Help with ebook protection, thanks

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Firstly, on about 99% of the retailers that have any real volume, you can "lend" an ebook, directly, from one email to another. That's a perfectly legal share.

Perhaps worth pointing out, though, Hitch, as far as Kindle book lending goes that:

1. It's only available in the US. Nowhere else.
2. It requires the permission of the publisher. Lending is disabled on virtually all books published by the BPH's.
3. It's a one-time lend. Not one time for that recipient, but one time ever.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Perhaps worth pointing out, though, Hitch, as far as Kindle book lending goes that:

1. It's only available in the US. Nowhere else.
2. It requires the permission of the publisher. Lending is disabled on virtually all books published by the BPH's.
3. It's a one-time lend. Not one time for that recipient, but one time ever.

Harry:

Absolutely. 100% right. But given that there are millions of self-pubs now who don't disallow lending, it's still something to think about.

Hitch

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Harry:

Absolutely. 100% right. But given that there are millions of self-pubs now who don't disallow lending, it's still something to think about.

Hitch

That gets rid of one problem.

Out of three.

And number three is the real problem.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

That gets rid of one problem.

Out of three.

And number three is the real problem.

Actually, number one is the problem for most of us - the fact that it's only available in the US. You have perhaps heard that there are people who live elsewhere?

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Actually, number one is the problem for most of us - the fact that it's only available in the US. You have perhaps heard that there are people who live elsewhere?

Yes, but I don't believe a word of it.

(Actually, I did have that in mind, and I still stand by what I said: )

If the 1-lend-only restriction was lifted, people in the US would be able to lend books out however they like, just like pbooks, to the point where the ability to do so becomes useful.

If the US-only restriction was lifted, everyone in the world can... um... lend their book once. How many people even bother to do so, when it is that limited?

At least if, where available, you could lend more often, it would become popular to do so and once it enters the public consciousness it might mean something. The biggest barrier as I see it, is the fact that you can't really do much with it even if you do have the ability, so no one bothers to know that you can.

Obviously, I hope all three restrictions are lifted.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Yes, but I don't believe a word of it.

(Actually, I did have that in mind, and I still stand by what I said: )

If the 1-lend-only restriction was lifted, people in the US would be able to lend books out however they like, just like pbooks, to the point where the ability to do so becomes useful.

And how many freebie lends would satisfy you? 5? 10? How many times do you, realistically, lend out pbooks that you have? I have over 6K pbooks, and I can't think of ONE that I've lent to friends more than once. Not one. My friends' reading tastes apparently range in different circles, or whatever. Whether it's Harry Potter or "Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters," I seriously do not recall a single book I've lent--been asked for--more than once.

Isn't this argument a bit of a red herring? Do you seriously get asked for multiple lends of your books? How many? How often? I've always lived in heavy-reading families. My current, married-to family has a massively large reading population, and whether my birth family or my now-family, again: never been asked to lend a book more than once.

If the US-only restriction was lifted, everyone in the world can... um... lend their book once. How many people even bother to do so, when it is that limited?

I do it all the time with both. P and e. Here's a better question: why wouldn't you lend it, if asked? Why is it a "bother," to lend a digital book, just because you can only do it once? Isn't the "bother" that you can't do it MORE than once? Why on earth would it keep you from lending it?

At least if, where available, you could lend more often, it would become popular to do so and once it enters the public consciousness it might mean something. The biggest barrier as I see it, is the fact that you can't really do much with it even if you do have the ability, so no one bothers to know that you can.

Obviously, I hope all three restrictions are lifted.

What's "not do much with it?" ONLY being able to lend it once? There are already lending clubs out there, for Kindle, and I'm sure that they probably exist for other devices. Again...seems like an Aunt Sally. The limitation on lending exists for the same reason as licensing and DRM. If a book could be lent unlimitedly, the same people who crack DRM and slap unprotected books on places like Dotcomm's site would buy a book and slap it up there and let people "borrow" it, for the same reason--to deprive the publisher of income. Except then, because it was legal, you'd have even more folks doing it, just to "stick it to the man," because we ALL KNOW that "big publishers" are rich corporations, which means, automatically, THEY ARE EVIL. Because pirates think that "information should be free," and that people shouldn't have to pay for digital products. {shrug}

It's only on places like here, on MR, where people are perfectly accustomed to acquiring their books--however--and hacking the DRM, that this "gosh, it can only be lent ONCE" argument would even com up. In the real, regular Kindle-buyer world, most of those folks can't spell DRM, much less hack it, and those selfsame normal folks are borrowing and lending Kindle books all over the place.

