Amazon Uses DMCA To Restrict Ebook Purchases

InlawBiker writes "Today, Amazon invoked the DMCA to force removal of a python script and instructions from the mobileread web site. The script is used to identify the Kindle's internal ID number, which can be used to enable non-Amazon purchased books to work on the Kindle. '...this week we received a DMCA take-down notice from Amazon requesting the removal of the tool kindlepid.py and instructions for it. Although we never hosted this tool (contrary to their claim), nor believe that this tool is used to remove technological measures (contrary to their claim), we decided, due to the vagueness of the DMCA law and our intention to remain in good relation with Amazon, to voluntarily follow their request and remove links and detailed instructions related to it.' Ironically, the purpose of the script is to make the Kindle more useful to its users."

Progress

[TTURabble (1164837)]

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/3/9/ [penny-arcade.com]

Re:Progress

[DrLang21 (900992)]

All lies. Data contained in books deteriorates over time. As proof, how many books do we have from the 1st century AD?

First Sale My Ass

[ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371)]

How dare anyone attempt to enable users to do as they please with Amazon's personal property! Kindles and all their associated contents are the intellectual property of Amazon in perpetuity and just because you paid money for one and are in personal possession of it, that does not entitle you to do with it as you please.

I mean, where would we be if people could do as they liked with the things they buy?

Re:First Sale My Ass

[porcupine8 (816071)]

There's a big difference between a company fighting back by making the hacked item obsolete, and the company claiming that what you did is illegal and going after you in court. Companies are welcome to do whatever they want to try and design and market their products in such a way that they can only be used in the way the company wishes - the government doing it for them is not cool.

Re:First Sale My Ass

[DrLang21 (900992)]

The firework manufacturer can't go after you for using the fireworks you buy contrary to the instructions. The State makes laws regarding the use of fireworks to prevent physical injury or death to innocent bystanders and damage to other people's property.

Re:First Sale My Ass

[Shakrai (717556)]

I'm missing something. Cell phones are the biggie. People complain about the contracts required and early termination fees with their $20 phone. But they aren't willing to pay the $200 retail price of that phone

Speak for yourself. When I was with a GSM carrier I paid full retail price for all my phones so I could get unlocked/unbranded ones directly from Motorola and/or Nokia. Do you think that my carrier gave me a discount or let me sign up without a contract because I did this? Pffft, fat chance. Nowadays I don't bother because I'm stuck in CDMA land (Verizon is the only carrier with decent coverage around these parts) and there's no such thing as an unbranded CDMA phone, so why pay full price for one if I'm gonna be locked into a contract anyway?

The carriers claim that the contracts are all about the subsidy but fail to offer an explanation for why the termination fee is the same regardless of whether they subsidize a cheap candy bar phone or a $600 smart phone. They fail to offer an explanation for why they don't offer you a contract-less way to sign up for postpaid service if you are willing to bring your own phone or pay full retail for one.

Fact it, the contracts are a ploy to lock you into their service. They stopped being about subsidies a long time ago.

Re:First Sale My Ass

[nahdude812 (88157)]

I'd gladly pay retail price for my phone if it meant no contract. I'm highly allergic to service contracts in general, I will pay more up front to avoid them subsidizing me with tie-ins. When there's a service contract, they have no motivation to provide good service past the contract signing.

Before I got an iPhone, I was on Verizon Wireless for quite a few years. Once my initial contract expired, I started getting frequent calls from VZW which went something like:

"The plan you're on right now is no longer offered, but we can grandfather you in if you'll agree to a renewed contract."

"What happens if I don't agree to the new contract?" said I.

"You'll continue with the same features, at the same rate as you're paying now, but it won't be part of a plan," was the response.

"What's the advantage of being on a plan if I get the same features for the same price without being on a plan?" I countered.

"Without a plan, you... I'm not... well you would be planless! You would not be on a plan!"

"So what reason would I have to renew my contract, if I could avoid renewing my contract and get exactly the same thing?"

"I really suppose there's no reason you would want to do that," was the actual response one person gave me. I hope she didn't get in trouble, but I sincerely appreciated her candor.

