Dealing with Barnes and Noble

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by Ken Maltby

Fictionwise, like eReader, is "A Barnes & Noble Company" (Check the fine print at the
bottom of the web site home pages.)

That's one of the puzzling things about this, IMO. Since B&N owns FW, which has much experience operating an online ebook store, why should B&N have trouble operating a new one? Something stinks, here-and I don't think it's the customer.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

That's one of the puzzling things about this, IMO. Since B&N owns FW, which has much experience operating an online ebook store, why should B&N have trouble operating a new one? Something stinks, here-and I don't think it's the customer.

ding! ding! ding! ding! ding!

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by Pardoz

Except for the part where you can't prove any economic loss to the author (and, in this particular example, JK Rowling has made a deliberate and conscious choice not to be compensated for electronic editions of her work. Which is entirely her right, of course, however silly it may seem to me.)

When John Doe begins selling copies of (in-copyright) books, whether electronic or paper (and yes, paper book piracy is big business in some places) without compensating the author, that's piracy. The Great Amazon 1984 Fiasco? That was all about piracy. When publishers decide that a contract written before the issue of electronic rights permits them to sell ebooks without notifying the author or paying royalties, that's piracy.

The demonization of file-sharers? That's just a smokescreen to try to distract people from the real pirates.

For an individual instance you probably can't prove economic loss-that's why it's my opinion that the pirates are those distributing the illegal copies. Because you can prove it 'en masse'. (Although it depends on your standard of proof. Did you know that, by the strictest standards, there's no proof that advertising increases sales? But it can be proven that, on average, those companies that advertise have higher sales than those that don't. That's statistical proof-and it can be similarly proven, statistically, that pirates who distribute a large number of copyrighted books inevitably also distribute some to people who would have bought the books had the pirated version not been available-and that's economic loss.)

And you're right about the publishers decision to not pay the author royalties being piracy-but not necessarily about the earlier contract, which didn't mention ebook rights, not including those rights. Depends on how specific the contract was-and about how a judge will decide once a case finally makes it to court. (Or has it-can't remember offhand.)

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

See: https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...08&postcount=6

Except Moejoe didn't mention obtaining it from legitimate sharing sites until later.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

And the same through piracy:

As you can see in my response to his clarification, I was *not* equating legitimate file sharing with piracy.

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

Since B&N owns FW, which has much experience operating an online ebook store, why should B&N have trouble operating a new one?

For the same reason that FW has titles for sale that B&N doesn't? Or for the same reason that B&N seems to be moving to undercut FW (not by much on the titles I checked - maybe 25 cents cheaper, but you're stuck with Adobe-infected .epub instead of clean multiformat).

[Pardoz]

Depends on how specific the contract was-and about how a judge will decide once a case finally makes it to court. (Or has it-can't remember offhand.)

Offhand, I don't think anybody's fought this one very far in court - I seem to recall some cases being settled out of court, but nothing that's been seriously litigated.

Any bright legal eagles out there au courant on this one?

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by Pardoz

For the same reason that FW has titles for sale that B&N doesn't? Or for the same reason that B&N seems to be moving to undercut FW (not by much on the titles I checked - maybe 25 cents cheaper, but you're stuck with Adobe-infected .epub instead of clean multiformat).

Unfortunately neither of those things make sense to me either. Well, maybe-I can speculate, at least, that some of the contracts might specify that the books be sold from the FW site? As for the price difference, it could be that B&N is trying to attract people to their own site. Doesn't make much sense to me as FW is now also "their own site" but I've seen marketing people do dumber things.

Overall, what this suggests is that although B&N bought FW, they're not integrating it so, although it's owned by B&N it isn't really 'a B&N site'. Pure speculation though-can't really see why they wouldn't integrate it, but so far it appears as if they aren't.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

That's one of the puzzling things about this, IMO. Since B&N owns FW, which has much experience operating an online ebook store, why should B&N have trouble operating a new one? Something stinks, here-and I don't think it's the customer.

B&N acquired Fictionwise fairly recently. Customer service has gone downhill and technical glitches have increased since they did. They don't have much experience running an online ebookstore.

[Kali Yuga]

Pardoz: The instances where book publishers or retailers are selling content without the rights, and without delivering royalties, is rare to the point of near-total irrelevance.

For example, the "Orwell" issue was actually more of a misunderstanding about international rights and public domain; it was not an explicit and intentional attempt on anyone's part to violate copyright. The situation was also clearly exceptional.

I.e. I am categorically rejecting your position that "publishers are the 'real' pirates." It's a position I can't even take seriously, really.

[Sydney's Mom]

Originally Posted by rcuadro

Bah! That is why I like Amazon
1. Buy book
2. Call CS
3. On hold for 34 seconds
4. Talk to them about Under the Dome but they refund me the money for Boomerang for some odd reason and took it off my list of books purchased
5. Called the back and got credit for twice the amount for the book so I can buy the book again and get more stuff.
6. Smile

My experience with Amazon - bought an ebook for my daughter. She said she wouldn't get credit for reading an ebook (backward school system). I called CS, and aside from the conversation we had about how schools should embrace ebooks, it took two seconds. After I hung up, I bought my daughter 3 pbooks at Amazon.

ebooks are supposed to be about convenience and immediate gratification. I'm sorry for your experience.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by jasonkchapman

Are you saying she refused to accept the money that was sent to her in compensation? I'm pretty sure she actually made a deliberate and conscious choice not to have an electronic edition published.

Yes. Now, given modern darknets, that means that either she was aware this simply meant she was passing up a good deal of compensation for her work or she's being deliberately ignorant.

I am not calling it either, way, just saying...

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

As to publishers "taking rights," so far I have yet to see any rulings that require that digital content must be transferrable, for example

Mm-hum. In the UK, it's as resellable (and for that matter, returnable under the Distance Selling Regulations) as anything else you purchase. There are exemptions to those rights, but they're quite specific - and eBooks are *not* legally either Software or Audio or Video Recordings.

Also, it dosn't matter *what* Amazon were thinking over the 1984 incident. Non-willful copyright infringement simply has lower fines.

[Solicitous]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Doesn't matter the pirate has obtained something he is not legally allowed to have.

Well something has been niggling in the back of mind about this. Here in Australia we have laws which permit you to format-shift material which you own for personal use. eg. format shift a CD to mp3 for the purpose of playing on an mp3 player which you own.

I wont post links but the Aus government websites state that we can make copies of books which we already own into digital form, yet does not describe how we make those digital copies. So the thought I have been having is...if I own for example "Wheel of Time" in paperback, and I find a copy on BT and download it, am I pirating or am I well within my means of adhering to Australian law and using a format-shifted copy of a book I already own?

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Solicitous

if I own for example "Wheel of Time" in paperback, and I find a copy on BT and download it, am I pirating or am I well within my means of adhering to Australian law and using a format-shifted copy of a book I already own?

I'm not an Aussie lawyer, but...

The person who posted the file online did not have the legal right to distribute it. As such, you are not receiving the file in a legal manner.

The legal means to convert it would be to scan or retype it.

[DawnFalcon]

Under many country's laws, that means that the distributor has committed an offence, Kali Yuga. That doesn't necessarily mean that the person downloading from them has, however.

Check your own country's laws!

[brecklundin]

Originally Posted by doc hollywood

does nook mean nooky ?

Well, there is certainly some penetration involved but I believe nook, in the B&N sense, is actually derived from the word "snookered"...just as Kindle comes from "to set fire to" and "to get burned"...