.
Reply
Wordsmith
Fred011
Posts: 212
Registered: ‎02-18-2012
0 Kudos

Re: BEWARE NOOK BUYERS!!


deesy58 wrote:

Fred011 wrote:

"Why should the laws be different? Because the technology is different."

 

That was the point I was trying (very unsuccessfully) to make with my comments about the photocopying machines. I don't deny that they made illegal copying easier: my point was, and is, did the law change because the copying technology changed?

 

This is what I have been trying to say.  Do you think that the law should, or more precisely does, contain inherent unto itself the practical methods, means and procedures to enforce it? IMO it does NOT.  The law seems to me to specify what is allowed and/or prohibited.  HOW these protections or prohibitions are achieved are a matter for the courts and various "players" in the (in this case) publishing marketplace.

 

My point has been that it isn't the law, which I find totally acceptable to protect the rights of the owners of intellectual property, which is what has a lot of people up in arms, but rather how the marketplace has chosen to apply the law and how IMO those actions give them more control than the law allocates to them.  This seems to me to manifest itself in additional controls placed on eBooks by publishers under the supposed auspices of the same copyright law that does NOT afford such control over printed material.  The discrepancy is because of the nature of the media, but is there a difference under the law?

 

This is a subject that could be helped along by a good single malt, and a cool head. Right now I have neither.:smileyfrustrated:

 

 


Note that Subsections 1203 and 1204 of "Copyright Law of the United States of America and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code" covers the types of penalties assessed for violations of copyright law.  1203 covers civil penalties, and this would appear to be the most common form of penalty.  Like most other civil actions, it is usually incumbent upon the injured party (author, publisher) to initiate litigation in the courts, and to seek damages.  1204, on the other hand, covers the criminal penalties to be assessed against those found to be in willful violation of the copyright law: 

 

(a) In General. — Any person who violates section 1201 or 1202 willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain — 

(1) shall be fined not more than $500,000 or imprisoned for not more than 5 years, or both, for the first offense; and

(2) shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned for not more than 10 years, or both, for any subsequent offense.

 

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html

 

Paragraph (c) states that the statute of limitations is five years, but it is not apparent in the law which enforcement agencies are required to bring criminal enforcement actions against violators.  Congress probably expects everybody to enforce the law, so everybody expects everybody else to do it, and nobody does it.  :smileyfrustrated:



Your citations fully support my contention that the law does not contain or prescribe the methodology for enforcement.  It contains the prohibitions AND the penalties, NOT what method shall be used to enforce. I have been trying to separate those two concepts in my posts and have gotten misunderstood: probably because I have been less than effective in presenting my argument.

 

No matter... the arguments are becoming circular and opinions in many cases do not allow for a civil exchange of ides.  I am NOT referring to your post(s).

Distinguished Bibliophile
keriflur
Posts: 6,211
Registered: ‎01-05-2010

Re: BEWARE NOOK BUYERS!!


Ya_Ya wrote:

keriflur wrote:

If you can find this, I'd love to read it.  I don't currently know of any drawbacks that watermarking would present to consumers.


Here it is.

 

Rereading, I think the argument isn't nearly as well-made as I thought it was then or remember it being.

 

It basically boils down to "if you are hacked, you are responsible for the file that someone else distributes" and more concerning, that the watermark will probably contain some personal information you wouldn't want shared if someone hacked you...

 

Even then I thought watermarking was preferable to all of the current popular DRM schemes and rereading, I agree with myself.  :smileytongue: 


Agreed, I'm not impressed by this argument.  Frankly, if I'm hacked, I've got a lot more to worry about than whether my watermarked ebooks are going to go up on a torrent site.

 

Also, the writer is speculating about what information will be embedded into the ebook file.  The fact is that we don't actually know how Rowling is doing the watermarking.  It could be a hash that stays on file at Pottermore.  We just don't know.

 


deesy58 wrote:

Digital Watermarking is not, IMO, the solution.  Digital watermarking can as easily be defeated as any other anti-piracy or anti-copying technology.  If enough profit is available, determined criminals will find a way to realize it.  As with other anti-piracy technologies, the willingness of the public to obey the law, and the ability of enforcement agencies to enforce the law, are the only ways to prevent unauthorized and illegal copying of protected "works." 

