I don’t believe copyright is intended to, or in practice used to, force the consumer to seek permission to read a book. DRM can be used do stuff like delete your book after you acquire it, but I get the impression— though I could be mistaken— that publishers are aware that people do not like that and can just crack it or acquire a DRM-free version in the first place. I have seen e-books with an explicit notice to the effect that the book is provided in a DRM-free edition for the reader’s convenience. In all cases the content is copyrighted anyway.
Sorry for the terse note above, I was on my phone.
Excerpted from the rules for this message board, for reference.
Absolutely – most of what I’ve purchased on my Kindle carries a notice of that sort. And I make a backup of the user-friendly, DRM-free file on my hard drive, in accordance with the law that allows me to back up content I have purchased for my own use. (And my back-up system in turn makes a copy of my whole hard drive, from time to time.)
Yes, I think the library book remains readable on your device until it is updated on-line after the loan expires because the risk of significant misuse is modest, and the value to borrowers is enormous. For instance, it means I can read an e-book from the library on my commuter train. It’s basically the difference between library loans being worth doing at all, and not being worth doing at all for lots of legitimate users.
I don’t see an ethical problem here.
We’ve seen that libraries typically license books for certain number of checkouts, 52 or 26, with a time limit or 2 years or 1 year.
The pricing model is number of checkouts, not length of time of each checkout.
Whether someone keeps a book for 1 day, or for 100 days offline (but it’s ‘returned’ so that someone else can read it), the library loses nothing, the publisher loses nothing, and the author loses nothing.
The library has paid $x for you to check out the book. Nobody cares if you read it, or you don’t read it. Nobody cares how long you keep it before returning it, as long as you are not preventing other people from borrowing it. It makes no financial difference to anyone.
If 52 people check it out and each one returns it the next day, but keeps a copy offline for some time, it still makes no difference to anyone. The library has paid for 52 checkouts, and it’s been checked out 52 times. Presumably, after the limit has been reached, the book becomes unavailable for the rest of the two years. And whether the limit of 52 checkouts is reached in two years or not, the library pays the same.
Now, suppose you check out the book, but you haven’t finished reading it after 14 days. So you return it and check it out a second time. Now you’ve used up two checkouts for the same book, and potentially someone else has been prevented from reading it.
Now, instead of paying $x for you to read it, the library has paid $2x and someone else is potentially denied the possibility of borrowing it. Is that not worse?
Thank you. This is essentially what I was attempting to state upthread (and probably didn’t do a very good job.) But a few posters took me to task for suggesting that the practice of the OP wasn’t either illegal or unethical.
I’m actually a bit surprised that there ISN’T something like that in place - but I have been known to keep a library book a few extra days, and yeah, I can still read it, until the next time I turn wi-fi on.
Something I have not tested (and WILL NOT test) is whether someone could run such a book through a de-DRMing program. I don’t think keeping a borrowed book a few extra days is a huge crime, but de-DRMing a borrowed book is definitely theft.
The de-DRMing software that I’ve used explicitly says it won’t work on library books. I suppose I’ve never tested that claim, but I believe it. None of the legitimate reasons to strip DRM from something you’ve purchased applies to a library book.
Interesting. Here’s a different data point.
I use Overdrive on my Windows tablets/laptops. When I borrow a book from my library the due date is set. When that date comes Overdrive declares it overdue and will not show it to me regardless of whether the device is or has been online or offline.
Likewise I can perform an early check-in via the Overdrive app. Which if I’m offline doesn’t immediately delete the book, but does immediately make it unusable on that device.
I’ve never tried downloading a book, taking the device offline then checking the book back in via a different Overdrive device or the library website. Since there’s no way for the “news” to reach the offline device, I have to assume it’ll still show me the book until the originally scheduled due date. But no longer.
So at least some of these loopholes are at least partially plugged in that version of Overdrive.
Since this is about Kindle… I thought I would share the 2 sites that email me daily deals for free or very cheap books. Bookbub.com and Free Kindle Ebooks – Book Cave
I used to be a huge library supporter as in buying used books and checking books out. But I out read my rural library’s capability of feeding my appetite for Sci-Fi, Fantasy or Horror.
I love my Kindle tablet! And I love free books. But… I do buy the follow-up books if the freebie was good (or read them via Kindle Unlimited where the authors still get paid, just not as much).
I have joined a few FB specific category Kindle (and tree, yay for an autographed copy!) groups. I’ve loved having some of the authors who I have received free books from… become my FB friends. It’s encouraged me to buy more books from them and from other authors especially when it’s a series I can re-read.
The book I saw was not one of those. It was a children’s story book, specifically the very absurd sequel to the original One Hundred and One Dalmatians book. I was wanting to show it to my sister.
Maybe it was just a glitch that it was listed for such a short time. Though I’m pretty sure that there wouldn’t be a waiting list for it–it’s rather silly.
I just checked, and it looks like most of the books I previously borrowed for 14 days are now listed as 1 hour loans.
There were strong objections from publishers and authors to the borrowing system on the Internet Archive, so I’m guessing this is the outcome - allow loans, but in a highly limited form.
Not sure I agree there is an essential difference. A copyrighted book is a copyrighted book, whether you found it in the library, a bookstore, or lying on the street. Once upon a time, there were no Amazon Kindles, and if you needed a copy of an article or a section you went to the library and photocopied it. Now, there are convenient e-books that save you the trip. But what are you to do if your fair use of an e-book is blocked by some stupid DRM? Why not just crack it?
Can’t you take a screen shot of that library book? Or… Use a different device and photograph the page its displaying?
The reason to strip DRM from a book you buy is to have a backup. You don’t need a backup of a library book.
These techniques are OK.
My opinion is that the “DRM stripping” techniques are also OK— or none of them are OK!— regardless of the technical nature of the method of reproduction. Maybe you manually Xeroxed every page you needed, it doesn’t matter. What matters is why you did it and what you are going to do with it. Sure, you do not need a backup copy of the library’s Harry Potter. But my understanding of the doctrine of fair dealing (as a producer and consumer of written material) is that one does not need to ask permission to deal with copyrighted material for the purposes of non-commercial research and private study. If that is what you are doing, sure it is ethical as well as explicitly legal. Whether or not it is ethical to hack the DRM so you can read the latest best-seller for an extra couple of days before clicking on “borrow” a second time— it might be, though that is a slightly different issue. If books are really self-destructing after 1 hour then that is unworkably annoying and how can we fault anyone for bypassing it?
Former Blockbuster employee here. That’s true. That was part of our revenue-sharing agreement with the studios. But everything we made from the rental fees after that initial $70 (and sometimes it was more) was pure profit.