iBooks, DRM, Copying & Fair Use

[Brammy]

The problem is, the Fair Use Law runs into conflict with the DMCA, and no publisher to date wants the DMCA tested in a court room. In a nutshell, you are allowed to make copies for Fair Use, however, you are not allowed to break any copy protection to make this copy. In essence, we have conflicting laws.

Now, the question is: does the Kindle iPad allow you do to this, and are the titles available you want to source on Amazon. If so, that's one way. While I do enjoy the iBooks app more than Amazon's (the look and feel is a little better, but the Kindle app is fine, too), Amazon's selection and cross-platform readers make it a better value for me. This way, I'm not locked into needing an Apple device to read a book.

Also, it's not an ideal workaround, but you could take a screenshot of the page for future reference. It'll suck for actually citing the work via cut-n-paste, but you can at least highlight the passage and snapshot it.

 

[RMXO]

Any Lawyers here? I'd like to explore a class-action lawsuit against Apple for infringement of fair use of copyrighted material in iBooks.

Most of my reading is done for the purpose of research. Apple has a feature within iBooks that allows me to highlight a passage and copy/paste it. However, this feature is disabled on copy protected books purchased through iBookstore.

To my view, this is prior restraint on protected activity. Its application materially harms my ability to use copyrighted materials as allowed by laws governing the fair use of such materials.

Thoughts?

thank you for making my day!

 

[darngooddesign]

Do you know this for certain?

So you want to bring a lawsuit without researching the matter first. LOL

 

[Timo_Existencia]

you're still operating under the assumption that fair use is an affirmative right. I'm not so sure it is.

I do have this assumption & would be surprised if it weren't true. Isn't fair use rooted in first amendment rights?

What if you're at a library that doesn't have a copy machine? Is the library violating fair use by not allowing you to copy the page so that it's easier to make "fair use" of the material?

Exactly my point. If the library HAD a copy machine but enforced selective use of it this would raise the same question.

Also, with a computer (iPad/e-reader aside) you can multi-task. Word processing window on one half of the screen, text on the other. I can do that even on my 13" MacBook Air. The iPad is far, far, far from meeting "normal" computer standards and by design isn't really made to write research papers.

The iPad is the only copy I have of the current book i'm reading. To that end, it is essentially the book.

My understanding of fair use doesn't grant the copyright holder the right to make my fair use more difficult. That would be "chilling" to my rights.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

So you want to bring a lawsuit without researching the matter first. LOL

Ummm...go back and read. I AM doing research. I didn't say I was filing a law suit, I said I was interested in exploring it.

 

[bradg33]

I do have this assumption & would be surprised if it weren't true. Isn't fair use rooted in first amendment rights?



Exactly my point. If the library HAD a copy machine but enforced selective use of it this would raise the same question.



The iPad is the only copy I have of the current book i'm reading. To that end, it is essentially the book.

My understanding of fair use doesn't grant the copyright holder the right to make my fair use more difficult. That would be "chilling" to my rights.

The copyright holder isn't making it more difficult, he's just choosing not to make it easier. Not allowing copy/paste is absolutely no different than a paper copy of the book. You can't copy/paste from a paper copy, you MUST re-type it. With the digital copy the copyright holder is simply using DRM to ensure that you gain no advantage from the digital copy and that you must still re-type any material you wish to utilize.

 

[darngooddesign]

Ummm...go back and read. I AM doing research. I didn't say I was filing a law suit, I said I was interested in exploring it.

You said your iPad usage would be for research. I assumed you had researched this lawsuit fully, but since you don't even now whether the iBookstore's DRM is applied to every title I doubt how much research you have actually done. The most important part of exploring is to know whether you even have something to explore.

 

[samcraig]

Exactly my point. If the library HAD a copy machine but enforced selective use of it this would raise the same question.

Kinko's won't let you copy just anything. Do people get away with more than they should - no doubt.

And some libraries DO limit and/or only let you copy certain things.

Again - it's not illegal. Just inconvenient. There's a difference.

 

[darngooddesign]

Again - it's not illegal. Just inconvenient. There's a difference.

Unfortunately its especially inconvenient on the iPad.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

The copyright holder isn't making it more difficult, he's just choosing not to make it easier. Not allowing copy/paste is absolutely no different than a paper copy of the book. You can't copy/paste from a paper copy, you MUST re-type it. With the digital copy the copyright holder is simply using DRM to ensure that you gain no advantage from the digital copy and that you must still re-type any material you wish to utilize.