 

Note that, in the case of a physical watermark on paper, it doesn't prevent one from making a copy, it only allows one to see that the copy might have been made illegally.  No easy way to prevent illegal copying other than weird, low-contrasting color combinations, etc.  Tough to do with digital electronic files. 

 

As long as otherwise-honest citizens are willing to purchase stolen goods, there will be a thriving market and crime will be impossible to stamp out.  Don't believe it?  Take a look at e-Bay, or your local flea market.  How much of what is offered for sale has been stolen?  Nobody knows for sure. 


Agreed, digital watermarking is not the solution.  However, I do feel that it's an improvement over the existing forms of DRM because it's less restrictive for the law-abiding consumer.  As a user of the file, I don't have to worry that my copy will not work on my next device, or if the popular format changes.  I don't have to worry that I have too many devices.  I can use *any* reader I want to read the file.  I have a lot less reason to strip DRM.

 

I would be willing to bet that it's really easy to remove the watermarking.  I'd bet it's as easy to remove as the more popular forms of DRM, all of which can be stripped in a matter of seconds with the right software.  So, as far as confounding criminals, it's no worse than the what we're currently seeing.

 

Basically, if it keeps the folks with morals from feeling like they're being punished, and is as effective as the other forms of DRM, I see it as an improvement.  Until an actual, working solution is found, if ever, I'll take the one that does the least harm.

Inspired Bibliophile
deesy58
Posts: 2,431
Registered: ‎01-22-2012
0 Kudos

Re: BEWARE NOOK BUYERS!!


keriflur wrote:

Agreed, I'm not impressed by this argument.  Frankly, if I'm hacked, I've got a lot more to worry about than whether my watermarked ebooks are going to go up on a torrent site.

 

Also, the writer is speculating about what information will be embedded into the ebook file.  The fact is that we don't actually know how Rowling is doing the watermarking.  It could be a hash that stays on file at Pottermore.  We just don't know.

 

 


If your copy of a protected work was hacked, and then was posted on a torrent site, would you worry about having to pay your own legal fees that might result from civil litigation?  Have you ever had to defend yourself in civil court, even though you did nothing wrong? 

 

The downside of a hacked file being posted publicly is that the injured party in a copyright infringement incident will, in all probability, file a civil suit against the alleged perpetrators.  I think this is a real cause for concern.  I know that I don't have any extra money laying around to be used to pay attorneys (honest and hard-working though they might be).  :smileyhappy:

Distinguished Bibliophile
keriflur
Posts: 6,211
Registered: ‎01-05-2010

Re: BEWARE NOOK BUYERS!!


deesy58 wrote:

keriflur wrote:

Agreed, I'm not impressed by this argument.  Frankly, if I'm hacked, I've got a lot more to worry about than whether my watermarked ebooks are going to go up on a torrent site.

 

Also, the writer is speculating about what information will be embedded into the ebook file.  The fact is that we don't actually know how Rowling is doing the watermarking.  It could be a hash that stays on file at Pottermore.  We just don't know.

 

 


If your copy of a protected work was hacked, and then was posted on a torrent site, would you worry about having to pay your own legal fees that might result from civil litigation?  Have you ever had to defend yourself in civil court, even though you did nothing wrong? 

 

The downside of a hacked file being posted publicly is that the injured party in a copyright infringement incident will, in all probability, file a civil suit against the alleged perpetrators.  I think this is a real cause for concern.  I know that I don't have any extra money laying around to be used to pay attorneys (honest and hard-working though they might be).  :smileyhappy:


What I meant was that I have a lot more important information on my computer than my ebooks.  There's a lot more damage that someone could do to me.  I don't think I'd be all that worried about defending myself in civil court for ebook pirating when I'm busy trying to regain my identity and access to my bank accounts.

 

The simple solution is, of course, to educate myself on hacking preventions and to use encrypted drives.  As I've done this, I'm not all that worried.  And as technology changes, there are always new hacks to protect against, so it's important to stay current.  I try to do that too.

 

Basically, when it comes to hacking, ebooks are low on the concern list, though I suppose if the "threat of digital watermarking" makes people look at their network and computer vulnerabilities and step up their protections, then that "threat" is doing a service.

Inspired Bibliophile
deesy58
Posts: 2,431
Registered: ‎01-22-2012
0 Kudos

Re: BEWARE NOOK BUYERS!!


keriflur wrote:

deesy58 wrote:

keriflur wrote:

Agreed, I'm not impressed by this argument.  Frankly, if I'm hacked, I've got a lot more to worry about than whether my watermarked ebooks are going to go up on a torrent site.

