You are not the owner of Amazon Ebooks

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by wawasteele

I've sold books at yards sales. I've given away books. I've purchased a lot of used books.

I think we should be able to do the same with ebooks. The problem as I see it, is the ability to sell an ebook and still keep a copy of it. That would be so very wrong. I wish there was a solution for that problem.

I didn't mean to suggest that I thought the used-book scene wasn't valid. I was only trying to get a feel for how big of a scene it really is. It feels pretty niche-ish to me (based on more than just the responses in this thread, of course).

I would love to see a legal mechanism to allow the transfer of these licenses to a new "owner" under special circumstances, but I don't really see the point of a full-blown, used ebook market; unless you're one of the middlemen who will make a killing re-licensing these "used,"--and most likely re-DRMed--bytes (which is the only type of used ebook market I can ever picture being legally sanctioned).

Plus ... reading an ebook has no physical ramifications. The used ones would be utterly indistinguishable from the new ones. What would be the point of a new/used distinction? And why would people ever buy new ebooks when the market would be flooded with identical--but cheaper--versions the very next day?

At best, I see the development of a delayed (pre-approved) secondary ebook market. Meaning ebook retailers will "buy back" (and revoke) the license to the "new" content and then re-license them to buyers who were willing to wait a pre-determined amount of time for new ebooks to become "used" (said period of time to be determined in conjunction with the original publisher).

I don't see a will-nilly, end-user to end-user used ebook market ever happening (legally).

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by wawasteele

I've sold books at yards sales. I've given away books. I've purchased a lot of used books.

I think we should be able to do the same with ebooks. The problem as I see it, is the ability to sell an ebook and still keep a copy of it. That would be so very wrong. I wish there was a solution for that problem.

The fact there is no viable solution is why digital content is licensed. And it's not just books. Way back when, software was in fact sold with resale rights but only because it relied on code in proprietary dongles to run. So basically it was locked to hardware, like video game cartridges and dvds.
The two potential solutions are to lock content to hardware or alwsys-on internet authentication and both are worse for the majority of consumers than current practices.

We didn't arrive at this regime just because publishers are evil and greedy but rather because it is the least bad approach given the limits of tech.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

And why would people ever buy new ebooks when the market would be flooded with identical--but cheaper--versions the very next day?

If no one bought new ebooks, where would the flood of used ones come from?

Reminds me of Yogi Berra: "No one goes there anymore, it's too crowded."

[ApK]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

The fact there is no viable solution is why digital content is licensed

Content, digital or not, is licensed because we have intellectual property laws that give the creators and consumers of the content varying rights.

The reason the licenses address DIFFERENT issues and give DIFFERENT rights concerning digital stuff than they typically do concerning physical stuff is for all the reasons we're talking about. Put simply: because they are DIFFERENT.

That's what people who dwell on the "You are not the owner" nonsense always seem to be missing. They are never really clear on what exactly it is they think they should 'own' or on what they think 'owning it' really means they would be allowed to do when applied to the thing--or digital abstraction-- in question.

I've said it before (ad nauseam, everytime this issue comes up here) and I'll say it again. "Own vs. license" is a red herring, a smokescreen, that billows ignorance and distracts from meaningful changes getting discussed.

The issue is not own vs. license. Never was, never will be. The issue what rights and uses we want to have.

You want to transfer your ebooks to other people. Say so. You want to share them. Say so. You want to be able to format-shift and space-shift. Say so.
And then we can get that message to our legislators and regulators, and adjust the laws to make it so.

ApK

[joblack]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No. All ebooks are licensed, not sold. It has nothing whatsoever to do with what devices they can be read on. It's absolutely not unique to Amazon. Read the "terms and conditions" of any ebookstore.

That's not true. Compare the agreement at oreilly.com. You can also lend or sell your e-books.

If you die you'll obviously loose your 'life-long' access but your heirs could legally download them.

Digital Rights Management

All our ebooks are DRM-free.
Usage

Lending: If you buy an O'Reilly ebook from oreilly.com, you may lend it to another person, provided that you do not retain any copies of the book after you lend it. This is the same as the situation when you lend a used print copy—when you lend the copy, you deliver it to the buyer and no longer have a copy in your library. If you have bought a hard copy/ebook bundle, you may of course retain the hard copy, if you lend the ebook.

Resale: If you buy an O'Reilly ebook, when you are done with it you may resell it, provided that you do not retain any copies of the book after you sell it. This is the same as the situation when you sell a used print copy—when you sell the copy, you deliver it to the buyer and no longer have a copy in your library. If you have bought a hard copy/ebook bundle, you may of course retain the hard copy, if you sell the ebook.

By the way, because the lifetime access is a special benefit available only to those who purchase ebooks directly from us, the lifetime access benefit is not transferable to the recipient of your used ebook.

http://shop.oreilly.com/category/cus...vice/ebooks.do

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by ApK

The issue is not own vs. license. Never was, never will be.

Maybe not. It is, however, the topic of this particular thread.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by joblack

That's not true. Compare the agreement at oreilly.com. You can also lend or sell your e-book.

No, it's absolutely true. He never said the terms were always identical.

You linked to O'Reilly's LICENSE TERMS. Just because they used the word "buy" some where in it, does not imbue the word with some magic legal power that undoes copyright law or change what it is.

That's the whole point. You need to give up this irrelevant "own vs. license" noise.
What you really want -- what we all want -- is better licensing terms. More rights to do certain stuff with the content.

