fair use. This has yet to be tested in court, but I HIGHLY doubt that the courts would not rule in favor of fair use if there is no loss of revenue involved....and they would probably make the company bringing the suit pay the defendants costs, as well.....courts don't tend to like big companies picking on little guys who aren't causing them any actual financial harm.

Beyond that even I have serious doubts that even the creator of C-Lit could be successfully prosecuted/sued under the DMCA, I really don't think this law will hold up in court. But that's another issue entirely.

My point is basically that the thought that the DMCA has no provisions for fair use is obviously a myth because the quote above DEFINITELY contains such a provision.

[davidspalding]

Ah, okay. I was mistaken.

http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/hr2281_dmca_law_19981020_pl105-304.html

Here's one of the grievous parts (right above the "Other rights, etc., not effected" part) ...

`(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--

`(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

`(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or

`(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

`(3) As used in this subsection--

`(A) to `circumvent a technological measure' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and

`(B) a technological measure `effectively controls access to a work' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.

`(b) ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS- (1) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--

`(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;

`(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof; or

`(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof.

`(2) As used in this subsection--

`(A) to `circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure' means avoiding, bypassing, removing, deactivating, or otherwise impairing a technological measure; and

`(B) a technological measure `effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, prevents, restricts, or otherwise limits the exercise of a right of a copyright owner under this title.


The fallout that I didn't specify clearly, is that an academic performing reverse engineering or circumvention for the purpose of commenting (criticizing) the technological measure is not being respected as "fair use." Wasn't always so, pre-DMCA, I gather. Academics who are doing this now are being threatened under the DMCA, just for performing the circumvention. So ... yeah, a private citizen using C-LIT to convert an eBook is probably not going to be found liable ... but if that citizen gives C-LIT to a friend on a floppy,... s/he is now trafficing. See above. Ker-slam.

[qmrq]

Movies are as impermanent as they come, but many people will punk down $8.00 or $10.00 for two hours. Few ebooks cost more then $10.00; I think I’ve only bought one that was more then $12.00. A cheap seat for the symphony is about twice that. If you refuse to buy a movie, theater, opera, or whatever ticket on the grounds that you can’t make a recording of the performance while you are there, you are entitled to that belief, just don’t show up with a camcorder and not expect to be tossed out.
DVDs are actually fairly 'permanent' - even more so when I rip the image and store it on a redundant file server.

[charleski]

Ok, let's work through this bit-by-bit.
What you think, personally, about what you can do with a file doesn’t change that fact that what you are doing is considered a violation of copyright. You purchased an ebook, disregarded the Terms of Sale, and modified the content. In essence, whether you paid for the ebook or downloaded it for free, you broke a contract. Ok, stop right there. Yes, using ConvertLit is breaking a contract, and guess what, there are avenues available for relief for the injured party. Of course, that party would have to demonstrate how it was injured. It's going to be hard to demonstrate injury when the defendent has already paid you for the product in question, but I suppose you can try... Do I (and many others it seems) feel happy and morally at ease in breaking a contract in circumstances where we have judged that our actions cause no harm to any other party? Yes.

You know what? I live in the UK. There is no 'fair use' provision in UK law - here it's illegal to copy a CD you own to a cassette so you can listen to it in the car. That's a law that has been broken every day for decades. Why is that? It's because the law is bad. We the people decide what is right or wrong in the general case, and anyone who believes that law can impose morality is living in cloud-cuckoo land.

This isn’t some big issue for Civil Disobedience, you aren’t making a moral statement, you’re just cheating, plain and simple, because it is something you want to do.'Cheating'? Is this a game? Perhaps you should try to reword that to make a slightly more convincing argument.

Wouldn’t it be nice for people to personally decide what laws and regulations apply to themselves? This is exactly what people do each and every day. When I have to decide on a course of action, I decide on the basis of my moral code, a code I have developed as a result of living in society and which I share with the rest of society. Laws are there to enforce those elements of morality shared by the majority of the people: killing is wrong, stealing is wrong, etc. If you allow law to become the basis of morality and action, you get yourself into all sorts of trouble: I grew up in South Africa under apartheid. Should I have let the laws of the Afrikaner regime dictate my morality? The answer is obvious. Sure, there's a big gap between the murderously bad laws of apartheid and the trivially bad laws of the DMCA, but ultimately a bad law is a bad law.

