What do you think about circumventing geographic restrictions?

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It has instead what's called "fair dealing

I think one could argue for private study to apply. Not that I expect anyone to actually get taken to court for reading an ebook they've bought by a method of which the vendor disapproves.

[latepaul]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

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.

However fair use is an exception to the general rule of copyright. And the fair use for backup/format shifting would only apply to an existing legitimate copy e.g. I can backup my DVD. But the existing copy is legitimate in the first place because of a license under copyright. (I can't backup someone else's DVD and call it fair use)

But if we're "buying" not "licensing" then we must be talking about something other than copyright. So what? Is there a law that grants us rights to our copy of an ebook but which is not copyright, which overrides copyright in fact. I've never heard of such a law.

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.

Well quite. Such scepticism is well warranted IMO.

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.

What do you mean by "book" in this sentence? In English we use it in a couple of ways - as an object ("where did I leave my book"), and as a creative work ("I've just written my first book"). In the case of buying a paper book, you buy an object. You could also, buy the rights to work inside the book, but you generally don't (even publishers usually only license it).

Now when you buy an ebook you don't get a physical object, so what is it that you're buying, if you're not buying a license? You're not buying the rights - because if you were you'd be paying a lot more and probably* only one person at a time could own it.

Now, I know what people mean when they say, "I bought this book I didn't license it". What they usually mean is that they consider that they ought to have the same rights they would have if they'd bought a paper book. Actually they usually have more, like the right to have several copies at a time on different devices (there's no "you can make X photocopies of this book" with paper books), but it seems like you have because physical objects bring more utility in some ways due to their physical nature - the ability to lend, re-sell, bequeath, etc is all really down to the ability to move (not copy) the physical object.

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.

I think I'd say it differently. I think I'd say that the terms you can write into a copyright license are governed by law and that the caselaw may end up showing that certain terms are invalid - just as certain terms in a contract can be illegal and cannot be enforced.

However as a non-lawyer, I'd be surprised if the inability to revoke a license was written in law somewhere. If it were publishers wouldn't need to play games with authors keeping title technically "in print" but unavailable to avoid rights reverting.

Still, that aside, I don't think it makes sense to talk about "buying an ebook" because there's no legally defined object you can own. "A copy" or a "a file" isn't AFAICS.

(*I suppose I could imagine some sort of shared ownership scheme but let's not complicate matters. This is clearly not in effect at the moment)

[latepaul]

Originally Posted by murg

When I buy a physical book from, let's say, Book Depository or Amazon, I don't pick a physical book and have it sent to me. If Schrodinger has taught us anything it's that the book doesn't exist until I open the box. At which point it substantiates and becomes a book.

You've got Schroedinger exactly backwards I'm afraid. His whole point was that there is no uncertainty, the cat thought experiment was intended to show the ridiculousness, as he saw it, of quantum mechanics. And to do so he had to link an every day level object to a quantum level event - so there was a vial of poison in the box that was released on detection of a certain amount of radioactive decay.

A book, or a cat, on its own in the box is just an object in a box.

A licence is just an attempt by the publisher/seller to control the book after the sale. This control is already in place in the copyright laws.

The licence is part of copyright law. It goes - broadly - like this:

Either a work is in copyright or not.

If not anyone can copy it.

If it is then only the copyright owner can copy it, and those to whom she gives permission. We call this permission a license.

Under some circumstances, in some jurisdictions, exceptions to copyright are allowed e.g. "fair use" in the US. These allow copying of copyrighted work without a license provided some criteria are fulfilled (e.g. it's for parody or review)

So if you are legitimately copying a work either:

- it's not copyrighted.
- your use falls under fair use
- or you have a license.

When you click "buy" and download an ebook from Amazon, which do you think applies?

[DiapDealer]

The very fact that these arguments/discussions always come up are proof-positive that things are in a sort of limbo with respect to "digital property." At the very least, the waters are muddier than hell right now (regardless of the people who try to convince us they're crystal clear), and getting muddier all the time.

Things can't simply be dismissed with the "I've personally reconciled ebooks RE current copyright law and you must not have" approach. There are huge cracks and semantic hurdles that have only begun to be legally navigated.

What the law "says" about ebooks right now is only relevant (barely) in a punitive sense: "this is what CAN happen to you—right now—if... ." Hardly helpful in light of the fact that digital property is now (and will continue to be) a game-changer.

Talk about "what is" all you want. I find "what will be" much more interesting. 'Cause anyone who thinks things are going to stay the way they are RE ebooks and copyright are fooling themselves.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Talk about "what is" all you want. I find "what will be" much more interesting. 'Cause anyone who thinks things are going to stay the way they are RE ebooks and copyright are fooling themselves.

Totally agree. But equally anyone who thinks that they can regard an ebook as the exact equivalent of a printed book - particularly when it comes to "sharing" it - is equally fooling themselves. It's a different product, and comes with its own different set of rights.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Totally agree. But equally anyone who thinks that they can regard an ebook as the exact equivalent of a printed book - particularly when it comes to "sharing" it - is equally fooling themselves. It's a different product, and comes with its own different set of rights.

