There's a better way to beat the ebook pirates

[ApK]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I didn't buy a license, I bought the ebook.

No, sorry. It's a license. Stonetools is wrong to keep referring to the 'file.'

The 'file' is irrelevant, just as the paper and ink of a DTB is irrelevant in this issue.

Do what you want with the file. Do what you want with the paper.

But even in the DTB, read the copyright page. It give you LICENSE to do certain things with the IP content, just as your ebook LICENSE does.

You can burn the paper if you want, the paper is yours. But you can't transcribe the entire contents to your public web page. The content doesn't belong to you. Let's not be daft about this smokescreen distinction.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by ApK

No, sorry. It's a license. Stonetools is wrong to keep referring to the 'file.'

The 'file' is irrelevant, just as the paper and ink of a DTB is irrelevant in this issue.

Do what you want with the file. Do what you want with the paper.

But even in the DTB, read the copyright page. It give you LICENSE to do certain things with the IP content, just as your ebook LICENSE does.

You can burn the paper if you want, the paper is yours. But you can't transcribe the entire contents to your public web page. The content doesn't belong to you. Let's not be daft about this smokescreen distinction.

No, you are wrong. Just as in buying a paper book, I do not buy a license to use the book, I buy the book. It's the same with an ebook.

Copyright is a different matter and a law that protects both.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Copyright is a different matter and a law that protects both.

Hi Kenny, welcome to the discussion! For the last 25 pages or so we've been discussing the piracy and protection of copyrighted material. Glad you could join us!

[stonetools]

Social DRM would prevent widescale sharing because few people would know how to remove it;

With all due respect, I don't see how that stops widescale sharing: people would just email it anyway, metadata notwithstanding, to people whom they consider their associates. The associates would enjoy their free book, not even bothering with the watermark, and would forward it to their associates, who wouldn't even pay attention to some footer claiming that Elfmark bought a book on such and such a date.
The question is not what Baen's customers could do: I'm sure that they could make an ebook sing "Yankee Doodle Dandy". The question is how popular and how sought after are Baen's titles ( and consequently how likely they are to be forwarded by a non-tech crowd). Baen's titles are for the most part just not as popular and mainstream as the stuff on the bestseller's lists.

Imagine these scenarios:
" Did you read the latest Malcolm Gladwell book? No? Let me flip it to you , then we can talk about it".

"Girl, did you read about what the heroine in Oprah Book Club's latest did to her guy in chapter four. I didn't know that stuff was even LEGAL. Here, read it for yourself. I'm going to email it to every one in the club so that we can talk about it".

To: My horror fiction email list serv.
The latest Stephen King bestseller. Here ya go".

Note I haven't even mentioned Facebook, Myspace, or discussion forums, where sharing stuff is a way of life. Frankly, I don't see some watermark in a footer even slowing such sharing down.
As Mike Shiatzskin said, these things take on a momentum of their own. Why would I even want to buy an ebook, if it was in my friends library and he could send me a perfect copy of the book, while keeping the original? You would of course say that wouldn't be "reasonable" and implore me to be a good citizen and buy the ebook.
HOwever, a whole generation of young folks have grown up applying just that unreasonable attitude to music file-sharing. Why wouldn't they apply it to ebooks?

[CyGuy]

Originally Posted by stonetools

Er, except that they didn't legally BUY the BOOK: they bought a license to access the efile, which remains on the bookstore's servers.

You are mistaken. This has been pointed out to you several times by several people. I have never purchased a license to access an ebook, I actually purchased a copy of the ebook. How can you not understand something so simple?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by ApK

You were tempted to be crass toward me?
Why? My intention was to be supportive.

Not toward you... toward the thread in general. And it didn't start out crass, it just steered in that direction. So I deleted it and tried again.

The second time it steered towards "wallowing." Deleted again.

I do appreciate the support I've received from you and others. I also note the criticism from others. And I note that nothing's changed.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

And I note that nothing's changed.

We're not here to change minds, just to put it out there for future generations to Google.

Holy moly! Look at the time! Back to work for me!

ApK

[Anke Wehner]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

I also note the criticism from others. And I note that nothing's changed.

Well, I hope that you either find another second job you can enjoy, or a way to enjoy writing as a hobby, without the pressure of it having to turn a profit.