As the O'Reilly license shows, there is nothing preventing us from having those rights.
We just need to make it clear to publishers, and failing that, to legislators, that we demand them.

ApK

[ApK]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Maybe not. It is, however, the topic of this particular thread.

Nope, the point I'm trying to make is that the topic of this thread (and all of the many threads just like it) is stated incorrectly.

This topic of this thread (and I feel confident reading the OP's mind and speaking for him/her ) is really:

"You have very different rights with ebooks than you do with paper books."

ApK

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by ApK

"You have very different rights with ebooks than you do with paper books."

ApK

I'm not sure about the OP but, yes, that has been the bulk of the discussion.
My own point is that they are both very different products and that expecting the same rights isn't likely to happen.

And O'Reilly allowing broader rights isn't much of an example because the bulk of their catalog loses commercial value pretty fast and timeliness is part of their books' value. A 5 year old ebook on web design isn't going to be bringing in much income whereas a novel or biography never really loses currency. Even a year-old book on Windows is likely to be outdated and superseded by one focused on newer versions, so they lose nothing significant.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

I'm not sure about the OP but, yes, that has been the bulk of the discussion.
My own point is that they are both very different products and that expecting the same rights isn't likely to happen.

We are of one mind on the matter.

And O'Reilly allowing broader rights isn't much of an example because the bulk of their catalog loses commercial value pretty fast and timeliness is part of their books' value. A 5 year old ebook on web design isn't going to be bringing in much income whereas a novel or biography never really loses currency. Even a year-old book on Windows is likely to be outdated and superseded by one focused on newer versions, so they lose nothing significant.

They may have a bit less risk in offering the terms they do than other publishers might, but even NYT best sellers get sent to the bargain rack after a few months. O'Reilly is demonstrating that these things (no drm, resale, etc) CAN be done with the properties staying commercially viable. That's good.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

At best, I see the development of a delayed (pre-approved) secondary ebook market. Meaning ebook retailers will "buy back" (and revoke) the license to the "new" content and then re-license them to buyers who were willing to wait a pre-determined amount of time for new ebooks to become "used" (said period of time to be determined in conjunction with the original publisher).
I don't see a will-nilly, end-user to end-user used ebook market ever happening (legally).

I totally endorse your view . If this thing happens, it will be a great innovation in the said field.

[speakingtohe]

If the recouping part of the cost of the book is important, why not borrow books from the library when you can?

I realize that all people are not fortunate enough to have this option and that all books are not available immediately and some are not available at all.

I am fortunate in that I can get the majority of books I want to read in a reasonable time frame from my library. And there has always been many selections available that I can enjoy reading while I wait if wait I must.

I can't sell them or keep them, but if you want to sell them you don't want to keep them anyway.

Getting most of my books for nothing more than the tax dollars I have already paid, is a much better deal financially than any buy/trade transaction I could make and for me very easy and painless.

No bus fare, no postage, no overdue fines, no carrying a box of books to the store and having half of them rejected because they already have copies in stock.

Bookwise I have never had it so good.

Helen

[wawasteele]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Getting most of my books for nothing more than the tax dollars I have already paid, is a much better deal financially than any buy/trade transaction I could make and for me very easy and painless.

No bus fare, no postage, no overdue fines, no carrying a box of books to the store and having half of them rejected because they already have copies in stock.

Bookwise I have never had it so good.

Helen

I feel the same way, I've never had it this good bookwise. I also get most of my books from a library. However, I also have purchased more new ebooks in the last three years than I have pbooks in my entire life, and let's say, I'm not all that young. I buy more now because I have a lot more time to read and I can afford to buy them when I catch the great sales. Sales are more easily done in the cyberworld that the physical world.

I think, for me, it's just that I can't wrap my brain around the fact that when I buy a book I don't really own it.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

As the law currently stands, all rights to your purchased media terminate on your death.

So what if I decide not to die?

I think that, should I die, my family would just sell the computer as is (as no-one of them actually knows anything about computers besides me), providing the new owner with loads and loads of books, software, and music that is all either DRM-free, or has had its DRM removed...

Originally Posted by HarryT

What do you mean by "oh, hang on"?

Probably that it is not a hypothetical question, but that it has already happened.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by ApK

What you really want -- what we all want -- is better licensing terms. More rights to do certain stuff with the content. . . .

We just need to make it clear to publishers, and failing that, to legislators, that we demand them.

Not all of us want it. I do not.

Allowing a long chain of resales, where the used item experiences no cosmetic or functional deterioration, would greatly decrease the income of the team of creative people (authors, editors, graphic artists, research assistants, translators, the better agents, the management structure that brings them all together, etc.) responsible for book creation. The team would quite properly try to recoup their income loss by raising book prices. As a result, people like myself who rarely re-read, and don't want to be bothered with reselling, would suffer. Personally, I almost always library borrow, so it would hurt me, money-wise, only a little. It would more hurt me reading-wise, since authors would have have less funds available for research and would pressured to write more quickly.

The proposed law would have to be complicated. Would there be an exception for sales to libraries? I suppose. What about highly restricted licenses now sold to consumers, such as with the Amazon's Kindle Lending Library? Aren't those licensing terms what you are against, except on steroids?

One possibility is to allow restrictive licenses to continue to be sold, but require that each title also be offered for sale with an unlimited transfer license. That takes away most of my objections. But I expect those licenses would be so expensive that hardly anyone here will buy them.