How do you plan to wait out the coming ebook shakedown?

[TallMomof2]

I'm using the library a lot. I just checked out Ken Follett's Fall of Giants and hope to get it read in the 21 day checkout time.

Also have a neighbor who reads a lot of the same SF and Fantasy that I do and he passes on the book to me after he's done. Neighbor is not interested in ebooks so I benefit from his purchases. Right now he's reading Towers of Midnight and when I get it I'll scan it and read it on my Kindle.

The publisher and author get a little from my library checkout but zero from the hand me down book. As long as popular fiction is more than $5.00 for the electronic version I won't be buying. My financial priorities are to pay off my mortgage, save for the kids' college tuition, and save for retirement. Not pay $$ for books that can be had for far less if one is willing to format shift for personal use.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

I've been giving serious thought to digitizing more of my own books... but I haven't decided which method is the one I want to use. (I'm leaning towards the 2-camera exposure box, since this will also allow me to digitize comics and graphic novels.)

[thrawn_aj]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Simple question: What contract?
I've signed no contract with anybody.
The only money that has changed hands is between me and the retailer.
People can claim whatever rights they want, it doesn't mean they have them.

I quite agree. I was merely pointing out Lady Fitzgerald's inconsistent principles in this regard (the artificial distinction between pbooks and ebooks she had made several times in the past). The issue of the "seller's terms" has been brought up ad nauseum in the past and this was a gentle rebuke on my part.

Perhaps I should have been more explicit about this (the fact that I was addressing this particular inconsistency in people's attitudes about this issue) since several people seem to be taking exceptions to my (devil's advocate) arguments in that post.

My point was (and is) simply this: book scanning for personal use is about as legal as breaking DRM for personal use because they both break copyright laws, .How legal they are in the absolute sense is clearly a matter of dispute in the courts. That they are both morally correct is beyond dispute. Is that a fair assessment?

[thrawn_aj]

Originally Posted by Blue Tyson

Under your copyright act perhaps. It certainly isn't under mine.

That was a one line summary you quoted. The rest of the post makes it clear I'm talking about the US copyright act (Title 17) - I said so repeatedly. If you are not bound by US law, then it is obvious that the conclusions of my argument don't apply to you . Or were you implying something else? I also stated quite clearly that this is to the best of my knowledge and also asked very politely for someone who believes the law says otherwise to correct me if I'm wrong. Still waiting ...

What I find bewildering is the people who resort to book-scanning specifically because they don't want to do something illegal by breaking DRM. There may be MANY good reasons to scan books - THIS is not a valid one. Right?

Originally Posted by Blue Tyson

They could also say the moon is green and you have to send them a case if scotch if you buy the book. Which is just as much crap as some of the things written at the start of books.

Agreed. And my apologies if I indicated that I treat those notices with anything but amused contempt (my snark did not come off effectively enough ). See the post before this one for a clarification.

[ManosHandsOfFate]

I thought I was just being cheap by not spending more than $10 on an ebook. Now I can be a part of a cause!

[thrawn_aj]

Originally Posted by thrawn_aj

Just saying that legally speaking (as evidenced by the intense litigation against Google - though I agree that's more contentious and somewhat different since distribution comes into play), book-scanning (even for personal use) appears to be one of those unenforceable, yet illegal activities (like breaking DRM); unless of course there is a personal archival copy exemption in the laws that I just couldn't find (I eagerly await your response - it's quite possible I missed it somewhere).

To summarize:
Breaking DRM: illegal under DMCA; goes against seller's terms (but only for Amazon - B&N doesn't have any such terms in the book or in any other place)

Scanning entire books: illegal under copyright act; definitely goes against seller's terms (included in nearly every book, even for books out of copyright - why buy the book if one doesn't agree with the terms?)

Both: morally fine, assuming no distribution. Is that an accurate summary?

No takers? Great. I guess that was accurate and no such exemption exists. Hopefully, we won't have that incorrect argument (about book-scanning being the legal alternative to breaking DRM) brought up again and again in the future. Cheers
(If someone suddenly remembers something, please be sure to read the entire argument and not just the snippet above before posting a "rebuttal").