And I'm sure, just like Amazon took time to get certain other features up and done for Europe and other countries, lending will proceed soon enough.

Oh, and P.S.: I have many friends who, like me, have STOPPED lending pbooks because the people to whom we lent them ruined them--broke the spines, marked them up, etc. We all, however, cheerfully lend ebooks, because at least we know they won't be ruined.

Hitch

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Hitch

And how many freebie lends would satisfy you? 5? 10? How many times do you, realistically, lend out pbooks that you have? I have over 6K pbooks, and I can't think of ONE that I've lent to friends more than once. Not one. My friends' reading tastes apparently range in different circles, or whatever. Whether it's Harry Potter or "Why Beautiful People Have More Daughters," I seriously do not recall a single book I've lent--been asked for--more than once.

Isn't this argument a bit of a red herring? Do you seriously get asked for multiple lends of your books? How many? How often? I've always lived in heavy-reading families. My current, married-to family has a massively large reading population, and whether my birth family or my now-family, again: never been asked to lend a book more than once.

Perhaps the issue is with the different reading tastes... all I can say is that I've lent out pbooks a lot more than once each. I'd be satisfied with the same number of times I can lend out my pbooks.

I do it all the time with both. P and e. Here's a better question: why wouldn't you lend it, if asked? Why is it a "bother," to lend a digital book, just because you can only do it once? Isn't the "bother" that you can't do it MORE than once? Why on earth would it keep you from lending it?

What's "not do much with it?" ONLY being able to lend it once? There are already lending clubs out there, for Kindle, and I'm sure that they probably exist for other devices. Again...seems like an Aunt Sally. The limitation on lending exists for the same reason as licensing and DRM. If a book could be lent unlimitedly, the same people who crack DRM and slap unprotected books on places like Dotcomm's site would buy a book and slap it up there and let people "borrow" it, for the same reason--to deprive the publisher of income. Except then, because it was legal, you'd have even more folks doing it, just to "stick it to the man," because we ALL KNOW that "big publishers" are rich corporations, which means, automatically, THEY ARE EVIL. Because pirates think that "information should be free," and that people shouldn't have to pay for digital products. {shrug}

It's only on places like here, on MR, where people are perfectly accustomed to acquiring their books--however--and hacking the DRM, that this "gosh, it can only be lent ONCE" argument would even com up. In the real, regular Kindle-buyer world, most of those folks can't spell DRM, much less hack it, and those selfsame normal folks are borrowing and lending Kindle books all over the place.

Because of the limitations on it as it is, it is somewhat of an obscure usage. The number of people who are in those reading clubs are I am sure far outnumbered by the people who aren't even aware of them.

Also, the way it is now, the publishers are just as deprived of income. The lending clubs exist purely to save people from having to buy the book. I personally would be happy with a system like the one advocated at one point here on MR, I lost track of where... require actually knowing the person to lend a book. Just like pbooks. You could do it via smartphone apps and NFC to pass the loan details. Possibly e-ink ereaders could be updated, not with NFC hardware -- that raises the price and they wouldn't go for that -- but with software communicate via WiFi?

Unlimited loans, but you have to do it face to face, leaves us both better off, and compares perfectly to pbooks.

And I'm sure, just like Amazon took time to get certain other features up and done for Europe and other countries, lending will proceed soon enough.

Oh, and P.S.: I have many friends who, like me, have STOPPED lending pbooks because the people to whom we lent them ruined them--broke the spines, marked them up, etc. We all, however, cheerfully lend ebooks, because at least we know they won't be ruined.

Hitch

That is your choice. But that's the point - it is YOUR choice.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

Also, the way it is now, the publishers are just as deprived of income. The lending clubs exist purely to save people from having to buy the book. I personally would be happy with a system like the one advocated at one point here on MR, I lost track of where... require actually knowing the person to lend a book. Just like pbooks. You could do it via smartphone apps and NFC to pass the loan details. Possibly e-ink ereaders could be updated, not with NFC hardware -- that raises the price and they wouldn't go for that -- but with software communicate via WiFi?

Unlimited loans, but you have to do it face to face, leaves us both better off, and compares perfectly to pbooks.

That's certainly better than piracy/thieving. I wouldn't object to that, but of course, many would, due to privacy issues. It's apparent to me that many younger people are far, far less concerned about the invasiveness of devices into their privacy. But for a lot of we older types, there's an objection to even setting location capabilities for phones, not to mention, going through our contact lists, etc. {shrug}. Nonetheless, I'd say it's worth a try.

