What do you think about circumventing geographic restrictions?

[JoHunt]

Originally Posted by Geralt

I love how people are so literal on this forum. I'm sure JSWolf knows they are selling a license. He was simply pointing out the deception on part of the seller not choosing to have click to download licence button instead of click to buy button.

I see no deception - I understand it as buying a license, so of course there will be a "buy" button

[Shades]

Originally Posted by joehunt

I see no deception - I understand it as buying a license, so of course there will be a "buy" button

But a license translates to "leasing" an item, not buying or owning that item. If it's use is under a contract, it's a lease.

[RobertDDL]

Originally Posted by Shades

But a license translates to "leasing" an item, not buying or owning that item. If it's use is under a contract, it's a lease.

From their POV, it certainly is. I consider this to be a highly immoral abuse of their power, though, and do not feel bound by this contract. (If I did, I'd never buy any ebook or mp3 album at all. A contract, as opposed to blackmail, needs two parties to agree on their own free will.) Still, when an ebook or a music download is legally available in my place of residence, I willingly buy it at the local price -- price levels differ between various parts of the globe, exchange rates fluctuate, etc., so I accept that I may have to pay a higher price here than someone somewhere else has to. Not being able to buy it at all is something entirely different -- namely, censorship.

[latepaul]

The two times I've tried to do this I've failed. With Amazon because I already have an Amazon.com account as well as an amazon.co.uk account (I bought a Kindle 2i when they first became available in the UK and initially you had to buy out of the US store).

With Kobo, not sure, except that when I got to the final stage it rejected my credit card.

I'm sure I could have persevered but it wasn't worth the effort. In the later case I bought a cheap paper copy instead.

[latepaul]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

The legal boilerplate that a retailer attaches to something isn't the last word at all. It really comes down to what the courts say. Right now the license verse own question is still very much up in the air.

First two sentences agree. Last one not so much.

I'd say that copyright law is clear enough that it's not an open question. You need a license to copy a copyrighted work.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by RobertDDL

From their POV, it certainly is. I consider this to be a highly immoral abuse of their power, though, and do not feel bound by this contract.

OK, Robert, let's consider the alternatives. When you buy a digital product, you're buying something that's pretty much intangible. You're not buying a physical object. You might say "I'm buying the file", but then if you make a copy of it, it's not the same file any more. So, in practical terms, what is there to buy except a licence which specifies what you're allowed to do with this intangible "thing"?

In what way to you consider licences to be immoral? What moral precepts do they violate?

[fjtorres]

Licensing in various forms dates back to the European middle ages and has never been considered to have much to do with mores. It is hardly a creation of corporations or the digital age.

Quickie pdf on the history of licensing:

http://www.google.com.pr/url?q=http:...29QM8gINt-zaIg

[DrNefario]

I don't "travel" just to save money, only if there's no other way I can get hold of the book.

[patrickt]

If I am willing to pay for a book to read the fact that I'm in Mexico should have no bearing. I want the seller and the author to make their money. I want to read the book.

The ethical problem rests with the governments and the publishing houses.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by patrickt

If I am willing to pay for a book to read the fact that I'm in Mexico should have no bearing. I want the seller and the author to make their money. I want to read the book.

One issue you might well have, of course, is Mexico's horrendous "life + 100 years" copyright term, which is the longest in the world. That means that an awful lot of books will still be protected by copyright in Mexico which are now in the public domain for pretty much everyone else.

[murg]

Originally Posted by HarryT

OK, Robert, let's consider the alternatives. When you buy a digital product, you're buying something that's pretty much intangible. You're not buying a physical object. You might say "I'm buying the file", but then if you make a copy of it, it's not the same file any more. So, in practical terms, what is there to buy except a licence which specifies what you're allowed to do with this intangible "thing"?

In what way to you consider licences to be immoral? What moral precepts do they violate?

You know, I'm a little annoyed at this concept that an electronic file is intangible.

While the transmission may not take a physical form, the file is represented in physical form at both ends of the transmission. The file sure does take up residence on my disk or flash card.

Take a physical book. The words are printed in a very thin layer, using a code, in ink. The paper is just the carrier.

Take the ebook. The words are printed in a very thin layer, using a code, in electrons (with disk/flash, the electrons are captured and stored, so they are permanent). The disk/flash card is just the carrier.

When I buy an ebook, I'm buying something tangible. I'm buying a book. Many times it is intended to be an exact copy of the physical book, right down to the printing number (a concept that is pointless for ebooks).

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by murg

You know, I'm a little annoyed at this concept that an electronic file is intangible.

It's a perfectly true statement. It is intangible.

While the transmission may not take a physical form, the file is represented in physical form at both ends of the transmission. The file sure does take up residence on my disk or flash card.

But, unlike a physical book, the copy of the book in the bookstore isn't the same one that arrives on your PC, and the one on your PC isn't the same one that ends up on your reader. It's the same "data", yes, but not the same physical representation. The magnetic field that stores the 1s and 0s on your disk is not physically transferred to your reading device; an entirely new copy of the data is made.

That's why you need to have a licence that specifies how you're permitted to copy it, because creating copies of it is the only way that you can read it.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by murg

Take the ebook. The words are printed in a very thin layer, using a code, in electrons (with disk/flash, the electrons are captured and stored, so they are permanent). The disk/flash card is just the carrier.

When I buy an ebook, I'm buying something tangible. I'm buying a book. Many times it is intended to be an exact copy of the physical book, right down to the printing number (a concept that is pointless for ebooks).

Try grabbing an electron, quantity one, and reselling it.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by latepaul

First two sentences agree. Last one not so much.

I'd say that copyright law is clear enough that it's not an open question. You need a license to copy a copyrighted work.

Actually, that's not true, at least in the US. Under fair use doctrine, you are allowed to make a copy for your own use, i.e. backup or format shifting. The major case that is currently winding it's way through the court system is about the ability to sell a "used" ebook. The trial judge expressed skepticism about the ability to ensure there was no copy left behind, i.e. that it was treated the same as a physical book.

My understanding of the question at hand is, when you "buy" an ebook, do you buy the book, or do you buy a license to download and read the book. In general, my understanding is most caselaw says you buy the book, i.e. the book vendor can't just revoke the license and remove the book in question from your device. That file belongs to you regardless of what the legal boilerplate from the vendor says. Remember, Disney's CEO once claimed that people who didn't watch commercials were stealing, so vendors claim all sorts of wild things that don't hold up in a court of law.

[tompe]

I think lying is nearly always morally wrong. I prefer to just infringe copyright and just download if I am going to do something immoral anyway. It feels more honest than lying.