"eBook versions of owned paper books" Popular Front

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by braver

There's a single 1-1 way to read a CD back, and it doesn't require much more from a user than getting a free program and sticking a CD into a computer.

Surely scanning books is just such an easy, reproducible process. Stick a book into... Hmm, not quite, huh?

So, you think it is too much effort, yet expect others to do it for you?

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by braver

There's a single 1-1 way to read a CD back, and it doesn't require much more from a user than getting a free program and sticking a CD into a computer.

Surely scanning books is just such an easy, reproducible process. Stick a book into... Hmm, not quite, huh?

So in other words the analogy isn't flawed at all. You simply think producing a digital copy of a book is harder than doing so for a CD and therefore the seller should do it for you.

Glad we got that sorted out.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Crowl]

Originally Posted by braver

As was explained several times already, this is a silly comparison (just returning your term).

(1) you did not buy your "floppies with content" on Amazon
(2) you did not buy your 8-track on Amazon
(3) different physical carriers cost money to make, as opposed to a software file
(4) Amazon knows exactly what you own on paper, and offers you digital upgrade already. On the web, not ebook yet -- but there's no difference why not.

Actually, all amazon knows is what you have bought, they don't have any knowledge of if you actually still own a particular book or not.

[Crowl]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Did you actually read what I said? I said it would be up to the publishers and the publishers don't do AZW. Also, I'm pointing out the history of content and containers. Nobody got free upgrades to all their old media to new media just because it came out in a different container. So why would Amazon do this for you? Can you tell me one company that said "Ok, we have a new container for old media. Let's give it away to everyone who purchased the old container.: The answer is NOT A SINGLE ONE.

The first response of most companies when they come to a new format is wondering how they can convince us to buy the same old stuff all over again with their second thought being how can they do it again in a few years if the format hasn't changed again.

[Crowl]

Originally Posted by braver

There's a single 1-1 way to read a CD back, and it doesn't require much more from a user than getting a free program and sticking a CD into a computer.

Surely scanning books is just such an easy, reproducible process. Stick a book into... Hmm, not quite, huh?

It's a more time-consuming or complex process, the same is true for copying tapes or records and used to be true for ripping dvds too, just because the process is so much simpler for cds doesn't invalidate the analogy in the slightest.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

So, you think it is too much effort, yet expect others to do it for you?

[SpiderMatt]

I saw a poll a few years back designed to find out where people stopped thinking of making digital copies or using file-sharing for copyrighted material as immoral. The poll used music and movies but it's just as applicable for any digital media. Put into the context of ebooks: Is it OK to make a digital copy of your book for personal use? What if your physical copy is destroyed? Is it OK to keep your digital copy? What if your physical copy is sold? Is it OK to keep the digital copy? If you own a book and you would like a digital back-up, is it OK to download a copy from a file-sharing network?

There are other questions along similar lines and the morality of digital copying seems to blur. I believe there were also questions concerning breaking DRM to make a copy. I think it highlights the problem with thinking of IP as traditional property. In the modern digital age, IP law is consistently at odds with personal physical property. It involves people regulating what you can and can't do with your personal copy of a book or a CD or DVD, whether you bought it as a digital copy or bought the physical copy. If it's OK to scan your own book, why isn't it OK to download a book you already own off a file-sharing network? Then there's comparisons like the following:

Originally Posted by doreenjoy

I have mass-market books I've bought; that doesn't entitle me to hardback versions or large print editions of the same books.

I think many people on this site have made the distinction between digital formats and physical copies. Obviously, if you purchase another physical copy of a book, you've purchased the paper, ink, and glue that makes the copy of that book possible. If you buy a second digital copy in a different DRM crippled format, what have you gained? It's the same exact thing you originally bought in a different file format. Without DRM, you could have made your own copy of that second file you downloaded with little to no effort and at no cost to the content creator. Who have you hurt? So the comparison between physical copies and digital copies is completely illogical to me. People on this forum recognize the difference when they advocate stripping DRM or books without DRM so as to allow format shifting and keeping their digital copies forever.

So if it's OK to strip DRM or format-shift books that came without DRM, why is it ridiculous to request Amazon make it easier/cheaper to get digital copies with physical books? What differentiates it from DVDs that now come with a "Digital Copy" inside? I understand the issue with past books. Amazon can't tell if you still have the book just like iTunes can't tell if you own any given CD. And Amazon couldn't just give the digital copies away for free without losing money on bandwidth and the cost of any effort that went into making the ebook. So I think the "nominal fee" suggestion was reasonable and the accusations of a sense of entitlement are off the mark. If you're going to make that accusation, then why are you entitled to the right to convert your own ebooks into different formats? Why are you entitled to scan your own physical books and make ebooks out of them?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by SpiderMatt

....

