Would you buy the print or the ebook for the same price?

[crich70]

The security features in stores are no different in their intent than DRM. They are to try to deter theft.

Ah but the difference is that the security features in a store, let's say Wal-Mart for example, are only there to keep us from walking out of the store with an item without having paid for it. DRM on the other hand (unless stripped) remains on the item for life. If I buy a video from Wal-Mart the store scans it for the price and deducts one copy of that video from their inventory. Thereafter the item isn't being monitored by the store anymore because I have paid for it. DRM stays active 24/7/365 unless stripped. Wal-Mart isn't going to come to my home and demand I return movies that I buy from them either. Technically Amazon could do that with books and not reimburse me for them. They did do something like that with copies of 1984 I believe. They found that someone without authorization was selling the book and pulled all copies including those that had been bought in good faith by Amazon customers. I don't recall if they were reimbursed for it or not though. The point is if they can do that in that sort of case then what keeps them from doing it in other cases? It's that fear that causes people to strip the DRM from their books.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

The security features in stores are no different in their intent than DRM. They are to try to deter theft. I am pretty sure that the purpose of DRM is not a nefarious plan to deprive you of your content in the near or far distant future.

Firstly, copyright infringement isn't theft.

Secondly, are you sure that's the analogy you want to use? DRM is more like a security device on a shirt that remains on that shirt when you buy it from the shop. It is criminally illegal to remove the device from the shirt, and even discussing detailed ways to remove it can get you in trouble. The security device prevents you from wearing the shirt in anything other than the prescribed way; if you, say, want to wear the shirt unbuttoned as a jacket, you can't. And if you ever try to resell the shirt or donate it to charity, it explodes and makes the shirt unusable.

[Sregener]

Originally Posted by meeera

Firstly, copyright infringement isn't theft.

It is, because the law has been written in such a way that the producer of intellectual property owns that property and can control the use of it. Now the law may be flawed, wrong-headed, or even just plain silly, but that is what the law says. When you infringe the copyright, you are taking that control away from the creator of the intellectual property. It is not the content itself you are stealing, but the right of the creator to control the distribution of their content.

Most DRM controls are in place to ensure that you do not become a content distributor. Just as you're not allowed to go into WalMart, buy a book and then photocopy 100 copies to give to your friends, DRM is intended to keep you from creating 100 copies and giving them to all of your friends. As implemented, however, you can't resell your DRM-managed book. You can't lend it to whomever you wish, for however long you wish. Those are things you can do with a physical book without permission from anyone. But while the expense of creating your own physical copies of a book serve as a deterrent to becoming a content distributor, it is very easy to create and distribute copies of a digital work.

As a content creator and consumer myself, I have sympathy for both sides of the debate. I want to be justly rewarded for my efforts in creation. And I want to be able to use an eBook exactly the same way I used a pBook.

For me, I only buy eBooks that I expect to be disposable in nature, or where the portability or searchability justify the expense. So, for instance, I have a physical ESV Study Bible that I use to study at home, and carry with me to church. But I also have a DRM eBook of the same, so that when questions come up and I'm not near my physical book, I can whip out my phone and access the same content. However, the eBook was 1/3 the price of the printed volume, which is a savings I both appreciated and rewarded.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Apart from the lower manufacturing cost, the other big difference is the retailer's cut. For a paper book, retailers general get 45% to 55% of the retail price. For electronic books retailers generally get at most 30% of the retail price.

That in itself should make an ebook of a $10 paper book be no more than $7.15

($10 = $5 to retailer, $5 to publisher. $7.15 = $2.15 to retailer, $5 to publisher.)

But don't forget that - in the UK at least - ebooks are subject to VAT, whereas pbooks are zero-rated. VAT could (depending on the bookstore) add 20% to the ebook price.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by meeera

Firstly, copyright infringement isn't theft.

Yes it is. It is theft of intellectual property, not only in the letter of the law in many places, but in spirit. The only reason I can imagine to say something like that is to try to rationalize law-breaking and live in denial of the harm it does..

[meeera]

Originally Posted by ApK

Yes it is. It is theft of intellectual property, not only in the letter of the law in many places, but in spirit. The only reason I can imagine to say something like that is to try to rationalize law-breaking and live in denial of the harm it does..

