Undownloading: Further Proof Those eBooks You Paid For Really Aren't Yours
from the upsub dept
Over the years Techdirt has run a number of stories that make it abundantly clear that you don't own those ebooks you paid for. But in case you were still clinging to some faint hope to the contrary, here's a cautionary tale from Jim O'Donnell, a classics professor at Georgetown University. He is currently attending the IFLA World Library and Information Congress in Singapore, and naturally wanted to bring along some serious reading material; ebooks on an iPad seemed the perfect way to do that. As O'Donnell explains:
when I got here, I noticed that several of my iPad apps had updates on offer, so I clicked and approved. One of them was Google Play. When it finished and I went to open the app, it told me that it needed to update my book files and this might take several minutes.
Pretty standard stuff. But then something unexpected happened:
all of my books had un-downloaded and needed to be downloaded again. The app is an inefficient downloader, almost as bad as the New Yorker app, so I dreaded this, but clicked on the two I needed most at once. (I checked the amount of storage used, and indeed the files really have gone off my tablet.)
So, it seems that ebook users need to add a new word to their vocabulary: "undownloading" -- what happens when you leave the authorized zone in which you may read the ebooks you paid for, and cross into the digital badlands where they are taken away like illicit items at customs. If you are lucky, you will get them back when you return to your home patch -- by un-undownloading them.
And it balked. It turns out that because I am not in a country where Google Books is an approved enterprise (which encompasses most of the countries on the planet), I cannot download. Local wisdom among the wizards here speculates that the undownloading occurred when the update noted that I was outside the US borders and so intervened.
What makes this tale particularly noteworthy is the way it brings together a host of really bad ideas that the publishing and distribution industries insist on deploying. There's DRM that means you can't make backups; there's the country-specific usage that tries to impose physical geography on your digital ebooks; and there's the update that spies on you and your system before deciding unilaterally to take away functionality by "undownloading" your ebooks. And copyright maximalists wonder why people turn to unauthorized downloads....
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, drm, ebooks, licensing, ownership, regional restrictions
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
And reason #39 to never buy ebooks with DRM...
Means I miss out on the 'big name authors', as they tend to only 'sell' the ebook versions of their stuff on sites like Amazon and B&N, filled to the brim with DRM, but I flat out refuse to pay money for something that can be taken away from me on a whim by the 'seller'. Ebook pricing equal or higher than dead-tree version pricing doesn't exactly help their case either...
Still, I suppose in a way I should thank them, their contempt for their customers or potential customers has driven me to check out alternative sources, and enabled me to find countless authors that I would otherwise have never known about.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And reason #39 to never buy ebooks with DRM...
No problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And reason #39 to never buy ebooks with DRM...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And reason #39 to never buy ebooks with DRM...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I mean obviously Mike is engaging in illegal activities if that comment is there
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NOT IN CONTROVERSY! SHEESH!
From my bullet points:
) Possession of authorized physical media is license to access the content anynumber of times (which can be one-at-a-time library use, yet not "public"display). In the absence of physical media, there's no clear right to access content, only perhaps an authorized temporary permission. But at no time does possession of digital data confer a right to reproduce it outside of the termsand conditions as for physical media, no matter how easy it is to do so.
) Emphasizing an aspect of the just above point: digital data is even less"owned" by the purchaser than with physical media, not more.
Mike supports copyright TOO! So why aren't you pirates attacking him at every turn? HMM?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NOT IN CONTROVERSY! SHEESH!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NOT IN CONTROVERSY! SHEESH!
People have consistently chosen to commit illegal acts (e.g. pirating ebooks, stripping DRM) rather than deal with the legal routes: the inane, unreasonable, and sometimes ridiculous restrictions placed upon the access of legally-purchased digital content by copyright holders don’t often work in favor of consumers.
Region-locking and undownloading don’t come off as ‘reasonable’ restrictions to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NOT IN CONTROVERSY! SHEESH!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NOT IN CONTROVERSY! SHEESH!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: NOT IN CONTROVERSY! SHEESH!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NOT IN CONTROVERSY! SHEESH!