These calls happened weekly, and each time they got more aggressive. One person suggested that I would lose my service if I didn't agree to a new contract. When I asked her in direct terms, "Is it true that if I do not re-up my contract, I will continue with the same features as I have now, at the same price, and that there is no reason to suspect this would change any time in the foreseeable future?" she responded, "No sir, your service will be cut off." I said, "Then please disconnect my service as of tomorrow, I will go out this afternoon and find a new carrier." It turns out this was a third party company who was only authorized to renew my contract, not cancel my service.

Previously when I had asked them to stop calling me about this, they had assured me they would.

After this most recent interaction where I was threatened with disconnection if I didn't re-up, I called Verizon Wireless customer service directly. I asked to cancel my service, and I was transferred to the cancellation department. I told them that if I received even one more call about renewing my contract, I would cancel my service immediately. They said something about "30 business days to process that request," (keep in mind, I had been getting the calls weekly). I repeated, "I don't care how long you're told to tell me that it takes to get me off that list, if I get such a call in even five minutes, I'm calling you back immediately to cancel. If you guys can get me off the list before the next time your contracted company gets to my number, then you will keep me as a customer; if you can't, then you lose me."

I never got another such call, and had service with them for probably three more years.

Now bear in mind whatever subsidization of initial costs they required had already been covered. I had made no indication that I wanted to stop my service with them, and fully expected to continue my service indefinitely, but here they were trying to pressure me into a commitment with absolutely no benefit to myself. If I had kept them happily for ten years, and they had called me again for this purpose after all that time, I would have fulfilled my promise and canceled my account immediately.

So, sorry for the long anecdote, but I'm one of those people who detests service contracts; I'll definitely cover any subsidization costs myself in order to avoid them.

Re:First Sale My Ass

[QuoteMstr (55051)]

Thanks for the anecdote. It illuminates why laissez-faire capitalism fails again and again: market capitalism works flawlessly in theory. This theory, however, rests on the assumption that all market participants are rational actors, and that these participants have access to all the information they need. This assumption does not hold in real life.

In real life, even relatively intelligent people only have 24 hours a day in which to make decisions, and nobody has the time to obtain all the information he needs to make rational decisions about everything. Most people will not have the skepticism or the presence of mind to question the service representative the way you did. Slick marketing exploits this weakness by pushing incorrect information that average people, pressed for time, will take as fact. Neither will most people use the courts to have contracts like this canceled, even if they become aware they were cheated: a lack of time again neuters the tools that capitalism in theory gives us to counter these abuses.

This is why we need explicit market regulation: to compensate for human inefficiency and weakness in the market. Cell phone contracts should be made illegal outright, the way they are in parts of Europe.

Lets boycott the thing I was never gona buy!

[Kenja (541830)]

The number of books I would have to buy to make the Kindle worth buying makes me sad. Its a nifty device, but there's no way I'd ever get one.

Re:Lets boycott the thing I was never gona buy!

[geminidomino (614729)]

I thought the same thing about ebook readers, but then I enrolled in an online degree program (from a real school). Since it's CS, most of the professors are rather clueful and the lecture notes (which tend to be even more complete than the textbooks) are all in PDFs.

Not having to have my laptop with me at all times to study made it worth it to get a PRS-505 (and it's a tax deduction since there's nothing else on it!)

Fuck the Kindle though.

Re:Lets boycott the thing I was never gona buy!

[Locke2005 (849178)]

Fuck the Kindle though. Umm... it is pretty much the wrong shape to make that use of it even remotely possible. Trust me, I've tried! And besides which, if I actually did find a way to follow your suggestion, Amazon would quickly issue a take down notice prohibiting me from making such creative use of the Kindle.

More useful? To whom?

[Kazoo the Clown (644526)]

It's not about the Kindle's usefullness to the user, it's about the Kindle's usefullnes to amazon. The Kindle is not where Amazon makes their money, it's on the sale of the ebooks-- if people are buying them from elsewhere, Amazon is not getting their profit, and in fact it may be costing them money-- the Kindle is essentially subsidised by their ebooks.

Have to hand it to Amazon

[elrous0 (869638)]

It takes a lot of balls to ask someone to pay almost $400 for the privilege of buying stuff exclusively from you, and then tell them that modifying the software to do anything BUT buy stuff from you is illegal.

Consoles

[jgtg32a (1173373)]

Isn't this the business model of the Console?

