Secondhand ebooks?

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

Ethically or morally, that's fine. BUT legally, it isn't. The book is registered to your account, so you technically still own it, and could theoretically redownload it. If you could transfer the registration to your friend, then it would all be kosher (especially because then you wouldn't be stripping DRM, which may or may not be legal where you live).

I think you might have that backwards, it is perfectly legal to transfer property to another (first sale rights), but it might not be moral or ethical behavior, the creator is not compensated...

We shouldn't be concerned with whether or not someone still has the capability to download an ebook from their Amazon et al. account after they transfer the ebook to another. Downloading the book again after you have transferred it is piracy, just as downloading the book without paying the creator is piracy, just like reading the book without compensating the creator is piracy.

Meaning that if you have read a book that you did not pay for and that has already been read by another, you are a pirate PLAIN AND SIMPLE. Although we can make allowances, for instance if the ebook you were given was only half read, because the original reader did not care for it and decided to pass it on to you, in this case you are not a pirate. But if the ebook was thoroughly enjoyed and then passed on to you and you read the book and thoroughly enjoy it as well and do not attempt to compensate the creator, well then you are a pirate PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

We have moved beyond piracy then, seeing as how we are all pirates.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

I think you might have that backwards, it is perfectly legal to transfer property to another (first sale rights), but it might not be moral or ethical behavior, the creator is not compensated...

We shouldn't be concerned with whether or not someone still has the capability to download an ebook from their Amazon et al. account after they transfer the ebook to another. Downloading the book again after you have transferred it is piracy, just as downloading the book without paying the creator is piracy, just like reading the book without compensating the creator is piracy.

Meaning that if you have read a book that you did not pay for and that has already been read by another, you are a pirate PLAIN AND SIMPLE. Although we can make allowances, for instance if the ebook you were given was only half read, because the original reader did not care for it and decided to pass it on to you, in this case you are not a pirate. But if the ebook was thoroughly enjoyed and then passed on to you and you read the book and thoroughly enjoy it as well and do not attempt to compensate the creator, well then you are a pirate PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

We have moved beyond piracy then, seeing as how we are all pirates.

Not sure what you mean here.

I don't think the fact that the books was not read has any legal or moral bearing. Not arguing whether you should give an ebook away or not just questioning your reasoning.

Pretty sure we are not all pirates, (nothing is certain in life) but again not understanding your reasoning.

Still good to know that you at least have moved beyond piracy.

Helen

[eskimo49]

Originally Posted by Miss

Okay, I know there technically isn't any such thing. But say someone purchased an ebook, read it, and then wasn't planning to again. Would it be legal to send it to another person and then delete all your own copies and backups of it? Are such things done at all?

Enlighten me, please.

That is one reason why I think the price of e-books is a complete rip-off. As the book only exists electronically and there is no paper copy that you can transfer (sell or give away) to other people, then the price should be very much cheaper. Not every e-book has DRM attached to it, though.

Another difference is that e-books can never go out of print, so is always available, with printed books, once the print run is sold then there is no more available unless re-printed.

There are a number of authors, whose books I enjoyed reading in the 1960's & 1970's but just not available now, so I think copyright law should be changed, so that if publishers are not going to republish books, then they should be allowed to be published for free as an e-book, (say around 25 years after the last printing).

[danskmacabre]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

I think you might have that backwards, it is perfectly legal to transfer property to another (first sale rights), but it might not be moral or ethical behavior, the creator is not compensated...

Why is it immoral for the author to not be paid for each owner?
Surely the author released the work into the world knowing it may well be sold or passed on.
If the author didn't want that then s/he should only release a DRM'd ebook version, certainly not a pbook anyway, as I regularly give away pbooks I've read.

[Soldim]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That appears to be referring to the EUJ's recent ruling in a case involving the resale of Oracle licences. I'm not sure why the articles you've kindly provided a reference to are talking about games.