 

Also, the writer is speculating about what information will be embedded into the ebook file.  The fact is that we don't actually know how Rowling is doing the watermarking.  It could be a hash that stays on file at Pottermore.  We just don't know.

 

 


If your copy of a protected work was hacked, and then was posted on a torrent site, would you worry about having to pay your own legal fees that might result from civil litigation?  Have you ever had to defend yourself in civil court, even though you did nothing wrong? 

 

The downside of a hacked file being posted publicly is that the injured party in a copyright infringement incident will, in all probability, file a civil suit against the alleged perpetrators.  I think this is a real cause for concern.  I know that I don't have any extra money laying around to be used to pay attorneys (honest and hard-working though they might be).  :smileyhappy:


What I meant was that I have a lot more important information on my computer than my ebooks.  There's a lot more damage that someone could do to me.  I don't think I'd be all that worried about defending myself in civil court for ebook pirating when I'm busy trying to regain my identity and access to my bank accounts.

 

The simple solution is, of course, to educate myself on hacking preventions and to use encrypted drives.  As I've done this, I'm not all that worried.  And as technology changes, there are always new hacks to protect against, so it's important to stay current.  I try to do that too.

 

Basically, when it comes to hacking, ebooks are low on the concern list, though I suppose if the "threat of digital watermarking" makes people look at their network and computer vulnerabilities and step up their protections, then that "threat" is doing a service.


Those are all good precautions.  Do you also use a password management system -- one that generates random combinations of upper and lower case letters plus numbers, and that keeps them in a secure vault?  Some of these are available for no charge. 

 

I use mine all the time, and it irritates me that I can't use it with the NOOK.  The NOOK will transmit my credit card information over the WiFi connection to B&N, and that makes me nervous, even though I am using WPA-2 encryption. 

 

The March issue of one of the PC magazines (I can't remember which) points out the threat of having our debit and credit cards illegally scanned when we use ATMs, self checkout terminals at the supermarket, making payment at a restaurant, etc.  Members of this household have had six incidents of "stolen" credit/debit card numbers in the past three years, and none of them was "hacked" from our computers.  Dishonest cashiers or wait staff in restaurants, unethical staff members in medical offices willing to sell your Social Security number, micro-scanners on ATM and card scanning machines -- these have become just as much risk as somebody hacking your machine. 

 

On the other hand, how difficult for a thief with a Pringles potato chip can to sit in his car near your home and intercept your loosely-secured WiFi transmissions from your router to your wireless device (such as a NOOK), and copy a protected e-book file that he can, then, sell to others?  I was looking at the available wireless networks near my home with my NT last evening, and I noticed that one of them is encrypted with WEP.  I have had hackers tell me that they can crack WEP in ten minutes or less. 

 

Identity theft might be the greater threat, but a faulty copy protection scheme that puts users at risk without really protecting anybody at all is just unnecessary, IMO.  I can protect myself, to some extent, from the former, but what can I do about the latter? 

Distinguished Bibliophile
keriflur
Posts: 6,211
Registered: ‎01-05-2010
0 Kudos

Re: BEWARE NOOK BUYERS!!


deesy58 wrote:
On the other hand, how difficult for a thief with a Pringles potato chip can to sit in his car near your home and intercept your loosely-secured WiFi transmissions from your router to your wireless device (such as a NOOK), and copy a protected e-book file that he can, then, sell to others?  I was looking at the available wireless networks near my home with my NT last evening, and I noticed that one of them is encrypted with WEP.  I have had hackers tell me that they can crack WEP in ten minutes or less.

The solution to this is not to leave your nook connected to wifi, to be vigilant about making sure you turn off your nook wifi when you're done using it.  I got good practice with this with my N1E when I was skirting destructive updates.  I can turn on my wifi, download a book and disconnect in under two minutes (probably under one minute, actually).

 

Also, to go back to our real world example of the HP books - Rowling is selling the books through Pottermore only, which means that they'll all need to be sideloaded.  Unless you've set up cloud storage and using that to transfer books to your nook (which you can only do with the NC and the NT, and you might need to be rooted - I don't have one so I can't say for sure), you'll be putting these books on your nook via a wired connection.

 

Actually, you've got a tablet, right?  There's more risk there, I'd suppose, since you won't necessarily want to disconnect right away.