That is your choice. But that's the point - it is YOUR choice.

Yes, just as it's an author/publisher's choice whether they want to give their work away. For the better books, of whatever lineage, it's WORK. It's not play. It's not an impromptu jam session, whipped up at the end of the night. The average novel requires 400 hours of work. For the rest of we humans, that's ~ 10 weeks of work. I'm pretty sure that there are very few of us that would be sanguine about losing any proceeds from whatever we earned, made, sold, etc., for that 10 weeks. There's simply a major disrespect for digital products.

Hitch

[dickloraine]

The problem is, there are legitimate reasons on both sides. Of course there is a need to make writing and publishing profitable enough to have a good market and many new books. But books aren't just like most other products. We as a culture have an interest not just in books but in reading and making them available. There is a reason, why we have libraries and allow the sharing and use of ideas. Nations have even libraries which collect all books published in it or even in the language of it.

It is always difficult to balance the public interest with making a profitable market and the legitimate interests of authors and publishers. If it is copyright or drm or even prices of books (like in Germany or France).

As a personal note: while I understand that the Internet and the new digital age puts pressure on the traditional business, I have the feeling that many "solutions" just limit the rights of consumers and ultimately harm the public interest. And I find it ironic, if big publishers repeat that books are special and want therefore a special treatment, but are fighting in the same time every thing that is special about them but not in their interest, like libraries.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by dickloraine

The problem is, there are legitimate reasons on both sides. Of course there is a need to make writing and publishing profitable enough to have a good market and many new books. But books aren't just like most other products. We as a culture have an interest not just in books but in reading and making them available. There is a reason, why we have libraries and allow the sharing and use of ideas. Nations have even libraries which collect all books published in it or even in the language of it.

It is always difficult to balance the public interest with making a profitable market and the legitimate interests of authors and publishers. If it is copyright or drm or even prices of books (like in Germany or France).

As a personal note: while I understand that the Internet and the new digital age puts pressure on the traditional business, I have the feeling that many "solutions" just limit the rights of consumers and ultimately harm the public interest. And I find it ironic, if big publishers repeat that books are special and want therefore a special treatment, but are fighting in the same time every thing that is special about them but not in their interest, like libraries.

Dick:

No offense, but IMHO, that's begging the question, in the correct usage of the phrase.

The whole "public interest" argument is based in the language of the very creation of copyrights, expressly for the purpose of ensuring that creators made enough money so that they would be induced and enticed into continuing to make creative content, whether that's books, music, movies, or whatever.

Madison's original note: "To secure to literary authors their copyrights for a limited time." And while the Statute of Anne (1710) insisted that authors no longer had control over the use of the BOOK, once it was purchased (and hence, borrowing), that's utterly inapplicable to eBooks, isn't it, as they are licensed--not purchased. They aren't physical personalty. Moreover, they have the unhappy capability of being endlessly reproduced, at no expense whatsoever to the reproducer. And virtually (yes, pun intended) no consequences (unfortunately).

The "public interest" argument is constantly corrupted into meaning something it never did--that somehow, it's a profit-bridle on corporations, individuals, authors, etc. It was never--ever--intended to act as some sort of governor, a limiter, saying "oh, well, you've made enough money, now you have to give it to the public," except after the expiration of copyright. THAT is the limiter. Not the desires of individuals to give the work away to other people who haven't paid for it.

In short, it was simple: here, you can make money from your work, so keep writing. Nothing more, nothing less.

The Aunt Sally argument about lending physical books is just that: a straw man argument. We all know that while you can lend physical books, it's not like you're lending them 20 or 30 or 50 or 2,000 times. Nor can you lend it simultaneously to multiple people.

There's a constant undercurrent to this argument; I don't mean with you, personally, or even anyone else on the thread, but generally, and it's nothing more than "you guys made enough money, you big evil publishing corporation. I want to see/read/use/play this, and you've made enough. I just don't wanna pay for it."

This has now morphed, with the advent of Word, Amazon, et al, into a pretty overt disregard for the rights of authors, because there's a consensus that authors are now nothing more than people who type. I mean, everyone and anyone is "an author" these days, right? So...what the hell, why pay for that crap?

I don't see this serving either side well. The "class" of authors--writers who used to really work it, who went to writing classes, critique groups, suffered the slings and arrows of rejection letters, etc.--has diminished. I know several writers who've simply given up, because even though they spent years honing their craft, the glut of cheap crap on the market, at free or $0.99, has rendered all those years of work unprofitable. When their work is stolen, it just adds to their frustration.