When the encryption for secure items is so publicly broken and flaunted, the likely result will be more reactivation and security upgrades for those who are willing use the product as stipulated under the Terms of Sale.Flaunted? Hardly. If you're prepared to invest time in tracking down a message board that has a reference to a program and then search the web to find it, then you can get your hands on a copy of ConvertLit. This isn't posted on the front page of Yahoo, it's buried fairly deep, and always will be. As far as DRM-wars go, well software makers have been around that roundabout many times already. If MS wants to play that game they'll lose, just as everyone else has. The purpose of rational copy-protection is to prevent trivial copying, and those who take that approach win.

If ebooks were as popular as pop music, then they’d be pirated just as much. As the market for ebooks grows, the demand for pirated copies will likely increase. If the news media has its facts straight, it seems like music piracy is epidemic.The central problem here is a question of culture (and yes, I've noted how you segued from the issue of owners dictating the terms to that of piracy, don't try to conflate the two). As I've said before, the music industry fostered a culture of piracy by refusing to allow people to buy the products they wanted, when they were available for free. The net result was that over the past decade kids have grown up with the notion that music is a free commodity. THAT is the great problem facing the RIAA. It just gets even worse for them when artists themselves (the, uh, ones who are supposed to be harmed by all these mp3s on the net) publicly admit that they don't mind people downloading on Kazaa. But honestly, the current state of music piracy is a special case for various reasons. Attempts to compare the ebook market to it are uninstructive. It would be far better to compare ebooks with computer software, a market which has thrived despite the onslaughts of piracy for over 25 years.

If publishers perceive that there is a potential for piracy for ebooks, then they’ll most likely want stronger, more cumbersome encryption.The they're wrong and they'll shoot themselves in the foot, just as software makers did when they experimented with rigid security systems. It was a phase, and the software industry got over it. I hope that publishers can grow out of their current state of paranoia as well. But that is an issue for THEM to sort out.




I’m not saying that ebooks are inferior to physical ones, I’m saying that are different, and that you can do different thinks with them.Let me make a radical statement here: books are words on a page, you read them, everything else is secondary to that. Physical books and eBooks are the same thing because you perform the same operation on them. If you want a software comparison, Photshop is not the same thing as a darkroom, because while one can simulate certain elements of the other, the two are used to perform fundamentally dissimilar operations.



BK SC OP
Annotate No Yes Yes
Loan Yes No Yes
Copies No No Yes
Portable No Yes Yes
Print Out No No Yes
Sell Yes No Yes
Collect Yes No No

Um, I don't know what's wrong with the books you own, but I can certainly annotate and copy the ones I have. As for portability, well the whole problem of secure ebooks is that they aren't portable, heh, but to be fair I think your classification there was misworded. 'Print Out' is obviously irrelevant as far as physical books go, so we come back to the only real advantage ebooks have, which is size. Unfortunately you gloss over the principle advantage of physical books, which is permanence. Why do you buy a book when you can get it out of a library? Libraries are an entrenched facet of our culture, after-all. You buy a book because then it is yours forever. You can read it now, and then you can go back and read it again in ten years' time, you can read it at your desk, in the park or in the bath. No-one else has any say over when or how you can read that book. That is why people are prepared to pay large sums of money for books. Whatever DRM system the industry finally comes up with must match this. If the industry is unable to guarantee the permanence of its DRM servers, then it is acceptable to place the burden of preserving permanence on the buyer, which is what Palm Digital does.

Like I said, different people may have different results, some ebooks will be more expensive, but I’ve seen more cases where it isn’t true. I wonder if there is a myth of higher costs?Here I think you're right in general. The problem the industry has is that it still clings to the idea that eBooks represent separate entities, and thus the pricing sometimes gets mixed up and incongruous. People object when they see isolated examples of disparate pricing, but in the main ebooks are fairly priced.[/b]

[qmrq]

Do you know how much old equipment or software is no longer supported after a few years? This isn’t limited to Microsoft. Software and computer manufacturers come and go all the time.