From what I've read about the ruling and understand about law, distributors will have a (very) hard time convincing any EU judge to consider resale of a full licence illegal. I am sure there's some grey zones; but based on the current judgement I'd feel pretty comfortable with regards to the law if I would want to resell a purchased software/game/ebook etc. licence.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Soldim

From what I've read about the ruling and understand about law, distributors will have a (very) hard time convincing any EU judge to consider resale of a full licence illegal. I am sure there's some grey zones; but based on the current judgement I'd feel pretty comfortable with regards to the law if I would want to resell a purchased software/game/ebook etc. licence.

Business software or games, yes, I agree, but it's not at all clear that the ruling has any applicability to eBooks. eBooks are not "software", but "data". They aren't treated as a "product" for the purposes of EU VAT (as, for example, a game download is), but as a "service" (just as an MP3 download is).

[Soldim]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Business software or games, yes, I agree, but it's not at all clear that the ruling has any applicability to eBooks. eBooks are not "software", but "data". They aren't treated as a "product" for the purposes of EU VAT (as, for example, a game download is), but as a "service" (just as an MP3 download is).

Hmm, that's true ... but the language both the Courts Press release and the judgement for as far I I noticed (I didn't read all the considerations in great detail) it focused on the licencing vs selling part -- very comparable to the US first sale doctrine.

I doubt any publisher would sue an individual selling his/her ebook licences. A company doing it commercially might risk a bit more, but even there I am not sure a good solicitor would recommend a publisher to go to court.

(I could almost be tempted spending time thinking about setting up some non-for-profit ebook licence exchange site).

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Soldim

I doubt any publisher would sue an individual selling his/her ebook licences. A company doing it commercially might risk a bit more, but even there I am not sure a good solicitor would recommend a publisher to go to court.

I doubt anyone would get sued, but Amazon have illustrated their willingness to close people's accounts who violates their terms of service, and re-selling an eBook is most assuredly a violation of Amazon's terms of service, regardless of the law. A private seller such as Amazon is perfectly at liberty to impose terms of service which are more restrictive than the law.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I doubt anyone would get sued, but Amazon have illustrated their willingness to close people's accounts who violates their terms of service, and re-selling an eBook is most assuredly a violation of Amazon's terms of service, regardless of the law. A private seller such as Amazon is perfectly at liberty to impose terms of service which are more restrictive than the law.

A bookstore cannot set (or at least, cannot enforce) terms of "you may not resell our books" any more than publishers can. The first-sale doctrine can't be eradicated by a license agreement. (At least in the US.) If ebooks are indeed sold, not licensed, the first-sale doctrine applies to them.

I'm not sure if a store is allowed to refuse to do business with people they know have resold books; very few business have attempted to remove customers on the grounds that those people committed some legal act that the business doesn't like. (I suppose someone could research Christian book stores and find out if any of them have refused to sell things to people whose religious convictions they disliked, but that wouldn't be definitive; bringing religion to the table changes the debate a bit.)

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

If ebooks are indeed sold, not licensed, the first-sale doctrine applies to them.

But they aren't. Amazon's T&Cs make this crystal clear:

Digital Content is licensed, not sold, to you by the Content Provider.

and, moreover:

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

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

It really couldn't be stated any more explicitly than that.

[SleepyBob]

Just because their T&C is clear and explicit, doesn't mean that it is factually correct, though.

[HarryT]

How could it not be correct? They should know whether they're selling you a book or a licence, don't you think?

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But they aren't. Amazon's T&Cs make this crystal clear:

Quote:
Digital Content is licensed, not sold, to you by the Content Provider.

The publisher is the "Content Provider." What right does Amazon have to impose its conditions on the buyer's use of the material from the Content Provider?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Catlady

The publisher is the "Content Provider." What right does Amazon have to impose its conditions on the buyer's use of the material from the Content Provider?

Given the army of lawyers they employ, I'm absolutely certain that they have a perfect right to do so. You're not suggesting that Amazon's licence agreement is illegal, are you? I'm pretty sure that they know more about these things than you or I do.

[pidgeon92]

Originally Posted by Catlady

The publisher is the "Content Provider." What right does Amazon have to impose its conditions on the buyer's use of the material from the Content Provider?

My thought is that these are conditions that were agreed upon between Amazon and the Content Providers. I would think that the Content Providers would have insisted on such a provision, as they insist on DRM.