A question for the lawyers...

[Stitchawl]

Is re-selling used books a violation of copyright laws?
How does it differ from sharing DRM'ed e-books?

Used bookstores are a very big business in tourist vacation locales of Third World countries. Pretty big in some First World countries too. In some beach resorts one can find 2-3 used bookstores on each block of the main streets. All the latest best-sellers line the windows, and are sold for just a dollar or two. Obviously neither the author nor publisher make any money from this, and just as obviously these books are still under copyright protection. A large percentage of these books are actually NOT even used, but produced in Cambodia, the capital of pirated book production.

Many of these same countries that actively prohibit pirated computer software, pirated DVD's of both music and movies, and copied designer clothing and handbags, etc., don't seem to make any efforts towards used bookstores. Why?

Stitchawl

[Patricia]

Have you noticed these threads, Stitchawl? Some of them cover the ground that you mention.
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=52882
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51139
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42808
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33706

[Stitchawl]

Originally Posted by Patricia

Have you noticed these threads, Stitchawl? Some of them cover the ground that you mention.
[SNIP for brevity]

Thanks Patricia.

While most of these threads dealt with e-books, I was more interested in paper books. Fortunately, RickyMaveety did give a very clear answer in one of the threads, that I missed when I was first searching. Unfortunately, it raises many other questions in my mind about e-books now!

Sometimes I think thinking can be over-rated...
Think I'll just escape into a good book!


Stitchawl

[Patricia]

I'm so sorry, Stitchawl. I managed to misread your initial post and somehow stupidly assumed that you were talking about reselling ebooks.

I think that you raise two issues: the pirated p-books are obviously a copyright violation. The sale of second-hand p-books isn't. I suppose that a person has the right to sell his or her property.

You're right about the author not being recompensed for anything but the original sale.

There are precedents for a different model. Living artists can get some money every time their work is sold, via a resale tax.
In the European Union there is the Artist Resale right (Droite de Suite)
http://conventioneuropeennedesartsvi...tax-67?lang=en
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...es-676515.html
In Australia it applies only to living artists:
http://www.arts.gov.au/artists/resale_royalty

In these cases the law applies only to artworks worth several thousand Euros.
One problem is that it would be very expensive to collect a few pennies in tax on a used paperback.
Libraries in the UK do note the number of times that a book is borrowed so that the author can make a claim for recompense under the Public Lending Right legislation.

If more authors had a tipjar on their websites then I would cheerfully contribute.
I've read all of Barbara Neely's detective novels with great pleasure. They're not in print, so I had to get used copies. And it would be nice to have a way of showing my appreciation in a concrete way.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by Stitchawl

Is re-selling used books a violation of copyright laws?
How does it differ from sharing DRM'ed e-books?

Used bookstores are a very big business in tourist vacation locales of Third World countries. Pretty big in some First World countries too. In some beach resorts one can find 2-3 used bookstores on each block of the main streets. All the latest best-sellers line the windows, and are sold for just a dollar or two. Obviously neither the author nor publisher make any money from this, and just as obviously these books are still under copyright protection. A large percentage of these books are actually NOT even used, but produced in Cambodia, the capital of pirated book production.

Many of these same countries that actively prohibit pirated computer software, pirated DVD's of both music and movies, and copied designer clothing and handbags, etc., don't seem to make any efforts towards used bookstores. Why?

Stitchawl

No, reselling a physical book is not a violation of copyright laws. That is, in selling the book, you are not making any unauthorized reproduction of the book. You are simply reselling the physical entity that is "the book" to another person. The author and publisher got their cut when the book was first sold. You own the book, and once you sell the book, you don't have the book anymore.

The difference with pirated digital media is, well, if it's pirated it is by definition an illegal copy made without compensation to the publisher or author. It is not the version that came from the publisher.

Also, with digital media, you are no longer an "owner" of a "book" .... you are simply purchasing a license to read that book. And, it's not a transferable license (unless so stated in the agreement). So, legally, you can't simply sell the digital book to someone else.

What would be illegal to do with a physical book still under copyright protection, would be to make a copy (by scanning or typing) and then sell those copies. What is illegal with digital media is anything that violates the license agreement between you and the publisher, or to make any unauthorized copy of DRM protected media. Although, generally an archive copy of media you purchased is not considered illegal.

The music business only got bothered by this when media was no longer analog. It used to be that you could make any number of mix tapes because by the time you got the music from the original album to the tape, or from one tape to another, it was significantly degraded. Sort of like a xerox of a xerox of a xerox.

As music and books went digital, suddenly it's possible to make perfect copies, and perfect multiple copies. That scared the crap out of everybody in media (books or music). So, as is typical of big business, they over reacted and decided that all consumers are crooks.

Long way to say, reselling of used physical books is not a violation of copyright. Reselling used digital books is not so much a violation of copyright as it is of DRM (which is part of the copyright law, but not the same as a copyright) and the license agreement. If it is pirated and sold, then that is a violation of copyright.

Oh, and if they are actually reproducing what are in essence pirated physical books in Cambodia, then that is a violation of copyright, but it is really (really) difficult to enforce those laws. Especially in countries where the "law" is a really nebulous idea anyway.

Long ago in LA, I knew this kid who used to buy all those unsold stock books from bookstores. The thing is, if the bookstore doesn't sell out on their stock of a book, they can rip off the front cover, return it to the publisher as proof, and be compensated for those unsold books.