Re:Have to hand it to Amazon

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518)]

In Amazon's case, they don't actually have a lot of balls, because inventory is costly; but their highly optimized JIT supply chain management practices apparently allow them to order the balls they need, when they need them, on very short notice.

Irony?

[fastest fascist (1086001)]

Ironically, the purpose of the script is to make the Kindle more useful to its users.

Nothing ironic about it. Amazon doesn't want the Kindle to be more useful than they've designed it to be. They've spent a great deal of money and effort making this platform, they don't want to have to compete with other people selling books for the thing.

Isn't Kindle a Loss-Leader?

[sweatyboatman (457800)]

Ironically, the purpose of the script is to make the Kindle more useful to its users

From the relatively low cost of the device and the fact that access to Sprint's EV-DO network is free, I would assume that the kindle is a loss-leader for Amazon.

They're counting on making their money back and more selling the e-books over that network. And that only works if Kindle users get their books exclusively from Amazon. So clearly it's in their interest to limit the Kindle's capabilities in this way.

Having said that, it's not clear that the DMCA actually applies in this case. Though since the law is written so that large IP holders can bludgeon smaller entities, I'd say it seems to be working perfectly.

Re:Isn't Kindle a Loss-Leader?

[QuoteMstr (55051)]

They're counting on making their money back and more selling the e-books over that network

If Amazon would like to try this approach, that's fine. But our personal right to do what we will with our property trumps Amazon's business model. If Amazon's business model won't work in a free society, it has no business working at all.

Re:Isn't Kindle a Loss-Leader?

[QuoteMstr (55051)]

There's already a perfectly good legal mechanism to amortize high up-front costs over a product's lifetime: it's called a lease [wikipedia.org]. If a company wants to restrict how a product is used, the company and the customer can sign a lease agreement. Xerox very successfully used that business model for its early photocopies.

The problem we're seeing today is that companies want to have their cake and eat it too. They want customers to feel like they're making a purchase, but act like they're under the terms of a lease. That's fucking bullshit, and runs counter to personal property rights at the core of Western civilization.

In short, if you want to tell me how to use your widget, you'd better lease it to me. No way in hell should you be telling me how to use property I've purchased outright without signing any kind of contract with you.

Link to Script in Question

[by Anonymous Coward]

Link to the author's reverse engineering blog and script description:

Here [blogspot.com].

Link to just the scripts Here [googlepages.com].

Anonymous to avoid KarmaWhoring(TM)

Only affects DRM crippled ebooks

[vanyel (28049)]

I have no problem putting books I buy elsewhere on my kindle, because none of the 200+ ebooks I have are DRM'd. If Amazon wants me to buy books from them, they'll drop DRM too.

Whoops

[Hordeking (1237940)]

From the article:

The funny part is that many people like me will never have even heard of the script until Amazon made a fuss about it. I found it with a simple google search. Same with how-to instructions.

Hi, Amazon. I'd like for you to meet a very dear friend of mine, the Streisand Effect. You two are going to really get familiar with each other.

Re:Whoops

[jw3 (99683)]

Funny. I have never heard about the Streisand Effect until someone mentioned it on Slashdot :-) j.

Re:Whoops

[Hordeking (1237940)]

Yep. I'd never heard of it either. Now I've got a copy, in case anyone I know ever wants it. Thanks, Amazon.

It's a good thing DMCA takedown notices aren't applied with gag orders like "National Security" Letters.

I got the distinct impression these guys wanted exactly what happened to happen, and wanted to disavow responsibility for legal reasons. "It's not here, so don't ask". Nothing about "don't look elsewhere for it, or ask elsewhere."

Its an industrial standard

[Demonantis (1340557)]

Amazon isn't the only one that does this. Apple does this with their products. A lot of printing companies do this with ink cartridges. Car companies often control the supply of replacement parts. Secondary purchases are a huge economy everywhere. I don't like that use of the DMCA, though. Its implications really scare me. What if I modified my car then release the notes on a web page. Could the manufacture DMCA it down? Should this be an acceptable use of the DMCA? I think that DMCA notices should really come with a danger to misuse. If there isn't companies could DMCA their way out of webpages that attack their product. It would really make the company think about it be before it brought down it's huge club of injustice on an individual.

