Buy vs license article

[screwballl]

Amazon states:

the Content Provider (Amazon) grants you a non-exclusive right to view, use, and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times, solely on the Kindle or a Reading Application or as otherwise permitted as part of the Service, solely on the number of Kindles or Other Devices specified in the Kindle Store, and solely for your personal, non-commercial use. Unless otherwise specified, Digital Content is licensed, not sold, to you by the Content Provider.

So basically, anything you buy or receive by Amazon for the Kindle, is only allowed to be used in its exact format on approved Kindle devices or programs. Luckily we have other book sources and have our own rights given by those locations for use how we want.

[RW2112]

The part you quoted Screwballl is the very reason I never purchase any ebooks from Amazon.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

This is NOT a pricing issue.

Perhaps it is ironic that the very flexibility that makes digital technology so compelling – the ease of copying and transmission – in the end may deprive consumers of basic economic rights they have enjoyed for centuries.

THIS is the issue: A need to redesign our commercial and ownership traditions to accommodate the new technology, and to provide some product security to producers while allowing consumers to use the products appropriately.

Perhaps the greater control digital technology affords content owners will convert all digital purchases into temporary licenses to use. Regardless, at some point the holidays will be over, and today's 20-somethings will look at thousands of dollars spent on downloaded music, videos, games, and ebooks, and wonder what it means to "own" in a digital world.

Those 20-somethings won't "wonder" anything, as long as they can enjoy their digital media, and share it with their friends... something very little of the digital media make hard to do.

"Ownership" in a mass-production and/or digital world is largely an abstraction, and we shouldn't get hung up on definitions; what matters is finding the balance between a producer's right to protect and control their production, and the consumer's right to enjoy the production in a satisfying way.

Right now, that balance is tipped in the consumer's favor, and it needs to be brought to a more even level (for the producer's benefit) without ticking off the consumers and causing them to not buy (or to steal). It can be done, but the longer we wait and do nothing, the harder the transition will be.

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by screwballl

Almost all digital media types have a license.
3) Yet others state "you can only use this in the exact format for the exact device in which you received it", this means you buy it, you "legally" cannot alter it in any way, cannot transfer it to a replacement or new device, even if it dies, meaning if your device dies, you are required to buy the same thing again. This is what most current CD and mp3 music, most ebooks and most programs you buy fall under.

I don't find this to be the case. Most licenses that I've encountered for ebooks, software and mp3s allow multiple devices, device transfer and keeping a backup copy provided an alteration (such as format change) isn't required. Most software I've used is licensed to the user, not the device. Even most high-end software licensing, which is known for being restrictive in many cases, allows two simultaneous installations as long as you only use one at a time (allowing for both desktop and laptop installation, for example), and will reactivate your license if your computer dies and you need another install.

As for music, even iTunes lets you activate multiple devices to use with your library, and you can deactivate a certain number per year to make room for more. They provide instructions on how to move your iTunes library to a new computer. Music licensing isn't nearly as restrictive today as it once was. I recall once having three or four different music players on my computer, each with it's own library of files only it could play. Thankfully those days are pretty much gone. Right now ebooks are where music downloads used to be, and I expect it to change as we go along just like music did.

Proprietary formats and devices are a separate issue, and I'm assuming you were not including this since you included things that don't have this issue in the way that some (but not all) ebooks do. (Lightroom doesn't care if it's installed on my Dell or my Toshiba, for example.)

I would say most licensing falls in between #2 and #3.

[screwballl]

Any service that does have a "backup" or multiple device option tends to limit it to their own service or devices... backup on THEIR servers, usage with THEIR software... like the Kindle, Kindle for PC, Kindle for Mac, for iPad, backup using their service. Many of them use Proprietary formats specifically to enforce this "company device/software or nothing" outlook.
Granted as most services handle music now is MUCH less restrictive, it started at #3 and most services now have it some sort of variant from #2. I suspect that ebooks will go the same way as most digital media does.

As a long time computer tech, MOST software licenses allow for ONE installation, on one computer, unless it is specifically a multi-license purchase. Look closely, the wording typically states that it can be transferred from one computer to another if the first one either has it removed/uninstalled, or that computer is no longer functional. Some people misinterpret that as allowing for two installations at a time.
This is why it always helps to read the End User Agreement before attempting to backup, change, or install it on another PC.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by RW2112

While true you don't see the agreement every time you purchase, you did have opportunity to view said agreement when you signed up for an account in order to purchase from them. Agreement was stated when you completed the setting up of your account.

