I won't mince words.
You're breaking the law if you circumvent the controls built into the ebook
you've decided to copy without publisher's permission.
The publishers (not Adobe) have decided to incorporate copyright security
into the electronic publishing business. It's not a 'scam', it's the law.
It's not 'false security', it's the industry standard. And, in case you
hadn't noticed, you don't pay for ADE, so they're not making a buck.
Other points: the publishers have decided whether you can print a book or
not. If the ebook is protected by digital rights, you can't do that
anyway. Next, your ethics are way off base if you think you can circumvent
the law and get away with it.
If anyone should be fined, it's you for copyright violations.
Frustrated, I only wrote that to piss people off at Adobe. But it figures there is someone out there who is a stone thrower!
Let him who has never once sinned in his life point out and correct others who do. Hypocrite! We all are.
Remember your audience is bigger than the people at Adobe whom you think may
be reading this board. After a life in corporate America chasing crooks, I
don't like the sound of your suggestions. That's not hypocracy.
Well since you are so adamant about chasing crooks and wrong doers, it is my experience you are in fact one yourself, and the fact that others do what
you yourself do aggravates you to the point that you want to get them all, who do exactly as you do. you remind me of the cops who give out tickets for speeding, yet they themselves break those very laws. I bet you have copied CDs, DVDs, etc knowing you were breaking the very laws you run around trying to catch others doing. Now tell my you haven't done something against the law, one law, you haven't broken one law in your life, you stone thrower, and yet I am a stone thrower that is why I recognize you as one too. You are a hypocrite. I bet you even finagled your expense reports from time to time and fraudulently collected money you should not have collected. you expose yourself while attempting to expose others. This I am absolutely certain of. You are indeed a hypocrite.
And I have nothing to hide. I know very well this is the Internet and do not need to be informed of ALL HUMANS can read this if they happen across it. I have nothing to hide, unlike you.
Now what you have to figure out is this, just because I suggested it, does it mean I myself did it? I’ll ease your pain. I can’t afford to use up paper and ink to print out 150 pages on my printer just to get over on some goofy application that won’t let me read the book I bought the way I like to read it, but stifles me to their way of forcing people to read what they have paid for.
Sticks and stones... FYI, you will lose your bets.
If you want to tell Adobe what you think of their software, you can use the
'Contact Us' area on their website. Be specific, not bombastic, and I'd bet
(there's that word again!) they would answer you. They do need all the
constructive feedback they can get, because this product isn't up to the
same level as other similar ones. If you have something to contribute to
the forum by way of assistance to other users, please feel free. But
personal attacks don't count.
it's Ok Frustrated but, why can't I transfer an e-pub from my registered PC to my wife e-book reader (which is,of course, also a registered user) and back?
I can do this w/o copyright problem w/ all my paper books!
We don't need to do "surprised" if people seek (and will find) a way around this stupid restriction.
I wonder why the publisher don't learn from the mp3 market, do they get money from the paper industries?
To paraphrase Sherlock Holmes: the difference is 'electronic', dear Watson!
When you buy a physical book, the royalties are paid by the bookseller to
the publisher, who then pays the author. The publishing industry has had
real problems getting the same process to work with electronic
publications. They didn't want books to be copied the way that music was.
The way the Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 2000 was implemented is their
answer. Unfortunately, there's some 'wiggle room' in the implementation
strategy that lets publishers do things differrently, where the paper
methods were nearly uniform across the board. And that's where we as
consumers get caught. If Publisher A says 'no copies, no printing', that's
implemented electronically (whether the software is ADE or something else).
If Publisher B says 'copies allowed, no printing', that's implemented
electronically. Your bookseller has nothing to say about it. The library
where you're borrowing an ebook can't change that either - they add
electronic tags that relate to the loan of the material.
So, thanks to Napster, we're stuck with the system we have.
I would like to appoint that:
1. the mp3 sellers (Apple in front of all) did begin to make money w/ the stuff after drm got thrown out the window.
In the consequence also the music labels began to make money with it.
One would have to be blind not to see that.
2. its a matter of time until alternative reader who outsmart the drm will be available (like the acrobat reader and writer are available now).
So what is the point for those people to make the handling so difficult for the ones who buy an pay for the books?
It seems to me, they act like the one that castrate himself to play a prank to his wife :-p !
Where I living at the present time, they would say "Hosenscheisser".
And is not the fault of Napster (or whatever) but from the Hosenscheisser who didn't see the obvious.
PS: I still buy music on CD!
Time will tell. Until it does (and it's been about a dozen years so far),
digital rights management is the norm. People who try to circumvent DRM
controls could be prosecuted for 'theft' of another's intellectual property,
just as those who were prosecuted for using Napster and downloading
materials onto their computers. And, as it's been this long since the
implementation of DRM in epublications, they've had plenty of time. So far
- no solutions....
I'm not arguing with you, but I do want to point out that DRM did not get
'thrown out the window' when Apple invented the iTunes store - it's still
there. Apple created a different business model that sold you the music for
a token amount. They also pay royalties to the creators. Ditto with any
other websites that sell you the music. Both parties are satisfied by this
arrangement - and it's essentially the same one that has been implemented
BTW: the DRM manager in Acrobat Reader is the same as in ADE - Adobe Content
Manager. It's there also in other products, such as Google's stuff.
Of course are royalties to the authors to be paid! This is not the question.
We pay it every time we buy a paper book or an e-book, but you can give the paper book to a friend to read and get it back when he is done with it.
Most people (and I am one of them) want to do the same w/ an e-book they have paid for.
No more, no less.
Napster an others file-sharing didn’t die because of the prosecutors, they died because they became obsolete. The vast majority of people don’t want to steal.
When you buy music in a store today, you can copy it from an MP3 player to another. You didn’t steal it, you bought it!
In my opinion, I have the RIGHT to give to someone else something I have paid for, no matter whether it is a CD or a MP3 or a paper book or an e-book or software.
I lived a couple of year in South Africa and as I left, I gave my computers and respective software to a school near Brits. Why should this not be allowed w/ an e-book? This is simply ridiculous!
BTW: we don’t need to pretend to be unaware of it. The decryption SW is already available for sale.
And your point?