"Pirating ebooks is an offence against moral justice" says... GoodEreader!?

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by barryem

Normally, but not always, they make arrangements with other vendors to keep making purchased books available. B&N didn't do that when they shut down in England but most do. Microsoft recently announced they're shutting down their book service and everyone who bought books is getting a full refund.

Minor nit. When B&N shutdown in the UK, their customers were handed over to Sainsbury (the UK's second largest supermarket chain). Not that much later, Sainsbury Entertainment on Demand shut down and handed their customers over to Kobo. B&N also gave vouchers for books that were no longer going to be available that were redeemable through Sainsbury.

[bgalbrecht]

Originally Posted by barryem

The thing is that ebook vendors don't do that. There are only 2 situations I'm aware of that even resemble this. Sometimes vendors go out of business. Normally, but not always, they make arrangements with other vendors to keep making purchased books available. B&N didn't do that when they shut down in England but most do. Microsoft recently announced they're shutting down their book service and everyone who bought books is getting a full refund.

About half the retailers that shut down after I bought books from them did not sell their customers to another retailer. When B&N shut down Fictionwise, I lost access to dozens of ebooks. If I didn't have them downloaded, I would have been out of luck.

Microsoft is giving their customers full refunds because their books could only be read on their readers (Microsoft Edge browsers, I think), and when they shut it down, the users can't read the books they bought at all. That's one of the reasons why I will never buy from companies like Glose, which only let you read books online in their app. Microsoft is big enough, and rich enough, that they can afford to refund their customers' money when they shut it down. If Glose shuts down, and can't sell their customer base to Kobo, which seems to be the only existing retailer that has bought any, their customers will be out of luck.

[GtrsRGr8]

Originally Posted by bgalbrecht

About half the retailers that shut down after I bought books from them did not sell their customers to another retailer. When B&N shut down Fictionwise, I lost access to dozens of ebooks. If I didn't have them downloaded, I would have been out of luck.

Microsoft is giving their customers full refunds because their books could only be read on their readers (Microsoft Edge browsers, I think), and when they shut it down, the users can't read the books they bought at all. That's one of the reasons why I will never buy from companies like Glose, which only let you read books online in their app. Microsoft is big enough, and rich enough, that they can afford to refund their customers' money when they shut it down. If Glose shuts down, and can't sell their customer base to Kobo, which seems to be the only existing retailer that has bought any, their customers will be out of luck.

Maybe we can look at all "purchases" from Glose-type companies as rentals, on the order of the rentals that Downpour, for example, offers. But unlike those rentals, think of ones that we make from Glose-type companies as having indefinite rental periods!

Your post has persuaded me that instead of "purchasing" audiobooks, I might as well check the two library systems where I have borrowing privileges, and just check out audiobooks from them. Things are just too uncertain with the audiobook companies. A bonus would be that I would save a lot of money that I've been spending on "purchasing" audiobooks. (BTW--I know that sometimes libraries will purchase a dead-tree book, if someone asks the librarian to consider it, and the title has a broad-based enough appeal that she/he thinks that others would be interested in it. I suppose that the same situation would be true of audiobooks and ebooks).

The reason that I put quotation marks around "purchase," and other forms of the word, is that a guy on the "Deals and Resources" thread, sometime back now, educated us (or me, anyway) that we actually never own any of the of the ebooks or audiobooks that we think that we have bought! He went on to tell us that all that we owned were licenses to the ebooks/audiobooks. That makes all of the difference in the world, apparently, as far as the right of companies to take away our ebooks/audiobooks is concerned. I hope that I have accurately represented what he said.


ADDENDUM: Kudos to Microsoft!

[barryem]

Originally Posted by DNSB

Minor nit. When B&N shutdown in the UK, their customers were handed over to Sainsbury (the UK's second largest supermarket chain). Not that much later, Sainsbury Entertainment on Demand shut down and handed their customers over to Kobo. B&N also gave vouchers for books that were no longer going to be available that were redeemable through Sainsbury.

Thank you for clarifying.

Barry

[crich70]

deleted by poster.

[Timboli]

The following is food for thought only. I am not trying to justify, condone, encourage or promote Piracy in any form, by mentioning it.

