Classic New B&N eReader $259 & will allow sharing

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

You can "steal" Windows 7 by breaking into Fry's and taking a box of discs out under your coat. (Well, theoretically, anyway.) That counts as petty theft in the state I'm in; potentially good for up to a year in jail, and several thousand dollars worth of fines.

You can't "steal" Windows 7 from a bittorrent network. You can potentially "violate copyright"--up to $150,000 worth of fines for a single event.

If it's "theft," why isn't it prosecuted as theft, in relation to the dollar value of what was "stolen?"

This discussion has gone an ad nauseum on MR. To me you are arguing semantics. Call it what you will... either way it is wrong. I think we all know the difference between right and wrong.

Remember, everything you ever needed to know in life you learned in Kindergarten.

BOb

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

If it's "theft," why isn't it prosecuted as theft, in relation to the dollar value of what was "stolen?"

If you make a copy, you haven't "taken" anything. Which is probably why copyright infringement is not prosecuted as "theft," even in those cases where it's a criminal, rather than civil, violation.

Part of the reason these discussions often break down is refusal to agree on a vocabulary. Some people want to use the word "theft" to mean "unauthorized use," possibly with the codicil, "to someone else's detriment," and others want to restrict it to the legal definition.

Per your apparent definition, 'theft of services' would not be theft because you haven't "taken" anything. Sorry, but that's not generally the case.

The exact legal definition depends on the jurisdiction (among other variables) but in general it's taking property or receiving services which you are not authorized to take. There's nothing in it about depriving the 'owner' of the property of it's use, the act of theft is defined in relation to *your* authorization to take the property. So making an unauthorized copy *is* theft. (And I'm pretty sure I remember it being prosecuted as such, although rarely-and I really don't remember the outcome.)

As for why it's more often prosecuted as copyright infringement, I think that's because the copyright holders are simply interested in having the act judged illegal, they really don't care what the charge is. And it's probably easier to prosecute it as copyright infringement than as theft. So I suspect the choice is a practical matter rather than a 'definition'.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

As for why it's more often prosecuted as copyright infringement, I think that's because the copyright holders are simply interested in having the act judged illegal, they really don't care what the charge is. And it's probably easier to prosecute it as copyright infringement than as theft. So I suspect the choice is a practical matter rather than a 'definition'.

Actually, I think is has more to do with the fact that copyright infringement is a civil offense which is where one person sues another person. Criminal charges are levied by a city/state government authority. You can't sue someone for theft, they are charged with theft and prosecuted by a dually authorized authirty and you are only the witness and victim. You get no recompense in criminal court. (No I'm not a lawyer, this is my layman understanding of civil vs criminal offenses.)

BOb

[Wrong Writer]

I must just have a nastier mind. I'm waiting to see what they call people who are fanatcial about their "Nook".

You know, like "Trekkies"?

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by GJN

That makes a great deal of sense. It seems to me, though, that if I delete a book after lending it and then restore it from a backup made before lending it, I might be able to read or relend the book. They may keep a list of lent books, though, in a separate database on the reader where they'd keep track of ALL your books.

I'm curious now to see what my Kindle does when I delete a book and restore it from a local backup rather than over the Whispernet. Will it then still remain on the "Archived Books" list?

Doesn't the inability to read the book after it has been lent out imply that there has to be some type of tethering for the PC/Mobile software, too? What's to keep me from reading an EReader book on my disconnected treo or PC after I have lent it?

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

Doesn't the inability to read the book after it has been lent out imply that there has to be some type of tethering for the PC/Mobile software, too? What's to keep me from reading an EReader book on my disconnected treo or PC after I have lent it?

Maybe-and maybe not. Right now there's a question, at least in my mind, how far the 'inability to read the book' extends, and that will be determined by how they implement the technology.

As one example, if I lend out a free book (not only non-DRM, but maybe one downloaded from Gutenberg) should I be locked out of reading it? Technically, maybe so, but if I download a second copy then I should be able to read that. (Which means, for practical purposes, if it's a free book why lock it? Maybe just to simplify things from the 'tracking' end. Treat each copy as a separate book even if they carry the same metadata.)