I think the way they handle it sucks hard, but never the less we agree to their terms should we choose to purchase through their service.

Actually, no. I had my Amazon account before the Kindle existed. So when I setup my account there was not a license agreement for eBooks for me to agree to. I never agreed to any license for any eBooks sold via Amazon. So legally, I would think that as I've never been presented such and I've never read such and I've never agreed to such and yet Amazon will sell to me, that the agreement is not valid.

[RW2112]

Then if they changed the agreement to reflect ebooks they should have notified you and gave the option to accept or reject it. If they failed to do it then they erred.

However, should someone violate the terms of the current agreement I guarantee they will trot out that agreement as proof for any action taken against that person.

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by screwballl

Any service that does have a "backup" or multiple device option tends to limit it to their own service or devices... backup on THEIR servers, usage with THEIR software... like the Kindle, Kindle for PC, Kindle for Mac, for iPad, backup using their service.

Amazon has no such restriction with regard to backups. Granted, they like to tout their archive as an infallible backup, but they specifically state: "You can keep additional back-ups of your content by saving a copy to your computer or another storage device." It's on this page: Your Kindle Library Content

I don't have a Mac or an iPad so I can't speak to Apple's policies except for iTunes, which we've already covered.

Originally Posted by screwballl

As a long time computer tech, MOST software licenses allow for ONE installation, on one computer, unless it is specifically a multi-license purchase. Look closely, the wording typically states that it can be transferred from one computer to another if the first one either has it removed/uninstalled, or that computer is no longer functional. Some people misinterpret that as allowing for two installations at a time.
This is why it always helps to read the End User Agreement before attempting to backup, change, or install it on another PC.

Perhaps the difference in our experience may be in the software we've used. I do read EULAs quite thoroughly, and many of them do specifically allow a desktop and a laptop installation for one user only. It's usually some variation of "The primary user of the Computer on which the Software is installed may install a second copy of the Software for his or her exclusive use on either a portable Computer or a Computer located at his or her home, provided the Software on the portable or home Computer is not used at the same time as the Software on the primary Computer." This particular example is from Adobe, and the language is present in many of their EULAs.

As I said, perhaps this comes down to the difference in the software we've used. My focus has been graphics and design with some video work thrown in, hence an abundance of Adobe products. Fortunately I've avoided any dongled software. The last thing I need is to try to keep track of a little doohickey.

[FizzyWater]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Right now, that balance is tipped in the consumer's favor, and it needs to be brought to a more even level (for the producer's benefit) without ticking off the consumers and causing them to not buy (or to steal). It can be done, but the longer we wait and do nothing, the harder the transition will be.

I don't see how the consumer currently has the upside to this deal.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by FizzyWater

I don't see how the consumer currently has the upside to this deal.

The consumer can buy a digital file, fairly easily break any DRM that exists, make as many copies as they desire, shift to other formats, and read on any device they desire. They can also give some copies away, and in most cases, not be concerned about legal reprisal.

For the record, if they search, they can often obtain the file without paying for it, and still have the same options.

Yes, I'd consider that a much better deal than content producers and sellers get.

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

The consumer can buy a digital file, fairly easily break any DRM that exists, make as many copies as they desire, shift to other formats, and read on any device they desire. They can also give some copies away, and in most cases, not be concerned about legal reprisal.

It may seem like a consumer "upside" from the producers' point of view, but I have a feeling many of those consumers doing what you describe feel like they're having to jump through hoops to use the content. Plus you're only looking at one segment of consumers - any consumers not able or not willing to take those steps are stuck with what they can get. They're not enjoying the upside you describe.

[FF2]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

The consumer can buy a digital file, fairly easily break any DRM that exists, make as many copies as they desire, shift to other formats, and read on any device they desire. They can also give some copies away, and in most cases, not be concerned about legal reprisal.

For the record, if they search, they can often obtain the file without paying for it, and still have the same options.

Yes, I'd consider that a much better deal than content producers and sellers get.

While the numbers may grow, I have a feeling that a very tiny percentage of ereader users do any such thing.