So the "wanna-bes," the ones that have nearly no talent and less experience are publishing unfiltered dreck like crazy, keeping prices low. I know factually that many (real, formerly trade-pubbed) authors are making LESS money now, not more, even with greater numbers of sales, because even though they USED TO be able to sell books at $5.99 or $6.99, now they've had to drop prices to compete with the mountains of freebie-trash. So now, what, we're going to insult them even further by saying, "oh, by the way, on that book you just made $0.33 on, we're going to let that person lend it 20 or 30 or 50 times?"

It's like being a webmaster, and having to fight with the old MFA (Made-For-Adsense) sites...your site might be loaded with quality, but those "making pennies a day" guys from the Third World might be killing you. It's not one iota different now for authors, who are competing against MILLIONS of other guys--all of whom might be thrilled with 10 sales a month in a vastly diluted and frankly, heavily polluted pool.

I'll tell you right now, I'm glad I'm NOT an author. I don't know if I could face that 10,000 hours of hard work being flushed, just because nowadays, it's a disrespected profession, diminished even further by the digital age mindset that anything in digital form has zero value, because it's not "made of" something like paper, tree, bark, fiber, or a cassette. And that because it's easy to take, it should be taken.

So, here's my question: how is killing off the best talent, due to diminution of income even further over existing market forces, going to meet James Madison's original exhortation? How does this help the "public interest?" I just don't see that it does. And while no one--none--can do anything about the glut of worthlessness, making it worse by legitimizing the extended lending of books that are ALREADY nearly free is just not going to help. And the "illicit lending" of de-DRM'ed books simply adds to it.

The "rights of consumers" were simply that if they bought a physical book, they could do whatever they wanted to with it, usage-wise. They could prop up a table leg with it. They could burn it. They could lend it to ONE person at a time. They couldn't replicate it. They had ONE item that they could lend--that was it. That's not remotely the same as "oh, here's a digital book that I can now lend to 50 of my closest and dearest friends" or more. Or "give away to 1,000 of my friends that I don't know." Nor did the consumers have any "right" to get 20 different versions of the print book, one in Hardcover, one in PPK, one in big print, etc. They got ONE. How does making the provision of ebooks identical to that harm the public interest?

Folks, the books are already so damned cheap--why not just buy the frakking things?

</rant>

Done with this discussion. Not angry; it's just fruitless. People can always justify some reason to take something that doesn't belong to them, and rationalize it away as X or Y or Z. I've made the argument here numerous times, and I'm sure it's never changed one person's mindset. The reality is, you can be honest, or not. Everything else, argument-wise, is window dressing. Done now.

Apologize for the length.

Hitch

[AlexBell]

Thanks, Hitch. As always, an excellent response.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Hitch

That's certainly better than piracy/thieving. I wouldn't object to that, but of course, many would, due to privacy issues. It's apparent to me that many younger people are far, far less concerned about the invasiveness of devices into their privacy. But for a lot of we older types, there's an objection to even setting location capabilities for phones, not to mention, going through our contact lists, etc. {shrug}. Nonetheless, I'd say it's worth a try.

No one forces you to lend books (creating data about you), and it seems like it would be fairly controlled -- far more so than the mere act of owning a smartphone. Which I agree is a problem.

The only data that is being created is the fact that you met this person/device-tied-to-specific-account. I am not sure how useful that would be.

If it turns out that ebookstores also take your location data through the reader app, they were probably already doing that -- this feature shouldn't add any additional problems.

Yes, just as it's an author/publisher's choice whether they want to give their work away. For the better books, of whatever lineage, it's WORK. It's not play. It's not an impromptu jam session, whipped up at the end of the night. The average novel requires 400 hours of work. For the rest of we humans, that's ~ 10 weeks of work. I'm pretty sure that there are very few of us that would be sanguine about losing any proceeds from whatever we earned, made, sold, etc., for that 10 weeks. There's simply a major disrespect for digital products.

Hitch

Which is why my interpretation of the freedom to lend ebooks -- at least as it should be -- respects authors' rights to payment for their work far more than the current lending scheme, which is basically a license to get books for half-off via the lending marketplace.

I agree authors deserve their due payment -- just like anyone who puts in work to create a product. But I feel that digital products intrinsically have far fewer rights than physical products, in ways that are really meant only to gouge the customer. And I think there must be mutually-acceptable ways of giving both parties what they feel they deserve.