Well, this kid would buy the book remainders for pennies on the dollar, attach a new front cover (not top quality, but good enough), and resell the book at a discount that still made him a nice profit. Highly suspect, but he never was prosecuted for any offense.

[Who are you?]

The "you're not buying it, you're licensing it"-argument doesn't usually hold up in court, especially not if the product comes on a physical medium, is bought in a real store, or if it says on the website "buy now" or similar.

Also some states and countries have consumer protection laws that specifically state consumers have the right to sell things they own, and you can force companies that have tied a digital product to you to transfer that tie to whoever you sell it to.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by Who are you?

The "you're not buying it, you're licensing it"-argument doesn't usually hold up in court, especially not if the product comes on a physical medium, is bought in a real store, or if it says on the website "buy now" or similar.

Also some states and countries have consumer protection laws that specifically state consumers have the right to sell things they own, and you can force companies that have tied a digital product to you to transfer that tie to whoever you sell it to.

Well, that depends on the court and the circumstances. If I buy a full CD of a program (not an upgrade), and later I decide to sell that CD (and not retain a copy of the program on my computer), I may do so.

If, however, I sell the original CD and overwrite my own copy with an upgrade, I am technically breaking the law.

Much of digital media these days is not sold in a physical form that can be transferred. E-books, music, even programs, are more and more frequently sold as downloads.

One of the reasons that the license agreement is a hard argument to make, is that, under the common law, an agreement is supposed to be something that both parties have some input into. It's not supposed to be a "take it or leave it" affair. And, the software companies don't really give the consumer any options, it's more the (1) you pay what WE want, (2) if we catch you using this program on more than one computer we hunt you down and you die, (3) and if you have any problems with the software, don't expect US to fix it.

I've always thought that as long as I'm the only one in this household who uses my computers (I do suspect that the cats download child porn in the middle of the night, but I can't prove it), I should be able to have the same programs installed in every last one of them (understanding that some of my computers are no longer bleeding edge enough to support open GL 1.3 or later). Some of the software companies disagree with them, and I don't give a flying fandango, so we agree to disagree.

However, as mentioned above, it depends on the court, it depends on the country (and sometimes the state or province) the court is located. People are going to be arguing about DRM and licensing of ebooks, music and software until someone more intelligent than the people currently employed to do it come up with a fair and workable solution to the "problem."

Adobe and Microsoft are probably two of the biggest bullies in the market at the moment. Amazon and Apple are neck and neck for third. The hoops you have to go through to use the software or products you legally purchased from them are insane. The terms of their licensing agreements are some of the stupidest stuff I've ever read.

Great, now I'm ranting. I've got five more litterboxes to take out, sift the litter, scrub the box, and bring back inside. I don't have time for this, and I have no idea how I get sucked into the interesting discussions here. I really should block the IP at this end and throw away the key.

Oh, and PS, Zealot ..... how many people you know .... average consumers, who are going to pay several hundred thousand dollars in legal fees to defend their right to transfer media on or not on physical media?? Seriously. Are they going to take that fight against one software giant at a time?? It's an expensive proposition and not one for the faint of heart.

[Who are you?]

Actually I don't mind Microsoft, their licenses nowadays tend to allow much more use than they used to, yes you have to activate the flagship products, but that works 99% of the time, and if you do have a problem you call and it gets fixed without hassle. All their other stuff usually has quite permissive licenses. There are many companies that are a lot more inflexible in their licensing.

Wait until you see Oracle's licenses for their (business) software, then you'll really be scared. They like to demand access to your buildings and servers there whenever they want so they can verify you have enough licenses.

[RickyMaveety]

Originally Posted by Who are you?

Actually I don't mind Microsoft, their licenses nowadays tend to allow much more use than they used to, yes you have to activate the flagship products, but that works 99% of the time, and if you do have a problem you call and it gets fixed without hassle. All their other stuff usually has quite permissive licenses. There are many companies that are a lot more inflexible in their licensing.

Wait until you see Oracle's licenses for their (business) software, then you'll really be scared. They like to demand access to your buildings and servers there whenever they want so they can verify you have enough licenses.

No, it doesn't "scare" me. I just refuse to use their software.

[Terisa de morgan]

Originally Posted by RickyMaveety

No, it doesn't "scare" me. I just refuse to use their software.

Sometimes you can't refuse to use Oracle Software and yes, their licenses make all the PC software licenses a children game.

[slayda]

Originally Posted by Who are you?

Actually I don't mind Microsoft, their licenses nowadays tend to allow much more use than they used to, yes you have to activate the flagship products, but that works 99% of the time, and if you do have a problem you call and it gets fixed without hassle. All their other stuff usually has quite permissive licenses. There are many companies that are a lot more inflexible in their licensing.

Wait until you see Oracle's licenses for their (business) software, then you'll really be scared. They like to demand access to your buildings and servers there whenever they want so they can verify you have enough licenses.

Try registering a network of 50 computers for Windows (when for security reasons you can not access the Internet from that network). It ain't easy for one. It's terrible for 50.

[Who are you?]

Try using a volume license edition of Windows, cheaper and easier activation.

[wodin]

I'm in the process of activating 18,769 Vista licenses. Piece of cake! Of course when you have that kind of volume, M$ doesn't only answer the phone, they send out an engineer to help!

[pholy]

Wow! I hope you don't have to support all those users all by yourself!