Distinguished Bibliophile
keriflur
Posts: 6,211
Registered: ‎01-05-2010
0 Kudos

Re: BEWARE NOOK BUYERS!!

And BTW, I take offense to your insinuation about pringles.  *stuffs chip in mouth and scowls* :smileywink:

Inspired Bibliophile
deesy58
Posts: 2,431
Registered: ‎01-22-2012
0 Kudos

Re: BEWARE NOOK BUYERS!!


keriflur wrote:

The solution to this is not to leave your nook connected to wifi, to be vigilant about making sure you turn off your nook wifi when you're done using it.  I got good practice with this with my N1E when I was skirting destructive updates.  I can turn on my wifi, download a book and disconnect in under two minutes (probably under one minute, actually).

 

Also, to go back to our real world example of the HP books - Rowling is selling the books through Pottermore only, which means that they'll all need to be sideloaded.  Unless you've set up cloud storage and using that to transfer books to your nook (which you can only do with the NC and the NT, and you might need to be rooted - I don't have one so I can't say for sure), you'll be putting these books on your nook via a wired connection.

 

Actually, you've got a tablet, right?  There's more risk there, I'd suppose, since you won't necessarily want to disconnect right away.


Yes, I do have a tablet.  I also have a weather app that requires WiFi access to update current conditions, forecasts and radar maps.  It also has the ability to provide weather alerts.  It logs onto the Internet and updates its data every 15 minutes, so it is not feasible to turn off WiFi and still be able to use the app. 

 

I will, almost certainly, never download any e-books from Rowling's site.  I am much more concerned about having B&N and the publishers it usually carries begin using digital watermarks on many, or a majority, of the books they would load directly onto my NT.  If I knew that some sort of digital watermark would be inserted into the e-book file, and that the watermark would contain personally identifiable information, I would be deterred from purchasing those e-books, regardless of who authored them.  My opinion, and my concerns.  :smileyindifferent:

Inspired Bibliophile
deesy58
Posts: 2,431
Registered: ‎01-22-2012
0 Kudos

Re: BEWARE NOOK BUYERS!!


keriflur wrote:

And BTW, I take offense to your insinuation about pringles.  *stuffs chip in mouth and scowls* :smileywink:


Have you tried "Stax"?  They are just as tasty and the containers can't be used as WiFi antennas.  In fact, they are 100% recyclable.   :smileyhappy:

Distinguished Bibliophile
bobstro
Posts: 3,530
Registered: ‎01-01-2012

Re: BEWARE NOOK BUYERS!!


deesy58 wrote:

keriflur wrote:

And BTW, I take offense to your insinuation about pringles.  *stuffs chip in mouth and scowls* :smileywink:


Have you tried "Stax"?  They are just as tasty and the containers can't be used as WiFi antennas.  In fact, they are 100% recyclable.   :smileyhappy:


All the cool kids are using vegetable strainers as parabolics these days. Better antenna gain, and much healthier.

Inspired Bibliophile
LarryOnLI
Posts: 1,983
Registered: ‎01-04-2010
0 Kudos

Re: BEWARE NOOK BUYERS!!


deesy58 wrote:
......

 

I use mine all the time, and it irritates me that I can't use it with the NOOK.  The NOOK will transmit my credit card information over the WiFi connection to B&N, and that makes me nervous, even though I am using WPA-2 encryption. 

 

....

Just a FYI - the NOOK does not transmit your credit card info to B&N (unless you are using the browser on the NOOK to enter credit card info into the B&N website).

 

Your credit card info is already stored at B&N, only information required to log into your B&N account is transmitted.

 

Distinguished Bibliophile
keriflur
Posts: 6,211
Registered: ‎01-05-2010
0 Kudos

Re: BEWARE NOOK BUYERS!!

I don't use iTunes, but it's my understanding that Apple uses digital watermarking in some (but not all) of the music they sell.  I'm not sure if they're still doing it, but I know they used to.

 

As we haven't seen a host of suits where innocent music lovers have been accused of posting music to pirate sites, I'm inclined to believe the threat of this is low.

 

To my mind, it's easier to just strip out the watermarking and post the file with no DRM than it is to hack someone else and steal their files.

Distinguished Correspondent
nlstein
Posts: 309
Registered: ‎12-23-2009
0 Kudos

Re: BEWARE NOOK BUYERS!!

