Buying books in thrift shops and library sales.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by mjh215

If it seems like it is an older hard back, I doubt this applies. One of my first jobs was working in the returns warehouse of a publishing house. Hardback books are shipped back in their entirety and (judged by a couple people from receipt to pallet) if in resellable condition are re-added to stock. Paperbacks are not considered economically viable enough to be sent back, between their lower value and more easily damaged condition (which can occur in the store, in transit, intra- and inter-warehouse, and finally reshipping) as well as transit costs, agreements between the publishers/distributers and retailers exist whereby removing the cover as proof (And I believe the UPC code off magazines/periodicals) is enough to receive a refund. The agreement of course being that the remainder of the text is destroyed at that point.

An interesting side note is that hard backs that were autographed in store are also considered damaged and are recycled. I probably saw a few thousand signed texts destroyed while working there. (This didn't apply of course to signed texts which were done originally like limited editions)

-MJ

What a crying shame that they would do that to all those perfectly readable books that weren't sold when they could have given them away. I'll never understand the motivations behind business for as long as I live.

[amgoforth]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

Getting back to the original point, regular books have long been allowed to be resold without compensation under the first sale doctrine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

This is codified law and settled in the courts. However, many argue that the First Sale Doctrine should apply to ebooks as well. Software went the "licensing" route to get around this doctrine, with some success and some not. AFAIK, no one has tested this law with ebooks.

That is really what this thread is all about. How does the trading or giving of ebooks compare to the same on pbooks, taking into account the First Sale Doctrine? Is there that much difference between getting a book for a quarter at a thrift shop etc, and getting it online, or something like that, for free?

[snipenekkid]

what is with this mindset that buying ANYTHING outside the retail chain is somehow shady or illegal? I am not talking about just ebooks but ANYTHING anymore. Someone somewhere is fostering the mindset that less expensive than retail, even used items being sold somehow harms the original maker and seller of the items.

In the book publisher world has long been frustrated by the large number of used bookstores in the US. Almost every town has one and they would love to do nothing but find a way to shut them down somehow. I now see them as trying to do an end around on the first sale doctrine, as ebooks are clearly not software but rather they are content or data if you will. Neither of which is software. Formatting of content or manipulation of content does not suddenly turn that content into software. Software is what is used to create, view or otherwise manipulate data/content. And software used for this purpose is no different than the printing press along with other machines used to create dead tree books. Nothing is different in the whole process, it is just the new machines (software) are small and cannot be seen working for the most part. Yet, the product they produce is indeed physically tangible it simply resides on a memory disk of some sort rather than paper.

[Neil]

Here's a related question as to fair use with ebooks. As I understand the law if I buy a printed book I am entitled to scan or have someone else scan for me that book and have the ebook version of it in that manner. I believe that many people interpret this to also include P2P downloaded books being OK if you have actually bought them before. But I have never thought about used books. Does the ownership of books bought used also empower fair use? I am supposing that it does as gifted print-books are also owned. Any ideas?

[Xenophon]

Neil:

Your member info doesn't say where you are located, so I can't comment on your local laws. That said (and remembering that I am not a lawyer, but rather an interested semi-educated layperson), my understanding is that in US law both the process and the outcome matter. In other words even when both start-state and end-state are perfectly legal you're still not OK if you use a not-legal path to get from one to the other.

Thus, if you own a printed book and scan it yourself (or have someone scan it for you) you've engaged in format shifting by way of a legal process.

<digression>Actually, we don't know for sure that this example is legal -- it's not directly enshrined in statute and hasn't been litigated to the best of my knowledge. But it's generally accepted as a reasonable analogue of format shifting cases that have been litigated in the music world. We'll go with that consensus for purposes of this discussion. </digression>

Conversely, if you own the paper book and download a copy that someone else has scanned both you and the uploader have violated the copyright owner's copyright. Your violation is minor, the uploader's violation might be major (depending on number of downloads).

In both scenarios the outcome is identical -- you have in your possession both the dead-tree-format book and the scans. But the first scenario got there via legal means, and the second scenario did not. It's worth noting, by the way, that in either scenario if you pass on ownership of the dead-tree format book (even by throwing it away!), you are obliged to delete or destroy the electronic copy! You don't have a separate property right in the bits -- you got them as a consequence of having purchased the dead-tree-format copy. (Same same if you're format shifting music! Hold on to those CDs and LPs.)

One could argue many different ways in which this may or may not make sense... in fact we discuss it to death here at mobileread quite regularly. But this is the current state of US law, to the best of my understanding.

Xenophon

Obligatory disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. Should you require advice on which you may rely, please seek out a lawyer who specializes in the relevant aspect of the law.

[Liviu_5]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

It's worth noting, by the way, that in either scenario if you pass on ownership of the dead-tree format book (even by throwing it away!), you are obliged to delete or destroy the electronic copy! You don't have a separate property right in the bits -- you got them as a consequence of having purchased the dead-tree-format copy. (Same same if you're format shifting music! Hold on to those CDs and LPs.)

What about if a page comes out from your pbook and gets lost, ripped; should you delete the corresponding page from the ebook? What if 100 pages get damaged in the pbook?

Just asking you know...

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by Liviu_5

What about if a page comes out from your pbook and gets lost, ripped; should you delete the corresponding page from the ebook? What if 100 pages get damaged in the pbook?

Just asking you know...

What if I buy a partial book in a used bookstore. Later on, you buy a partial book in a used bookstore. And, in reality, each of us has bought a fraction of the same physical book! Who owns it? The one with more than half????

These questions (and yours) haven't been litigated and aren't covered in statute (as far as I know). I betcha, however, that any reasonable common-sense answer would be good enough to keep you from being sued -- by anyone other than a certain short-and-litigious SF author.

Xenophon

[basschick]

i expect that intent comes into play here.

Originally Posted by Liviu_5

What about if a page comes out from your pbook and gets lost, ripped; should you delete the corresponding page from the ebook? What if 100 pages get damaged in the pbook?

Just asking you know...

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by amgoforth

That is really what this thread is all about. How does the trading or giving of ebooks compare to the same on pbooks, taking into account the First Sale Doctrine? Is there that much difference between getting a book for a quarter at a thrift shop etc, and getting it online, or something like that, for free?

I don't see any good reason (one can construct a legal argument either way) that ebooks should not also be subject to the first sale doctrine. Furthermore, I think many courts have clearly been ruling recently against the idea of EULAs and of software being "licensed" instead of "sold". Thus I think there's a very good chance that if someone legally challenged the existing ebook "rules" they would win. But it would require time and money and someone willing to do it.

[sassanik]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Is that true? You can't buy or sell books with their covers off in the US? Is it limited to just book retailers, or second-hand bookshops too? Crikey, I've bought loads of books from second-hand stores with no covers, just the pages and the glue binding them together.

Yes I believe not having the cover on means that the book was "stripped" for the retailer to get credit. They do that with magazines, just take the covers off and send those in for credit and trash the rest of the magazine.


Amy

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by sassanik

Yes I believe not having the cover on means that the book was "stripped" for the retailer to get credit. They do that with magazines, just take the covers off and send those in for credit and trash the rest of the magazine.


Amy

Yes - very often books say on the "legal information" page something like "If you bought this book without a cover, it is being sold illegally" or something like that.