[LaughingVulcan]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

I wasn't going to touch this topic, but there are so many things wrong with this post I had to respond.


Let's translate this to paper. Mr. Goodwriter's first novel was released as a paperback. In order to make it fit in with my collection of leather bound books, I convert the paperback to a leather bound book. A few years later, the novel is re-released as a collectible leather bound book. According to you, I should not have done this. Instead I should run out and buy a copy. Why?

First, as Harry pointed out - will you be sued or prosecuted for doing so? Probably not. And, as nerys pointed out, enforcement and legality are different issues.

And also there is the argument as stated that you have not copied the work, which is what Copyright primarily exists to protect. In my examples - copying, handwriting, and typing - you are acting as a publisher of the work, even if it is for your own internal use.

If you convert the file from one format to another, again, you are acting as a publisher. You are publishing the work. Even if it is for your own use.

Now, you could ask, "What harm have I done? I'm not putting it up on P2P, or posting it to a website!" And you'd probably be correct - I'm not sure about DMCA or copyright, but most torts have to cause damage before it's a problem. It is a grey area I believe. But rattling on about how the law is inherently unjust almost never works - and it certainly doesn't work until you've gotten to the level of the Court of Appeals.

Let me give you another example. Mr. Goodwriter's first 3 novels were released in one cover. I would prefer to have them as separate books, so I split them up and rebind them. Later, the novels are released individually. According to you, I should not have done this. Instead I should run out and buy them. Why?

A third and final example. Mr. Goodwriter's novel was released as a trade paperback. It’s too big for me, so I cut it down and rebind it. Later, the novel is released as a paperback. According to you, I should not have done this. Instead I should run out buy a copy. Why?

Now why should you go out and buy it again? Because the state of the publishing industry depends upon publication rights being sold again and again. It's part of the system. The author's income isn't derived solely from typing into the night. It's also derived from the author being smart enough to sell those rights incrementally. First publishing right. Serialization. Magazine version. Hardback. Paperback. Special edition. eBook. Translation. Audiobook. TV rights. Movie rights. Each of these has a value that (hopefully) enrich the author separately.

Another example: You own the hardcover. Does this give you the right to check out the audiobook from the libarary and copy it?

If all of these examples are things I can reasonably do to format shift my paper book, then why can’t I format shift my ebook? The same property rights apply! I may not own the “contents” of the ebook file, but I do own the file in exactly the same way I own the paper.

I'm not sure - what exactly are you "owning"? Even conceding that, copyright is not conveyed by ownership of the physical medium. That's also why copyright in the digital age is complex: There's no longer a physical element to reference. Do you own the electrons buzzing around in your computer? You own the memory chips it's stored on. But what are you really "buying" with an eBook? I'd suggest you're buying the right to have that configuration of text - those particular configurations of electrons - on your computer. So how much can you change them without creating something different?

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm sorry, but this "logic" completely escapes me. It's no different from saying "if you have a hardback version of a book, you should have the right to have a paperback version of it". WHY? They are different formats! If you buy a hardback, you don't have a "right" to a paperback - if you want a paperback, you go out and buy one. If you have a paperback, you equally don't have a "right" to an eBook - if you want an eBook, you go out and buy one.

Read the first page of virtually any printed book and you'll find a sentence in it specifically prohibiting the reproduction of that book by any means or in any form. Buying a paper book does not give you some "God-given right" to create or download an eBook, any more than buying a hardback gives you a "right" to a paperback.

I'm not saying that there is a "God-given right" to it. But I am saying that it is frustrating to own a paper book and not have any legal method to enjoy it electronically.

Aside from that, there is a principle in law that harm must be caused (in most cases) for a civil tort to be actionable. The question that is asked again and again by filesharers and others (and used as a self-justification) is, "What harm have I caused?" Have I deprived the publisher or author of income?

If an author/publisher goes their whole life without publishing an electronic version, then what harm has been caused by making one for personal use? But, of course, the copyright can vest with the estate as well. And there is always the opportunity to sell the electronic version.... So I guess you could say there's always the potential of a new revenue stream there.

Nerys has another valid point: The DMCA is the first time that I'm aware of that reverse engineering or decryption has carried a criminal penalty. To me, that's just wrong. If I've deprived someone of income, the remedy should be civil, not criminal. (I think that's what was being gotten at with the appeals to the First Amendment, anyway.)

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Please explain how changing from LIT to LRF alters the content. I do not see how changing an ebook from one file format to another is any more a derived work that cutting down a trade paperback to make it a massmarket paperback.

I do agree that you end up with two files. That is the one part that would cripple my argument if not for the fact that there is little established law on this point. The closest precedent that I can find is the accepted right to make a archival copy of software. If you designate the original as the archival copy, then the format conversion is almost certainly legal.

The other aspect, though, is that the file format system itself involves different revenue streams. Who wins if you make an eCopy of something into lit? You do, of course. But also Microsoft - you have used their format. You have the ability to show off to friends how nice your version of Mr. Goodwriter's book looks. You (presumably) have the ability to take a screenshot of it and post it to your blog.

Now, if Mr. Goodwriter wants to make his living by limiting himself to Sony, that's his choice as the author. (In fact, Mr. Goodwriter might object simply to your converting it to a format whose DRM is broken, thus allowing for the possibility of filesharing.)

Do I think that the publisher and author should enjoy the right to determine when, how, and if a book is released to electronic format? I'm undecided. I don't like it, but I can see how it matters to them economically.