Sharing ebooks???

[OtterBooks]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Lending someone a physical book is a completely different scenario to giving someone a COPY of an eBook. With the physical book, there's only one copy of it, which different people are reading in turn. That's absolutely fine, and is perfectly legal. When you give someone a copy of an eBook, you're creating two copies where previously there was only one: you've broken copyright law, unless you're creating the extra copy with the permission of the copyright holder.

My advice would be "don't do it".

True. I presumed that since he said "like any other book I purchased" he meant he was confident that typical ebook lending terms (doesnt read it himself while loaned, friend deletes when done) were followed. That was probably a naive assumption on my part, especially if he suspects a chance it could wind up torrented (plus the OK-ness of it is still an ethical call rather than a legal one).

[Piper_]

Originally Posted by Farhad

And I can promise you that tech savvy folks will easily find a way to remove such markings and release scripts for other (non-techies) to do likewise.

I don't expect it to. The point is that watermarking/tagging doesn't make the publisher any less safe than the current DRM schemes, but it reduces the need for many of us, who just want to keep good backups, use on other devices, or share with family members or close friends who use different devices, to strip the file at all.

That makes it a better alternative, imo.

The beautiful thing about modern technologies is that they make freedom-restricting attempts obsolete almost as soon as they are released. Even better is the fact that corporations are heavy, slow, entities which need years and lots of $$$ to develop their freedom-restricting techniques whereas freedom-loving hackers are very fast and work for free, through a de-centralized global community

In the bad old days, even copiers in libraries were viewed as theft-inducing (in the West) or subversive (in the East). Then folks came to their senses and now this is an accepted (and enjoyed!) fact of life.

There is no stopping the free exchange of information - any information - in the global community we live in. Not legal, not technological, and not even through brainwashing and propaganda.

Oh, boy. Giggle's going to love you. LOL

I'm not going to get into this almost-religious debate, but for the record, my opinion is that when the "information" is the result of someone else's work, it's up to them to decide whether they want to give it away or sell it.

[Farhad]

Originally Posted by Piper_

my opinion is that when the "information" is the result of someone else's work, it's up to them to decide whether they want to give it away or sell it.

I fully agree!

Let the AUTHORS decide what they want to do with their works. If the ownership of copyright goes to the authors and not to the publishers that would, indeed, solve 99% of the problems. That is also true for music, I believe. Cheers!

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Farhad

I fully agree!

Let the AUTHORS decide what they want to do with their works. If the ownership of copyright goes to the authors and not to the publishers that would, indeed, solve 99% of the problems. That is also true for music, I believe. Cheers!

Copyright of books DOES lie with authors. It's very, VERY rare for an author to transfer copyright to a publisher.

[Farhad]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Copyright of books DOES lie with authors. It's very, VERY rare for an author to transfer copyright to a publisher.

That is just not true. If that was the case, there would not be the problem of the books which are out of print and which the authors wants to release (say in ebook format) but the publisher does neither want to re-print nor authorize the author to release. Same problem in music. There are plenty of old but excellent 33LP disks which cannot be released by musicians because of crazy copyright laws which prevent the composers and/or musicians to release their old and good records. I personally know of authors and musicians in this case. Sometimes the copyright is nominally the author's, but then he/she is contractually bound anyway. If it was otherwise, the authors could publish through any number of publishers at any time they would chose and in as many versions/languages as they wanted and that does not happen, alas.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Farhad

That is just not true. If that was the case, there would not be the problem of the books which are out of print and which the authors wants to release (say in ebook format) but the publisher does neither want to re-print nor authorize the author to release.

No, you are incorrect. You're talking about cases where the publisher has exclusive publishing rights to the book. That is entirely distinct from copyright. The copyright remains vested in the author. Publishing contracts are a matter of contract law, and have nothing to do with copyrights.

[Farhad]

ok. check here.

The copyright law gives an author of a work a bundle of exclusive rights to do and authorize others to do the following with the work:

To reproduce the work
To distribute copies of the work to the public
To prepare derivative works based on the work
To display the work publicly
To perform the work publicly

Under the traditional academic publication model an author typically transfers all copyright interests to a publisher. If authors relinquish all their copyright interests to the publisher, the author loses the ability to use his or her own work without permission from the publisher.

some good stuff here too

Also, some publishers even refuse to publish a work without DRM even though the author does not want it DRMed.

In most cases, authors are just as screwed as the general public.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Farhad

ok. check here.

The copyright law gives an author of a work a bundle of exclusive rights to do and authorize others to do the following with the work:

To reproduce the work
To distribute copies of the work to the public
To prepare derivative works based on the work
To display the work publicly
To perform the work publicly

Under the traditional academic publication model an author typically transfers all copyright interests to a publisher. If authors relinquish all their copyright interests to the publisher, the author loses the ability to use his or her own work without permission from the publisher.

