Study: As E-Readers Increase, So Does Resistance

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by GreenMonkey

I'm unwilling to substitute my rights to own property for a "license". Pretty soon a DVD will have a disclaimer on it that says "this is only a license". Or a car - "You don't own this car, but only a limited license in which to operate this vehicle as GM sees fit". All because of a shrink-wrapped EULA or something. This methodology is being used to undermine our property ownership rights.

When it comes to lack of ownership of physical things, I can give a couple of examples: bank cards and wireless modems. Bank cards, the physical piece of plastic is property of the bank. The wireless modems installed by the internet provider are, as far as I know, property of the internet provider.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

When it comes to lack of ownership of physical things, I can give a couple of examples: bank cards and wireless modems. Bank cards, the physical piece of plastic is property of the bank. The wireless modems installed by the internet provider are, as far as I know, property of the internet provider.

You can choose to rent wireless modems or you can buy them. As far as bank cards, I've never had a bank ask for them back.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Good point.

I really don't think it is. People don't 'buy' a movie on DVD and get all shocked that they can't show it to an audience for money ("Why didn't they tell me I was only LICENSING the movie?!?") or 'buy' a copy of MSOffice and act surprised that they're not allowed to burn copies and sell them on ebay.
People understand what it means to 'buy' copies of IP, they don't need extra words on an Amazon button to tell them what they already know plainly well.

What people DO need help with is understanding the particular restrictions that come with some forms of IP, and when some of those restrictions are unfair, or are enforced by technological methods (DRM) or legal methods (DMCA) that do more harm than good, they need a way to ban together effect change.

Renaming a 'buy' button to a 'license" button does none of that, and doesn't tell anyone anything they didn't already know.

It is the quintessential red herring in this issue. I'm sure the DRM companies and publishers would much rather us waste time arguing whether to put "buy" "rent" or "license" on the button, rather than us spending time contacting our reps to effect copyright reform and petitioning to have fair use doctrine clarified and expanded.


So, no, I don't think it's a good point at all.
ApK

[speakingtohe]

For me it is a tradeoff. The inconvenience of DRM against the convenience of ebooks in general.

Their are millions of paper books out there, but not as accessible for me as I work 6 months a year in a town without a book seller of any type. Even in the city no vender carries everything.

Of course all books are not available as ebooks, but between library loans, public domaine and multiple venders, I can always find something to read and not pay large sums to have them shipped. I may or may not strip DRM if I hate the formatting and it is not a library book but mostly I don't care.

As to not being able to read the book again and again, I have read a lot of books in my life, purchased, borrowed, acquired through the kindness of strangers etc. Approximately 200 a year for 50+ years. Most I have given away, donated, traded, lost in moving, had damaged by flood or fire etc. If I had them all today, where would I keep them?

When before, have we had the opportunity to keep so many books without a giant storage space. I am not altogether happy with DRM but I understand the publisher's view. If DRM currently makes more books available then I cannot entirely condemn it either and I am pretty sure it in itself is neither a virus of an infection. My non DRM books have not caught the "disease" despite close proximity on my computer and/or reader(s).

As consumers we are lucky compared to students, many textbooks come with a limited use license (time restrictions) and are very expensive. If a student wishes to keep a book for reference or God forbid, has to repeat a course, they are far better of with the paper copy.
Imagine if your doctor told you that they cannot diagnose you because their reference book had expired


Helen

[GreenMonkey]

Originally Posted by CazMar

Yep - if I wanted to buy a "license" then I would do so. I buy, I own. So why do Amazon etc say "buy a book"? Surely this is misleading advertising, they should say "buy a book license".

Technically, they do bury a mention that it's a limited license somewhere. It's in the fine print.

It's like the 57 page EULA on the Disney Sleeping Beauty Blu-Ray, along with a 63 page privacy agreement.

http://boingboing.net/2008/10/09/kid...o-agree-t.html


Is anyone going to read that whole thing? No. Same with the legalese on Kindle downloads. This kind of stuff shouldn't be legal.

Edit: found it for the Kindle:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/custom...deId=200506200

1. Digital Content

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. 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.

Limitations. Unless specifically indicated otherwise, you may not sell, rent, lease, distribute, broadcast, sublicense, or otherwise assign any rights to the Digital Content or any portion of it to any third party, and you may not remove or modify any proprietary notices or labels on the Digital Content. In addition, you may not bypass, modify, defeat, or circumvent security features that protect the Digital Content.

I disagree with ApK on his attitude towards licensing vs property (and I hold to my attitude that if I purchase something, it is my property). I would think that American revolutionaries/founders would roll over in their graves to know that someone else could tell you what you couldn't do with your own property Of course, a good portion of them kept slaves as property ...but I don't want to muck up my own argument

But he's right that focusing on re-labeling it as a license is getting off-track.

[QuantumIguana]

When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary to strip the DRM from books order to continue reading the books that you have paid for...

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by GreenMonkey

Edit: found it for the Kindle:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/custom...deId=200506200

Funny how this bit:

solely on the number of Kindles or Other Devices specified in the Kindle Store

refers to information that is no longer available in the Kindle Store.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by GreenMonkey

But he's right that focusing on re-labeling it as a license is getting off-track.

