What do you think about circumventing geographic restrictions?

[eschwartz]

I'm sorry -- I cannot figure out what you mean by that.

Am I supposed to *eyeball* "the law"?
Assuming that were possible, how is that different from ignoring it on grounds of Fair Use?

[DiapDealer]

By giving someone else a book, you deprive the publishers from selling his copy to that person (he is a potential customer, since he wanted to read that book), and consequently you infringed her ancillary right of distribution.

Does the same not apply to physical books? Legality is the only issue in that regard. I'm ALLOWED to deprive the publisher of a customer for their physical product. But not allowed to deprive them of a potential customer for their digital product

So it can't be the potential loss of a sale that's the driving force behind the "lending ebooks is piracy!" sentiment (though it is my experience that buyers buy, and borrowers borrow, and rarely the twain shall meet).

So is it really about that "unauthorized"--but very likely to never be accessed again--copy that now exists because of an ebook "loan?" Or is it because someone truly believes that allowing people to do so will bring about a future where one idiot buys an ebook and uploads it for the rest of the world to download for free? Well guess what?? That future is already here ... and ebooks are still sold ... and people who could easily "steal" them choose NOT to everyday.

I simply don't believe that if the publishers said; "we don't care if you 'lend' ebooks in the same manner in which you lent pbooks," that the ebook market would suddenly collapse because buyers would decide--en masse--to become borrowers. In fact, I suspect things would chug along much as they always did (on both sides of the legal fence).

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I simply don't believe that if the publishers said; "we don't care if you 'lend' ebooks in the same manner in which you lent pbooks," that the ebook market would suddenly collapse because buyers would decide--en masse--to become borrowers.

The fundamental issue is that the mechanism to lend them "in the same manner" doesn't exist. You'd need to have some means of ensuring that the lender couldn't read the book while it was lent to the borrower, and that the borrower could no longer read the book at the end of the loan period. Without that, it wouldn't be a loan at all - you'd simply be giving the recipient a copy of the book. These are exactly the same issues that prevent the re-sale of digital content.

[Ghitulescu]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Does the same not apply to physical books? Legality is the only issue in that regard. I'm ALLOWED to deprive the publisher of a customer for their physical product. But not allowed to deprive them of a potential customer for their digital product

You took the phrase out of its context.

The point was that you only deprive the issuer from a potential customer if both of you have copies (digital copies do not differ one from the other, unless the copy mechanism changes one of them - like the SCMS mechanism for DAT, CDR and MD works). If lending is time limited, and the borrower doesn't intend to keep for himself a copy for future readings, this is no different from a regular, physical lend/borrow.

Since this has to do with honesty (being hard to be controlled, it will be in the future), and since there are money involved, the Roman law principle of "Honest until caught" is reversed, so the studios assume beforehand that all customers are thieves and implement such methods of protecting their masterpieces. That they also jumped over the ethical line is evident, but the law is bent and, well... change the law... Push the button, Max!

Harry was faster

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But how would you lend them "in the same manner"? That would involve some mechanism to ensure that the lender couldn't read the book while it was lent to the borrower, and that the borrower could no longer read the book at the end of the loan period. Such a mechanism does not (to the best of my knowledge) currently exist. Without that, it wouldn't be a loan at all - you'd simply be giving the recipient a copy of the book, wouldn't you? These are exactly the same issues that prevent the re-sale of digital content.

You're missing the point. There doesn't need to be such a mechanism (with regard to loaning--I consider the money-making aspect of resale to be a different--if still not all that worrisome--issue).

The fact that they CAN access the existing original at the same time that the loaned "copy" is being read is barely relevant. And shouldn't be considered in deciding to allow it. Nor should one worry that the loanee (that our hypothetical loaner has lent books to for years) is suddenly going to turn evil and decide it's OK to willy-nilly lend out/sell the book that was entrusted to them (because it's only *nudge nudge* digital after all).

Think of it this way: should the loaning of physical books from libraries be immediately halted just because the potential has always been there for evil-minded deviants to checkout library books, scan them, and upload them to the internet? In fact, scanning physical books and uploading them was quite the thriving enterprise before retail ebooks came along.

Maybe ebooks should be eliminated altogether because some people are buying them, removing the DRM from them and uploading them for easy access.

No. The potential for wrong-doing is not reason enough to place hurdles in front of honest people--especially when the wrong-doers scoff at the hurdles and step around them; leaving them for the honest folk to trip over.

My point is that if ebook buyers/readers were as dishonest as publishers want to believe they are, the market would have already collapsed.

Think about it. It has never been easier to steal any book you could ever imagine than it is right now. Yet an ebook market thrives. Do you honestly believe that can be attributed solely to DRM and ... mechanisms? I don't. I attribute it to the fact that many (maybe even MOST) ebook readers WANT to buy them. It's not the level of difficulty barrier that keeps honest ereaders from stealing. And they can't mechanism the dishonest ones into playing by the rules.

[Ghitulescu]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

... how is that different from ignoring it on grounds of Fair Use?

Fair use is part of the law. The law describe when, what, in which conditions, and how much of a book (in this case) is legal to copy. And even under fair use it is necessary to cite the author.

