Do some publishers have any idea?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I've no qualms at all about Kindles in the same household being read by multiple family members, Duckie. It's when you start "lending" devices outside the household that, for me personally, the ethics become questionable.

Since there is no family exemption I'm aware of in copyright law, I'm curious why you would make such a ethical exemption in the first place. And why does "lending" outside the household warrant scare-quotes, for that matter? From a pure copyright standpoint, isn't lending lending? Are Amazon's policies (and the word selection therein) even relevant from that standpoint? Surely Amazon cannot grant exemptions that the law does not recognize, can they?

My point is that it seems to me that Amazon's lending program is in pretty gray legal territory to begin with (not that I'm particularly concerned about it, mind you). Perhaps their contracts with publishers and right-holders explicitly give them permission to legally extend this lending right to end-users, and perhaps they don't. But I see very little reason to add any extra ethical confusion, RE DNA or place of residence, into the mix. Unless you believe people are really going to start buying thousands of Kindle devices, loading their purchases onto them (simultaneous device-use notwithstanding) and start handing them out to strangers on the street, then why worry (ethically, morally or legally) about a distinction between household and non-household lending of devices?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Since there is no family exemption I'm aware of in copyright law, I'm curious why you would make such a ethical exemption in the first place.

Because Amazon's licensing terms specifically permit sharing within the family. They don't permit, as far as I can see, sharing with your friends.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Because Amazon's licensing terms specifically permit sharing within the family. They don't permit, as far as I can see, sharing with your friends.

You're quite certain the terms specifically state "blood-relatives living under the same roof only"?

And again: is there a family-lending exemption in copyright law? Is there a simultaneous device usage clause in copyright law? I'm just wondering why you're using Amazon policy-wording as the final arbiter of what's ethical or not RE copyright concerns. Why "violating" Amazon's terms (scare quotes intended) is no different than piracy (your words) in your mind. Are their Terms somehow an extension of copyright law?

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That strikes me as sophistry, I'm afraid. Clearly Amazon content is licenced for your use, not to provide reading matter for your friends, too.

I have explicitly asked Amazon about this. They're fine with me letting friends read my books so long as it's on my devices.

But I admit that I would not lend out a device in this way. I agree that although it follows the letter of the agreement, it violates the spirit.

And since I'm also happy to violate the letter by removing the DRM, so long as I keep to the spirit of the agreement, I feel I ought to keep to the spirit of the agreement over the letter in other instances too.

I would consider what I'd be willing to do if DRM removal wasn't available, but since in that case I'd have bought no DRMed ebooks from Amazon, it would be a bit pointless.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Because Amazon's licensing terms specifically permit sharing within the family. They don't permit, as far as I can see, sharing with your friends.

I have explicitly asked them about this. They're fine with it, so long as it's on your devices. [Update: My memory was faulty, they fine with your friend reading your books on their device, so long as that device is registered to your account.]

Kobo, on the other hand, say that you're not even allowed to let your spouse or children read your books.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

You're quite certain the terms specifically state "blood-relatives living under the same roof only"?

He might be referring to the "family library" option, lending between two adults and kids accounts. My family shares under the same account, sharing KU as well. I see nothing in the TOS saying my wife needs her own account and device (she has her own device(s) under my account).

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

You're quite certain the terms specifically state "blood-relatives living under the same roof only"?

I'm referring to their "family sharing" facility, the details of which you can read for yourself:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/help/cus...deId=201620400

And again: is there a family-lending exemption in copyright law? Is there a simultaneous device usage clause in copyright law?

Amazon's licensing terms reflect the rights that publishers have assigned to Amazon customers. Any licensed rights are in addition to those granted by copyright law. Such licenses are a necessity for ebooks, given that any use of ebooks involves making multiple copies and hence a grant of rights over and above those inherent in copyright law.

[Deskisamess]

Amazon's Family Sharing of "households" has morphed over the years. It used to be you could share your Prime benefits (back when it was strictly a shipping benefit) with another household. I knew families who lived in different states who did this.

Then as other benefits were added, the rules changed. But, Amazon still doesn't specifically say and limit the definition of "household." However, the 2 adults can't join and leave different households Willy nilly. If an adult leaves a household, they can't join another one for 180 days.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I have explicitly asked them about this. They're fine with it, so long as it's on your devices. [Update: My memory was faulty, they fine with your friend reading your books on their device, so long as that device is registered to your account.]

Kobo, on the other hand, say that you're not even allowed to let your spouse or children read your books.

