[latepaul]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Which has nothing to do with the fact that an ebook is a tangible object.

An ebook is not a physical object in the way that a paper book is. A physical object can be touched, handled, moved. A physical object can only be in one place at a time. These characteristics are not true of the ebook as a file but only of the physical device storing that file.

BTW if "tangible" is going to cause a problem then substitute the word "Physical" it's roughly the same the way I'm using it.

You can copy paper books as well.

I agree but if I said "can you lend me your lawn mower?" and you went and made a copy and gave me that, you haven't lent me your mower have you? I said that if a file is a discrete tangible object then you ought to be able to hand it to me without either making a copy or giving me the media it's written on. If you can't do that then it at the very least tells you that a file is a different kind of object and that maybe simple analogies with objects such as paper books don't always apply.

Which simply is not true of a ebook or a file, it is stored as a set of physical changes on a storage medium which is certainly perceivable or you couldn't read it silly.

Well first of all, unless you're using an electron microscope to directly examine the magnetic patterns on the hard-drive you're not reading it by "perceiving" the file itself. You're using the computer hardware to read those changes, interpret them and then present them on the screen in the form of letters. A process that inevitably involves copying.

Also if the file is "a set of physical changes on a storage medium" then what does it mean to own that? Also if it's a discrete object then the thing you own is only the set of changes on that one particular medium isn't it? Or if not then at what point does it stop being "your" object? When you've made your first copy? Your fifth? Thousandth? Remember we're talking about libraries and we're told they should just stop worrying about licenses and realise that they "own" the ebooks they paid for. If this means making copies is OK then they're going to make lots of copies for all the people they want to lend to.

It's certainly as tangible as Andromedia or Tau Ceti, as opposed to tatooine.

But Andromeda and Tau Ceti can only be in one place at a time. Actually Tatooine is a good example because it definitely exists as a concept and there are representations of it.

Here's the thing, people keep saying, some quite emphatically, that they "own" their ebooks and did not license them. However as well as the fact that this flies in the face of existing law, it's also not clear what it means. I know what it means to own a physical object. I know what it means to own the copyright to a creative work. Owning a file in the way talked about seems to be neither one nor the other. It's not the same as owning a physical object because it doesn't have the same inherent limitations. It's not the same as owning the copyright because people who say this are always quick to disown "illegal copying" or "pirating" or whatever.

As far as I can tell what "I own this file" means is "I have a set of rights over this material that I get to define not the copyright owner. I get to decide if I can back it up, share it, lend it and so on. I get to do that because that's what owning means."

Unfortunately that's not a position that's defensible in current law. Which is why you don't see libraries ignoring the law and lending willy nilly regardless of the licensing terms.