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by thrawn_aj

I quite agree. I was merely pointing out Lady Fitzgerald's inconsistent principles in this regard (the artificial distinction between pbooks and ebooks she had made several times in the past). The issue of the "seller's terms" has been brought up ad nauseum in the past and this was a gentle rebuke on my part.

Perhaps I should have been more explicit about this (the fact that I was addressing this particular inconsistency in people's attitudes about this issue) since several people seem to be taking exceptions to my (devil's advocate) arguments in that post.

My point was (and is) simply this: book scanning for personal use is about as legal as breaking DRM for personal use because they both break copyright laws, .How legal they are in the absolute sense is clearly a matter of dispute in the courts. That they are both morally correct is beyond dispute. Is that a fair assessment?

You sure are an arrogant piece of work. I would say something else but it wouldn't be fair to the horses of the world.

Media shift and archival is permitted in other intellectual work and is not specifically prohibited in books. In fact, libraries are specifially permitted to have up to one paper copy of a book or three digital copies for archival purposes as long as only one is in use at any time. Since library isn't defined, who's to say that my large collection isn't a library. I have always referred to it as one. Media shift and archival also falls under Fair Use which is vague at best (it generally has to be defined case by case in court) but many cases revolve around the concept of non-distribution of entire copies.

DMCA, however, specifically prohibits DRM circumvention except when no e-books are available that permit text to speech.

Unless, you're a lawyer (and, considering comments we've seen from an individual claiming to be one, that wouldn't hold much water with me), tread carefully. Show me one case where someone has been prosecuted, let alone convicted, for media shifting books without distribution.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

I've been giving serious thought to digitizing more of my own books... but I haven't decided which method is the one I want to use. (I'm leaning towards the 2-camera exposure box, since this will also allow me to digitize comics and graphic novels.)

I bought myself a Plustek OpticBook scanner. It's selling point is that you can scan one page at a time, getting pretty close to the spine (about 1/4" or 6mm with the model I have) without having to squash the whole book flat or cut it apart. You have to manually position the page for each scan, and it requires Windows to run . Overall, I'm pretty happy with how it works, having scanned over 100 of my old textbooks and references. These book scanners are more expensive than ordinary models, but if you want to scan a lot of books without destroying them, it might be worth it to you.

[NVash]

Originally Posted by rkomar

I bought myself a Plustek OpticBook scanner.

http://www.amazon.com/Plustek-Opticbook-3600-Plus-Scanner/dp/B000EIYUAE/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

This? They say the software is no good on Vista. Id assume its no good on Windows 7 either and dont even think about a Mac. Have you had any software problems? Which OS are you using, if you dont mind?

[thrawn_aj]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

You sure are an arrogant piece of work. I would say something else but it wouldn't be fair to the horses of the world.

That's the second time you've resorted to name-calling after running out of rational arguments. If you can't keep a civil tongue, or participate in a reason-based discussion as a human being, I have nothing more to say to you. It is sad that a (presumably) mature woman feels the need to stoop to such sophomoric insults simply because she can't admit a mistake (or at least admit that she has no valid rebuttal at the present time even while disagreeing with her opponent - that would be a valid position to take).

I have been unfailingly polite throughout our entire conversation (if I can stretch the definition of "conversation" that far). I have also refrained from engaging in personalities (until now). Pity that the same could not be said of you. When I saw your reply in this thread, I sincerely felt that perhaps you were trying to atone for your disgusting parting rant in the other thread by trying to maintain a constructive discussion with a civil tone in this one. Hah! How embarrassingly naive of me.

There is nothing more irritating than a person who seems to think that flipping the chess board (in addition to certain appendages) is the only way to save face in a losing game.

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

Media shift and archival is permitted in other intellectual work and is not specifically prohibited in books. In fact, libraries are specifially permitted to have up to one paper copy of a book or three digital copies for archival purposes as long as only one is in use at any time. Since library isn't defined, who's to say that my large collection isn't a library. I have always referred to it as one. Media shift and archival also falls under Fair Use which is vague at best (it generally has to be defined case by case in court) but many cases revolve around the concept of non-distribution of entire copies.