Any computer or software is at risk of obsolescence relatively quickly. Should I fret and worry about buying software because I may switch to Mac or Linux next year? This year I need a firewall, e.g., on my home PC, I use XPP, so I needed to buy XPP a compatible firewall. In a year, maybe I’ll buy a Mac and need to reacquire all my pervious software that is not Mac compatible. This year I want to read ebooks on MS Reader PPC, so I buy LIT. Next year, if I switch to Palm, I’ll need to reacquire the ebooks I want for Palm. Why should the rules be different for ebooks than it is for software? You know what software can be used for when you buy it, so should you know what devices ebooks can be used.
"No longer supported". These are books! "Oh no, Homer's Discount Book Emporium stopped supporting the Illiad one thousand years ago? Erasmus's Pantheon of Books doesn't support it either?! How am I going to read my book now?!" Right. Books! Not an operating system. People just want to read them, not .. 'use' them. :cry:
"reacquire". You're going to 'reacquire' things that you already own? Where is the logic in this?
I need to apply that philosophy to myself. When buying secure LIT files, I must be prepared for the possibility of another round of security updates, it is just part of the game. If I don’t like it, I can buy Palm. Nobody seems to bother poor Palm.
Sounds kinda masochistic to me. ;) Why not just go with another format?

[rofite]

I think there is a problem with the DRM in that if the company you bought it from (i.e. Barnes and Noble) gets out of the ebook market, suddenly you can't get to the book you paid for. There are no guarantees that require the publisher to see that you can get your books (which they took your money for.) They also require me to use MSReader when I much prefer uBook.

If MS wants to continue with DRM, it should be required, by law, to make certain that every ebook someone buys that way will always be accessible to them. If DRM is good, they should have no problem with this. Of course, we know that companies won't stand behind DRM since it sucks.

In addition to the DMCA battles about current material, remember that copyrights were recently extended (the Bono law) that lets them keep the material longer. Even though the law (I beleive in the constitution itself, but I'm not clear here) stated that copyrights were to be for a limited period of time. There doesn't seem to be a limit any longer. I might be willing to accept more restrictions on current material, but older material? - no way.

Once an ebook has been out for a year or two, a lot of the value of having it locked up is gone. Why not "time out" the protection? After a fixed period, the book would be unprotected. I could live with this compromise.

Everything in the DMCA and currrent laws seems to be going one way - for corporations and against consumers. Those corporations want to arrange it so you pay them x amount of meony every time you listen to a song, read a book, watch a tv show, etc. The media companies give huge amounts to politicians and lobbyists, and McCain-Feingold or not, we know that these bucks are finding their way into the campaigns.

My own response has been to refuse to buy DRM protected books. I get a lot of material from blackmask.com, amateur sites, and other sources that sell unprotected works. As it stands now, if it's DRM secure, it ain't going in my shopping cart.

Just my thoughts.

[gadgetguru]

Copyrighted MS Reader ebooks are protected and DOESN'T allow text-to-speech but the new guidelines allowed by the Library of Congress permit use of copyright circumvention technique for the following circumstances: "e-books that stop deaf or partially sighted readers from turning on the read aloud or large print option."

http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/33668.html

Will it not legitimize the use of ConvertLit in the US?

[Kati Compton]

Will it not legitimize the use of ConvertLit in the US?
I think this means that it's not illegal to USE ConvertLit in those circumstances. My guess is that it's still illegal to have created ConvertLit. :roll:

[PetiteFlower]

Right contrary to common belief it's never been illegal to USE c-lit on books you legitimately own, whether you're disabled or not. But it's still illegal not only to have written it but also to distribute it or even publicise about where it can be obtained....

[charleski]

ConvertLit is legal under the DMCA, the Library of Congress ruling makes that quite clear. That means it's legal to develop and distribute it.

[Gee Mont]

ConvertLit is legal under the DMCA, the Library of Congress ruling makes that quite clear. That means it's legal to develop and distribute it.

Only the lawyers will say for sure. The ruling stated that is was okay too disable the DRM that blocked text-to-speech features. Nothing else.

If a psycho broke into you home and attacked you kids with a knife, it would be within your legal rights to stop him from causing harm. If the only means available was an illegal handgun, you would be within your rights to use that illegal handgun to stop the psycho from craving up your kids. Afterwords, the handgun wouldn't suddenly become legal to own just because it was used in a justifiable shooting. Depending on just how illegal the handgun was, you could be charged for having it, but not for shooting the psycho. Nor would it be legal to make and distribute illegal handguns on the premise that are circumstances were they could be used legally.