Ya, Ya:

 

Just because I'm "macboy" does not have to mean that I agree with EVERYTHING that Apple does. I like their products because "they just work: but I don't always agree with their policies and tactics. Don't get the two confused. I know it's easy when you're trying to embarrass someone.

 

At least my computers all work all the time. If my refrigerator worked like a Windows PC I'd starve.

MacBoy
Distinguished Correspondent
nlstein
Posts: 309
Registered: ‎12-23-2009
0 Kudos

Re: BEWARE NOOK BUYERS!!

keriflur

 

It sure sound like you're all for pirating when you say:

 

"To my mind, it's easier to just strip out the watermarking and post the file with no DRM than it is to hack someone else and steal their files."

 

IF Apple (and we are not sure they do) puts awatermark on their files than stipping it out and posting the file for other people is pirating just like removing DRM and posting the file.

 

MacBoy
Distinguished Bibliophile
keriflur
Posts: 6,211
Registered: ‎01-05-2010
0 Kudos

Re: BEWARE NOOK BUYERS!!


nlstein wrote:

At least my computers all work all the time. If my refrigerator worked like a Windows PC I'd starve.


Wow, and I've had the exact opposite experience.

 

But, uh, this discussion isn't about Apple v. Microsoft, is it?  :smileysurprised:  So no need to get so defensive.

Distinguished Scribe
Ya_Ya
Posts: 3,334
Registered: ‎09-29-2010
0 Kudos

Re: BEWARE NOOK BUYERS!!

[ Edited ]

nlstein wrote:

Don't get the two confused. I know it's easy when you're trying to embarrass someone.


I wasn't trying to embarrass anyone; I was pointing out that as long as people who strongly dislike a company's policies continue to give said company money, the company has little to no incentive to change a policy.

 

By buying their computers "that just work" you tell Apple that you agree with them.  Even if you don't.

 

If I buy from Amazon, then I tell them I agree with their business practices, even if I don't.  If I buy from Walmart, then I tell them I agree with their anticompetitive, anti-EPA, anti-employee business practices, even if I don't...

Distinguished Bibliophile
keriflur
Posts: 6,211
Registered: ‎01-05-2010

Re: BEWARE NOOK BUYERS!!


nlstein wrote:

IF Apple (and we are not sure they do) puts awatermark on their files than stipping it out and posting the file for other people is pirating just like removing DRM and posting the file.

 


Well, duh, obviously.

 

You should already be aware of my feelings on piracy, as I've been pretty clear about it in these forums, and you've responded to plenty of those threads.

Distinguished Correspondent
nlstein
Posts: 309
Registered: ‎12-23-2009
0 Kudos

Re: BEWARE NOOK BUYERS!!

So let me get this straight. I should buy computers that don't work because I don't agree with everything Apple does. Makes sense to me. BTW, I have written Apple on several occasions about some of their policies i do't like and prised them about their products that I do like. I even get email back from them. Have you evr written to Microsoft, HP or any other PC company? The idea of cutting my nose off to spite my face seems wrong to me. But hay, I've been told I am wrong by lots of people here. Just out of curiosity what brand of computer "should" I be using to be PC (excuse the pun)?
MacBoy
Distinguished Correspondent
nlstein
Posts: 309
Registered: ‎12-23-2009
0 Kudos

Re: BEWARE NOOK BUYERS!!

Ya,Ya Please supply list of approved companies that I can buy from without upsetting you or the group as a whole. Seems to me from your post that most of the suggesful companies are off limits.
MacBoy
Distinguished Scribe
Ya_Ya
Posts: 3,334
Registered: ‎09-29-2010

Re: BEWARE NOOK BUYERS!!


nlstein wrote:
The idea of cutting my nose off to spite my face seems wrong to me. 

I don't see it as cutting off my nose to spite my face.  I see it as spending my money with people who think deserve it.  I didn't tell you where to shop or not shop; I just said that companies see our patronage as approval of what they do. 

 

Admittedly, I shop a lot of places where I think they could do things better; I only write-off companies off for things that seem like big deals to me.  Things that are a big deal to me aren't to you, and things that might be big deals to you are not to me.

 

To me, Apple's policies are a big enough deal that I don't shop there.   (Not the agency model stuff, actually.)  I feel the same way about Walmart and Amazon.  I don't completely agree with Target's policies, but the things I don't like that they do aren't as big a deal (yet!) to me, so I still spend more money with them than I probably should...