DMCA, however, specifically prohibits DRM circumvention except when no e-books are available that permit text to speech.

Unless, you're a lawyer (and, considering comments we've seen from an individual claiming to be one, that wouldn't hold much water with me), tread carefully. Show me one case where someone has been prosecuted, let alone convicted, for media shifting books without distribution.

"Library" isn't defined? I feel like I'm talking to Bill Clinton here. Whence the restriction to "employees" then?

It is indescribably amusing that this entire line of argument (which I agree with by the way - something you might have gleaned from my posts thus far had you been paying attention - does the phrase "devil's advocate" mean nothing to you?), but in the context of DRM was summarily dismissed by you and others with the casual (and annoyingly recurrent) refrain of "lame rationalization". I believe you also used the words "legal semantic abuse".

Inconsistent doesn't even begin to describe it. I truly admire your ability to hold such contradictory principles all in one mind. Awe-inspiring is what it is.

The funniest thing is of course the point that you have studiously (and pointedly) chosen to ignore - the matter of the "seller's terms" which you claimed to hold to with such religious fervor. I asked you a simple question - the seller's terms, printed quite clearly in the front of every book, forbids you from reproducing the book in any form. Clearly, you have no answer to that.

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

Unless, you're a lawyer (and, considering comments we've seen from an individual claiming to be one, that wouldn't hold much water with me), tread carefully. Show me one case where someone has been prosecuted, let alone convicted, for media shifting books without distribution.

So, suddenly distribution is relevant? And I could ask you the same thing about DRM-removal (prosecution and conviction for breaking DRM). The 'you' in the other thread would have called it ... what else? -"lame rationalization". I have never claimed to be a lawyer - all my citations were followed by a plea for clarification/rebuttal in case I made a mistake. I have still not received any such thing. You said there was a fair use exemption - there is no such thing for private persons not employed by a library or other archival institution. It is (as is DRM-breaking), an unenforceable violation and no one is stupid enough to try to enforce it. It is intellectually dishonest to take that fact as proof that it is legal. Isn't that what you were trying to tell me about DRM?

I look forward to your scintillating reply - the ever-witty "whatever" or perhaps the latest in juvenile insults (I believe you promised something in the equine category). Or perhaps a hilarious accusation of "quoting things out of context"? My bet is on "drive-by silence".

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by NVash

http://www.amazon.com/Plustek-Opticbook-3600-Plus-Scanner/dp/B000EIYUAE/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

This? They say the software is no good on Vista. Id assume its no good on Windows 7 either and dont even think about a Mac. Have you had any software problems? Which OS are you using, if you dont mind?

I have the plain 3600. I use WinXP/SP2 within VirtualBox on a Linux machine to run the scanner. I'm not that comfortable with Windows, so I haven't tried any of the post-scanning software that comes with the scanner. I just move the scans to my Linux partitions and deal with them there. The Windows software might very well be rubbish. The software that collects the scans is klunky and is Windows-only. On the plus side, you don't have to be at the computer to control the scanning, as each scan is initiated using the buttons on the scanner.

The Plustek website has drivers for Vista and Win7, but I've never used either OS, so I can't say if they work well or not. They were updated 09-30-2009, so maybe they've fixed the problems the Vista users had.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by thrawn_aj

That's the second time you've resorted to name-calling after running out of rational arguments. If you can't keep a civil tongue, or participate in a reason-based discussion as a human being, I have nothing more to say to you. It is sad that a (presumably) mature woman feels the need to stoop to such sophomoric insults simply because she can't admit a mistake (or at least admit that she has no valid rebuttal at the present time even while disagreeing with her opponent - that would be a valid position to take).

I have been unfailingly polite throughout our entire conversation (if I can stretch the definition of "conversation" that far). I have also refrained from engaging in personalities (until now). Pity that the same could not be said of you. When I saw your reply in this thread, I sincerely felt that perhaps you were trying to atone for your disgusting parting rant in the other thread by trying to maintain a constructive discussion with a civil tone in this one. Hah! How embarrassingly naive of me.