Again, you assume that the previous technology sets the standard here. I don't. I think the current technology should set the standard. How would you feel if the publishers, in their copyright, tried to restrict you from using a computer to type the copy? What if they restricted you to pen and paper? According to your argument, that would be allowable, since they aren't "preventing" you from making the copy, they just aren't making it easy for you and ensuring that you don't gain any advantage by the newer technology.

I'm not convinced your point holds here. The accepted means of copying material, previous to moveable type, was to handwrite everything. Then the printing press came and the common method changed. Law should progress as technology progresses. The current common practice in the digital world is copy/paste. Now that such technology exists, would you not agree that the legal question should at least be explored?

 

[Timo_Existencia]

You said your iPad usage would be for research. I assumed you had researched this lawsuit fully, but since you don't even now whether the iBookstore's DRM is applied to every title I doubt how much research you have actually done. The most important part of exploring is to know whether you even have something to explore.

Your assumption that I've fully researched all issues related to the iPad, iBooks, and iBookstore, which have only been available to me for less than a week, is a silly assumption. Right?

 

[darngooddesign]

Your assumption that I've fully researched all issues related to the iPad, iBooks, and iBookstore, which have only been available to me for less than a week, is a silly assumption. Right?

My assumption was based on your not asking about the DRM, which is the backbone of your lawsuit.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

Kinko's won't let you copy just anything. Do people get away with more than they should - no doubt.

And some libraries DO limit and/or only let you copy certain things.

Again - it's not illegal. Just inconvenient. There's a difference.

And that distinction is worth exploring in a world of new technology, right? You don't think the question should be explored?

As to the restrictions, in my experience, libraries ask that I follow copyright law. Are they generally making universal a priori rules that prohibit my use of a copy machine?

Brad has raised the fundamental question here: do I have this right? If not, then copyright holders can make it as difficult as possible, right? They could require me to use charcoal on a cave wall "like we used to do it!" But, even if that's what current law says, I think there would be value in challenging that law.

Something tells me that if I had started this thread challenging Amazon and the Kindle, there would be more agreement with my points.

My assumption was based on your not asking about the DRM, which is the backbone of your lawsuit.

I don't yet have a lawsuit. I have a question, as I've clarified previously.

 

[miles01110]

Again, you assume that the previous technology sets the standard here. I don't.

Unfortunately for you the law does. Electronic DRM is a legal means of protecting copyright.

How would you feel if the publishers, in their copyright, tried to restrict you from using a computer to type the copy?

That's a different issue entirely, if the fair use exemption is being claimed. You seem to be missing this distinction. It also has no relation to your case, since this isn't what is happening to you (thus giving you no standing to bring the case to court in the first place).

Law should progress as technology progresses. The current common practice in the digital world is copy/paste. Now that such technology exists, would you not agree that the legal question should at least be explored?

Again, what legal question are you even asking? It is legal to restrict copy/pasting on a file, just like it is legal to restrict the ability to playback a music file on 5 computers. It is legal to use copyrighted material under the colloquial term "fair use" if such use meets the established criteria. You are claiming that by restricting the ability to copy and paste on a file your "right" to fair use is somehow violated when it clearly is not. Nobody is disallowing use of information, they are restricting the methods by which it can be used (perfectly within the rights of the copyright holder).

 

[bradg33]

Again, you assume that the previous technology sets the standard here. I don't. I think the current technology should set the standard. How would you feel if the publishers, in their copyright, tried to restrict you from using a computer to type the copy? What if they restricted you to pen and paper? According to your argument, that would be allowable, since they aren't "preventing" you from making the copy, they just aren't making it easy for you and ensuring that you don't gain any advantage by the newer technology.

I'm not convinced your point holds here. The accepted means of copying material, previous to moveable type, was to handwrite everything. Then the printing press came and the common method changed. Law should progress as technology progresses. The current common practice in the digital world is copy/paste. Now that such technology exists, would you not agree that the legal question should at least be explored?

The previous standard should control unless Congress decides otherwise. These kinds of debates, while entertained by some courts, are more properly handled by Congress. The court's shouldn't be "progressing" the law, the legislature should.