Amazon is wrong on the law

[belmolis (702863)]

Leaving aside the issue of users' rights, as far as I can see Amazon is just plain wrong on the law and lacks legal justification for the takedown notice. What the DMCA prohibits is the distribution of tools for overcoming technical measures for protecting copyrighted materials. The first program generates a MOBI ID from a kindle serial number. The second program rewrites a non-Amazon ebook so that it contains the id that will allow it to work on the Kindle with the given serial number. Neither program modifies or copies the Kindle's software. Since the ebooks in question are not produced by Amazon, no material whose copyright belongs to Amazon is affected in any way. In other words, this software does not defeat any technical measure of Amazon's for protecting copyrighted material since Amazon has no copyrighted material at stake here. The DMCA is inapplicable, and the takedown notice invalid. Indeed, it is so clear that this software does nothing to defeat protection of copyrighted material that I would say that the takedown notice was issued in bad faith.

What this software actually does is allow for interoperability, which is explicitly protected by the DMCA.

Big Ado About Nothing

[pvera (250260)]

The purpose of the tool is not to allow non-Amazon content into the Kindle. Instead, it is to allow non-Amazon eBook sellers to be able to sell content for the Kindle. It has NOTHING to do with your ability as a user to bring content into your Kindle without paying Amazon.

I should know, I owned a Kindle 1 for 7 months and currently own two Kindle 2s (hint: if you only have one Kindle, don't show it to your wife and go LOOK HONEY, SEE HOW COOL THIS IS!!! because she'll immediately take over it and you'll end up buying a second one). I have had no issues bringing content into any of my Kindles:

1. Any content that I can read with Stanza and/or Mobipocket Creator (both free) can be converted into formats that can be read by the Kindle.
2. Amazon provides you with a unique email address to email content to be converted directly into your Kindle. 10 cents per conversion.
3. Amazon provides you with a second unique email address to email content to be converted, then emailed back to you for free. Yes, free.
4. Using the basic web browser, you can pick any web-based file that is compatible with the Kindle and it will download it just like if you purchased it from Amazon. There are plenty of websites that cater directly to the Kindle, and there is a huge drive to make Project Gutemberg and others fully compatible with the Kindle.
5. Amazon charges you for subscribing to feeds. Or you can use the free tool at Feedbooks. These clever people figured out a way to package an RSS subscription as an eBook, and it has an auto-update link. Open the book from your Kindle, click on Update and it downloads a new version of the file. Tedious? Sure, but it is free.
6. Annoyed about having to connect to your PC just so you can move your content into your Kindle? Don't feel like paying the 10-cent tax? Easy, simply dump your eBook files into a folder in your website, password protect it if you are paranoid, then open it from your basic browser. You can now download your own books from anywhere, which is great if you don't like clutter or in case you delete the wrong book by accident.

Now, of course, it sucks if you are trying to make a buck selling eBooks for the Kindle outside of Amazon and you are using a format that requires the ID of your device. If all you want to do is sell the content, then you might as well go to http://dtp.amazon.com/ [amazon.com], list your books for free and let Amazon do all the work in exchange for a cut of the action. Amazon will not charge you for access to the DTP area, or for listing your books, they only take a cut of your sales.

I emailed Amazon's Kindle Feedback address earlier this week to complain about not being able to upload my own files to the storage area (one of my favorite features is that I can re-download my content at will), expecting to get a canned response. I actually got a person to reply to me, so it looks like at least some of those emails are being read. The person that replied hinted that maybe I wanted to send my files through the 10-cent tax generator, but he would still pass my message to the powers-that-be.

The one thing that is still completely unacceptable is that the Kindle client for the iPhone only works with purchased work, you can't add your own books (yet) unless you jailbrake your phone.

Amazon illegally tying Kindle with Amazon eBooks?

[erroneus (253617)]

Amazon sells the Kindle. Fine. Amazon sells eBooks. Fine. Amazon wants to restrict what a Kindle OWNER can do with his own hardware? Not fine.

Either Amazon should back down on this or they should discontinue the Kindle. They can't really do what they are doing without running afowl of some legal crusader in the near future.

Re:Amazon illegally tying Kindle with Amazon eBook

[erroneus (253617)]

Threatening legal action against people who want to use their own property in any way they like is not oppressive? The DMCA notices are just the beginning stages before they start filing lawsuits. This makes me wonder if I am actually feeding the troll...

