Originally Posted by Man Eating Duck
An interesting issue is that if John Doe pays more for a file than for a paperback (which might have a higher perceived value) he might reasonably expect to be able to do at least as much with it as with the paperback. You could call everyone and his grandmother "thieves" and try to prosecute them, but if this does not fit with the public conception of what reasonable uses for your purchases are you have a very real PR problem on your hands.
This is certainly a thorny problem, and no-one has a solution which would satisfy all parties as far as I know.
good point - also, irrespective of cost, within one family,/one house we'd share purchased paperbacks between family members so it's not unreasonable to want to share an e-book - there are several e-book readers in the house.
OK so we can't simultaneously read the paperback, unless we sit real close! , but concurrent usage is not really the issue. We can't legally share , even if we promise to only have one reader at any one time. - well I suppose we can if we pass the e-reader around but that is messy. Yet we can legally, AFAIK, share DVDs, CDs... it is an anomaly