Baen E-Books provide 'digital files' without 'Digital rights management'. Save them to a hard drive, back them up on a flash, read them on any software that can handle the file, heck even email them to yourself.
This thing, can't happen to them. Unless they start using "DRM" at that point, they lose me as a paying customer.
Bless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NOT IN CONTROVERSY! SHEESH!
If you lawfully possess a book, you can read it, period. Even if the copyright holder claims you can't, unless you specifically have that away, which basically no one ever does.
And this foolish misunderstanding of the law is why we need to abolish EULAs and other licenses that would limit end users. Not only are they inherently unacceptable, they lead people to believe that they're normal and acceptable when they are certainly not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NOT IN CONTROVERSY! SHEESH!
I don't think ANY of what you said was relevant to the article. As much as you love dry-humping the content industry as it abuses it's customers can you at least see that many people who "buy" eBooks would be surprised to find that they may have their physical property (their phone/tablet) tampered with because they moved outside an arbitrary space?
Just because it's possible (and easy) to do doesn't make it right. Imagine the shit-storm at customs if all non-authorized books flying to a location were seized and stored until your return. That is the real version of what's happening here. You seem to be OK with it because, well I can't see any reasoning in your post, so I'll assume it's because you want to be edgy and disagreeable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: NOT IN CONTROVERSY! SHEESH!
If that's the case, would it be perfectly alright for people to unilaterally refund their money from these corporate entities' bank accounts? You're not in favor of corporations DEFRAUDING the public, are you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If it has DRM, it's not a book
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Also, if you plan on keeping said books, just copy the files on your sdcard or computer. I fail to see the scandal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If my Kindle had pulled this trick on a recent overseas trip it would have driven me insane. But it never has.
Has anyone ever seen similar with Amazon's stuff ? How obscure a country does one have to go to, for Google books to not be downloadable ?
I notice that the OP merely speculates that the undownloading was triggered by location.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: DRM Removal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Companies that provide DRM-ed media like to say things like "DRM is what allows us to provide you with premium content in an electronic format". So the people who don't know any better may think that without DRM, they can't have the stuff they want. In that case, why would they go looking for ways to remove the DRM? I'm just speculating here but I think it's very likely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Although I would argue against DRM stripping for ebooks anyway as counterproductive, it's far more effective to simply not buy any ebooks that come with DRM in the first place, and tell the author that's why you refuse to buy.
Buying and then stripping the DRM just tells them that though you might complain about the DRM, it's not enough to actually keep you from buying, so why should they care about the complaints?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What is this magic that you speak of? How many years of training must you have in order to accomplish such a highly technical and complicated feat which is surely beyond the abilities of mere mortals? Is a human sacrifice required or will an animal suffice?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Why is obtaining a DRM-free copy by downloading it piracy, and getting one by applying a software algorithm to a data file not piracy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What's the difference between paying the company the price and downloading from their store, and paying the company the price and downloading it from somewhere else? (aside from the saved bandwidth)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Because you're downloading it from someone who doesn't have authorization to distribute it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Maybe they commit infringement when they distribute the material, but you don't, because you paid for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Whether it's the same bits or not doesn't matter, legally.
Maybe they commit infringement when they distribute the material, but you don't, because you paid for it.
IANAL but my understanding is both parties commit copyright infringement, whether or not you already paid for another copy, because copyright law has no exception written in for an act that would otherwise be infringing except that you already have legally obtained a copy. If you have a source that says otherwise though, I would be very interested to see it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I love euphemisms.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Location Limitations on Access to Media
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Location Limitations on Access to Media
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The law may or may not acknowledge my right to protect my things, but if it doesn't, then the law is wrong, not me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amazon Won't Textbook Rental Restrictions
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DRM
The problem was that I broke my Kindle and bought a used replacement but did not register it with Amazon. That's what DRM is now about: you cannot read DRM content on an unregistered device.