Re:Amazon illegally tying Kindle with Amazon eBook

[EllisDees (268037)]

You own the Kindle. You are not breaking Amazon DRM to put anything on the Kindle. Amazon can sit and spin.

Re:Kindle is a piece of shit

[by Anonymous Coward]

and so are you slashdot fags!

Grow up and quit name calling, we're not in kindlegarten anymore!

DMCA TAKEDOWN!

[Philip K Dickhead (906971)]

Code is here:
http://skochinsky.googlepages.com/azw-0.1.zip [googlepages.com]

Mirror:
http://rapidshare.com/files/76138900/azw-0.1.zip.html [rapidshare.com]

Add your own!

Re:DMCA TAKEDOWN!

[xeoron (639412)]

Updated version of the code, azw-0.2.zip, is here: http://skochinsky.googlepages.com/azw-0.2.zip [googlepages.com].

Re:Kindle is a piece of shit

[Gizzmonic (412910)]

I'd leave it at -1 if I were you...sure, there's a bunch of racist and homophobic trolls, but there's also some insightful flamebait that Slashdot mods get too touchy about. Also plenty of hilarious random shit like cookie recipes and weird stories.

Re:Kindle is a piece of shit

[hairyfeet (841228)]

Which is why I don't see how Amazon plans to build a market for this thing. Let's look at it from a business perspective: First you are trying to sell a kinda pricey device to what all would agree is a very limited market. And THEN you go out of your way to piss off the purchasers by screwing them from using anything but your overpriced content AFTER they just handed you money? Yeah, good luck ith that.

I can buy a Netbook for the same price or less than a Kindle, and do whatever I WANT to do with it, including reading .txt,.pdf,.html, whatever, and NOT get hamstringed by some corp trying to push overpriced content on me. Why would I want to give you my money for a Kindle now, Amazon?

I predict this time next year the Kindle will be just as dead as those proprietary ebook readers companies tried to sell during the last dotbomb. you have to know your market and more importantly, know your competition. By screwing their paying customers Amazon just made their product that much more worthless compared to the Netbook. Just not a good move in this economy IMHO.

Re:Way to let a company

[tritonman (998572)]

Kindle is probably like the playstation, they don't make money on selling the unit, they make money on you buying books for it.

Re:Way to let a company

[gnick (1211984)]

Or printers/ink or razors/blades. The big difference with e-books is that you have to create a shortage of product while it's a natural side-effect for ink or razors. You can't just download new razors.

I seriously disagree it is supply & demand

[way2trivial (601132)]

It is the difference between
the protection of the law which both razors and kindles have,
and protection "realistic barrier to entry into the marketplace"

The thing keeping the razor blade model propped up is the design of the connector between handle & blade

A Gilette Mach XXX* has a very specific design and legally protected-physical connection

to enter the market/compete against this product requires large capital infusion, on a business level that can easily be knocked down in the court systems

if anyone could legitimately connect to that- then there would damnfinesure be some competition with generic knockoffs

Region Free DVD roms' Ebooks, wii's, xbox's jailbroken iphones-- the resources required to do these things are small by comparison

the fact is, the electrical goods as discussed here (e book files) and elsewhere can be modified on a per piece basis for far less.

Demand is not a factor-- ease of modification is.

Re:Way to let a company

[Ibag (101144)]

Just because you run and hide from a pack of wolves doesn't mean you are a sheep. While you might wish them to martyr themselves for your principles, if they don't have the resources to fight, or if a win would not accomplish anything for anybody else, why shouldn't they act in their own best interests?

Exactly

[Man On Pink Corner (1089867)]

Sony's got to be kicking themselves, wondering where they went wrong. When they released a portable digital Walkman without native support for .MP3s, people just laughed at them.

Yet when Amazon releases a portable reader without native support for .PDFs, people trample their own mothers to get in line to buy one.

Can you imagine the derision people would have for Apple if you had to email your .MP3s to [e-mail] to put them on your iPod or iPhone?

Re:Exactly

[nahdude812 (88157)]

Where did you hear that there is no native support for PDF's?

You can easily load PDF's to the Kindle. Not only can you mount the Kindle as a drive and copy the file that way, but when you buy a kindle, you get a [e-mail] email address which you can email txt, htm, and pdf files to (as long as it's from a From address which you have whitelisted) - they will load it automatically to your kindle over its built-in 3G connection.

I loaded several Cory Doctorow books to mine this way.