The first link in spoiler is highly interesting.

In terms of use, you have purchase a copy of a book with us, and it is your copy. You may authorize any one you wish to read it, but that person's device must be registered to your account to do so.

He specifically says that I purchase a copy, now my copy, of a book that happens to be permanently linked to my account. I wonder if that is legally how it is and the licenses are a mere container or construct that allows me to use that copy without breaking copyright law.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

He specifically says that I purchase a copy, now my copy, of a book that happens to be permanently linked to my account. I wonder if that is legally how it is and the licenses are a mere container or construct that allows me to use that copy without breaking copyright law.

The ownership rights to electronic copies of intellectual property still haven't been fully developed, IMO.

One element that will surely come before the courts in various countries before too long is the rights one has to leave digital assets to ones heirs.

In 2013 there was some news about Bruce Willis suing Apple over this. The reports turned out to be incorrect, but the question is a good one.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That strikes me as sophistry, I'm afraid. Clearly Amazon content is licenced for your use, not to provide reading matter for your friends, too. There's no practical difference between my permanently "loaning" my friend one of my old Kindles which I no longer use, which has on it a complete copy of my ebook library, and giving them a copy of that library. The result of both courses of action is that they have my ebook library available to read.

Consider that for some people, close friends take the place of family.

For years, I bought books for my mother via the Kindle store even though we were not part of the same household. I bought her the Kindle and set it up so books were automatically downloaded. I asked an Amazon customer service rep and was told that they were totally fine with that.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

You're quite certain the terms specifically state "blood-relatives living under the same roof only"?

And again: is there a family-lending exemption in copyright law? Is there a simultaneous device usage clause in copyright law? I'm just wondering why you're using Amazon policy-wording as the final arbiter of what's ethical or not RE copyright concerns. Why "violating" Amazon's terms (scare quotes intended) is no different than piracy (your words) in your mind. Are their Terms somehow an extension of copyright law?

You raise a good point. We should be clear here, distinguishing between Amazon's policies--which are, naturally, aimed at profit, and copyright law, which is targeted to protect the profit of the creator of the books in question. They're not the same, and I would imagine, on more than one occasion, diametric opposites. Just because Amazon promotes the idea of doing something--e.g., lending books on devices--doesn't mean that it's QED compliant with the letter of copyright law.

I mean, obviously, Amazon had to face reality, when crafting their sharing/lending policies--it's absurd to think that people in a household wouldn't share books/devices, just because there's some "rule" against it, from thousands of miles away; (I am chuckling at this mental image I have, of mr. Hitch reaching for my Kindle, and me diving for it--"No, NO! You can't read my Kindle, it's against the RULES!"--ha!) so they bowed to the inevitable, and tried to figure out a way to turn it to their advantage. Just smart of them, unlike Kobo's idiotic policies, which are, to put it kindly, unrealistic.

Just a reminder--the two are not the same. Copyright law is one thing, Amazon's profit-oriented policies are another.

Hitch

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Hitch

You raise a good point. We should be clear here, distinguishing between Amazon's policies--which are, naturally, aimed at profit, and copyright law, which is targeted to protect the profit of the creator of the books in question. They're not the same, and I would imagine, on more than one occasion, diametric opposites. Just because Amazon promotes the idea of doing something--e.g., lending books on devices--doesn't mean that it's QED compliant with the letter of copyright law.

Hitch,

Consider a moment how ebooks are used. They reside on the seller’s server. The customer makes a purchase and a copy of the ebook is sent to their reading device. At a future date they perhaps want to use a different reading device or app, so again another copy of the book is created.

It’s inherent in the nature of ebooks that they need to be copied (often multiple times) to be used, and hence a licence is required which determines under what circumstances such copies can be made. Copyright law on its own is insufficient.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It’s inherent in the nature of ebooks that they need to be copied (often multiple times) to be used, and hence a licence is required which determines under what circumstances such copies can be made. Copyright law on its own is insufficient.

Then copyright law needs to become sufficient. Allowing retailers to make their own determination as to what constitutes an authorized copy is certainly not the answer. They have no more authority in that arena than an end-user does.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Then copyright law needs to become sufficient. Allowing retailers to make their own determination as to what constitutes an authorized copy is certainly not the answer. They have no more authority in that arena than an end-user does.

Most rights issues in the publishing world are matters of contract law rather than copyright law, and this is no exception. The retailer says “these are the rights we require in order to sell your book” and the publisher either signs on the dotted line or chooses not to. Copyright law doesn’t really enter into the equation.