• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Dead Tree Society, rejoice!!!!!

^
I thought of him, but didn't want to mix my tie-in lines. (And I've never actually read any of his prose...)

Um. Topic. CoE reprints are good, y'all.
 
Steve Roby said:
Cicero said:
Iff the DMCA is unconstitutional, failure to follow the act is indeed legal. Any act of Congress which contradicts the Constitution is not legal or binding, despite its appearance of the force of law.

Apropos, noncompliance with the act is a neat way to begin a legal test.

(Note that none of the above constitutes a legal opinion regarding the constitutionality of the DRMA.)

And discussing this here, of all places. Nicely tacky. As one of the people whose work you've probably hacked, I'm more than a bit ticked.
Click to expand...

The hacking in question is of a work that has been purchased by the individual in question, and is being moved from one software encoding system to another for the private use of that person. While that action may or may not be legal, if I read the situation correctly, you, the author, have been compensated for the single copy of the work the individual possesses.
Click to expand...

Pocket is using an ebook format with DRM because it wants the DRM there. If Pocket should decide to stop offering ebooks in Microsoft Reader because it can't be sure the DRM is reliable, people who are legally buying the ebooks and not-entirely-legally (or legally, depending on the laws of their country) cracking the DRM so they can have the same legal usage rights with the ebook that they have with print books are thereby fucked. Not to mention anyone who prefers MS Reader and doesn't mess with the DRM.

Bringing this up here is a problem for Pocket employees, for Pocket writers, and for however many fans there may be who use DRM-cracking tools but do not redistribute ebooks or in any other way violate anyone's intellectual property rights.
Click to expand...

See, this is why I don't buy e-books (or music online). IMO DRM is a massive over-kill and treads all over the rights of people to make backups of stuff that they've legimatly purchased. Aditionally lots of DRM stuff installs spyware too (as happened to me recently with a computer game).

On a more on topic note - Yay! I can catch up with SCE again!
 
Trek said:
See, this is why I don't buy e-books (or music online). IMO DRM is a massive over-kill and treads all over the rights of people to make backups of stuff that they've legimatly purchased.
Click to expand...
it depends on the format, I had no problem at all moving my files into a new machine, which requires copying the files to a USB stick, and copying into the second computer. Took about 3 seconds to unlock the key of the books, and voila! all done.
 
I have never seen a decent ebook reader install spyware are all. MS Reader and eReader are both spyware free. Honest!
 
Cicero said:
Terri said:
JWolf said:
Steve Roby said:
JWolf said:
There are tools for a Windows box to remove the DRM from lit files
Click to expand...

You might want to read this.
Click to expand...
The DMCA is unconstitutional (IMHO). So I really don't care if I break it. Besides, I'm not breaking the DRM in order to cheat the book companies.
Click to expand...

Doesn't change the fact that breaking the DRM is still not exactly legal.
Click to expand...

Iff the DMCA is unconstitutional, failure to follow the act is indeed legal. Any act of Congress which contradicts the Constitution is not legal or binding, despite its appearance of the force of law.

Apropos, noncompliance with the act is a neat way to begin a legal test.
Click to expand...

If you want to get your ass jailed, sure.

(Note that none of the above constitutes a legal opinion regarding the constitutionality of the DRMA.)
Click to expand...

The ultimate decision on the Constitutionality of something is usually the purview of the Supreme Court, no?

DRM is used to protect and enforce the copyright on the digital media.

How is cracking the DRM not infringing on the rights of the copyright holder to protect their interests?

When the Supreme Court deems the DRMA unconstitutional, then I'll be happy to revisit this subject. To the extent of my research in the Court's decisions of the last two years, they haven't ruled it unconstutional. They may in the future, but right now, it's rule of law.

And discussing this here, of all places. Nicely tacky. As one of the people whose work you've probably hacked, I'm more than a bit ticked.
Click to expand...

The hacking in question is of a work that has been purchased by the individual in question, and is being moved from one software encoding system to another for the private use of that person. While that action may or may not be legal, if I read the situation correctly, you, the author, have been compensated for the single copy of the work the individual possesses.
Click to expand...

While I don't intend to cast aspersions on anyone here, someone could say that they're cracking the DRM for archival purposes (something that anyone with any familiarity with the software knows isn't really necessary), and then turn around and sell the cracked version online. I take it you haven't seen the CDs full of cracked eBooks that are being sold online?

Have the authors and publishers been compensated for those copies?

What about the eBooks that are out there on the torrent-stream?

The authors and publishers aren't being compensated for those copies at all.

Personally, if someone tells me they've cracked an eBook that they didn't write and don't own the copyright to, I think I'm fully justified in being offended and angered by it.
 
What about the TV episodes that are out there on the torrent-stream?

The actors and producers aren't being compensated for those copies at all.