[Sydney's Mom]

Originally Posted by ApK

We're not here to change minds, just to put it out there for future generations to Google.

Holy moly! Look at the time! Back to work for me!

ApK

Come on, I just took a break and found this thread. Maybe it is time to go off topic?

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by CyGuy

You are mistaken. This has been pointed out to you several times by several people. I have never purchased a license to access an ebook, I actually purchased a copy of the ebook. How can you not understand something so simple?

I should bookmark this page

AMAZON LICENSING AGREEMENT

Use of Digital Content. Upon your download of Digital Content and payment of any applicable fees (including applicable taxes), the Content Provider 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. The Content Provider may include additional terms for use within its Digital Content. Those terms will also apply, but this Agreement will govern in the event of a conflict. Some Digital Content, such as Periodicals, may not be available to you through Reading Applications.

When you "buy" a Kindle book, this is what you agree to. You may not think you are getting this, but this is what you get.

For purposes of our discussion, its largely irrelevant. The Author's copyright applies whether its a sale or license. But more prominent display of this would cut down on self-righteous rhetoric about how DRM interferes with "their" property that they "bought."

[jkeene]

Originally Posted by stonetools

I should bookmark this page

AMAZON LICENSING AGREEMENT


When you "buy" a Kindle book, this is what you agree to. You may not think you are getting this, but this is what you get.

For purposes of our discussion, its largely irrelevant. The Author's copyright applies whether its a sale or license. But more prominent display of this would cut down on self-righteous rhetoric about how DRM interferes with "their" property that they "bought."

I just searched my e-mail for my order receipts from Amazon. I didn't check every e-book order, there were over sixty of them, but the first ten all said "Sold by:" and then some seller, often Amazon, but also including various others publishers when the agency model applied.

So I think your quoted statement from the Kindle terms "Unless otherwise specified...", is often specified otherwise in the order receipt, and specified as sold.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Not toward you... toward the thread in general. And it didn't start out crass, it just steered in that direction. So I deleted it and tried again.

The second time it steered towards "wallowing." Deleted again.

I do appreciate the support I've received from you and others. I also note the criticism from others. And I note that nothing's changed.

Hang in there, SJ. At least some people here don't consider you a quitter, a whiner, a liar, or worse. You were just honest. Unfortunately, your statements violated the MR creed, which holds that publishers are evil, that piracy is benign, and that anti-piracy measures are to be condemned.
You probably need to go to an author's forum, where you will get support, rather than calumny.
I would encourage you to return to writing. Don't let the bastards (that's what pirates and their enablers are) win.

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by stonetools

DRM is a tool to protect copyright.

It's not a very good tool, then.

You break DRM precisely because you want to violate the authors copyright by making unauthorized copies and forwarding them to other people, for what you -not the author-consider good and sufficient reasons.

Why do people even try to argue with you?

People have listed all sorts of reasons they break DRM: To be able to buy a new device and still keep reading their books (for example, if a Nook owner were to buy a Kindle instead). To be able to read books on devices the publisher doesn't support, or even know about. To buy books in obscure countries. To be able to keep books when formats change. Just to avoid the freaking hassle of having to deal with deliberately broken products all the time. Etc. And all you can say is "pirates pirates digerati pirates!!!"

Tap dance all you like, accuse me of what you will, but violating the author's copyright is what you are doing.

No, that would be my fanfic writing.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

People don't have a right to read everything that gets published. Rights holders are free to restrict who they allow to read their titles. Those shut out should accept that fact and move on to something they are allowed to read.

And if they choose not to do without, what difference does it make to those rights holders? They can't lose a sale that they have already denied to someone just because they don't like foreigners.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by stonetools

DRM is a tool to protect copyright. You break DRM precisely because you want to violate the authors copyright by making unauthorized copies and forwarding them to other people, for what you -not the author-consider good and sufficient reasons. Tap dance all you like, accuse me of what you will, but violating the author's copyright is what you are doing.

No, I break drm so I can edit the metadata of multi-book series so they show up in the right order on my reader (And also to fix some typo's, I'm strange like that) .

Strange point, I recently bought Kim Stanley Robinsons Red Mars/Green Mars as a omnibus edition (From WH Smiths I think), I didnt find any typo's in the first book but found five in just the first few pages of the second book. Who in their right minds carefully proofs 600 pages and then gives up?