Dutch judge allows sale of used ebooks

[Soldim]

An attempt by two organizations defending publishers interests to forbid the resale of ebooks by a specific website has been dismissed by a Dutch judge yesterday (link, in Dutch).

The just uses the precedents from the UsedSoft case to argue that the resale of ebooks can at this point not be prohibited.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Soldim

An attempt by two organizations defending publishers interests to forbid the resale of ebooks by a specific website has been dismissed by a Dutch judge yesterday (link, in Dutch).

The just uses the precedents from the UsedSoft case to argue that the resale of ebooks can at this point not be prohibited.

I see a number of potentially serious issues with this:

1. A used ebook market would destroy the "new" market, because there's no degradation of digital products, unlike physical ones. Many people would prefer to buy new paperbooks to used; there would be no reason to prefer a new ebook to a used one: the two would be indistinguishable.

2. How could it be ensured that the seller had deleted the book? What would be to stop someone buying an ebook, selling it, but keeping a copy for themselves?

3. DRM. DRM is not transferable. There's no mechanism for transferring either an ePub or a Kindle book from one owner to another.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I see a number of potentially serious issues with this:

1. A used ebook market would destroy the "new" market, because there's no degradation of digital products, unlike physical ones. Many people would prefer to buy new paperbooks to used; there would be no reason to prefer a new ebook to a used one: the two would be indistinguishable.

2. How could it be ensured that the seller had deleted the book? What would be to stop someone buying an ebook, selling it, but keeping a copy for themselves?

3. DRM. DRM is not transferable. There's no mechanism for transferring either an ePub or a Kindle book from one owner to another.

Let me take your points in reverse order.

3. No. The only thing keeping you from reselling a DRMed Kindle ebook is the lack of a transfer mechanism. There is no technical reason why Amazon couldn't build it if they wanted. Also, ebooks that use digital watermark DRM can be readily resold.

FYI: The site only lets you resell DRM-free Epubs or Epubs with digital watermarks. I've been writing about it since it launched:

• Launch
• Lawsuit Threatened
• Yesterday's Ruling

2. Yes, that is a problem. I think this could be the point which sinks Tom Kabinet.

1. This is true but I don't see how it is necessarily bad that digital content doesn't decay. I see that as a benefit, and the effect it has on existing business models is not unexpected.

[Soldim]

I read through the court statement, but am things might be open for different interpretations.

Originally Posted by HarryT

I see a number of potentially serious issues with this:

1. A used ebook market would destroy the "new" market, because there's no degradation of digital products, unlike physical ones. Many people would prefer to buy new paperbooks to used; there would be no reason to prefer a new ebook to a used one: the two would be indistinguishable.

The judge seems to refer to the UsedSoft case in this context, ownership of a property (real or digital) or licence cannot be limited by a contract and can thus be resold. The claimants used the 'degradation of physical media' argument but that seems to be dismissed as irrelevant in the legal context.

In my opinion, the is a difference in availability of the new vs used ebooks. A publisher could sell an infinite number of an ebook -- in the used market here can never be more books for sale than the publisher has sold.

2. How could it be ensured that the seller had deleted the book? What would be to stop someone buying an ebook, selling it, but keeping a copy for themselves?

The reselling site asks the original owner of the ebook to promise to delete the ebook. According to the court statement that sufficient to fulfill their legal obligation.

3. DRM. DRM is not transferable. There's no mechanism for transferring either an ePub or a Kindle book from one owner to another.

To my surprise, DRM was not mentioned by the claimants at any point during the case. According to someone I talked with, stripping DRM is allowed in the Netherlands and this judgement would allow the resale of an ebook also after the DRM has been stripped by the original purchaser.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

I don't see how it is necessarily bad that digital content doesn't decay. I see that as a benefit, and the effect it has on existing business models is not unexpected.

It is certainly a benefit to both the seller and the buyer. The problem is that it would seriously degrade the overall e-book market. There would be no incentive for people to buy new e-books if they can buy them second-hand (at a presumably lower price). So authors and publishers would suffer, and that might discourage them from producing e-books in marginal cases. In the long run, that would be bad for us all.

I'm not saying that the judgement is necessarily wrong, only that it is a mistake to consider the benefit without looking at the possible consequences.