Just because that is a legal loophole to circumvent DRM in special cases will not make Convert LIT “legal to develop and distribute.” Maybe, if Convert LIT only circumvented the text-to-speech part of the DRM could it be legally developed and distributed.

IMHO.

[davidspalding]

ConvertLit is legal under the DMCA, the Library of Congress ruling makes that quite clear. That means it's legal to develop and distribute it.

Oversimplification. It's been determined legal to use in certain circumstances, but (as Gee Mont succintly points out) other DMCA restrictions still stand. I think a precedent-setting test case is still needed to determine that tools like Convert Lit are legal to develop and distribute to those who use it legally. How to do that? The debate continues.... "Welcome to 1984."

[rofite]

If a psycho broke into you home and attacked you kids with a knife, it would be within your legal rights to stop him from causing harm. If the only means available was an illegal handgun, you would be within your rights to use that illegal handgun to stop the psycho from craving up your kids. Afterwords, the handgun wouldn't suddenly become legal to own just because it was used in a justifiable shooting. Depending on just how illegal the handgun was, you could be charged for having it, but not for shooting the psycho. Nor would it be legal to make and distribute illegal handguns on the premise that are circumstances were they could be used legally..

Not a good analogy. While this is true in most (but not all) of the US, in the UK, it is certainly not. You will almost certainly go to jail for shooting the psycho. How DRM is interpreted and enforced is likely to vary widely across the US and the world.

[PetiteFlower]

It is a good analogy given that in the US, it is legal to use deadly force to defend yourself against someone who has intruded into your home. That's true in ALL of the US. It's not always legal to use deadly force in GENERAL self defense(if someone tries to mug you and you know he doesn't have a weapon, and you kill him, you'll be charged with something), but if someone breaks into your home, you're legally allowed to shoot them.

How the DMCA is interpreted will only vary until the Supreme Court gets ahold of it, at which time it will LIKELY be thrown out either entirely or in part, but either way once the Supreme Court rules, that will be the final say for what it means to us here.

Since it's a US law, not an international one, I don't think it really matters a whole heck of a lot how it's interpreted in other countries; they make their own copyright laws, the DMCA is US only. The ability and likelihood of anyone in the US suing someone for hosting something like C-Lit is pretty small, IMO, but the threat of it is enough to scare most providers into compliance.

[davidspalding]

The ability and likelihood of anyone in the US suing someone for hosting something like C-Lit is pretty small, IMO, but the threat of it is enough to scare most providers into compliance.

Think again. 2600 magazine was dragged into a lengthy and ugly suit over it's publication of the DeCSS code, and then just linking to a hosting site. I think if you read the coverage in WIRED and EFF.org, you'll find that individuals who hosted the code were quickly attacked by Legal Eagles, as well.

So the self-appointed Kopyright Kops are well-funded and clearly willing to sue journalists and enthusiasts, even private citizens, who distribute copy protection cracking code in violation of the DMCA.

[PetiteFlower]

I don't know the specifics of that case though...did it ever actually go to court? Or did it settle?

And is this magazine US based or not? It's a lot easier to sue someone in the same country as you then it is to sue someone in another country.....I'm not even entirely clear on why anyone would be able to threaten legal action under a US law, against someone who doesn't live in the US and isn't subject to our laws. I'm thinking it must be possible but the reasons and mechanics of it have never been explained to me. Either way though it would SURELY be more difficult and costly then suing a fellow citizen.

[Gee Mont]

In the FAQ at the Microsoft Reader Home Page a reply to question on how many activation a person gets says: "You are entitled to activate Microsoft Reader on up to eight different devices using the same Microsoft Passport account."

So now you get eight activations? That is up from six. And the page to request additional activations seems to be disabled for now (9:00PM 11/5/2003).

I wonder…?

[davidspalding]

I don't know the specifics of that case though...did it ever actually go to court? Or did it settle?

