Why e-books?

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Can you name one book for which "the only way to obtain it is illegal"? I certainly can't think of one.

So long as you mean e-versions:
Adventures in Time and Space
Endless movie novelizations

(Ah, you answered it already!)

[jhowell]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Can you name one book for which "the only way to obtain it is illegal"? I certainly can't think of one.

Originally Posted by ratinox

Digital editions of Martin Caidin's "Cyborg" series, which are the source for "The Six Million Dollar Man" TV series. No authorized digital editions of these books exist that I've ever heard of. That's 4.

That is the answer to a different question. You can certainly obtain used paperback editions of those books at a reasonable price. Just because it isn't available in your preferred reading format doesn't mean it isn't available.

(Oops, a little late with my response!)

[ratinox]

Originally Posted by HarryT

"No digital editions exist" is not the same as "the only way to get it is illegal". Buy the paper book. It's a peculiar sense of entitlement to believe that there's some god-given right to an ebook.

The paper books have been out of print for over 30 years. I've never seen them in book stores or libraries, and all attempts I've made to purchase them on line have failed. "Buy the paper book" is impossible by any practical measure.

I don't feel entitled to digital editions of these books. Nor do I feel entitled to dead trees. They're merely my go-to example of books that cannot be legally obtained.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by ratinox

The paper books have been out of print for over 30 years. I've never seen them in book stores or libraries, and all attempts I've made to purchase them on line have failed. "Buy the paper book" is impossible by any practical measure.

Have you looked on abebooks.com? That's my "go to" source for second-hand books. They're currently listing 3751 books by Martin Caidin.

[Apache]

I still have all four of the Cyborg series in paper. I bought them back in the early seventies. I still can not seem to get rid of all of my paper books.
Apache

[ratinox]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Have you looked on abebooks.com? That's my "go to" source for second-hand books. They're currently listing 3751 books by Martin Caidin.

In my experience, listing is not possession. While I've not tried Abe specifically, the used books network (I used to shop Avenue Victor Hugo in Boston before they closed) repeatedly failed to deliver.

[HarryT]

I've bought innumerable books from abebooks and never had a problem. I do recommend giving them a go. They're not a single seller, but a site where thousands of small independent bookshops list their stock.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by ratinox

In my experience, listing is not possession. While I've not tried Abe specifically, the used books network (I used to shop Avenue Victor Hugo in Boston before they closed) repeatedly failed to deliver.

Perhaps you should try abebooks. They have a very good reputation.
My stepdad uses them all the time.

[barryem]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Copyright law absolutely includes the right not to publish. That's what guarantees you the right to keep your private diary private, for example. The right not to publish is a fundamental part of copyright law. It's about you, as the author, deciding who has the right to make copies of your work. If your decision is "nobody", that's absolutely your right.

I think that's a different issue. Once published books shouldn't be allowed to be withheld. The right to keep things private and not publish them is a very different thing.

Once a book is published it becomes part of our culture and withholding it is withholding parts of who we are. It's not really the same thing as re-writing history but I think the same arguments might apply to both.

Short copyright terms are a partial solution to this but they're not likely to happen. Better would be a provision allowing copyright to expire after something is no longer available for a certain period. That would allow copyrights periods to be long, safeguarding Mickey Mouse, and still give us access to our culture.

Copyright is about promoting creativity and, even though the constitution doesn't explicitly say so, about letting authors make money, which is pretty much the same thing. That's a good thing. Authors need that and readers need it. Readers also need to be able to go back and read the stuff they read before. In the days where books were all on paper there was no way to make that happen. In the days of ebooks there are good and practical solutions available should we choose to implement them.

Barry

[barryem]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Nobody is to blame but the author for signing away digital publishing rights without first getting a guarantee that the books would in fact be published as ebooks.

Gruenfeld's books were published before ebooks became something to consider; in the mid 1980s through the 1990s. There were ebooks then but nobody cared.

In any case the point of this isn't to assign blame. I think we're discussing how our system works and how it might be improved.