Digital products should have the same rights to sharing as physical products. Not less, and not more!

---

Also, thanks Hitch for the rants. Very informative, as always.

[speakingtohe]

@eschwartz
I won't quote you because not a direct response.
In he 1970's when personal computers were a rarity it was very common for those that had a PC to share software. It wasn't as easy to copy as an ebook, or as cheap, floppy discs were about $10 IIRC, but many did it and did not think of it as theft. People paid for software, but one guy bought CPM and another bought WordStar etc. and they were used by both. If it stopped there I doubt the software companies would have cared even a little bit. But soon 15 people had copies and then 60 etc. So the software companies retaliated with weird formatting, dongles, and physically damaging the disc so t couldn't be copied. These measures were much more of a pain in the butt than any form of current DRM. And if your media (disc/tape) was destroyed you were lucky if you could get another copy without paying full price, and if you got another copy it could take weeks as there was no internet and it had to come by mail, so those who used the software for business, often bought another copy for anything between $50 to $2000+.

A drafting or engineering program was rarely under $1,000 and for use on only one computer. No group licences. This wasn't thought of as gouging by anyone I knew, but just the cost of having something that made life better and easier if one could afford it. A 100 man hour job could be done in 30 to 40.

Digital products should have the same rights to sharing as physical products. Not less, and not more!

I don't disagree with this, but how can one accomplish the not more part? Relying on human honesty or even awareness that it is wrong has been pretty useless historically, as evidenced by locks on doors, police and security personnel, security cameras , pepper spray and the fact that there was reason to enact copyright measures in the first place.

I know I am in a minority here, but I am okay with the current status of ebooks.

My primary need is to be able to read the book, whether ebook or paper. I can do this much more conveniently and comfortably with ebooks.

I have yet to pay more for an ebook, generally substantially less. If I did choose to pay more for a few, I would still be ahead.

On the odd occasion I want to lend a book, I can by lending my backup ereader or in the case of my mother sharing an account. I never leant paper books with any expectation of getting them back, I just gave them to people if I was so inclined. I rarely reaped the huge financial benefits that others seem to get from trading books. Maybe saved 20% overall and it was often a PITA. I could probably do better with coupons and of course 100% better with library loans.

I have traded books at second hand stores and bought used books, but despite the fact that I can still do so, as can you or anyone else, and get a bestseller at the thrift store for $1 or less I do not do so.

I don't because I prefer ebooks. The rights to trade, lend a copy, or sell ebooks are not currently available legally in my country and I am pretty sure they won't be in the near future. But I still have the same rights I always had. I can still lend, sell, trade paper books. Nothing has been taken away that I am aware of.

I just can't have my cake and eat it too.

Helen

[ApK]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

I disagree with that in principle, though I would probably agree with most of it in practice.

In principle, digital content and physical items are simply different. They have different properties and different capabilities, and those difference must and should be taken into account when decided what we should be allowed to do.
Also, what are being called "rights" in this context are often confused with "features" and I don't buy into the inflated sense of entitlement that that leads to. There is stuff that digital content allows us to do that pbooks don't. We need to both ensure we are allowed to take advanatage of them, and we also need to acknowledge that because the let us do additional stuff, we may need to have restrictions that simply were not applicable with pbooks.


Examples of differences:

I expect to be able to download another copy of my digital content for free if my local copy is lost or damaged. I do not expect this of physical stuff.

I expect to be able to change the font size of my ebooks. I do not expect this of my pbooks.

I can only lend my pbook to one person at a time, and while they have it, I don't, unless I went through the expense and time making copies. I didn't need any rule to make this a fact, but I can 'lend' an eBook simultaneously to everyone on the Internet while still keeping a copy for myself with the click of mouse.

Different things require different rules.
ApK

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by ApK

I can only lend my pbook to one person at a time, and while they have it, I don't, unless I went through the expense and time making copies. I didn't need any rule to make this a fact, but I can 'lend' an eBook simultaneously to everyone on the Internet while still keeping a copy for myself with the click of mouse.

Different things require different rules.
ApK

I can't speak to illegal sharing. But using the legal sharing methods, there should be a way to both lend out books as often as you want, and prevent you from sharing over the internet to people you only meet through online marketplaces -- while at the same time marking the book as "lent" so you cannot read it.

The current implementation only does #3 (and a tiny fraction of #1).

The implementation I suggested would elegantly encompass all three, and since you would share in the same manner that you share pbooks -- by meeting the person and handing over the book -- I can see t working out.

It is a pity Amazon didn't talk to me first.