Personally, if someone tells me they've downloaded an episode that they didn't write and don't own the copyright to, I think I'm fully justified in being offended and angered by it.
 
Putting TV episodes on "the torrent-stream" isn't legal either, as far as I know. And in point of fact, the actors and producers aren't being compensated, because nobody's paying the production company for the rights to rebroadcast the episodes, so they don't get royalties for those broadcasts (or torrents or whatever). So if you meant that in earnest, I agree, but if you meant that as some kind of ironic counterargument to Terri's statement, then it doesn't hold up.

Either way, if you think a law is unjust, the way to respond is to petition your lawmakers to change it, not to thumb your nose at it and pretend you're exempt from laws you don't agree with.
 
Steve Mollmann said:
What about the TV episodes that are out there on the torrent-stream?

The actors and producers aren't being compensated for those copies at all.

Personally, if someone tells me they've downloaded an episode that they didn't write and don't own the copyright to, I think I'm fully justified in being offended and angered by it.
Click to expand...

Go for it. Although, I'd be curious to know just how many TV writers there are who own the copyright on the very show they're writing.
 
Christopher said:
Putting TV episodes on "the torrent-stream" isn't legal either, as far as I know. And in point of fact, the actors and producers aren't being compensated, because nobody's paying the production company for the rights to rebroadcast the episodes, so they don't get royalties for those broadcasts (or torrents or whatever). So if you meant that in earnest, I agree, but if you meant that as some kind of ironic counterargument to Terri's statement, then it doesn't hold up.
Click to expand...
My point is that stripping the protection off an eBook for private use is no different from, say, downloading episodes of British television shows that have yet to air in the States. They're both against the law, yet they both (ostensibly) don't cause any harm.
 
Steve Mollmann said:
Christopher said:
Putting TV episodes on "the torrent-stream" isn't legal either, as far as I know. And in point of fact, the actors and producers aren't being compensated, because nobody's paying the production company for the rights to rebroadcast the episodes, so they don't get royalties for those broadcasts (or torrents or whatever). So if you meant that in earnest, I agree, but if you meant that as some kind of ironic counterargument to Terri's statement, then it doesn't hold up.
Click to expand...
My point is that stripping the protection off an eBook for private use is no different from, say, downloading episodes of British television shows that have yet to air in the States. They're both against the law, yet they both (ostensibly) don't cause any harm.
Click to expand...

I know what you're trying to do, Steve, and it's not going to work. You'd best put a stop to it, now.
 
^ The question is here is discussing illegal stuff on the board, which is against board rules, not the behaviors of various people.
 
Okay, this line of discussion has gone on for far too long. Let's get back on topic, the release of the SCE paperback editions, Great Designs and Creative Couplings.
 
William Leisner said:
You know what's also fun? Betting on cockfights.
Click to expand...
Lot more fun than betting on shuttlecockfights, believe you me. Which I wish I had realized before buying broadcast rights.
 
Christopher said:
Either way, if you think a law is unjust, the way to respond is to petition your lawmakers to change it, not to thumb your nose at it and pretend you're exempt from laws you don't agree with.
Click to expand...

Don't agree. Lawmaking bodies are, generally speaking, slow, conservative and cowardly. The best way to challenge an unjust law tends to be in the court system, which often requires active disobediance (of course, it's another problem altogether when the courts themselves are not indepedant of lawmakers, or stacked with people appointed by criminals).

Plus, there's the fact that obeying an unjust law makes you complicit in whatever injustice is being perpetrated. "Thumbing your nose" at a law is sometimes the most ethical stance to take vis-à-vis injustice (obvious examples being the Nuremberg Laws, the Jim Crow laws or the entire legal framework of apartheid). Of course, the reverse of such an understanding is that the lawbreaker should be ready to assume responsibility for the transgressive act, including the possibility that his or her demonstration of the injustice fails to find traction and they face fines, prison or worse. Personally, I've always exempted myself from any law I consider baseless outside of religious systems of morals, and would be prepared to defend myself on those grounds if called to account.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman
 
ah hem, guys......

let me put this in another way: you are here on a private board, if you break a law, it is the board that would be getting into trouble, because well, all the evidence we leave are our screen name (apart from the authors and some people who leave their personal information in their profile). So if all hell breaks loose, it's not you who are going to be held responsible, it's Christian. When that happens what do you think will happen to this place?

If you want to thumb your nose at the law, do it on your turf, don't get other people into trouble.

In other words, please don't talk about breaking copyright here, because Christian doesn't want the hassle.

Thank you.


:: give the thread a hard push back on topic ::
 
Sorry to go off topic here :D but I have an actual SCE question for esteemed writers (or anyone else). I may have missed this but why is the series now called Corps of Engineers? SCE had a nice ring to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top