[FizzyWater]

Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash

It may seem like a consumer "upside" from the producers' point of view, but I have a feeling many of those consumers doing what you describe feel like they're having to jump through hoops to use the content. Plus you're only looking at one segment of consumers - any consumers not able or not willing to take those steps are stuck with what they can get. They're not enjoying the upside you describe.

+1



I was happy to read my eReader format books on my PDA without breaking the DRM. It was only as the various digital readers became available, and yet the books were not usable across all the different devices, that I bothered to learn to break the DRM.

I don't particularly enjoy feeling like a criminal or worrying about someone monitoring my visits to certain websites just to enjoy books I bought.

To me, Agency Pricing that guarantees I have to pay more than I would for print books (I only buy paperbacks) and all the various forms of DRM put the balance strongly on the producers' side.

And I just don't have the time or interest in sorting through all the dreck on independent websites to find the few gems available without DRM.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

The consumer can buy a digital file, fairly easily break any DRM that exists, make as many copies as they desire, shift to other formats, and read on any device they desire. They can also give some copies away, and in most cases, not be concerned about legal reprisal.

For the record, if they search, they can often obtain the file without paying for it, and still have the same options.

Yes, I'd consider that a much better deal than content producers and sellers get.

I’m so sick of this argument. Content producers and sellers are completely destroying the legal rights of the purchaser on a very regular basis. The reason always cited is the one above. But guess what? PEOPLE STEAL. People steal all the time. They steal books, they steal cars, they steal purses – of course they’re going to steal ebooks! That you would think any differently shows either a willful decision to ignore the obvious or a slightly unbelievable naivety. I every time I read a publisher/author react with surprise. "OMG, someone stole a copy of my book! Now I have to treat all my loyal and paying customers like thieves in order to punish those people who were never going to give me money in the first place."

I, a legal user and customer, am sick and tired of being treated like a thief simply because thieves exist.

Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash

It may seem like a consumer "upside" from the producers' point of view, but I have a feeling many of those consumers doing what you describe feel like they're having to jump through hoops to use the content. Plus you're only looking at one segment of consumers - any consumers not able or not willing to take those steps are stuck with what they can get. They're not enjoying the upside you describe.

This is so true. I don’t know how to strip DRM. Yet. But every time I can’t purchase a book I want to read due to geographic restrictions or format/proprietary device issues, I get a little closer to deciding to learn how to break DRM.

Originally Posted by FizzyWater

+1



I was happy to read my eReader format books on my PDA without breaking the DRM. It was only as the various digital readers became available, and yet the books were not usable across all the different devices, that I bothered to learn to break the DRM.

I don't particularly enjoy feeling like a criminal or worrying about someone monitoring my visits to certain websites just to enjoy books I bought.

To me, Agency Pricing that guarantees I have to pay more than I would for print books (I only buy paperbacks) and all the various forms of DRM put the balance strongly on the producers' side.

And I just don't have the time or interest in sorting through all the dreck on independent websites to find the few gems available without DRM.

again

[Fastolfe]

This discussion, as well as the countless threads on how to solve a problem related to DRM or copy protection software, would be amusing if they weren't sad. This isn't new and it isn't limited to ebooks either.

The truth is, if you're honest and you play by the publishers' book, your life is much harder than if you didn't. Me, I've long since stopped trying to play along.

- All non-free pieces of software and GPS maps I use are paid for, but I use cracked versions that don't bother me with license keys or activations.

- All my MP3s are either from my collection of CDs and paid for, or purchased online and then "freed up", so I don't have to use some stupid software to "manage" my rights for me.

- All my ebooks were scanned from paper books and paid for, or downloaded from shady sites or torrents, but ultimately paid for.

Guess what: I don't have trouble using any of my files. I don't fret about reinstalling some software to regain access to my collection of ebooks, I don't rely on some publisher's server that I can't contact offline, and my conscience is clear.

So I suggest you learn how to un-DRM files, where to download DRM-free files, or build a book scanner, and make your life easier. You only have one life, and any minute spent wondering how to get around a publisher's artificially-imposed restriction is a minute of your life that you lost for the publisher's benefit, not yours.

And no, what you paid for isn't licensed to you, it's *yours*. Don't listen to slick lawyers or lobbying groups. As long as you're honest and you don't redistribute *your* files like a common thief, the publishers will be none the wiser, and none of their stupid threats apply to you.