“Amazon grants you the non-exclusive right to keep a permanent copy of the applicable Digital Content and to view, use, and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times, solely on the Device…

I would argue that “permanent copy” means I can make a backup copy by systematically (with a Rube Goldberg setup to turn the pages) taking images of the screen. And taking images is not “circumvention of an effective technical means…” under the DMCA. And the agreement I make upon purchase does not say I can’t take images of the screen. Sort of like acoustic couplers and automatic devices that listened for the phone to ring and answered by moving a part that held the switch hook down, for those who remember the days of Ma Bell’s exclusive access to phone wires.

In the alternative, those images are not the same as the Digital Content, so that my use of them is not limited by the contract, so I don’t even need to argue that they are permitted by the “permanent copy” contract clause. Amazon does not own the copyright to the actual text. Their contract applies to the parts of the digital content not visible on the screen.

Of course, the actual meaning of the terms of this sort of license can never really be known until the court rules on them. Wait, make that the confidential arbitrator, so, each ruling will be secret, and most likely no one knows what happened.

ANY DISPUTE ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING IN ANYWAY TO THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO CONFIDENTIAL ARBITRATION IN SEATTLE, WASHINGTON, …

Still, I think that making backup copies of the text, provided I don’t distribute them, would definitely be legal if heard in a U.S. District Court, but who knows what might happen in “confidential arbitration.” But then, how would I ever end up in arbitration if I don’t distribute my images? Also, I think the images could be inherited (especially if done quietly).

I wouldn’t be able to view the images on the device, and if I OCR the images and put it back on in free format, Amazon can tell since they receive “backup copies” of all my files and annotations, and I can’t encrypt them because I can’t modify the software.

This really is a little scary… I probably can’t snoop the traffic between the Kindle and Amazon (and I wouldn’t like it if I could because then anyone else could too) so I can’t tell exactly what the device might be revealing about me and my habits. It might even be sending audio, for all I know. They don’t promise that it won’t, and they certainly go to a lot of trouble to see that I can’t find out. (But then, cell phones have that problem in spades). And Amazon (or their successors upon takeover) can change the privacy policy at will.

I might buy a Kindle, but I will certainly replace it with a free/libre version the instant one becomes available. And I will feel no guilt in transferring my scanned images to the new device. I paid for a copy, and since I will trash the Kindle, I will only be using one copy.

G: Perhaps you could expand and explain the point you’re making here. Don’t dumb down. But do use language appropriate for an intelligent lay readership. Thanks.

BW: You’ll miss out on A LOT of hardware and book news. As for not-so-fond looks at DRM and eBabel, they’re among our specialties because (1) “protection” all all those different e-book tongues can do so much damage to long-term book ownership and (2) the mass media aren’t giving them sufficient coverage. If people like us don’t raise the necessary questions, then who will? As it happens, I doubt that the inheritance angle has come up much before in the DRM debate. I see this site as a public service, and if our watchdog function tires you, then so be it. Of course, the DRM-related posts are minority!

ROB: Amazon is a terrific company in many ways, but it might not be around forever, and I’d rather not trust my library to Jeff and friends. Hey, I love the improvements I’m reading about in the Kindle 2. Let’s just hope that ePub and social DRM come next. I’m fervently hoping Amazon will do the right thing.

ROBBIE: Guess our property right priorities differ, LOL. I’m strongly pro-copyright even though, yes, the current terms ought to be rolled back to their pre-Bono level. Moving on, I totally agree with your about Amazon’s obnoxious DRM causing some people to go elsewhere—including, I suspect, pirate sites.

Thanks,
David

But personally I think that these arguments will become irrelevant as ebook sharing accelerates. Whether Amazon will let you re-download or gift an ebook wont be a concern if you can find a DRM-free version with simple google search.

When I was in college, I bought dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of books. In grad school, I bought hundreds more. What happened to these books? Some of them, I still have. But others have fallen away over ten or so moves, a couple of marriages, and life getting in the way. If I’d bought eBooks back then, I’d still have my entire library.

Sure, Amazon should be more open (although let’s not ignore the threat of piracy even as we look for approaches better than DRM), but I’m definitely excited about having access to my library forever.

Rob Preece
Publisher, http://www.BooksForABuck.com

I get your point. Making it repeatedly has become tiring to read. So I’ve removed you from my RSS subscription list.

BTW, I’m extremely anti-DRM and I’m well beyond 50.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Gary. But so much for the first sale doctrine, eh? At least that’s the way I see it. If copyright holders can apply such p-book metaphors as one-reader-at-a-time, then perhaps they need to be consistent.

Thanks,
David
(with the usual I-am-not-a-lawyer disclaimer)

Library venders of electronic resources have default agreements with cooperative repositories to assure hand-off in event of service discontinuance.