Also, your points about not allowing you to type, etc. are entirely distinguishable. The publishers here aren't restricting what you can do with their material; they are simply producing it in a specific manner that doesn't allow you to "copy" it digitally. To suggest that they could restrict you from re-typing it vs. handwriting is absurd. It has nothing to do with any "restraint" in terms of telling you, "you can't do this." It is merely them engineering it in a way that physically prevents you from doing so. They are under no obligation to produce their material in the manner most convenient for you.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

Unfortunately for you the law does. Electronic DRM is a legal means of protecting copyright.

I never said DRM wasn't legal, did I? Restricting me from giving away free copies of copyrighted materials in their entirety is much different than restricting me from copy/paste on my iPad. Do you not see the distinction?

Again, what legal question are you even asking? It is legal to restrict copy/pasting on a file, just like it is legal to restrict the ability to playback a music file on 5 computers.

Yes, that's one of the questions that I think should be explored.

You are claiming that by restricting the ability to copy and paste on a file your "right" to fair use is somehow violated when it clearly is not. Nobody is disallowing use of information, they are restricting the methods by which it can be used (perfectly within the rights of the copyright holder).

And I think you are missing the point that I believe the right to fair use should exist a priori, and that copyright holders can't go out of their way to make it more difficult for me to use what I'm legally allowed to use.

And, make no mistake, engineering DRM and applying it to copy/paste on the iPad is taking extra steps to make the action more difficult. It's not like a book that merely exists, they are engineering difficulties into the device, circumventing my natural use of the material.

At the very least, I'm really surprised that none of you seem to think this is a question worth exploring. Again, I wonder if you feel this way universally, or if this is a knee-jerk protection of Apple?

 

[bradg33]

I never said DRM wasn't legal, did I? Restricting me from giving away free copies of copyrighted materials in their entirely is much different than restricting me from copy/paste on my iPad. Do you not see the distinction?



Yes, that's one of the questions that I think should be explored.



And I think you are missing the point that I believe the right to fair use should exist a priori, and that copyright holders can't go out of their way to make it more difficult for me to use what I'm legally allowed to use.

And, make no mistake, engineering DRM and applying it to copy/paste on the iPad is taking extra steps to make the action more difficult. It's not like a book that merely exists, they are engineering difficulties into the device, circumventing my natural use of the material.

At the very least, I'm really surprised that none of you seem to think this is a question worth exploring. Again, I wonder if you feel this way universally, or if this is a knee-jerk protection of Apple?

My opinion has absolutely nothing to do with Apple. I would feel the same way if Amazon, Barnes and Nobel, Microsoft, etc. were the companies at issue.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

The previous standard should control unless Congress decides otherwise. These kinds of debates, while entertained by some courts, are more properly handled by Congress. The court's shouldn't be "progressing" the law, the legislature should.

There are rights that exist a prior to congressional acts. Such as the First Amendment. My understanding of fair use is that it is rooted in First Amendment law, therefore, the Courts would need to protect my a priori rights to fair use.

Also, your points about not allowing you to type, etc. are entirely distinguishable. The publishers here aren't restricting what you can do with their material; they are simply producing it in a specific manner that doesn't allow you to "copy" it digitally.

They are taking extra steps to restrict my fair use of materials, and whether the law says so or not, I think this should be challenged.

To suggest that they could restrict you from re-typing it vs. handwriting is absurd. It has nothing to do with any "restraint" in terms of telling you, "you can't do this." It is merely them engineering it in a way that physically prevents you from doing so. They are under no obligation to produce their material in the manner most convenient for you.

It's precisely the opposite; they are manufacturing restrictions to my ability to legally use materials. They aren't passive actors here, they are taking extra steps to impeded fair use. Again, at the very least, I think the question should be explored.

You don't?

My opinion has absolutely nothing to do with Apple. I would feel the same way if Amazon, Barnes and Nobel, Microsoft, etc. were the companies at issue.

And, what is your position? Do you hold that there are no a priori rights to fair use? That copyright holders rights should be absolute? For example, should a comedian not be allowed to parody a published work? If they should be allowed, should the copyright holder be allowed to make it as difficult as possible for the work to be used in this manner? What position are you arguing?

 

[calderone]

And I think you are missing the point that I believe the right to fair use should exist a priori, and that copyright holders can't go out of their way to make it more difficult for me to use what I'm legally allowed to use.

I would love to know how you think the right to fair use is a right that can be a priori. It is most definitely a posteriori.

