"eBook versions of owned paper books" Popular Front

[queentess]

Originally Posted by braver

I believe that as owners of paper books, we have every right to get the Kindle versions for free or only a nominal fee

...this is not a 'right'.

Are you new to being an early adopter? This is the same it is with every new technology (as another post pointed out). You can't turn in all your VHS tapes for brand new DVDs or digital files. That's not the way business works. Companies don't make money giving away new formats -- then where's the incentive for continuing to invent and evolve?

In the future, perhaps publishers will offer the ebook free for download with purchase of, say, a hardcover. This type of model has been around since the early 90s when O'Reilly (iirc) used to have pdf versions of the purchased book on a cd on the back cover. But to think that the publishers somehow owe you something? I'm just baffled by this.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by braver

I've posted in in the Kindle forum, then realized it applies across the board.

Over the last 10 years, I've bought thousands of dollars worth of books on Amazon. Now that I've got the Kindle, I thought I'd be able to upgrade some of the heavier and more used ones to digital.

Alas, the "digital upgrade" feature only allows you to read page images on the Web.

To my request for Kindle versions of the books I own, when available, Amazon replied that currently they "don't have plans" to provide such.

I believe that as owners of paper books, we have every right to get the Kindle versions for free or only a nominal fee -- sharing the OCR and distribution costs, as well as transfer. Heck, I'd pay $5. Max. OK, $10... for some.

Now this won't happen unless we all self-organize and enlist journalists and congressmen in order for this to happen. In fact it applies to the whole ebook arena. What do you guys think? What is already done or being done on this front?

Although I agree this SHOULD happen (it's just format shifting after all), the Publishers will NEVER, NEVER grant you this seemingly simple request.

Best bet, download all your books from the file-sharing networks to replace those you've already bought, and then in future only support artists and publishers who are forward looking and not protectionist in their business models.

Support indie, share freely, embrace your culture

[edembowski]

Originally Posted by braver

...I believe that as owners of paper books, we have every right to get the Kindle versions for free or only a nominal fee -- sharing the OCR and distribution costs, as well as transfer. Heck, I'd pay $5. Max. OK, $10... for some....

This is like saying "I have the audio book so I should get the print version for free" or vice versa. You have the right to get what you paid for. If you paid for a copy that had bound pages, you are entitled to get THAT copy. If you want an electronic copy, you have the right to pay for one if it's available. If you really want one, do as has been suggested and scan a copy for your personal use. I have done this myself, it's not a difficult process.

darylbrayman's quote is spot on. Owning one media format does not entitle you to another.

- Ed

[edembowski]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

...
Best bet, download all your books from the file-sharing networks to replace those you've already bought, and then in future only support artists and publishers who are forward looking and not protectionist in their business models.

Support indie, share freely, embrace your culture

So basically, you're saying that you want to support the authors you like by stealing from them? Really?

Supporting only artists and publishers that you agree with makes perfect sense and I completely agree with that model, but theft is not something that should be endorsed.

- Ed

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by edembowski

So basically, you're saying that you want to support the authors you like by stealing from them? Really?

Supporting only artists and publishers that you agree with makes perfect sense and I completely agree with that model, but theft is not something that should be endorsed.

- Ed

I agree completely!

[Mr. Dalliard]

I'm with the opening poster 100%

It is not a right, or an entitlement - that is decided by the publisher - but it is a not unreasonable request. There are quite a few companies, particularly in the computer field, who are including PDFs of the entire book on the accompanying disc.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by edembowski

So basically, you're saying that you want to support the authors you like by stealing from them? Really?

Supporting only artists and publishers that you agree with makes perfect sense and I completely agree with that model, but theft is not something that should be endorsed.

- Ed

Do we have to go through all this again with everybody? Okay, once again:

Sharing a digital copy is not theft. It is not theft under the law. It is not theft by definition. It is not even theft morally and ethically.

Now, when you can actually tell the difference between one action and another, maybe, just maybe there'll be some discussion about intellectual copyright and 'supporting artists'. And if you think purchasing an ebook or pbook by an author is supporting them, you've got another thing coming, matey, boy.

The next ignorant idiot who accuses me of theft won't get such a polite response.

Yours
A creator.

