Hacker News Reader

Comment by edanm | Hacker News Reader

I'm not sure there's a difference in photocopying an entire book and doing the same to a DRM book. Do you know specifically that there is a difference?

View on HN

One is a federal felony, other is a fair use.

EDIT: Specifically, it is against the law to break DRM (unless for few cases outlined by library of Congress), and the law as written makes no exceptions for fair use. The courts have also held in positive that it was Congress intend to make breaking DRM a crime even if there is a fair use case.

... Except that's wrong. It's not fair use to photocopy an entire book and it never has been. Let's not lose sight of the actual laws in our blind rage against DRM.

Making private complete copies is legal in most countries, in particular European ones. Private copying levy stems from this concept. Photocopy an entire book for private use only is thus perfectly legal if you are in one of those countries which allows it.

Not all of Europe. It certainly isn't allowed in the UK but we don't have a levy on recordable media. It isn't even legal to rip music to listen to on a computer or an mp3 player. Not that this law is widely followed (or to my knowledge enforced).

There is discussion to create a global EU levy, but I didn't know UK did not already have it. To my knowledge, France, UK, Holland, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Norway has it, as well some of the baltic states.

If you put that copy directly into a safe and only drag it out when the original is destroyed, it sounds perfectly legal under fair use to me.

Copy a physical book and you have infringed on its copyright. Copy an ebook with DRM and you have done the same, AND run afoul of the DMCA.

Lets not lose sight of the fact that DRM does present a different situation by pulling additional laws into play, in our blind defense of DRM.

The DMCA kicks in if there is DRM involved.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com