No, they're not fooling themselves. Expecting readers to recognize/honor a distinction that strips them of the right to do things they've ALWAYS done with books simply because of esoteric semantics (regardless of how legally relevant those semantics may appear to be) and a medium-shift is where the foolishness lies. That's an example of a failure waiting to happen.

Most readers simply don't care if the medium shift has quietly changed what they're allowed to do with the things they unequivocally still consider "books." They. Don't. Care. The laws will change, or readers will start clogging the courts/jails (or publishers/rights-holders will go broke trying to put them there).

[latepaul]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

The very fact that these arguments/discussions always come up are proof-positive that things are in a sort of limbo with respect to "digital property." At the very least, the waters are muddier than hell right now (regardless of the people who try to convince us they're crystal clear), and getting muddier all the time.

Talk about "what is" all you want. I find "what will be" much more interesting. 'Cause anyone who thinks things are going to stay the way they are RE ebooks and copyright are fooling themselves.

Actually I agree. The only reason this is a hobby horse of mine is that it needs clarification. I think the people who want to "buy" their ebooks have a perfectly legitimate case. But I think it's better that they recognise that that's not what the law currently says, and lobby to change it, than to simply keep asserting that it's true because of what's written on a website's checkout button.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

No, they're not fooling themselves. Expecting readers to recognize/honor a distinction that strips them of the right to do things they've ALWAYS done with books simply because of esoteric semantics (regardless of how legally relevant those semantics may appear to be) and a medium-shift is where the foolishness lies. That's an example of a failure waiting to happen.

Sorry, but I strongly disagree with you. The difference between a printed book and an ebook is not "esoteric semantics". It is a FACT - whether people like it or not - that they are different products. A digital product is not the same thing as a physical one, and cannot be treated as such, for the simple reason that copyright law gets involved when you make copies of it. Most people do not make copies of their printed books and give those copies to their friends, but that is precisely what some people seem to think that they can do with ebooks.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by latepaul

I think the people who want to "buy" their ebooks have a perfectly legitimate case.

What precisely is it that they would be buying? That may sound like a straightforward question, but (IMHO) it isn't.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The difference between a printed book and an ebook is not "esoteric semantics". It is a FACT - whether people like it or not - that they are different products.

Not disagreeing. But "whether people like it or not" is the more relevant criteria here. The FACTS are ancillary at best in this instance. Because if people continue to "not like it," the distinction between the two mediums will either go away, or be entirely ignored. The battle to treat them differently will simply not be won in the long run. Regardless of any FACTUAL differences that may exist. *shrug*

[latepaul]

Originally Posted by HarryT

What precisely is it that they would be buying? That may sound like a straightforward question, but (IMHO) it isn't.

If you read my previous replies on this thread you'll see I agree. I was using shorthand here to say "the people who want similar rights to those they have with paper books".

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by latepaul

If you read my previous replies on this thread you'll see I agree. I was using shorthand here to say "the people who want similar rights to those they have with paper books".

But do people actually have the rights they think they have with physical books? I don't believe you have the right to give your friend a copy of a physical book while retaining the original yourself, for example, do you?

Ebooks of course have numerous benefits over paper books. They don't degrade with time; they don't occupy any significant amount of physical storage space; they are searchable, etc etc. There seems to be a tendency to concentrate on the negatives of ebooks while ignoring their many benefits.

[pdurrant]

To suggest that ebooks can't be resold because of the problems of ensuring that the vendor doesn't retain a copy for themselves rather ignores the ease with which CDs can be copied. It's simplicity itself to make a physical or digital copy (or both) of a CD, and then sell on the original CD. But that someone could do this doesn't make reselling the CD illegal. It is just required of the vendor that they delete/destroy any copies that they have retained.

However, I think it's equally foolish to think that ebooks (& other digital goods) can be treated like existing physical goods, with perhaps just a minor change in the law.

My expectation is that sometime in the next decade (or two) there will be a commission to investigate and give recommendations on how deal with rights and responsibilities of vendors and customers with respect to digital goods.

It took about 25 years for the UK to get from the existence of CD-Rs (1990) to a law governing their use (2014). One can hope that a similar timetable might apply for ebooks/eReaders (say 2005 -> 2030)?

[latepaul]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But do people actually have the rights they think they have with physical books? I don't believe you have the right to give your friend a copy of a physical book while retaining the original yourself, for example, do you?

True. Which is why I often refer to "utility" rather than rights.

Ebooks of course have numerous benefits over paper books. They don't degrade with time; they don't occupy any significant amount of physical storage space; they are searchable, etc etc. There seems to be a tendency to concentrate on the negatives of ebooks while ignoring their many benefits.

Agree.

[RobertDDL]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Ebooks of course have numerous benefits over paper books. They don't degrade with time;

But exactly this is what they do, as long as they come with DRM and in proprietary formats -- if I don't remove such an ebook's DRM and am able to convert it, it may degenerate much faster than a properly stored and handled printed book. I probably do not break any law by removing an ebook's DRM and thus securing its future, but in most cases I will thereby violate the vendor's licence terms, which I do with a clear conscience.