Why does that not scare the hell out of civil libertarians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DRM
Because you have to... Ooh, shiny!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: DRM
I got given one and as I didn't have WiFi in the house I couldn't register it to change the time - it was almost useless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: DRM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corrections
They were actually PD titles from Google Books, and the problem was very likely caused by Google Books, not Google Play Books. The Google Books project has a long history of technical snafus, and this latest cockup is only a couple degrees more incompetent than past incidents.
According to my other source (an int'l traveler) paid ebooks from Google Play Books are probably safe from this bug.
http://ebookne.ws/16SLRGN
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Corrections
I have a paid ebook from Amazon that lists as "updated". Haven't clicked on it yet cause it'll be some time that I'll re-read it but I could cause my backups is free of DRM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anyone questioning "piracy"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nevermind adding "undownloading"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nevermind adding "undownloading"
'Thank you for your purchase, now that you've handed over your money, be aware that we retain the right to revoke your license at any time, for pretty much any reason we feel like, and take away your access to our content.'
'I thought I was buying the song/book/movie in question. I mean, through the entire purchase process it has 'buy' and 'sale' all over the place, no mention of a license anywhere.'
'Oh no, you were only paying for a license to access our material, as it clearly states in page 12, subsection 3.4, clause 'Because screw you' of the site ToS, that we helpfully direct you to at no point ever.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nevermind adding "undownloading"
Just because you didn't read them and are completely onerous (as evidenced by the fact that they allow precisely what happened in this article) doesn't mean they don't exist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nevermind adding "undownloading"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nevermind adding "undownloading"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nevermind adding "undownloading"
If people knew upfront that their 'purchase' came with a ton of strings attached, I imagine it would make a good many people rather more hesitant about paying, or at least make them give a good look at other, less restrictive alternatives.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Piracy
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
None of which will slow the virtual stampede to give up desktop and laptop computers which you control in favor of tablets which are usually controlled by the company who sold it to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
duel download
Is it a fair analogy to say it is like a Keg demanding that you use chopsticks to eat your stake. "No, you can't use that fork, it violates the Digital Millenium act."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: duel download
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So is O'Donnell against copyright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So is O'Donnell against copyright?
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 2013 20:58:07 +0800
Allow me to add three details to my story, which has gotten picked up
on various blogs, eliciting comments three orders of magnitude more
vapid than *anything* EVER posted on liblicense!
1. The books were not ones I had bought: they were 19th century
editions of classics scanned by the Google Books project. The ones I
need for my teaching are the two volumes of an 1884 edition of the
Latin text of Augustine's City of God. (I covered myself by finding a
non-Google scan of the same volumes on archive.org.)
2. I have since discovered by framming around that about half a dozen
of the 40 or so titles are in fact downloadable now, but with no
reasonable pattern at all. Of a three volume set of Middlemarch, it's
letting me have volume 2. Isaac Disraeli's Curiosities of Literature
is just fine and so is Moby-Dick, but not Varieties of Religious
Experience or J.N. Madvig's Adversaria Critica (in three volumes).
3. The way it caught me was that my iPad signaled that Google Play
wanted to update itself, so I clicked to allow it to do so -- people
keep forgetting to praise the all-wise Steve Jobs for the way we get
to spend zen meditative time with our iPads waiting for the same app
to keep updating itself over and over and over again. It was in doing
the update that it figured out where I was and zapped the books. If I
had not done the update, I'm pretty sure I would have escaped ok --
pretty sure, because I've taken them to other non-Google-Play
countries before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So is O'Donnell against copyright?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Contract Law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Contract Law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If someone undownloads an ebook I've paid for...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
CAN WE BE CLEAR HERE...
When you read Techdirt stories, do yourself a favor and don't treat the article that Mike and his Cronies gives you as gospel, read the links that provide you and I guarantee that if that link isn't pointing back to tech dirt then follow it to the true story, which is always more nuanced than Techdirt would lead you to believe.
(I'm also highly suspect at the moment that they're being paid by Twitter to produce 'news' based an tweets)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: CAN WE BE CLEAR HERE...