In a very real way, a book becoming Public Domain, is legally sanctioned Piracy, the terms of which can vary from country to country, and have a basis in public opinion.

Some, certainly many of those who have a vested interest, think Public Domain is wrong or wrong in its terms. There are many who believe the duration before should be less.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Timboli

The following is food for thought only. I am not trying to justify, condone, encourage or promote Piracy in any form, by mentioning it.

In a very real way, a book becoming Public Domain, is legally sanctioned Piracy, the terms of which can vary from country to country, and have a basis in public opinion.

Some, certainly many of those who have a vested interest, think Public Domain is wrong or wrong in its terms. There are many who believe the duration before should be less.

Hum, I don't know that I would call what was the norm for most of recorded history as legally sanctioned piracy. Once again, copyright is a contract between copyright holder and the government. Once a copyright expires a work goes into what is arguably it's natural state, i.e. public domain. Copyright is simply a mechanism for paying artists. Prior to copyright artists were either not paid, paid as a work for hire, or supported by the wealthy.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Hum, I don't know that I would call what was the norm for most of recorded history as legally sanctioned piracy. Once again, copyright is a contract between copyright holder and the government. Once a copyright expires a work goes into what is arguably it's natural state, i.e. public domain. Copyright is simply a mechanism for paying artists. Prior to copyright artists were either not paid, paid as a work for hire, or supported by the wealthy.

Exactly. Its not even remotely "Piracy." Those downloading/disseminating books that are PD in their locality are not violating copyright. Full stop. Those who download/disseminate (without permission) books that are NOT PD in their locality are violating copyright (unsanctioned).

[darryl]

There is an interesting history here. Look up Perpetual Copyright and the Battle of the Booksellers. It is totally inaccurate to describe public domain books as legally sanctioned piracy in any way, let alone a very real way. Certainly those with a vested interest aren't fond of the idea of public domain. The London booksellers in the cases making up the "battle" mentioned above were arguing for the existence of a perpetual common law copyright which would just so happen to preserve their monopoly. My personal view is that some form of copyright is desirable but current copyright terms are ridiculous. Reform of intellectual property laws in general is long overdue.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by darryl

There is an interesting history here. Look up Perpetual Copyright and the Battle of the Booksellers. It is totally inaccurate to describe public domain books as legally sanctioned piracy in any way, let alone a very real way. Certainly those with a vested interest aren't fond of the idea of public domain. The London booksellers in the cases making up the "battle" mentioned above were arguing for the existence of a perpetual common law copyright which would just so happen to preserve their monopoly. My personal view is that some form of copyright is desirable but current copyright terms are ridiculous. Reform of intellectual property laws in general is long overdue.

Preach on, brother, preach on! (For those not versed in Southern USA idioms, it simply means I agree with you. )

[Timboli]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Hum, I don't know that I would call what was the norm for most of recorded history as legally sanctioned piracy. Once again, copyright is a contract between copyright holder and the government. Once a copyright expires a work goes into what is arguably it's natural state, i.e. public domain. Copyright is simply a mechanism for paying artists. Prior to copyright artists were either not paid, paid as a work for hire, or supported by the wealthy.

I would argue, that it is totally about perspective, and history has many variables in what used to occur. Some would say, that what happened in the past is irrelevant, and that we live in a more considered and enlightened world now, and that fairness is the key.

Certainly many authors and publishers, who would like to leave a legacy to their family, don't agree with Public Domain. I guess a good number of them would see the situation as theft sanctioned by authority.

At the end of the day, a bunch of other people, made up some rules about Public Domain, essentially based on public opinion. Because of that, those law makers have come up with a bunch of criteria, which often varies from country to country, and can change over time. That criteria being a justification and or an imperative.

My own view, is it isn't a black & white situation. So I kind of agree with elements on both sides.

But it does kind of suggest, that a good portion of the Public Domain status, is about critical mass ... one side over-riding the other due to numbers and public interest justification.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Timboli

At the end of the day, a bunch of other people, made up some rules about Public Domain, essentially based on public opinion. Because of that, those law makers have come up with a bunch of criteria, which often varies from country to country, and can change over time. That criteria being a justification and or an imperative.