So if it's OK to strip DRM or format-shift books that came without DRM, why is it ridiculous to request Amazon make it easier/cheaper to get digital copies with physical books? What differentiates it from DVDs that now come with a "Digital Copy" inside? I understand the issue with past books. Amazon can't tell if you still have the book just like iTunes can't tell if you own any given CD. And Amazon couldn't just give the digital copies away for free without losing money on bandwidth and the cost of any effort that went into making the ebook. So I think the "nominal fee" suggestion was reasonable and the accusations of a sense of entitlement are off the mark. If you're going to make that accusation, then why are you entitled to the right to convert your own ebooks into different formats? Why are you entitled to scan your own physical books and make ebooks out of them?

A couple of points here.
1. You are free to do whatever you want with your copy of any media as long as it's for personal use. That has been established.

2. You get what you pay for. If you purchase a paperback book, that's what you get. If you purchase a DRM'd Epub ebook that's what you get. If you purchase a combination of paper book + ebook that's what you get.

3. If you are willing to pay for a different version/media of a book you already own, no problem.

4. When you think you are entitled to a free ebook for a past purchase of a paper book you are mistaken.

as far as this thread, the op did mention paying a "nominal" fee for the ability to get an ebook for a pbook that had been purchased in the past, but then goes on to imply that it should be free or practically free and that Amazon (or publishers) should be forced to make this available to him. This is totally presumptuous on his part and not something that is ever going to happen on a mass scale for the reasons detailed in the posts above.

[edembowski]

Originally Posted by SpiderMatt

...So if it's OK to strip DRM or format-shift books that came without DRM, why is it ridiculous to request Amazon make it easier/cheaper to get digital copies with physical books? ...

It's not ridiculous, but it is unrealistic and for the following reasons:

- Amazon owns a right to sell the content, and pay the publishers an agreed upon unit price for the content they sell. They do not own what they sell, they are a distributor.

- If they offer customers low cost/no cost "upgrades" they would need a separate set of agreements with the publishers for this. This is not an easy thing; publishers already have a love-hate relationship with Amazon, and they are unlikely to give Amazon additional concessions when they won't see profit from it either.

- There would be little profit in it for them, therefore the have little to no incentive to do so.

None of this concerns morals, none of it has to do with p2p file sharing, none of it has to do with the customer's possession of the original book. They have no financial incentive, and they are a commercial company driven by financial gain, as are the publishers.

If I'm going to push Amazon for anything, I'm going to push them to adopt ePub. Regardless of any problems it may have, it's a vendor agnostic format that publishers, book vendors and device makers widely support. For myself, that's a much more constructive use of my time.

- Ed

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by kennyc

A couple of points here.
1. You are free to do whatever you want with your copy of any media as long as it's for personal use. That has been established.

Established by whom, or for whom? SpiderMatt is in Japan. I am in England. Where I live, believe it or not, format shifting and ripping a DVD that you've perfectly legally bought to your own iPod are illegal activities (although nobody is ever prosecuted for them). It's as well to remember that MR is a world-wide site, and that what may be true in one country is not necessarily true in another.

If you want to say "In the United States, you are free to do whatever you want..." that may perhaps be true .

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by edembowski

.....
If I'm going to push Amazon for anything, I'm going to push them to adopt ePub. Regardless of any problems it may have, it's a vendor agnostic format that publishers, book vendors and device makers widely support. For myself, that's a much more constructive use of my time.

- Ed

Yes!

.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Established by whom, or for whom? SpiderMatt is in Japan. I am in England. Where I live, believe it or not, format shifting and ripping a DVD that you've perfectly legally bought to your own iPod are illegal activities (although nobody is ever prosecuted for them). It's as well to remember that MR is a world-wide site, and that what may be true in one country is not necessarily true in another.

If you want to say "In the United States, you are free to do whatever you want..." that may perhaps be true .

Well true, but we all speak from our perspectives, eh? And this is the agreed upon terms of copyright that a good majority of the world adheres to.

[HarryT]

Actually, the US has rather strange copyright laws that are completely out of step with the rest of the world. That's why so many books are still in copyright in the United States, that are in the public domain elsewhere (and a few the other way, to be fair) .

[kennyc]

The U.S. is signatory to the same Geneva Copyright as the other countries that abide by it. If you are aware of differences, please point out the specific differences.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Univer...8Geneva_Act%29

http://www.wipo.int/edocs/notdocs/en...y_nice_35.html

also:

http://www.wipo.int/edocs/notdocs/en...aty_wct_2.html

[HarryT]

It is indeed, but unfortunately that's the way it is for the future, and doesn't affect the "historical" situation for existing works. Most other countries have had "life + x" copyright laws for decades, but the US has gone through all sorts of different copyright laws during the 20th century, which has left things in a real mess. Some things are in copyright, others aren't according to whether their copyright was "renewed" or not. In most countries, you can tell whether a work is in copyright or not simply by checking when the author died. In the US, you have to do searches to establish whether or not a copyright was renewed, which makes things very, very complicated.

The US now has pretty much the same copyright laws as everyone else, but those won't actually affect anything until the 2040s. In the mean time, the situation is complex and messy.