Do some publishers have any idea?

[Deskisamess]

Amazon doesn't decide the terms for lending or the simultaneous licenses permitted, the publisher does. Most don't allow the two week lending at all. And while the majority of books can be on 6 devices at the same time, many can only be on one or two. Textbooks tend to have this limit. Some books have an unlimited number.

Back when I got my first Kindle in 2009, Kindle CS would actually tell users how to deregister their Kindle so they could register it to someone else's account, to download those books. Back then, the e-ink models would retain the downloaded books when the device was deregistered, so you could fairly easily download books from multiple accounts.

We use to explain in full detail how to do the "registration shuffle" on the old Kindle forum. Amazon didn't have a problem with it.

I think, but do not know for sure, that current e-ink models have all Amazon content removed when you deregister the device. I'm not willing to deregister my Oasis to find out.

Fires have always had all Amazon content removed when deregistered.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Deskisamess

I think, but do not know for sure, that current e-ink models have all Amazon content removed when you deregister the device.

No, deregistering a device has no effect on content, other than, of course, then being unable to read content DRM-locked to the account you’ve deregistered from.

[j.p.s]

Originally Posted by HarryT

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.

Absent copyright law, retailers have little or no incentive to enter a contract with the copyright holder.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by j.p.s

Absent copyright law, retailers have little or no incentive to enter a contract with the copyright holder.

I don’t understand the point you’re making, I’m afraid. Can you elaborate?

[j.p.s]

Well, I am assuming a society where anything not explicitly forbidden is allowed and that there are such things as books that have been acquired by someone other than the author (either sole manuscript or a copy). There would be no legal prohibition of copying such books without copyright law.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Finally.

And please, please, please don't bother to respond. Wouldn't want you to break your word.

+1

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm struggling to see any ethical difference between a long-term loan of one of my older Kindles with 5,000 books on it to a friend, and piracy. Wouldn't I effectively giving my friend a copy of my ebook library?

It's interesting that we have been drawn into a discussion of license terms on what is simply a matter of ethics. As I understand it you are not alleging that lending a Kindle to a friend breaches any legal term. Whilst a consideration of physical books may not be strictly relevant to the license terms, I suggest it is relevant to ethical considerations. If we start off with the proposition that lending a friend a physical book is ethical, what is it that makes the lending of a physical Kindle with e-books on it unethical? You could lend your friend 5,000 physical books, or allow your friend to visit your home and read those books there. Of course, this is physically onerous in the one case and inconvenient in the other. Is the proposed distinction that two of you can read the same book at the same time? This would seem to be impossible in the second scenario, and most unlikely in the first. And, if you do have ethical problems with this you can take steps to prevent it, particularly when you are lending an old Kindle you yourself no longer use. I haven't used parental controls myself, but believe that there is an option to disable cloud access, which I take to include downloading purchased books from the cloud. If this is the case you could easily lend an old Kindle with access to only a single book. If this is the case lending your old Kindle with access to only a single book would seem to be ethically indistinguishable from lending a single physical book if you yourself ethically refrain from reading that book whilst the device is on loan.

[Little.Egret]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, deregistering a device has no effect on content, other than, of course, then being unable to read content DRM-locked to the account you’ve deregistered from.

But since these book-copies are in fact locked to the e-ink device serial number, which hasn't changed, you can still read them even if the device is now registered to a new account.

[barryem]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm struggling to see any ethical difference between a long-term loan of one of my older Kindles with 5,000 books on it to a friend, and piracy. Wouldn't I effectively giving my friend a copy of my ebook library?

I often loan a Kindle to a neighbor with a book on it he/she wants to read. I don't remove the other books. I normally have 30 or 40 books on each of my Kindles.

I suppose you can technically say that I'm loaning that number of books but they don't keep the Kindle that long. I'll usually get it back in a week. Sometimes 2 weeks. Occasionally 3 weeks. Any more than that and I would begin to worry although that hasn't happened.

I don't think Amazon cares about this. They allow a book on 6 devices in most cases. Nearly always when I lend a Kindle it's an older book that I've already read and mentioned to someone who said they want to read it so it's usually only on that one device.

