Suppose I knew the secret for applying DRM, compatible with Amazon’s, to a file.  The Kindle would be able to display the plaintext.  Sounds good, right?  But since I didn’t enter into an agreement with Amazon (e.g. say I reverse engineered their DRM scheme) then THEY ARE SELLING A CIRCUMVENTION DEVICE!  They have no evidence which suggests I (the copyright holder) ever authorized Kindle users to descramble my copyrighted work, so the descrambling becomes circumvention, and they’re trafficking in a device which does that, and I can get an injunction to remove the Kindle from the market, plus a bunch of money from Amazon.  Basically, every person in the world who is able to write a book, potentially has Amazon over a barrel.  There’s no way they can afford to settle with us _all_.

On the other hand, if instead of reverse-engineering the DRM, I get a license from Amazon, then they can make sure that the terms of the license say that I authorize all Kindle users to display my plaintext.  That makes the “bypassing of the technological measure which limits access” NOT be “circumvention” (these are key words in DMCA) so if I sue them for trafficking in circumvention devices, or if I sue their users for reaing the books I sold them, then Amazon has this piece of paper to show the court, where I say that I granted authorization.

The only way to be an Amazon competitor and NOT pay them, but also be readable on Kindles, is to not use DRM.  Period.  There aren’t any options.

(*) A disaster in a good way, perhaps.  Who _doesn’t_ want to see it all burn?  ;-)  Kind of makes you want to publish your own unlicensed CSS-protected DVDs containing your home movies, doesn’t it?

I don’t see the problem.

When I want to read a gutenberg.org public domain book on Kindle I have to download in a different format *.mobi. Mobipocket is apparently owned by Amazon, currently has optional DRM.  The *.mobi format works on Kindle hardware and on its apps for other devices, excluding Android (Complaint para 19 seems wrong about that). 

Unprotected *.PDF is also readable on Kindle.  (Ironically the Toronto Public Library rents out copyrighted and DRM protected PDF ebooks that will not run on Kindle, but only on a proprietary Adobe reader, which irks me no end.) And it appears Amazon is moving toward another improved file format altogether. So what you can and can’t do on Kindle is a bit of a dog’s breakfast under a moving goalpost.
   
Obviously the indie sellers are concerned that there is no way they can obtain copyrighted ebooks from the Big 6 publishers to work on Kindle in any book format with or without any specific rights restrictions or DRM technology.  Whether the Complaint is mistaken or there was a calculated decision to “keep it simple” for the court by calling *.azw Amazon’s DRM, we’ll see. This “confusion” actually makes the case far more threatening to Amazon.

The requested “relief” would be to prohibit use of *.azw as a “device specific DRM”. I looked in the complaint for anything about the best single aspect of Kindle, its “whispersync” technology that is part and parcel of that file format – those gutenberg *.mobi books or PDFs don’t sync or have online browser access as the official Kindle ebooks do. It makes possible a whole online community of readers leaving public comments, highlights, etc. in books as they read them. See if Amazon argues that this relief would either force it to abandon an advanced and exciting technology that its competitors don’t have or force it relinquish its lawful patent protection.

More likely the best realistic outcome is to get Big 6 to offer DRM protected files in something like *.mobi to the Indie sellers. It’s a very interesting case.

“We are seeking relief for independent brick-and-mortar bookstores so that they would be able to sell open-source and DRM-free books that could be used on the Kindle or other electronic ereaders,” Decker explained to The Huffington Post by telephone.

The requirment that books must be sold with DRM puts retailing books past the technical ability of almost all authors.  But once you pass the DRM bridge and actually talk with publishers you’ll find that they DON’T want new retailers. 
  For instancePenguin refuses to sign any new eBook retailers, you have to buy from the digital “wholesaler” Overdrive who eats half the revenue.  Overdrive refuses to do business with anyone who isnt’ a small bookstore.  

The Kindle only uses Amazon’s DRM, thus if you want to sell books that must have DRM they are not usable on a Kindle which makes it hard to sell eBooks.  Amazon’s closed system isn’t likely an anti-trust issue, however publishers refusual to allow new retail partners and trying to control what those partners do may be an anti-trust issue.
  Since the Big 5 are all under conscent decrees with the DOJ the DOJ could step in and push for an admin remedy, it’s POSSIBLE this lawsuit is a tactical one designed to highlight issues with the DOJ and have them push to make changes.  While the suit would fail the issue would get resolved.  I am however doubtful that the bookstores/lawyers are that crafty in this case. 

If publishers offered their books for sale directly, not Amazon or Apple, then I could, presumably, license several formats at the time of purchase. Bypass the players who will not play.

Also, let’s say I want to benefit my local bookstore. If I buy through them > supplied from the publisher > same licensing offer, perhaps at a discount as an incentive. As an author, I’d like to know which bookstores are promoting my books and leading to sales. I’d go there for a visit, give them extra opportunities when the next book comes out, etc., because they have done the extra work to help me out.

Once we have zero protections against piracy, people will get out of the habit of buying books, like music endured with Napster. It has never bounced back. Singles do not equal album sales. Then we might be in the unenviable position of buying directly from authors.

So the publishers need to offer the eBook in more formats from the get-go.

Eventually team music got less stupid and realized that selling unprotected MP3s through Amazon and others would be safer than locking themselves into a DRM ecosystem controlled entirely by Apple.

But were this not the case, I still could not imagine a future for the indie sellers.  Disintermdiation is upon them.

My guess is that like the AAPL case, it’s mainly the publishers’ conduct in question and AMZN would be sued to get disclosure.

The nonclementure with which we surround DRM is often misleading. A programmer who spends time reverse engineering a DRM’d file is referred to as a “hacker” who has “broken” some DRM.  But the task of decoding DRM content is really one of reverse engineering and documenting.  

Imagine if a family member had written a book in an obscure word processing program and now could no longer open the files.  The task of reversing engineering the file format for these would be very similar in practice to the task of “breaking” DRM.

With that in mind, the futility of Open Source DRM should be obvious, unless it was the intention that the DRM system would be strictly informative and without any attempt at enforcement.

As far as I know you cannot get an ebook onto a kindle except if you go trough the amazon store. That’s what they mean by “freezing-out”. And the way that is implemented is indeed littered with DRM mechanisms from device lockdown to proprietary formats and signing of books that the kindle will otherwise refuse to display.

If you read between the lines of their inane rambling, you will see the same effect that DRMs are always used, to exclude competition and control a platform.

PGP hides secrets from third parties who are not the intended recipients of the message.

In the case of DRM, you have to hide secrets from the intended recipients of a message. That is, you have to give me the keys, and yet not let me see them.

PGP does not do this. PGP cannot do this.

That only works if you design hardware and software to hide its operations from its users. IOW: if you design things so that users can’t see or modify their operations.