I'm not talking about academic publishing, but fiction. You're right about academic publishing - in that case, it is indeed common for copyright to be vested in the publisher (I'm a textbook author myself). But with fiction, it's just not done.

[Farhad]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But with fiction, it's just not done.

Whether it is done by relinquishing copyrights or by a system of contractual obligations, the fact is that most authors cannot do what they want with the work their release through the current corporate publications system. This is also slowly changing, I believe as many authors and musicians are now trying out various schemes to release their work on the Internet themselves and bypassing publishers entirely. They make their money with a voluntary system like "if you like it, buy me a coffee" or "send me money to write more" kind of schemes. They work better for most authors/musicians except the very popular and famous ones. This is yet another reason why this nonsense about "piracy" will eventually vanish. One the technology is here to replace paper just like the printing press replaced the hand-copied scroll, most publishing will be done by the authors themselves.

I am always glad to pay for music, books or software, by the way, especially if I know that my money goes into the author's pocket. It is also cheaper. It's better to send an author a couple of bucks then to buy a book or CD for 20$...

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Farhad

Whether it is done by relinquishing copyrights or by a system of contractual obligations, the fact is that most authors cannot do what they want with the work their release through the current corporate publications system.

I entirely agree. I was simply disagreeing with your statement:

If the ownership of copyright goes to the authors and not to the publishers that would, indeed, solve 99% of the problems.

because what you're objecting to is the traditional system of exclusive book distribution contracts, not copyright.

It's really down to the author to make sure that they sign non-exclusive contracts if they choose to deal with publishers.

But don't short-change what publishers do. They do a hell of a lot. It's a rare author indeed who can write a book of a standard that's ready for commercial publication without the aid of a publisher. Most of what the publisher does isn't visible to the reader, but it's there, nonetheless. That's why, unfortunately, most independently-published books are, to be brutally honest, complete garbage.

[Farhad]

Originally Posted by HarryT

because what you're objecting to is the traditional system of exclusive book distribution contracts, not copyright.

its both

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's why, unfortunately, most independently-published books are, to be brutally honest, complete garbage.

Here I would mostly disagree. From the songs of David Rovics to the books published via Samizdat (literally "self-publishing" in Russian) I think that there is a lot of valuable stuff out there. Now, just like with ALL of the Internet, most of it is, as you say, complete garbage. But that is due to the quantity and ease-of-access nature of the Internet, not to any inherent limitations of the talents of free publishing authors. Printed newspapers, traditional TV stations, encyclopedias and so many other forms of corporate information distribution have one after the other hit the dust while claiming that what was replacing them was garbage, but they missed the point that in that garbage there was a lot of very good stuff and that folks were becoming savvy about finding it.

Besides, most of what I see in libraries (and music stores!) at least here in the USA is also complete garbage anyway

[Joykins]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Legal according to Amazon or Adobe but legal according to copyright? Hmmm??? Interesting thought.

I think the assumption in any situation should be that people in the same household share access to anything in the bookshelf, real or virtual.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Joykins

I think the assumption in any situation should be that people in the same household share access to anything in the bookshelf, real or virtual.

True, but there are a couple of things different. If the person is NOT in the same household or not part of the same family etc.

In addition for a physical book only one person can read it at a time.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Farhad

Now, just like with ALL of the Internet, most of it is, as you say, complete garbage. But that is due to the quantity and ease-of-access nature of the Internet, not to any inherent limitations of the talents of free publishing authors.

Pretty much every author needs a professional editor to make their work readable, and most self-publishing authors can't afford to - or choose not to - pay for an editor themselves. That's the most valuable service that a traditional publisher provides to an author: editing. It has nothing to do with the writing abilities of the author; editing is a different skill to writing, and very few good writers are also good editors.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Farhad

Same problem in music. There are plenty of old but excellent 33LP disks which cannot be released by musicians because of crazy copyright laws which prevent the composers and/or musicians to release their old and good records.

Angelic Upstarts did a couple of albums for Warner Bros in the late 70s. They own the rights to those recordings, but Warner Bros owns the physical tapes they were recorded onto and won't hand them over. So all the CD versions of those albums that have been released since have had to be made from a vinyl source.

Here & Now sold albums to Charley Records to fund bus repairs (they were living in a bus at the time), they got a couple of hundred pounds each for them but didn't notice they were selling all rights to them in pertuity. They don't get anything at all from the CD releases from Charley, and can't legally do anything else with them.

You could say it's their own fault for being so naive, but when you're young and someone waves a fist full of money in front of you and promises fame and fortune I doubt many people would look too closely at what they're signing. You certainly wouldn't be worried about any future income you might need when you're in your 50s.