No one bought anything, but how can you say there was no DRM? What would you call the system that decides what you're allowed to view and where?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I share many of the same reservations that others have expressed regarding the potential (and already documented) abuses that will occur when knowledge is fully digitized and controlled by the few. At the same time, pretending that we didn't know what we were signing up for when we started consuming digital content seems a little naive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is all an artifact of copyright
But when you "buy" software or an ebook, you are simply downloading content, and that is typically done by a "license" which means you never "own" the content, just as you do not own it even when you buy a physical book. Without copyright law imposing these artificial distinctions, such limitations would probably be unheard of; by pure contract alone, it's unlikely sellers of content could persuade buyers to contractually limit how they use the information. This is all an artifiact of IP law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't see the scandal here either.
I think a better title for this article would be "Man updates software while in Asia; loses all books, but gains Chinese apps".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not quite
While it's true that I can't purchase physical books in the UK at US prices, I can buy books at US prices in the US, then bring them back to the UK to read them, something that seems to be impossible with ebooks unless you're willing to commit a crime by stripping the malware that enforces this stupidity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
People missunderstanding DMCA
Want to pop in and correct a misconception Of the DMCA.
DMCA only prevents the creation and distribution of technologies that circumvent protections.
It does not say, it is illegal for a end user to "USE" say DVDdecrypt. "Use" of DVDdecrypt to make a backup copy is protected under "fair use" portion Of the copyright act. especially for archiving purposes so we don't permanently loose the knowledge of the copy protected material.
The reason, no one that I know of, has been sued for using dvddecrypt, is I believe industry is afraid it would loose in court. If it did it could undo the whole DMCA.
DMCA was created as a workaround for removing the end user rights of copyrighted materials. The things found in DMCA was rejected from the group overseeing the updating of the copyright laws, who stated, the request took too many of the end user rights away and removed the rights of first sale and the right of ownership that is garrenteed for any other kind of purchase like books or cars..
One thing that bugs me that I read in another post is the material that was undownloaded was material that belonged to the "public domain" by undownloading the books was removing access to public domain information.
I don't think it is right for a company to have the right to "bait and switch" by calling it an "update" rather than "this is a security check to see if you are in violation of TOS" to me updates are not updates when involving removing content or enforcing "tos" especially without any warning and ability to cancel that update. This is in fact a "police action by google"
My question is, when did a company get so much power as to restrict access to "public domain" material. Isn't this how tyranny starts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: People missunderstanding DMCA
Actually, that is exactly what it says:
"No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title...
(3) As used in this subsection— (A) to "circumvent a technological measure" means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and (B) a technological measure "effectively controls access to a work" if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1. get Nook Simple; none of that fancy HD stuff; I just want a nook that reads books, not checks email, plays games, etc.
2. As with any device, turn off wifi and auto updates. don't ever update.
3. Lurk moar. Pirate. You can get almost ANY book for free. and yes, it is yours. Keep copies on a flash drive and on your PC.
4. Illegitimi non carborundum
I'm not rich. I use the library religiously, but not every book is available there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Deja Vu: Google setting us up for an Amazon Swindle via the Play Store :(
... Google may remove from your Device or cease providing you with access to certain Products that you have purchased... Et.al.
Reference:
https://play.google.com/intl/en-za_za/about/play-terms.html
Just did a websearch (right now I'm too pissed off to use the verb "google" ) on RMS' comments on the Swindle and found your blog entry: opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2009/04/rms-on-amazons-swindle.html?m=1
I'm in South Africa and I'm surprised at this DRM restriction, it removes our rights to fair dealing and established law regarding the purchase and use of goods and services, much in the same way as Amazon does.
SA consumers take a critical view of any DRM, particularly from the time onwards of nonsensical Region Control restrictions when DVD became popular. Nobody ever buys a region locked DVD player here.
I think Google should respect the fact that our devices are ours to use as we wish, this issue is not about security or propagation of malicious code into the cyber ecosystem, but a backdoored attempt to strip away the users rights.
Shame on you, Google! And you supposedly do no evil?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]