Then I'll agree to disgree on the other stuff for the greater good.

(and because you acknowledged I'm right about something...)

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by ApK

I really don't think it is. People don't 'buy' a movie on DVD and get all shocked that they can't show it to an audience for money ("Why didn't they tell me I was only LICENSING the movie?!?") or 'buy' a copy of MSOffice and act surprised that they're not allowed to burn copies and sell them on ebay.
People understand what it means to 'buy' copies of IP, they don't need extra words on an Amazon button to tell them what they already know plainly well.

The analogy here would be people who buy the book, strip the DRM, and send it to all their friends and post it on the Internet, which is not at all playing fair with the authors, publishers, and booksellers in my opinion. I wasn't intending in any way in my post to be advocating piracy, which I am firmly against, but simply trying to say that people have a right to protect the books they've bought against the possibility of losing access to their purchase because of the company going out of business, the reader breaking down, the format becoming obsolete, or because they choose to go with another brand of e-reader. As long as people are playing fair with the book providers by not redistributing copyrighted works, they should have a right to do with their purchases as they see fit. And that includes stripping the DRM for their own personal use.

Originally Posted by ApK

What people DO need help with is understanding the particular restrictions that come with some forms of IP, and when some of those restrictions are unfair, or are enforced by technological methods (DRM) or legal methods (DMCA) that do more harm than good, they need a way to ban together effect change.

Renaming a 'buy' button to a 'license" button does none of that, and doesn't tell anyone anything they didn't already know.

It is the quintessential red herring in this issue. I'm sure the DRM companies and publishers would much rather us waste time arguing whether to put "buy" "rent" or "license" on the button, rather than us spending time contacting our reps to effect copyright reform and petitioning to have fair use doctrine clarified and expanded.


So, no, I don't think it's a good point at all.
ApK

I wasn't suggesting the button be renamed. I was simply agreeing with CazMar that the Amazon button says, "Buy now with 1-Click®," not "License now with 1-Click®." If they aren't selling the book, it becomes a matter of false advertising.

On the other matter you mentioned, perhaps the time has come for people to ban together.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

I wasn't suggesting the button be renamed. I was simply agreeing with CazMar that the Amazon button says, "Buy now with 1-Click®," not "License now with 1-Click®." If they aren't selling the book, it becomes a matter of false advertising.

No more than "buying" a book is false advertising or "buying" a DVD is false advertising.
You are free to crack the polycarbonate disk, you are free to burn the pressed wood pulp and binding, you are free to delete the .epub file.
But you BOUGHT only a restricted license to content in all cases, because the intellectual property isn ever yours in all those cases. Only the details of the restrictions differ.

Now, if you'll just admit I'm right about something, I can stop arguing with you too.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by ApK

No more than "buying" a book is false advertising or "buying" a DVD is false advertising.
You are free to crack the polycarbonate disk, you are free to burn the pressed wood pulp and binding, you are free to delete the .epub file.
But you BOUGHT only a restricted license to content in all cases, because the intellectual property isn ever yours in all those cases. Only the details of the restrictions differ.

Now, if you'll just admit I'm right about something, I can stop arguing with you too.

I see what you're saying, but if someone removes the copy-protection from a book or movie and copies that movie or a book to another format for their own personal use, I don't have a problem with it. People pay money for a digital copy on the assumption that they'll have the same access to it in coming years that they do today. It may not be legal, ApK, but I certainly can't see where it's not ethical. If purchases are going to have a time-limit, that should be stated up-front, and the word "buy" should be changed to "buy for a limited time."

[GreenMonkey]

Originally Posted by ApK

No more than "buying" a book is false advertising or "buying" a DVD is false advertising.
You are free to crack the polycarbonate disk, you are free to burn the pressed wood pulp and binding, you are free to delete the .epub file.
But you BOUGHT only a restricted license to content in all cases, because the intellectual property isn ever yours in all those cases. Only the details of the restrictions differ.

Now, if you'll just admit I'm right about something, I can stop arguing with you too.

But in the case of the DVD you're free to hand it to someone else, or sell it, for example. It's still property and they are not allowed to tell you you cannot give it away or sell it, or not play it on a Linux computer, or whatever.

Technically you should also be free to rip the digital video off of it but we can thank the DMCA for stopping that.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by GreenMonkey

But in the case of the DVD you're free to hand it to someone else, or sell it, for example. It's still property and they are not allowed to tell you you cannot give it away or sell it, or not play it on a Linux computer, or whatever.

That's because physical items have different properties than digital items, so naturally the specifics of the restrictions are different. Why on earth would you expect the rules to be exactly the same?

[KenJackson]

Originally Posted by GreenMonkey

I would think that American revolutionaries/founders would roll over in their graves to know that someone else could tell you what you couldn't do with your own property ...

Probably true.

But that wouldn't be the first thing they'd notice. I think they'd sit bold upright so fast they'd knock their heads against the tops of their coffins killing themselves again if they could see the technology that's given rise to the possibility of the situation we discuss.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by ApK

That's because physical items have different properties than digital items, so naturally the specifics of the restrictions are different. Why on earth would you expect the rules to be exactly the same?

You made the analogy. And the differences in restrictions are why people think that the word "buy" applies to physical objects.