I did not say that copyright infringement is not law-breaking. (I do question what harm is incurred in much on-paper "infringement", given some astonishingly overzealous lawmaking, but that's another discussion.)

Many laws explicitly exclude intangibles from theft/stealing laws, either in the law or by precedent. Or you could read here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyrig...nt#.22Theft.22

(I see you're in the USA: your Supreme Court, in fact, said that "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.".)

and here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft

and follow the links therein.

Or, of course, you could decide I'm just a nasty dirty criminal with nothing of value to contribute. That would sure be easier.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by meeera

I did not say that copyright infringement is not law-breaking. (I do question what harm is incurred in much on-paper "infringement", given some astonishingly overzealous lawmaking, but that's another discussion.)

Many laws explicitly exclude intangibles from theft/stealing laws, either in the law or by precedent. Or you could read here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyrig...nt#.22Theft.22

(I see you're in the USA: your Supreme Court, in fact, said that "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.".)

and here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft

and follow the links therein.

Or, of course, you could decide I'm just a nasty dirty criminal with nothing of value to contribute. That would sure be easier.

We have had the discussion here before and people have posted the relevant legislative cites where infringement IS termed theft in law. That's why I said "in many places."
The SCOTUS reference you post reads as a serious consideration.
"[C]opyright infringement is not theft" as you put it, reads like a dismissal.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by meeera

Many laws explicitly exclude intangibles from theft/stealing laws, either in the law or by precedent.

But, on the other hand, we have "identity theft". This is of course really fraud, not theft (you don't lose your identity as a result) but, nonetheless, it is both popularly and legally referred to as theft.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But, on the other hand, we have "identity theft". This is of course really fraud, not theft (you don't lose your identity as a result) but, nonetheless, it is both popularly and legally referred to as theft.

No. It is referred to as 'identity theft' as has been pointed out to you before.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by crich70

Ah but the difference is that the security features in a store, let's say Wal-Mart for example, are only there to keep us from walking out of the store with an item without having paid for it. DRM on the other hand (unless stripped) remains on the item for life. If I buy a video from Wal-Mart the store scans it for the price and deducts one copy of that video from their inventory. Thereafter the item isn't being monitored by the store anymore because I have paid for it. DRM stays active 24/7/365 unless stripped. Wal-Mart isn't going to come to my home and demand I return movies that I buy from them either. Technically Amazon could do that with books and not reimburse me for them. They did do something like that with copies of 1984 I believe. They found that someone without authorization was selling the book and pulled all copies including those that had been bought in good faith by Amazon customers. I don't recall if they were reimbursed for it or not though. The point is if they can do that in that sort of case then what keeps them from doing it in other cases? It's that fear that causes people to strip the DRM from their books.

As I have said before I do not consider stripping DRM on a book you own to be theft in a moral sense. I do consider stripping DRM and distributing copies to be theft, whether intentional or not, but I am losing not any sleep over it and these are strictly my personal opinions.

I also think that publishers, authors, and other venders are within their rights to use DRM if they see fit, and I believe that it has been to their advantage overall, but I do not know that for sure. It is their right and I do not resent it. Like any other product I do not have to buy it, but I do as I like ebooks.

As to the fear of losing content, well with most of us (in this discussion) are able to strip DRM if we wish that is not too likely unless we are careless or victims of a fire etc. In fact if I was a victim of fire that burnt up all the copies of ebooks I have, in many cases I can simply redownload them from the seller. Try doing that with your antique credenza.

I cannot think of one thing I have bought that is not susceptible to loss so why bring out that tired old Amazon chestnut. I believe that the buyers were reimbursed, I also believe that Amazon acted in a stupid and arbitrary manner, but if the loss of one (I believe it was public domain) ebook has struck fear into the hearts of the book buying public, I am amazed that people still buy bread and cheese for fear that it might mold in their fridge

Most of the people who refer to this incident were not even affected slightly, and why is it any more horrific than someone stealing your car or borrowing a book or any other item and not returning it. Oh yeah, I forgot because it is Amazon.

Amazon is unlikely to do this again because of bad publicity. You seem to imply that it is likely that they or another vender will run amok and remove all of your content. I think it is unlikely, but hardly the end of the world or justification for doing something you believe is wrong. And if you don't believe it is wrong why bother justifying it.