Even with PD works, the academic precepts require the citation of the source, this time to elegantly avoid the plagiarism, which is a sort of post-mortem copyright

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Ghitulescu

Fair use is part of the law. The law describe when, what, in which conditions, and how much of a book (in this case) is legal to copy. And even under fair use it is necessary to cite the author.

Even with PD works, the academic precepts require the citation of the source, this time to elegantly avoid the plagiarism, which is a sort of post-mortem copyright

OK then, I will make sure to "cite the source" whenever I exercise my Fair Use right to DeDRM my books.

And now that is two posts that have me baffled by their subtlety.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The fundamental issue is that the mechanism to lend them "in the same manner" doesn't exist. You'd need to have some means of ensuring that the lender couldn't read the book while it was lent to the borrower, and that the borrower could no longer read the book at the end of the loan period. Without that, it wouldn't be a loan at all - you'd simply be giving the recipient a copy of the book. These are exactly the same issues that prevent the re-sale of digital content.

As DiapDealer said, you can do the same with pbooks as well, and there is even a longstanding tradition of exactly that.

Why, precisely, is there any objective need for any such mechanism to exist?

You are incredibly willing to accept that DeDRMing books for your own use (thus creating illegal copies ) is perfectly all right... despite that DRM is the mechanism by which rights-holders attempt to forcibly keep consumers on the straight and narrow. You have determined that Joe Consumer is trustworthy enough that you, HarryT, can say "screw the rights-holders, and screw the law -- Joe here is an honest man".

However, when it comes to lending, you are not willing to likewise accept that honest individuals exist, who can keep to the straight and narrow all by themselves. You insist that lending cannot and will not be morally acceptable unless the rights-holders are able to control the loan. You have suddenly decided "Joe here is an evil-minded deviant! Oh noes! Pile on the DRM and make sure the feds keep their eyes on him!"

Why the double standard?

Why the judgment?

Why the hypocrisy?

[murg]

Originally Posted by Ghitulescu

Even with PD works, the academic precepts require the citation of the source, this time to elegantly avoid the plagiarism, which is a sort of post-mortem copyright

This has nothing to do what anything other than the requirement to cite reference material in academic papers, regardless of the copyright status of the material.

[murg]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

As DiapDealer said, you can do the same with pbooks as well, and there is even a longstanding tradition of exactly that.

This, of course, makes you wonder why they allow photo-copying machines in libraries.

In fact, the libraries will sell you cards good for hundreds of copies.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by murg

This, of course, makes you wonder why they allow photo-copying machines in libraries.

In fact, the libraries will sell you cards good for hundreds of copies.

Photocopying is subject to "fair use" restrictions. In most circumstances, you can't (legally) copy an entire book, but only a portion of it for such purposes as academic study or literary criticism.

[Tarana]

Doesn't bother me in the least. If getting the paperbook sent to me from across the pond is perfectly legal, I don't see what the big game is over getting the ebook. I can't read the paperbook (due to vision loss), so I need the ebook (or audiobook). Unfortunately, I haven't been able to bypass Amazon restrictions (my credit card rejects), but I can Kobo and it's a non-problem. I download immediately, remove DRM and place in my Calibre library. The author and publisher has been paid, so what's the problem?

I've occasionally had audiobooks mailed to me...If I were able to circumvent that and download them digitally and avoid shipping costs, I would do that too. I'm not trying to cheat. I am just annoyed that a series that I was enjoying was withdrawn for sale in the US because of some kind of contractual issue - this does not benefit the author.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Photocopying is subject to "fair use" restrictions. In most circumstances, you can't (legally) copy an entire book, but only a portion of it for such purposes as academic study or literary criticism.

But what about that is different from ebooks? The whole point is that ebooks and pbooks are all the same...

[Ghitulescu]

Originally Posted by murg

This has nothing to do what anything other than the requirement to cite reference material in academic papers, regardless of the copyright status of the material.

The point I was made (in that particular context) is that all the rights will cease EVENTUALLY after a certain period of time. After that the work (book, movie, song, invention) enters the so-called public domain (PD) where ANYONE can do whatever s/he wants.

The academic decency required that the paternity of a concept/idea be maintained by citations, even if this right elapsed for millennia (think Plato). A sort of gentlemen's agreement. Although even the academic world seems now to be fully infected with "alien strains".

I mean, one can use in the current daylife any quote he wants and try letting it pass as his own, with impunity. Only in select clubs, like universities, some rules, different from copyrights, should be observed.

[Ghitulescu]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

But what about that is different from ebooks? The whole point is that ebooks and pbooks are all the same...

Their content is the same (the text). But the medium is different. Ebooks are immaterial, they reside on various media (USB stick, HDD, SD card, internal flash memory, CD, DVD etc.), while a paperbook is unseparable from its support. Until the invention of the copier one could not give a copy of a book to a friend - that book had to be transcribed (in ancient worlds, this was done by scribs and took ages; in middle age this was done by monks, again in decades; later on the printing machine did not change the transcription, only the other half). Today one can copy/paste an ebook to another medium in seconds.

Being inseparable from the paper, the books can only be lent/borrowed as a package, including the support, that means the original owner has no access to it until he gets it back.

Like with the metro ticket example earlier, in each millisecond since printing that paper book is read by a single person (except of course the "reading evenings").