On Tuesday, 22nd March 2011 at 09:03:25 (GMT +0100), Marcello Perathoner wrote:
can you please give us an authoritative source that says that removing DRM from your own e-books solely for your private use is "illegal"?
I'm appalled that you don't know the laws of your very own country. Slovakia is in the EU isn't it?
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32001L0029:EN:HT...
Art. 6
Why be so bombastic, Marcello? Like Keith said, no one can possibly know all the laws of the country where they live, and I'm sure that even applies to professional lawyers (!), which most people are not. I once consulted copyright issues with a German lawyer and, in reply to one of my questions, he told me: "Sorry, I'm just not particularly versed with *that area* of our laws. I'd have to research it to give you an answer." There you have it! Second, Marcello, no country is governed by EU Directives. You posted a link to an EU Directive from 2001 -- admittedly an authoritative reference -- that merely says it should be implemented in EU Member States later on. Whether it was indeed later implemented by all EU Memeber States, and in what shape and form in each particular instance, I have no idea. (Do you?) Third, you reference Article 6 of that Directive, but paragraph 4 of that Article explicitly mentions "exceptions and limitations" from copyright laws, referring back to Article 5(2)(b) which, in its turn, explicitly mentions "reproductions on any medium made by a natural person for private use and for ends that are neither directly nor indirectly commercial". So, you have produced an authoritative reference, Marcello, albeit a generic one (on the EU level rather than the level of an individual Member State). But, so far, you have provided zero proof and support for your assertion that "removing DRM from your own e-books solely for your private use is illegal". I'd be happy to discuss and explore this subject further, so we can come up with a definitive answer. I'd even be happy to contact a lawyer in my own country if needed -- if only I knew *what* lawyer, and where, I should turn to. I really have no idea. Finally, strange as it may seem, my unwillingness to use the Kindle app (or even iBooks) to read Kindle books on the iPad and iPhone is primarily related to Travis's health-themed concern. After it gets dark, I only read books in white-on-black mode; I'm positive that this strains your eye-sight far less than reding black-on-white for hours on end, which amounts to staring at a giant white slate radiating bright light right at your face. I also find reading in "white-on-black" on the iPad more relaxing than reading on a Kindle while using external artificial light to illuminate the Kindle. But the "night-mode" in the Kindle app and iBooks is pitiful: in order for "white-on-black" reading mode to work properly, you've got to use a strong font such as Futura offered by Stanza. Delicate serif fonts such as Times, Georgia, but also sans-serif ones like Helvetica/Arial, are possibly even less readable in "white-on-black" than they are in "black-on- white" which is best suited for them. In other words, the Kindle app and iBooks give you no opportunity to select a suitable font for "white-on- black", and that alone should be legal justification enough for anyone to be permitted to convert a Kindle book that they have purchased into EPUB so that they (and no one else) can read it in proper "white-on-black" in Stanza, too. No EU Directive, and no law on earth, can force anyone to damage their health carelessly -- and I'm sure this principle would be upheld by any court, should it come to a trial. Do you agree, Marcello? :-) -- Yours, Alex. www.aboq.org [processed by "The Bat!", Version 4.2.10.12]