And to add, how can it be that you think it "should" exist a priori. That statement alone invalidates the idea that it can be.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

I would love to know how you think the right to fair use is a right that can be a priori. It is most definitely a posteriori.

Because I believe that I have first amendment rights to free speech which should control here.

 

[miles01110]

I never said DRM wasn't legal, did I? Restricting me from giving away free copies of copyrighted materials in their entirely is much different than restricting me from copy/paste on my iPad. Do you not see the distinction?

No, because in the technical process there is no distinction between the process of violating copyright (copy pasting and then selling the information) and using information under fair use (copy pasting and then using it as a citation or whatever). DRM protects copyright and just so happens to make fair use more difficult. If you want to propose a solution that is economically viable, protects copyright, yet allows fair use in the manner you are desiring, you should start a business.

Yes, that's one of the questions that I think should be explored.

Start lobbying your congressperson.

And I think you are missing the point that I believe the right to fair use should exist a priori, and that copyright holders can't go out of their way to make it more difficult for me to use what I'm legally allowed to use.

That's not the justification for DRM. DRM is put in place to protect copyright, not to inhibit fair use. Any defendant in a lawsuit claiming that its DRM inhibits fair use will use the defense that it is protecting copyright and they will win. You seem to think that since you want to use material for fair use you have a right to obtain that material at no inconvenience to yourself, regardless of copyright protection. This belief is pretty much 100% incorrect.

And, make no mistake, engineering DRM and applying it to copy/paste on the iPad is taking extra steps to make the action more difficult. It's not like a book that merely exists, they are engineering difficulties into the device, circumventing my natural use of the material.

Natural use of reading material is reading it. Copy/pasting the material into another medium or program can hardly be considered "natural use." Chalk up one more hole in your sinking ship.

At the very least, I'm really surprised that none of you seem to think this is a question worth exploring.

You are surprised that people disagree with you, yet you are asking for advice on a possible lawsuit? Are you aware that people will disagree with you in court? I suggest dropping this idea altogether, in that case.

Again, I wonder if you feel this way universally, or if this is a knee-jerk protection of Apple?

You're the only one trying to make this into a pro-Apple issue, honestly.

 

[bradg33]

There are rights that exist a prior to congressional acts. Such as the First Amendment. My understanding of fair use is that it is rooted in First Amendment law, therefore, the Courts would need to protect my a priori rights to fair use.



They are taking extra steps to restrict my fair use of materials, and whether the law says so or not, I think this should be challenged.



It's precisely the opposite; they are manufacturing restrictions to my ability to legally use materials. They aren't passive actors here, they are taking extra steps to impeded fair use. Again, at the very least, I think the question should be explored.

You don't?

I don't. I have no problem with DRM generally and I think these kinds of suits are borderline baseless and are nothing but a waste of time and money; all you will do is impose costs on the companies/publishers that will ultimately contribute to rising costs to consumers. Further, I think that what you're talking about is merely a suit because you are being inconvenienced. You and I both know that you are not being prevented from using the material in your scholarship; you simply want to be able to do it in the most convenient manner to you and think the courts should help you do it.

 

[calderone]

Because I believe that I have first amendment rights to free speech which should control here.

It does not matter what you believe. The right to fair use cannot be a priori. Not even First Amendment rights are a priori, they were learned through experience or in other words a posteriori.

 

[Timo_Existencia]

I don't. I have no problem with DRM generally and I think these kinds of suits are borderline baseless and are nothing but a waste of time and money; all you will do is impose costs on the companies/publishers that will ultimately contribute to rising costs to consumers. Further, I think that what you're talking about is merely a suit because you are being inconvenienced. You and I both know that you are not being prevented from using the material in your scholarship; you simply want to be able to do it in the most convenient manner to you and think the courts should help you do it.

BTW…I don't have a problem with copyright OR DRM, actually. I like that copyright exists, and it should be protected. I just don't think it should be legal to chill the legal use of copyrighted materials, and I think the defacto restriction on copy/paste on the iPad does that.

Thanks for helping me refine my thoughts. I just did a search on some of these issues in google, and this thread came up in the top 10 search results already.

It's an interesting discussion, don't you think?

 

[calderone]

It's an interesting discussion, don't you think?

Not when the interlocutor does not know what they are talking about and misuses words in order to make their argument appear more potent than it actually is.