So public domain is just like any other law about anything ever in the history of civilization then?

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Timboli

I would argue, that it is totally about perspective, and history has many variables in what used to occur. Some would say, that what happened in the past is irrelevant, and that we live in a more considered and enlightened world now, and that fairness is the key.

Certainly many authors and publishers, who would like to leave a legacy to their family, don't agree with Public Domain. I guess a good number of them would see the situation as theft sanctioned by authority.

At the end of the day, a bunch of other people, made up some rules about Public Domain, essentially based on public opinion. Because of that, those law makers have come up with a bunch of criteria, which often varies from country to country, and can change over time. That criteria being a justification and or an imperative.

My own view, is it isn't a black & white situation. So I kind of agree with elements on both sides.

But it does kind of suggest, that a good portion of the Public Domain status, is about critical mass ... one side over-riding the other due to numbers and public interest justification.

Well, gosh, as a programmer, I would love it if I could copyright my code and get paid everytime it gets called. Doesn't mean that my particular desire to get rich has any real moral obligation on society.

Originally, copyright was the right to print books and had nothing to do with the author getting paid. The copyright holders were the printing companies, not the author. Queen Anne's law did assign the copyright to authors, but it was still a compromise between the monopoly of printers and authors. In the US, the Constitution makes it a bit more explicit in that copyright was assigned for a limited time with the idea of promoting the useful arts.

The current idea of copyright as property comes from the Berne Convention, basically written by a rich French author (Victor Hugo, who actually used ghost writers a lot) in the 1880's who felt that it was unfair that copyright didn't equate to property and that copyright should be standardized according to his wishes. The US ignored the Berne Convention until US music, movies and TV shows started to generate significant sales in other countries and thus in 1988, the US signed on.

In general, artists like public domain. It allows them to climb on the backs of previous generations and "borrowing" is most common in music and movies. For very common examples are MC Hammer's "Can't Touch This" whose beat is almost an exact replica of Rick James "Super Freak". Up until 1988, most artists were fairly open about borrowing. Currently, rappers like to mix in beats and extracts from other artists. In the US, this is considered fair use.

Authors seem to be a bit more caught up in the idea that copyright is property, perhaps because while music and movies is general a collaborative effort and the creator may not be the performer, authors are both the creator and performer, assuming you ignore the work done by editors and the like.

Once again, I suspect that the vast majority of the public are indifferent towards the idea of copyright, just so long as they can get their books, music and movies at what they perceive as a fair price. To a great extent, copyright as it currently exists, is driven by the small group of companies that benefit from it and ignored by everyone else.

[Timboli]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

So public domain is just like any other law about anything ever in the history of civilization then?

On the one hand yes, on the other hand no.

There are significant differences in many cases.

Do you agree with every law out there? Neither do I.

There are a myriad of ways laws come about, especially when politics and interest groups play a part. Many are not enacted by general consensus. Many are out of touch with the times, but difficult to change.

What is interesting, and why I suggested food for thought, is that these rules are never devised by some supreme being, just a fallible human element, that often involves some form of bias or agenda.

Many rules are not static as such, and what might be acceptable one day, may not be the next or vice-a-versa.

Some have a black & white approach and acceptance to rules, while others like to challenge them, and defy them when they feel it is right to do so. It is the second of those two groups, who enact change, who give rise to things like equality and beyond.

That is why we have the saying, that 'rules are meant to be broken' ... or as I would prefer to say it, challenged. And that doesn't happen sitting on the fence.

[DiapDealer]

I find it slightly humorous that someone would suggest that the very laws which first gave creators the chance to earn a living at their craft (without having to rely upon a benevolent patron) is now somehow preventing them from providing for their descendants. In the U.S., copyright has already been stretched and extended to greatly favor the the rights-holders over the public (who were supposed to benefit after the brief monopoly granted to the creators expired). They (the rights-holders) have already received far and away more benefit than what the biased, fallible, human element who originally drafted the original copyright laws ever envisioned. It is the public (copyright's other affected party) who have already had their benefits reduced to the point of being negligible. Authors are not the aggrieved party in this copyright/PD partnership by any means.