Not in it's base form, and not unless you convert the formats(though conversion is trivially easy, literally taking two clicks).
From what I've read(I don't bother doing so myself) you need a specific add-on to the program to remove DRM, with Calibre itself going the standard CYOA route of telling users that such add-ons aren't in any way officially supported, which means if you want the add-on you're going to be getting it from someone else.
Re: Re: War is Peace. Slavery is Freedom. Violation of Privacy are Protecting the Consumer
If that's how you want to go I can play that game too. What part of the constitution says that the government cannot create rules limiting what companies are and are not allowed to do? What 'constitutional right' is a rule saying that companies need to respect customer privacy violating?
Last month the IPCC said it had uncovered evidence suggesting the documents had been destroyed despite a specific instruction that files should be preserved to be examined by a judge-led public inquiry into the undercover policing of political groups.
The letter claimed that the shredding “has been happening for some time and on a far greater scale than the IPCC seems to be aware of”. The author added that “the main reason for destroying these documents is that they reveal that [police] officers were engaged in illegal activities to obtain intelligence on protest groups”
Yeah, when police can blatantly destroy evidence like that it's a pretty good indicator that they have lost any respect towards the laws and legal system. That they consider themselves above any trivialities like 'orders from a judge' and/or figure that they'll be able to somehow survive the slap on the wrist that will be handed out.
Bad enough when they keep up the facade of respect towards the laws, but when they don't even bother with that much... that does not bode well for the future.
War is Peace. Slavery is Freedom. Violation of Privacy are Protecting the Consumer
I mean imagine if someone rents out a house. It would be a violation of their constitutional rights if some overzealous regulator were to pass a law stating that they have to make it clear to potential renters that they have cameras set up to record what people do in the house, and make the recordings opt-in rather than opt opt-out.
Likewise, requiring Comcast and company to tell customers what they are scooping up and allowing customers the chance to avoid having their data collected is a clear violation of their constitutional rights, as is almost certainly enumerated somewhere in the Bill of Rights.
All you're doing is giving these people more reason to double down on copyright maximalism rather than changing their business practices.
No, not really. When the standard 'responses'(more DRM, more restrictions on purchase and use, harsher penalties) just make people more likely to see what they're being offered as a rotten deal and decide to skip the whole 'buy' step, saying that they're being given more reasons for more failed anti-piracy techniques doesn't quite strike me as true.
Now if you change 'reason' to 'excuse', that I might buy, but 'reason'? No. Shooting their own feet was a stupid move the first time around, pirates aren't giving them 'reason' to pull the trigger another time, that's all on them.
It's probably unlikely. But it's certainly strange that the prosecution is claiming that Rawls' guilt is a foregone conclusion, and still hinging on the contents locked behind his password to make a case.
Not strange at all, as I understand they have enough to hang him(metaphorically speaking), what they want is a precedent that will allow them to force others to hand over their passwords in future cases, and they're trying to use this case to get it.
It's like a smaller version of the DOJ/Apple fight, where they pick an unsympathetic suspect and press to have a legal precedent set that they can and will use against not-so-unsympathetic suspects in the future. It's not about 'seeing justice done', it's about using the system for their own ends to erode rights of the public and give them more power.
If you haven't already found it consider giving Smashwords a try. Free trials of pretty much any book, generally good prices, no DRM at all, and no regional restrictions that I'm aware of. I don't think you even need to sign up to buy.
Depending on what genres you read, I might be able to toss some suggestions your way as well if Smashwords does look good to you, given over half of my ebook library came from there.
Knowingly lying to keep two people alive is generally for the good, I'd say, the problem is that even after it's done it's job they're still not interested in correcting the lie, and that combined with the 'lying to suspects to get plea confessions' sends the message of 'The cops can and will lie to you if they think it serves a purpose.'
Having the police be known liars is kind of a problem when it comes to building and maintaining trust from the public, as it means the public can't trust a single thing they say as any of it could be a lie.
"Yeah we lie, fairly often at that. If that's what it takes to get people to accept a plea deal that's just part of the job. Besides, the DA is okay with it, and while a single judge may be willing to toss some evidence so long as the judge in the case doesn't learn about it we're golden most of the time.
Now if we can just figure out why the public doesn't trust us... it's probably those extremists who keep bringing up anomalies of perfectly understandable mistakes and errors that other cops do. Yeah, that's gotta be it."
He's being publicly accused of involvement with child porn, a charge that's likely to haunt him for the rest of his life no matter what the eventual verdict is.
There's taking a fall and then there's 'throwing yourself off a cliff'. As such I really doubt he's a willing patsy in this, even if the prosecution does seem to be using the case to try and set a favorable precedent with regards to forcing people to provide passwords in future cases.