There is nothing more irritating than a person who seems to think that flipping the chess board (in addition to certain appendages) is the only way to save face in a losing game.



"Library" isn't defined? I feel like I'm talking to Bill Clinton here. Whence the restriction to "employees" then?

It is indescribably amusing that this entire line of argument (which I agree with by the way - something you might have gleaned from my posts thus far had you been paying attention - does the phrase "devil's advocate" mean nothing to you?), but in the context of DRM was summarily dismissed by you and others with the casual (and annoyingly recurrent) refrain of "lame rationalization". I believe you also used the words "legal semantic abuse".

Inconsistent doesn't even begin to describe it. I truly admire your ability to hold such contradictory principles all in one mind. Awe-inspiring is what it is.

The funniest thing is of course the point that you have studiously (and pointedly) chosen to ignore - the matter of the "seller's terms" which you claimed to hold to with such religious fervor. I asked you a simple question - the seller's terms, printed quite clearly in the front of every book, forbids you from reproducing the book in any form. Clearly, you have no answer to that.



So, suddenly distribution is relevant? And I could ask you the same thing about DRM-removal (prosecution and conviction for breaking DRM). The 'you' in the other thread would have called it ... what else? -"lame rationalization". I have never claimed to be a lawyer - all my citations were followed by a plea for clarification/rebuttal in case I made a mistake. I have still not received any such thing. You said there was a fair use exemption - there is no such thing for private persons not employed by a library or other archival institution. It is (as is DRM-breaking), an unenforceable violation and no one is stupid enough to try to enforce it. It is intellectually dishonest to take that fact as proof that it is legal. Isn't that what you were trying to tell me about DRM?

I look forward to your scintillating reply - the ever-witty "whatever" or perhaps the latest in juvenile insults (I believe you promised something in the equine category). Or perhaps a hilarious accusation of "quoting things out of context"? My bet is on "drive-by silence".

I calls them as I sees them. Whether you intended them to be or or not, your so called polite posts came across exceedingly arrogant; otherwise I wouldn't have bothered to reply.

[TallMomof2]

I've been backing up VHS tapes, CDs, DVDs, and purely electronic media for years and for me backing up a book is not much of a stretch. When my kids were small those backups saved me a bit of money as the kids were not as kind to the tapes and DVDs as they should've been. As long as it's for personal use, even if I have to circumvent DRM, I'm fine with it. It may or may not be illegal but it's definitely not immoral.

[FF2]

Originally Posted by TallMomof2

I've been backing up VHS tapes, CDs, DVDs, and purely electronic media for years and for me backing up a book is not much of a stretch. When my kids were small those backups saved me a bit of money as the kids were not as kind to the tapes and DVDs as they should've been. As long as it's for personal use, even if I have to circumvent DRM, I'm fine with it. It may or may not be illegal but it's definitely not immoral.

See this is where the law has proved very stupid. It has turned or attempted to turn ordinary people in class one felons (not in the legal sense - maybe misdemeanants). Whether photocopying, or scanning or breaking drm - ordinary folks are being forced to become common criminals to protect the rights they have purchased.

Oh, I just looked at two pbooks and neither contains language forbidding copying.

[Seanette]

Originally Posted by FF2

See this is where the law has proved very stupid. It has turned or attempted to turn ordinary people in class one felons (not in the legal sense - maybe misdemeanants). Whether photocopying, or scanning or breaking drm - ordinary folks are being forced to become common criminals to protect the rights they have purchased.

Oh, I just looked at two pbooks and neither contains language forbidding copying.

My current p-book has this rather standard paragraph on the copyright page:
"No part of this book may be reproduced in any form whatsoever, whether by graphic, visual, electronic, film, microfilm, tape recording, or any other means, without prior written permission of the author, except in the case of brief passages embodied in critical reviews and articles."

OK, one kind of non-standard clause there: requiring the author's permission rather than the publisher's.