This python script creates a hash to make the Kindle think that .mobi files (Secure Mobipocket books, a competitor of Amazon's for this market) are native Amazon books. After you get a hash from kindlepid.py, you run kindlefix.py on your .mobi file with your hash, and it produces a .azw file which the Kindle then thinks is one of its own book formats.

GP is almost certainly right, I find it unlikely that Amazon makes a profit on the Kindle device itself, they are relying on $10 books to cover the cost of the hardware and the contract with Sprint whereby they give you free 3G access. If you're buying your books elsewhere, Amazon's going to take a loss on the whole shebang, and that's most likely what they're trying to prevent (while counting on the fact that you can't get non-drm'd copies of most books such as in .txt, .pdf, or .htm format).

Re:Exactly

[maynard (3337)]

When I read a PDF I need quality image support for interpreting graphs and other types of visual data. The Kindle doesn't come close. Yes, Amazon offers a PDF "conversion" service. In the process, formatting and image support is either lost or horribly mangled.

Never mind the total lack of touch support for eink annotations makes the thing worthless for serious use. Fine if you want to spend $350 for a device to read novels on the train. But if you want to read technical papers and annotate in math, the Kindle doesn't come close to being a useful device.

The only thing out there that does meet that need is:

The IREX Digital Reader 1000:

https://www.irexshop.com/product_info.php?cPath=22_35&products_id=69 [irexshop.com]

That is the first device to come on the market which exceeds the eReader feature set available on the Apple's old Newton MP2x00 from 1998.

Pathetic.

Re:Exactly

[shutdown -p now (807394)]

It also supports eink annotation and native PDF rendering.

PDF rendering is supported by virtually all devices on the market, including the more recent Hanlin Jinke models and Sony PRS-505. Annotations are supported in PRS-700 (which has a touchscreen just for that purpose). Really, the only thing that's unique about iRex offerings is the 768x1024 screen - but that is a big deal (and also why it costs so much - from what I heard, those screens are made exclusively for iRex, and not mass-produced as those for Hanlin/Sony/Kindle are).

Even so, when comparing products, it's always worth to mention all the differences, including price.

Re:Exactly

[Abcd1234 (188840)]

Someone with a metric assload of scanned documents, with formatting that needs to be preserved. That would be me.

Then Kindle isn't for you.

For actual, serious e-book reading, PDF is an inferior format. Period. What you're doing sounds like it involves reading scanned technical manuals or other documentation. For that purpose, you probably want something with higher resolution, and even better, colour. Either way, Kindle isn't the best choice. I'd suggest something along the lines of a tablet PC.

Re:Exactly

[enrevanche (953125)]

xpdf [foolabs.com] has a utility you can use called pdftotext

Re:Exactly

[locoluis (69948)]

Oh, here's a catch.

Some PDF creators link the character for each font to the internal representation in order of character appearance, not in Unicode order. This means that things like pdftohtml, screen reading or even plain copy/paste no longer work, as they yield gibberish instead.

For example, the string:

"This is a PDF test."

Would get stored as something like:
0,1,2,3,4,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,4,9,10,3,9,11

And pdftohtml yields something like:
  !"#$"#$%&'($)*#)+

Oh, and each typeface gets a distinct ordering, so the same string in different typefaces would probably get encoded differently...

In order to decode this you have to both read the actual graphical characters AND know which typeface is used in each segment of text. Which is a PITA. Otherwise, you're lost.

OCR may or may not be of any help, depending on the typeface used...

Re:Torrent?

[QuoteMstr (55051)]

kindlefix.py

import prc, sys, struct
from binascii import hexlify

def strByte(s,off=0):
return struct.unpack(">B",s[off])[0];

def strSWord(s,off=0):
return struct.unpack(">h",s[off:off+2])[0];

def strWord(s,off=0):
return struct.unpack(">H",s[off:off+2])[0];

def strDWord(s,off=0):
return struct.unpack(">L",s[off:off+4])[0];

def strPutDWord(s,off,i):
return s[:off]+struct.pack(">L",i)+s[off+4:];

keyvec1 = "\x72\x38\x33\xB0\xB4\xF2\xE3\xCA\xDF\x09\x01\xD6\xE2\xE0\x3F\x96"