Barry

[barryem]

Originally Posted by HarryT

"No digital editions exist" is not the same as "the only way to get it is illegal". Buy the paper book. It's a peculiar sense of entitlement to believe that there's some god-given right to an ebook.

I have a pretty difficult time reading paper books these days. I can sort of do it a little bit but I get eyestrain. I can read ebooks. So yes I do suffer from your peculiar sense of entitlement.

I'm able to read ebooks on e-ink for an hour and sometimes two hours without much problem. Then a few minutes later I can read another hour. I typically do this 2 or 3 times a day.

I can read paper books for about 30 minutes but then I can't do any reading at all for at least a couple of hours and sometimes several hours.

I have no idea how unusual my situation is. I doubt that it's uncommon, especially among older people.

I have bought paper books and scanned them so I can read them but that means using images since OCR isn't accurate enough unless I proof first which kind of ruins the fun of reading. I need to read the image scan, usually PDF, on a larger screen and that means LCD which is also difficult for me.

However, all of this and my peculiar sense of entitlement shouldn't really matter. There are better cultural arguments for keeping books available. Once a book is published it belongs to all of us. I'm not talking about distribution rights now, but reading rights. I should have the right to read the books that are part of my culture. I'm willing to pay for it but I'm not willing to give up the right to read it and I shouldn't have to.

Barry

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Copyright law absolutely includes the right not to publish. That's what guarantees you the right to keep your private diary private, for example. The right not to publish is a fundamental part of copyright law. It's about you, as the author, deciding who has the right to make copies of your work. If your decision is "nobody", that's absolutely your right.

That's the modern European definition of copyright, i.e. author's rights. The US has a somewhat different view and historically, copyright had nothing to do with the author, but rather with the publisher.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by ratinox

Kinda but not. Prior to the passing of the Copyright Act of 1976, copyright in the US required formal, costly registration. Registration lasted 28 years and could be renewed once for an additional 28 years for a total of 56 years. This caused lots of problems as works that were copyrighted in one nation were considered public domain in others.

The Copyright Act brought the US in line with the rest of the world in terms of duration (life + 50 years). This is, IMO, the lesser of the two big changes. The greater of the two is that copyright is inherent in any creative work as soon as it is given tangible form. This is huge. It means that anyone and everyone can be a creator and have their works protected by copyright law, not just those fortunate enough to be wealthy or have wealthy patrons.

Which brings me to the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, aka the Sonny Bono Act, aka the Mickey Mouse Protection Act, which froze the advancement date for works automatically entering the public domain in the US. And this in turn brings me to secret trade treaties like the TPP carrying DMCA-style and copyright term extension provisions which the US, notably backed by the MPAA, has been strong-arming other nations into signing.

France may have started it but Big Content players in the US have been pushing it further every chance they get.

Well, the US probably isn't going to sign the TPP.

Prior to 1978, in the US, you did have to register a copyright, but that was very simple and didn't cost a dime. You just had to put a copyright notice on it when you published it. That's it. You may be confusing the registration with renewal requirements.

I won't deny that US media companies are the driving force behind the US signing the Berne treaty and extending the copyright term, though the US media companies tend to be more focused on music and movies than books.

[ratinox]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Well, the US probably isn't going to sign the TPP.

Which is possibly the first positive thing I have to say about our President-Elect.

Prior to 1978, in the US, you did have to register a copyright, but that was very simple and didn't cost a dime. You just had to put a copyright notice on it when you published it. That's it. You may be confusing the registration with renewal requirements.

Could be. The Copyright Act of 1909 required formal publication and registration as a requirement for federal copyright protections, and renewal did cost. I could well be conflating that.

Put another way, the Copyright Act of 1976 did away with the formal requirements and made renewal automatic and free. I consider these to be good things whether they help Big Content players or self-publishing individuals. It also mostly superseded state-level copyright laws. Mostly.

[ratinox]

Originally Posted by Cinisajoy

Perhaps you should try abebooks. They have a very good reputation.
My stepdad uses them all the time.

I will give them a try.