[edembowski]

Originally Posted by Mr. Dalliard

... There are quite a few companies, particularly in the computer field, who are including PDFs of the entire book on the accompanying disc.

O'Reiley does this quite a bit, and with many of their books they have free downloads of the content. This really should be encouraged. They tell you up front what you're paying for, and that you're getting a digital copy as well.

It would be nice if I could get a free download of all the books I have, and I do think that they should start selling them that way, but there is absolutely no business motivation for publishers to retroactively provide downloads for what they've already sold.

- Ed

[dmikov]

Originally Posted by darylbrayman

I agree that it makes sense, but imagine this senerio. I get Dan Browns newest book (can't imagine why I would) wrap it up and send it to a deserving family member (one who has a birthday upcoming:-) Then turn around and get my ebook version. I realise I could have read the original before I sent it, but that's tacky and they would know. Just my thoughts on the subject.

Regards, Daryl

Why or why, when the conversation goes about fair use (not law, just fair use) some people always come up with what if it can be abused scenarios? It is quite irrelevant, people can do unethical things with current distribution model just fine. It is like saying let's stop selling paper books, because what if you use their pages to arson the buildings.
Stop assuming everybody has a criminal turn of mind and that's why people cannot have <insert fair and convenient to customer idea here>.

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by doreenjoy

I have CDs I've purchased; that doesn't entitle me to free or low cost MP3s of the same songs.

You can rip & encode those CDs, if you have access to a computer with CDex installed.

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by edembowski

This is like saying "I have the audio book so I should get the print version for free" or vice versa. You have the right to get what you paid for. If you paid for a copy that had bound pages, you are entitled to get THAT copy. If you want an electronic copy, you have the right to pay for one if it's available. If you really want one, do as has been suggested and scan a copy for your personal use. I have done this myself, it's not a difficult process.

darylbrayman's quote is spot on. Owning one media format does not entitle you to another.

- Ed

With the first copy I have paid for content and hardware.
From the second on, I'd like to pay just the hardware, without having to re-pay for the same content I paid before.



So, IMHO, it'd be fair to separate content form container in the pricing. And once a user pays for the access to the content, he should not pay it again when changing (or doubling the container).

If I own a Gerry Potter p-book, I paid Ms. Rolling for it. If I want an audio-copy also, I'm happy to pay the speaker, the director and the sound engineer, not the author again, who's already got what she deserves.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Do we have to go through all this again with everybody? Okay, once again:
...

Apparently so, because you refuse to understand reality and live in your fantasy world where you are the king of the world. I suggest you write a book about out it instead of trying to browbeat and shout your mistaken opinions about. I also suggest you focus full time on this writing and then give it away digitally when you are done.

And just to be clear if you make copies of an copyrighted material for anyone other than yourself or if you give away copies of copyrighted material you are a thief, you have broken the law and deprived a creator of their rights to a livelihood from their creations (e.g. their property).

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by edembowski

O'Reiley does this quite a bit, and with many of their books they have free downloads of the content. This really should be encouraged. They tell you up front what you're paying for, and that you're getting a digital copy as well.

It would be nice if I could get a free download of all the books I have, and I do think that they should start selling them that way, but there is absolutely no business motivation for publishers to retroactively provide downloads for what they've already sold.

- Ed

As does Manning Publications where you can buy the Pbook, the Ebook or both.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Apparently so, because you refuse to understand reality and live in your fantasy world where you are the king of the world.

Despite definitely having an overactive imagination supported by unwarranted overconfidence, Moejoe is objectively correct in asserting:

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Sharing a digital copy is not theft. It is not theft under the law. It is not theft by definition.

Originally Posted by kennyc

And just to be clear if you make copies of an copyrighted material for anyone other than yourself of if you give away copies of copyrighted material you are a thief, you have broken the law and deprived a creator of their rights to a livelihood from their creations (e.g. their property).

No. It doesn't. Not according to the law. You are engaging in exactly the sort of delusional wholly divorced-from-reality raving you accused Moejoe of.

- Ahi

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by ahi

... You are engaging in exactly the sort of delusional wholly divorced-from-reality raving you accused Moejoe of.

- Ahi

Not at all. As I said in the other thread there is more at stake here than legal definitions. It has to do with ethics and morality and doing what is right.