#implementation of Pukall Cipher 1
def PC1(key, src, decryption=True):
sum1 = 0;
sum2 = 0;
keyXorVal = 0;
if len(key)!=16:
print "Bad key length!"
return None
wkey = []
for i in xrange(8):
wkey.append(ord(key[i*2])> 8)) ^ byteXorVal) & 0xFF
if decryption:
keyXorVal = curByte * 257;
for j in xrange(8):
wkey[j] ^= keyXorVal;

dst+=chr(curByte)

return dst

def find_key(rec0, pid):
off1 = strDWord(rec0, 0xA8)
if off1==0xFFFFFFFF or off1==0:
print "No DRM"
return None
size1 = strDWord(rec0, 0xB0)
cnt = strDWord(rec0, 0xAC)
flag = strDWord(rec0, 0xB4)

temp_key = PC1(keyvec1, pid.ljust(16,'\0'), False)
cksum = 0
#print pid, "->", hexlify(temp_key)
for i in xrange(len(temp_key)):
cksum += ord(temp_key[i])
cksum &= 0xFF
temp_key = temp_key.ljust(16,'\0')
#print "pid cksum: %02X"%cksum

#print "Key records: %02X-%02X, count: %d, flag: %02X"%(off1, off1+size1, cnt, flag)
iOff = off1
drm_key = None
for i in xrange(cnt):
dwCheck = strDWord(rec0, iOff)
dwSize = strDWord(rec0, iOff+4)
dwType = strDWord(rec0, iOff+8)
nCksum = strByte(rec0, iOff+0xC)
#print "Key record %d: check=%08X, size=%d, type=%d, cksum=%02X"%(i, dwCheck, dwSize, dwType, nCksum)
if nCksum==cksum:
drmInfo = PC1(temp_key, rec0[iOff+0x10:iOff+0x30])
dw0, dw4, dw18, dw1c = struct.unpack(">II16xII", drmInfo)
#print "Decrypted drmInfo:", "%08X, %08X, %s, %08X, %08X"%(dw0, dw4, hexli

Re:Huh?

[canajin56 (660655)]

This has nothing to do with loading unprotected DRM-free content onto your Kindle. Kindle can load Amazons proprietary DRM'd format, MOBI format, and .txt. Anything else you have to ask Amazon to please convert it to their secret format. However, MOBI files can be DRM'd. The Kindle can read DRM'd MOBI files. However, only if they were encrypted with its public key! This script allows you to view your Kindle's MOBI ID, so you can give it to an eBook service and buy a DRM'd eBook from them that will work on your Kindle. This is very bad for Amazon, as it means you can buy eBook from somebody who isn't Amazon!

Re:Huh?

[QuoteMstr (55051)]

IANAcryptographer, but public key cryptography is a no-brainer for this scenario. Amazon should have created an RSA keypair for each kindle sold. Amazon would keep the private key and put the public key on the Kindle. When selling an E-Book, Amazon would just encrypt the Mobi file with its private key. That way, it wouldn't matter if some third party obtained the RSA public key for a specific kindle --- all he could do with it pound sand, since Amazon would keep the private keys secure and internal.

Granted, I think the DRM is vile. But I can't understand why Amazon also implemented DRM so poorly.

(If you want to be able to let multiple people read the same Mobi file, do this: generate a random symmetric cypher key (K) and encrypt the E-Book with it, resulting in ciphertext B. For each Kindle you'd like to be able to read the E-Book, let its key be M1, M2, and so on. The file you send out contains K itself encrypted with M1, then K encrypted with M2, K encrypted with M3, etc., and then finally B. A kindle would try all the keys in the E-Book file and just use the first one that successfully decrypted B.)

Re:In Praise of Real Books

[shutdown -p now (807394)]

It's funny, because for me, my ereader (Sony though, not Kindle) has mostly replaced paper books precisely for "narrative" literature, not technical - simply because you really don't need all those fancy extra features such as touchscreen or annotations there, and something simple and relatively cheap, such as PRS-505, does the job very well. And I get to carry my entire library with me, and whenever I'm stuck in a queue or on the bus, decide what I want to read depending on the mood.

Like it or not, but everything that you've listed is not relevant to the "core" concept of the book, which is really just about text. I fully expect paper books to become luxury items in the next 20-30 years, where you'll have to pay quite a bit of extra for the privilege of "feeling".