Mike

[HomeInMyShoes]

The issue in Canada is that you are buying a license to read on your device and not actually buying the book. Reselling that license is a different argument than reselling a physical paper book. In this case the site is only allowing DRM-free ones, but I'm not sure how that relates to if it is a license you are buying or not.

I'm not sure about the stripping of DRM point made above. I would be curious if the law is stating that it is allowing the stripping of DRM for sharing amongst an 'owner's' devices or if it is allowing more than that.

[geertm]

Stripping of DRM is not allowed in the Netherlands (as far as I know).
You can only sell ePub books with a watermark, not Adobe DRM (or Kindle/Apple) books.

Ebooks in the Netherlands are only sold by Centraal Boekenhuis. They have made a big effort to promote the use of a watermark instead of Adobe DRM (making it cheap for publishers to convert their books to watermark).
Because of this the majority of Dutch ebooks these days are sold with a watermark instead of Adobe DRM (in January 2013 74%).

[crossi]

The only books I would be willing to give up are those so bad I wouldn't want to reread them and if they are so bad it might well be that not many people would buy them once word gets around. An incentive to write books good enough that people want to keep them. Also those who buy direct from Amazon would have some perks that a used buyer might not have like synchronization, free downloading to your device, X-Ray. Lots of perks could be built in to encourage people to buy from venders instead of used. It could work like lending does already, except you wouldn't get the book back. I probably wouldn't use it much but it could be made to work.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Let me take your points in reverse order.

3. No. The only thing keeping you from reselling a DRMed Kindle ebook is the lack of a transfer mechanism. There is no technical reason why Amazon couldn't build it if they wanted. Also, ebooks that use digital watermark DRM can be readily resold.

FYI: The site only lets you resell DRM-free Epubs or Epubs with digital watermarks. I've been writing about it since it launched:

• Launch
• Lawsuit Threatened
• Yesterday's Ruling

2. Yes, that is a problem. I think this could be the point which sinks Tom Kabinet.

1. This is true but I don't see how it is necessarily bad that digital content doesn't decay. I see that as a benefit, and the effect it has on existing business models is not unexpected.

good articles

[Katsunami]

The site should be closed down because of its weird name alone

Tom Kabinet almost has to be derived from "Uncle Tom's Cabin." And a Cabin is not the same as a Kabinet. The first is a building, the second is a storage compartment

[latepaul]

Originally Posted by Mike L

It is certainly a benefit to both the seller and the buyer. The problem is that it would seriously degrade the overall e-book market. There would be no incentive for people to buy new e-books if they can buy them second-hand (at a presumably lower price). So authors and publishers would suffer, and that might discourage them from producing e-books in marginal cases. In the long run, that would be bad for us all.

I'm not saying that the judgement is necessarily wrong, only that it is a mistake to consider the benefit without looking at the possible consequences.

It could work the other way. If re-selling ebooks were legal it could mean that prices for used copies kept parity with the new ones. I can imagine publishers and/or retailers could have some fun with limiting copies and playing with the price point.

Imagine for example you have a new release by someone you hope is the next big thing. So you hype an "event" release of say 1,000 inidividually water-marked copies at a premium price (say up to 200% of normal). You then watch carefully the second-hand market. If the prices rise it means the books are sought after and a success, if they stay the same or drop then probably not. Crucially it also gives you a nice indicator of how to price the book.

Of course it would rely on pirated copies not affecting the market for genuine copies - but that's no different to the current case.

Not that I think this will happen but it's fun to speculate.

[arjaybe]

If used ebooks kill the market for originals, then where do the used books come from? Seems like a self-limiting problem to me.

Another issue with selling used eBooks is how to verify they have not been tampered with, as in having the text edited without authorization from the author and/or publisher. Someone could certainly tamper with printed books too, but it would be more difficult and probably much easier to detect. I doubt anything digital will ever be 100% tamper proof.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by jswinden

Another issue with selling used eBooks is how to verify they have not been tampered with, as in having the text edited without authorization from the author and/or publisher.

Oh for heaven's sake, don't start THAT again, please. Haven't we thrashed that particular horse to death many times over in the last few weeks?

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by jswinden

Another issue with selling used eBooks is how to verify they have not been tampered with, as in having the text edited without authorization from the author and/or publisher. Someone could certainly tamper with printed books too, but it would be more difficult and probably much easier to detect. I doubt anything digital will ever be 100% tamper proof.

We have a Spanish word for people like you: "cansino"