Assume YT is able to get a 'bulk rate discount', and only pays $2 per minute.
Assume that only half of videos uploaded have content such that they need closed captioning.
It would cost $24,000 per minute to provide transcription and closed captioning for YT videos at that rate.
While I can certainly understand how frustrating it can be for people that can't watch/listen like others can, and need that extra work put forth to be able to enjoy content the same as others, it simply isn't viable to require such at large scale, and if services like YT had to do so they'd be shut down within a day.
As for the possible response of 'Well just make the users pay then, spread out the costs', if people had to worry about submitting their videos for transcription and closed captioning, and pay rates like that, I think it's safe to say that the majority simply wouldn't bother, which would likewise kill any service like YT.
"Why didn't anyone tell me my face was this hideous?!"
Given how many people this putz sues for saying mean things about him I'm kinda surprised he hasn't sued the people who made the mirrors in the various bathrooms he uses. I mean making him have to deal with that kind of sight any time he goes to wash his hands is certainly not flattering.
Of course the exterior is downright amazing compared to the kind of person he is on the inside, and it's not like the idiot could ever admit what a terrible, atrocious troll he is, so maybe it somehow doesn't affect him.
3) The act of production of this evidence is "not testimonial", however the evidence itself is testimonial.
Wherefore it is against Fifth Amendment
If court claims the evidence is "not testimonial", court should be able to convict the defendant without this evidence. And should proceed to do so.
Yeah, the whole 'Forcing someone to decrypt something and/or provide a password isn't against the Fifth' is an idea that never should have made it off the ground.
Beyond the fact that being able to provide a password creating a link between the contents and the person, this particular(and persistent) dishonest and/or absurd logic can be exposed simply by a demand from the accused for immunity to anything a password provides.
If forcing someone to provide a password isn't forcing them to provide self-incriminating evidence against themself, then the prosecution loses nothing by granting immunity to anything found. If on the other hand they are being forced to provide self-incriminating evidence against themself, then that immunity would completely undermine the entire purpose behind demanding the accused decrypt something.
Anyone care to take a wild guess as to what the odds would be that such an offer would be accepted?
"We know what is on the encrypted disk" is not equal to "Defendant confessed he can decrypt the disk"
"We know what is on the encrypted disk" is to '... therefore it's not forcing someone to provide self-incriminating evidence' as 'We know the accused is guilty' is to '... therefore forcing them to confess to the crime isn't forcing them to provide self-incriminating testimony'.
Here, as in New York Telephone: (1) Doe is not “far removed from the underlying controversy;” (2) “compliance with [the Decryption Order] require[s] minimal effort;” and (3) “without [Doe’s] assistance there is no conceivable way in which the [search warrant] authorized by the District Court could [be] successfully accomplished.” Id. at 174-175. Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge did not plainly err in issuing the Decryption Order.
As arguments for bulldozing rights go that is not a pleasant one. 'It's easy' to violate a right does not mean that right doesn't exist. Confessing to a crime or leading investigators to a damning piece of evidence they otherwise wouldn't have is likewise 'easy', but I would hope that those wouldn't be considered acceptable, even if the court does seem to think it is this time around 'because computers'.
'Well yeah, why else did you think we- I mean not at all citizen, this is to protect the public from those voyeurs that would care more about a juicy non-story than the rights of the poor beleaguered business owners? Any real reporting of questionable actions will of course go through the proper channels, to be addressed and dealt with by the proper authorities, this is merely to deal with those fiends that think that they know better than those authorities.'
TL:DR version: As a heavily flawed and harmful 'solution' to a self-fixing problem
How does it function?
Essentially companies are granted access to 'courts' that exist outside of of the government of individual countries, and can sue government over things that they claim negatively impact them, with the corporate sovereignty tribunal not tied to the laws of the country, even to the point of issuing fines in direct conflict with legal rulings and laws a country might be bound by.
(Before someone jumps in and point out, 'Hey, two of those examples had the country winning!', yes, they won, after significant and costly cases, and much like SLAPP suits you don't have to win the case to win the battle, as you can be sure that seeing two countries sued had and continues to have a significant chilling effect on any actions that those and other governments might consider that might impact company profits. As has been pointed out before, governments don't really win corporate sovereignty cases, the best they can hope for in most cases is simply to not lose.)
Why can't we give these people enough rope to hang themselves?
Because corporate sovereignty clauses cause significant harm to the public, and the corporations pushing for them want those clauses in as many agreements as they can manage in order to use them against governments who might dare threaten their profits or even expected profits. They cause very clear and demonstrable harm, and as such the quicker they are treated as the poison pill that they are and gutted from all current and future agreements the better off the public will be.