And don't forget Amazon or anyone else can only do this if you are connected to the internet.

And as you said, the whole Amazon debacle was initiated by someone infringing copyright.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by meeera

Firstly, copyright infringement isn't theft.

I think it depends on if you own the item or not, and what you do with it. If you own it then it should be yours to do what you will, short of loading it into a torrent file and distributing it to the WWW for free. If you do that, then that is theft. If however you strip the DRM only for the purposes of having a backup copy for your own use should something happen I can't see how that constitutes theft as you have already purchased the book in question.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

As I have said before I do not consider stripping DRM on a book you own to be theft in a moral sense. I do consider stripping DRM and distributing copies to be theft, whether intentional or not, but I am losing not any sleep over it and these are strictly my personal opinions.

I also think that publishers, authors, and other venders are within their rights to use DRM if they see fit, and I believe that it has been to their advantage overall, but I do not know that for sure. It is their right and I do not resent it. Like any other product I do not have to buy it, but I do as I like ebooks.

As to the fear of losing content, well with most of us (in this discussion) are able to strip DRM if we wish that is not too likely unless we are careless or victims of a fire etc. In fact if I was a victim of fire that burnt up all the copies of ebooks I have, in many cases I can simply redownload them from the seller. Try doing that with your antique credenza.

I cannot think of one thing I have bought that is not susceptible to loss so why bring out that tired old Amazon chestnut. I believe that the buyers were reimbursed, I also believe that Amazon acted in a stupid and arbitrary manner, but if the loss of one (I believe it was public domain) ebook has struck fear into the hearts of the book buying public, I am amazed that people still buy bread and cheese for fear that it might mold in their fridge

Most of the people who refer to this incident were not even affected slightly, and why is it any more horrific than someone stealing your car or borrowing a book or any other item and not returning it. Oh yeah, I forgot because it is Amazon.

Amazon is unlikely to do this again because of bad publicity. You seem to imply that it is likely that they or another vender will run amok and remove all of your content. I think it is unlikely, but hardly the end of the world or justification for doing something you believe is wrong. And if you don't believe it is wrong why bother justifying it.

And don't forget Amazon or anyone else can only do this if you are connected to the internet.

And as you said, the whole Amazon debacle was initiated by someone infringing copyright.

I do agree that nobody was hurt by the Amazon incident (they all received $30.- credit, a lot more than they spent in the first place) and it was handled correctly, if stupidly because they generated so much bad publicity, by Amazon. Yet I am strongly opposed to DRM restrictions. Why should we accept such restrictions and pay the same price while publishers' profits per unit increase? So there definitely is nothing wrong with people speaking up against DRM. I will not buy any book with DRM I can't remove.

[Sregener]

Originally Posted by crich70

I think it depends on if you own the item or not, and what you do with it. If you own it then it should be yours to do what you will...

And therein lies the dirty little secret of ebooks. When you purchase one, you are not purchasing the book, but a license to the book. An eBook is treated exactly like software, which means that you don't own it and you have a license to use it only in the manner prescribed in the licensing agreement. Thus, you do not have ownership of the book, or the file that contains the book, and you do not have the legal right to remove the DRM on the file for any reason because your license explicitly excludes that right.

As much as I find this abhorrent, that is the legal reality.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sregener

And therein lies the dirty little secret of ebooks. When you purchase one, you are not purchasing the book, but a license to the book.

I'm a little baffled by your assertion that this is a secret. Eg, Amazon explicitly tell you in the Kindle T&C's:

Unless otherwise specified, Digital Content is licensed, not sold, to you by the Content Provider.

It really couldn't be stated any more clearly than that. It's really not Amazon's fault if someone doesn't bother to read the contract which they're agreeing to.

[meeera]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It really couldn't be stated any more clearly than that. It's really not Amazon's fault if someone doesn't bother to read the contract to which they're agreeing to.

In my jurisdiction, fine print is invalid if it contradicts the large print. I click a "BUY NOW" button on Amazon, not a "Lease Now". Clicking on the "How Buying Works" button gives further text which uses the word "purchase" repeatedly, with nary a "lease" or "license" or "rent" in sight. This particular example is untested in court, but I'm not calling it a foregone conclusion - tech companies have been hammered here on similarly misleading marketing, when they've tried to claim that the customer shoulda read the fine print.