Anyway, implementing the feature at all seems a friendly thing for B&N to do so it doesn't make a lot of sense for them to put severe restrictions on it. My biggest fear isn't that B&N has locked it down to the point where I can't read any copy of a book that I've loaned out, but that they've given publishers to option to 'lock out' the lending capability, much as other systems allow for printing.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

Maybe-and maybe not. Right now there's a question, at least in my mind, how far the 'inability to read the book' extends, and that will be determined by how they implement the technology.

As one example, if I lend out a free book (not only non-DRM, but maybe one downloaded from Gutenberg) should I be locked out of reading it?

I suspect the lending ability will be limited to DRM'd books purchased from the BN store.

Anyway, implementing the feature at all seems a friendly thing for B&N to do so it doesn't make a lot of sense for them to put severe restrictions on it. My biggest fear isn't that B&N has locked it down to the point where I can't read any copy of a book that I've loaned out, but that they've given publishers to option to 'lock out' the lending capability, much as other systems allow for printing.

Yep.

I think lending is a step in the right direction--and the overly-cautious, DRM-infested version of it is going to flop like other forms of DRM. However, it'll bring up public awareness that you *should* be able to lend your ebooks, and hopefully make people realize that you *should* be able to re-sell them, as well... just like physical books.

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

Maybe-and maybe not. Right now there's a question, at least in my mind, how far the 'inability to read the book' extends, and that will be determined by how they implement the technology.

As one example, if I lend out a free book (not only non-DRM, but maybe one downloaded from Gutenberg) should I be locked out of reading it? Technically, maybe so, but if I download a second copy then I should be able to read that. (Which means, for practical purposes, if it's a free book why lock it? Maybe just to simplify things from the 'tracking' end. Treat each copy as a separate book even if they carry the same metadata.)

Anyway, implementing the feature at all seems a friendly thing for B&N to do so it doesn't make a lot of sense for them to put severe restrictions on it. My biggest fear isn't that B&N has locked it down to the point where I can't read any copy of a book that I've loaned out, but that they've given publishers to option to 'lock out' the lending capability, much as other systems allow for printing.

I don't think that lending a public domain eBook is the issue here. It is the DRM method used on eReader that will enforce the lending. Just like a library book you check out the book reading will just expire. If you check an eBook from the public lending library it is protected by ADE or Mobi DRM with a time limited license. I suspect the local copy will become available again by using the clock to keep track and it will just be reenabled. If the same eBook is on another device that you own it will likely continue to work fine. eReader DRM is not locked to devices.

Dale

[CleverClothe]

Originally Posted by Wrong Writer

I must just have a nastier mind. I'm waiting to see what they call people who are fanatcial about their "Nook".

You know, like "Trekkies"?

Nookies love their Nook as it allows them to share their passion for... READING!

[KingDani]

any indication that nook will be available in UK ,is there N&B present in UK? or should it be bought from ebay and pay extra ?

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by KingDani

any indication that nook will be available in UK ,is there N&B present in UK? or should it be bought from ebay and pay extra ?

but a Kindle, haven't you heard? it's gone international!

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

This discussion has gone an ad nauseum on MR. To me you are arguing semantics. Call it what you will... either way it is wrong. I think we all know the difference between right and wrong.

Remember, everything you ever needed to know in life you learned in Kindergarten.

BOb

in Kindergarten I learnt that if I waited patiently for the special toy that Alice brought to share, I could play with after Johnnie and Susie

[Xerxes]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

but a Kindle, haven't you heard? it's gone international!

Some people liken the Kindle to that must be avoided Kool-Aid.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by Xerxes

Some people liken the Kindle to that must be avoided Kool-Aid.

and I liken those to the folks who are given all the tools they need to fix their problems and still refuse to see the solution

[kennyc]

Come on, play nice. We're all book readers here.