An open letter to DriveThruRPG and the publishers using them

[BobROE]

From the definitions in the copyright act: A ''computer program'' is a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result.

But isn't that the DRM? I mean it's a set of instructions that when executed by Acrobat, causes the reader to attempt to contact Adobe for conformation (a result).

I"m not versed in law, but as a computer engineering student, it seems to fill your above description.

 

[arkham618]

Not true. DMCA is not your friend. DVDs have similar restrictions that are also not disclosed. Electronic protection is a very special area of the law.

Software and other IP companies claim much from the DMCA that is not actually present in the document -- or that can only be arrived at through semantic game-playing -- often pointing to it as a carte blanche to violate contract law and bully consumers. They continue to succeed at this because most consumers lack the resources to challenge such behavior in the courts or the legislatures. End-user license agreements have met with mixed results in federal courts. Normally, if there is an option to return a product if it proves defective or the customer finds the conditions of the license unacceptable, then the license will be upheld in the event of a dispute. (The customer is assumed to have indicated consent by not returning the item within the prescribed time period.) Programs and files purchased and delivered over the internet cannot be returned, however, because there is no physical medium to return, and no way of guaranteeing the software has been deleted from the destination machine regardless, so EULAs in these cases cannot be valid. As to the status of crippling software features, I am not sure, which is why I said they are possibly fraudulent, not definitely so.

 

[Wasgo]

Software and other IP companies claim much from the DMCA that is not actually present in the document -- or that can only be arrived at through semantic game-playing -- often pointing to it as a carte blanche to violate contract law and bully consumers. They continue to succeed at this because most consumers lack the resources to challenge such behavior in the courts or the legislatures. End-user license agreements have met with mixed results in federal courts. Normally, if there is an option to return a product if it proves defective or the customer finds the conditions of the license unacceptable, then the license will be upheld in the event of a dispute. (The customer is assumed to have indicated consent by not returning the item within the prescribed time period.) Programs and files purchased and delivered over the internet cannot be returned, however, because there is no physical medium to return, and no way of guaranteeing the software has been deleted from the destination machine regardless, so EULAs in these cases cannot be valid. As to the status of crippling software features, I am not sure, which is why I said they are possibly fraudulent, not definitely so.

Yup. But that's the catch. Laws are rather undefined until put into court, and generally speaking, their side has better lawyers than our side. Which is why when thinking about copyright law, try to guess how the brightest lawyers working for corporations will interpret it, and assume the actual interpretation will be similar.

But isn't that the DRM? I mean it's a set of instructions that when executed by Acrobat, causes the reader to attempt to contact Adobe for conformation (a result).

I"m not versed in law, but as a computer engineering student, it seems to fill your above description.

Two things, the encryption is part of the program. Test for yourself by removing the ebook plugin from Acrobat. And secondly, documents are still documents regardless of their format. It's iffy, but courts will probably not count a pdf as a program.

 

[Umbran]

Two things, the encryption is part of the program. Test for yourself by removing the ebook plugin from Acrobat. And secondly, documents are still documents regardless of their format. It's iffy, but courts will probably not count a pdf as a program.

The test you describe tell you nothing. Sure, if you take outthe ebook plugin, it won't read the ebook. But, if you take out the ebook, it won't read it either

The thing is, there must be something in the ebook that tells Acrobat to use the ebook plugin. That small bit can be seen as a computer instruction, not as part of the document format.

 

[kreynolds]

Right, but Adobe prevents this by selecting your ebook folder.

Actually, Adobe doesn't prevent this, depending on your Reader settings and your download method. It violates the DMCA, if you want to get down to specifics. You can download a file to a location of your choice, i.e. a zip or floppy. When you open that eBook, Reader copies the file, thus violating the DMCA. So, if anyone's at fault...

 

[Tsyr]

Actually, Adobe doesn't prevent this, depending on your Reader settings and your download method. It violates the DMCA, if you want to get down to specifics. You can download a file to a location of your choice, i.e. a zip or floppy. When you open that eBook, Reader copies the file, thus violating the DMCA. So, if anyone's at fault...

Theres a specific exemption in the law for "copying that occours as part of normal use" or something like that... IE, copying files to RAM, etc. I would imagine this falls under that.

 

[kreynolds]

Oh, I'm sure it does. Just pointing out the silliness.

 

[BryonD]

I'm sorry, but there's a problem. This is effectively saying, "You retain right of First Sale for this book. However, you must give or sell your entire library of other books to the same person in the process. In fact, you must give away everything that sits on the bookcase, even if it isn't a book!"

That was certainly how I read it.
An interesting point of view.

 

[pogre]

I'm studying in Canada, but a Canadian degree allows you to practice in New York and California, which are the only two states I'm currently considering. If I intend to expand, it's a matter of additional courses.

Howdy Wasgo,

You better double check those reciprocity laws If you are saying that you can still take the bar exam in those states you may be right. However, those two states are infamous for not extending reciprocity to practicing lawyers from other jurisdictions.

IAAL

 

[The Sigil]

Right, but Adobe prevents this by selecting your ebook folder. Moreover, I'm almost entirely sure section 109 does not apply to anything other than music or computer programs. In the hands of any competent lawyer, a pdf would not be classified as a computer program.

From the definitions in the copyright act: A ''computer program'' is a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result.

And digital documents are not instructions, so much as data. While pdfs do control the layout to some degree, they cannot bring about a result without additional programs. This probably would remove it from the program catagory. Basically, U.S. law is having problems right now, because the DMCA more or less trumps fair use. People keep having to fight to regain rights...., which oddly enough is one of the two reasons I intend to go into that area of law.

That's why I went through the trouble of tracing two routes... one route for "Computer Programs," where Section 117 applies (and gives me the right to transfer) and one for "Literary Works" where 109 applies (and gives me the right to First Sale). Either way, I have the right to transfer the work. I don't see any other definition of a type of work that a PDF could belong to. It's not a phonorecording. It's not an audiovisual work. It's either a computer program or a "literary work" as defined by copyright law, as far as I can tell.

Secondarily, while you are correct that Adobe does automatically download stuff to an "ebooks" folder or somesuch, I believe that folder is always set up as a sub-folder of "My Documents" - and a clever user can point "My Documents" to a zip drive or a CD-RW... which will point the ebooks folder to that same zip drive or CD-RW.

Just trying to point out that some of the assumptions people make with DRM - that "well, it's the copy that goes on your hard drive that's authorized" - are flawed, because there's no guarantee that the copy I am authorized to download goes directly to a Hard Drive in the first instance... thus the conclusion, "you'd have to sell all your e-books simultaneously" is flawed.

I can't assail the logical argument that "making a copy from a file on your Hard Drive is probably an unauthorized copy" itself. But I can cut off any argument at the knees if I point out that the premises from which the argument proceeds are flawed... e.g., the assumption that the "authorized" copy begins its life on a Hard Drive.

--The Sigil