No I can't see this as piracy. No more than lending a paper book. I do think there might be extreme situations where it could be thought of as piracy but it would take some careful thought to come up with such a situation. Lending a device to a neighbor with a book they want to read on it is simply an act of generosity and neighborliness. It's a nice thing to do. I live in a nice place where neighbors do such things for one another.

Barry

[Timboli]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Finally.

Good grief.

It sounds like you actually and truly believe what you write.

Incredible.

Putting words in your mouth? Haha. Very funny. Let's see:

You start of spouting off an entitlement that ebooks should be (much?) cheaper than pbooks. And later you declare that you don't look at pbook prices anymore. Yep, which one is it?


Oh wait, I take that out of context. Sure, whatever makes you sleep at night.

Stir up the pot with nonsense and then simply leave. It was very entertaining.

Have a great day.

And please, please, please don't bother to respond. Wouldn't want you to break your word.

Sorry to let your assumptions down.

I just love the way that you and some others cherry pick.

I'm not here to win an argument or gain sympathy for myself. I am here to make others think just a little bit deeper.

Have a good day.

P.S. Not to pick on you, but I am surprised that your reading comprehension skills are not a bit better than they clearly are ... or do you have some kind of bias or agenda?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by darryl

If we start off with the proposition that lending a friend a physical book is ethical, what is it that makes the lending of a physical Kindle with e-books on it unethical? You could lend your friend 5,000 physical books, or allow your friend to visit your home and read those books there. Of course, this is physically onerous in the one case and inconvenient in the other. Is the proposed distinction that two of you can read the same book at the same time?

There's certainly that, but the primary reason I consider it unethical is the fact that Kindle books are licensed for your use, not the use of your circle of friends. What can or can't be done with a paper book doesn't really enter into it. Do you regard it as ok to share your ebook library with your friends?

[Timboli]

In case some, perhaps most, haven't realized, I am a Goodist that believes in and promotes Goodism.

Goodism is made from healthy doses of Capitalism, Socialism, Communism and a few snippets from others, including some aspects of Benevolent Dictator/Royalty. A bit of everything that cares for others, and believes in fairness and balance to temper our freedoms.

That said, I don't believe in God or Religion.

Great topic. Who started it? ha ha ha ha ha.

Some silly bugger.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by HarryT

There's certainly that, but the primary reason I consider it unethical is the fact that Kindle books are licensed for your use, not the use of your circle of friends. What can or can't be done with a paper book doesn't really enter into it. Do you regard it as ok to share your ebook library with your friends?

I don't think it's unethical because Amazon explicitly allows it. The seller, who is who my "contract" resides with, allows it. Since the seller allows it, I have to believe that the publisher also allows it.

To be clear, I am *not* allowing anyone else access to my ebook files, only to the use of a Kindle registered to my account. They don't have access to login and download books directly from the Amazon website, nor can they install and use Kindle for PC for my account. They have use of the device, and the books that are explicitly loaded onto the device.

Yes...in theory, they could install some tools that could remove the DRM from the files that are on the Kindle and keep them that way. In reality, the people that are using Kindles attached to my account are, for the most part, doing it because they don't even know how to order books for themselves from Amazon. I have no fears that they will be able to pull the books off of the Kindle.

Shari

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by shalym

To be clear, I am *not* allowing anyone else access to my ebook files, only to the use of a Kindle registered to my account.

I'm afraid I don't quite follow that. If a person has a Kindle that's registered to your account, they have access to your entire Amazon library, do they not? Or is there some way of preventing books being downloaded?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Need to change it? Why do they need to? The big publishers are commercially successful. Why change a successful business model?

Tor changed their business model and made it better for consumers by dropping DRM. They have said that they have not had a drop in profits because of dropping DRM. This is what other publishers should be doing. The only DRM I'd like to keep is the DRM used for ePub at Overdrive.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Tor changed their business model and made it better for consumers by dropping DRM. They have said that they have not had a drop in profits because of dropping DRM. This is what other publishers should be doing. The only DRM I'd like to keep is the DRM used for ePub at Overdrive.

Tor's move was notable precisely BECAUSE, they weren't pressured into making it. No one is obligated to take the risk they did simply because they don't seem to have been financially dinged for making it.