And is this magazine US based or not? It's a lot easier to sue someone in the same country as you then it is to sue someone in another country.....I'm not even entirely clear on why anyone would be able to threaten legal action under a US law, against someone who doesn't live in the US and isn't subject to our laws. I'm thinking it must be possible but the reasons and mechanics of it have never been explained to me. Either way though it would SURELY be more difficult and costly then suing a fellow citizen.

oh, for pete's sake. you said, "The ability and likelihood of anyone in the US suing someone for hosting something like C-Lit is pretty small, IMO, but the threat of it is enough to scare most providers into compliance." it has already happened, and the details are as easily available to you as a post here on ppcthoughts. www.wired.com. go search. (http://search.wired.com/wnews/default.asp?query=decss%202600) here's a tidbit from May, 2002.

... January 2000, eight movie studios sued the legendary hacker quarterly for posting the DeCSS.exe utility, which decodes DVDs and allows them to be viewed on a Linux computer.

Any such utility, the studios successfully argued before U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, violated the DMCA -- which broadly prohibits anyone from distributing software designed to circumvent copy protection. Kaplan agreed. So did a three-judge panel from the Second Circuit, and now a majority of the entire appeals court has tacitly endorsed the earlier ruling.

That leaves 2600's editors, and their lawyers at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, in an uncomfortably tight spot. Their only option is to seek certiorari before the U.S. Supreme Court, but their odds of prevailing might be better if they wait until public opinion -- driven by copy-protected CDs, for instance -- is more on their side.

c'mon, Petite, do a little reading. it did go to court, it was ugly, it was costly. it was here in the US. asking me to explain the details to you is just intellectual laziness.

[davidspalding]

I wonder…?

... when you'll wise up and try another eBook reader? Ms Reader is becoming the loud, drunken bore at the eBook cocktail party. the more Microsoft is encouraged in these antics, the more assinine their DRM antics will become.

[Kati Compton]

Let's try to stay away from insults here...

[PetiteFlower]

oh, for pete's sake. you said, "The ability and likelihood of anyone in the US suing someone for hosting something like C-Lit is pretty small, IMO, but the threat of it is enough to scare most providers into compliance." it has already happened, and the details are as easily available to you as a post here on ppcthoughts. www.wired.com. go search. (http://search.wired.com/wnews/default.asp?query=decss%202600) here's a tidbit from May, 2002.

Ok I made a bit of a typo, but I really don't need the attitude. What I meant to say that the ability and likelihood of anyone in the US suing someone WHO IS OUTSIDE THE US for hosting c-lit is pretty small. And I didn't realize until just now that I left out that important bit. So that's why it mattered whether those who got sued were american or not. But there is absolutely no need to be a jerk, man.

[Gee Mont]

... when you'll wise up and try another eBook reader?

I have looked into other readers and wasn’t awed with what I found. Mostly, I believe, the difference between readers is a matter of personal choice with a few exceptions.

1) There is, overall, more content available for LIT than other formats. That gives me more choices for reading material. That alone is a strong reason to say with the LIT format.
2) All my ebooks are already in LIT format.
3) Mobipocket looked retarded on my PPC with the OS banner tool bar placed at the bottom of the screen. I saw no demonstrable advantageous features over MS Reader IMHO. Auto scroll isn’t a feature I’d ever use.
4) Palm, at least on the Desktop edition, didn’t know how to properly format English text. It formatted text (on the public domain works I tested) the way you’d see it on Bulletin Boards. Again, I saw no demonstrable advantageous features over MS Reader.
5) Adobe can’t be read on PPC. Say no more.
6) uBook. The desktop edition failed to spark any real interest in exploring or pursuing its use.

Given all of the above, I think it would be a bigger pain in the derriere to switch ebook formats at this time. If circumstances change dramatically in the future, then maybe I’ll decide to switch. But what ever I decided to do it will not be based on a blind hatred of anything DRM or Microsoft.

[dh]

Ha Ha, we are right back where we started. The best thing to do is buy books in .lit format (because of the wide choice) then convert them to another format (because of the better readers and sucky MS DRM). :lol:

Not sure what you meant about the OS banner on the screen. I tend to read in MP in full screen mode.

I for one hope that there will be a way to get a new version of Convert Lit after the next MS update.

Update: Well well well, the old Convert Lit has gone, but there is a link there to a new one already. :D

[Steven Cedrone]

Let's try to stay away from insults here...

But there is absolutely no need to be a jerk, man.

Thread locked...

Steven Cedrone
Community Moderator