E-Book Piracy: The Publishing Industry's Next Epic Saga?

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I'm trying to stand up more for the rights of the creator of works that make all this possible. (and yes unfortunately the publishers are in the middle of it).

The creator does not have the right to prevent loaning or resale. They don't have the right to prevent fair-use copying, either. (I'm not claiming that torrenting is fair-use copying; I'm pointing out that some DRM inhibits fair use copying as well as illegal copying.)

The creator has the right to restrict copies--but that right has always been limited by the resources of the people willing to make unauthorized copies. Before the digital age, there was no inspector checking every box of books shipped to a store, confirming that the publisher had the right to copy those books, nor did an inspector visit consumer's homes to confirm that they weren't writing out those books by hand and sending unauthorized copies to friends. It was *always* possible to get a "free" copy by convincing someone to do the copying.

Copying got cheaper. That doesn't change the nature of the laws involved. Doesn't change what rights the creators have. It may change how they can enforce those rights, but doesn't change what they are.

There is no reason that, in order to enforce those rights, the public should allow them to claim *new* rights--preventing loaning and resale of creative content.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by kennyc

My point with the board of directors thing is that they would be the only body that would actually know if they were implementing certain business practices for a particular reason (such as to deprive the consumer of rights).

Which neither of us know, so I don't see the point. We both have opinions, neither are invalid. I may believe your opinion is naive, but I certainly respect your right to have your own opinion. Stating my opinion is wrong because I don't really know, and then stating the opposite is true would certainly imply that you DO know. Otherwise it's just hypocritical.

As I see it you are advocating only from the consumer point of view

You say that like it's a bad thing. Most of the time, the people with the power to make a difference are not advocating from the consumer point of view.

I'm trying to stand up more for the rights of the creator of works that make all this possible. (and yes unfortunately the publishers are in the middle of it).

Keeping existing consumer rights in place does not harm the creator's rights.

As I said before, copyright law is what protects the creator, not DRM. DRM is in place to protect the middlemen. Whether you believe it's intentional or not, it is certainly interesting that the DRM which the middlemen create to protect their rights also takes away rights from the consumers. It becomes very suspicious when there is no inherent reason that it must do so.

I'm certainly not against creator's rights. But I'm definitely against the industry using DRM as another method to grab more power for themselves.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by kennyc

The B&N/Adobe social drm is the closest thing as I see it to what you are wanting, but it does not fully duplicate the "rights" one has with paper book.

Why do you keep calling it "social" DRM?

It does duplicate those rights, up until the point that it only allows you to do so one time. That is a simple software limitation that should be easy to remove, if they wanted to do so.

It would have to allow for removing that book from a purchasers authorizations on both the that persons computer and at the seller on an individual book basis which means keeping track at a central site of all ebook sales for that type of drm.

The B&N/Adobe DRM already does that. When you lend the eBook to someone else, you do not have access to it.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by kennyc

But the technology is significantly complex (see my post above) as I see it you would have to have a system that tracks all ebook sales. A significantly more invasive DRM than we currently have.

DRM already tracks eBooks sales. Everytime you buy/download an eBook you have an individual file that can only be unlocked by an individual key. How else do you think they do that without managing it by individual sale?

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

For how long? A couple of centuries and the cannons came sailing in and took over, like it or lump it....

And there be pirates on thar water, yes.

(Several other meanings of what I said, but that's just be being too cute for my own good)

And Kenny, that this is "copyright". In music, artists are doing just fine under the current system. It's not so good for the record companies, but copyright is not there for the companies.

What "different" needs to be done? How are you going to "protect" artists rights, given they seem to be doing just fine? It sounds very much like you want to push back invasive forms of DRM onto all digital media, which will just crash sales in favour of the darknet.

The market has reacted strongly against consumer DRM. This is no coincidence, and once more it does nothing for the economic value of an artist's works or his Moral Rights.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

DRM already tracks eBooks sales. Everytime you buy/download an eBook you have an individual file that can only be unlocked by an individual key. How else do you think they do that without managing it by individual sale?

AH, but to manage it globally such that a product can be sold to another consumer does not exist. To sell the book would require reassigning it via the registration to the the new owner and assuring that it was removed/deactivated for the current owner and updating the seller as well to remove the ability to re-download. It currently does nothing like that. It simply validates the consumer account and encodes the sell using the key it has and all is done with that sale as far at the drm provider is concerned.

But to really get to the core of what you are asserting. Regardless of being on the board or not, why would a publisher want to specifically prevent you from sharing a book? You are claiming that they are intentionally taking that right away from the consumer. Why, what purpose of the publisher would that server, what benefit or monetary gain is to be made from it?

[kjk]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Regardless of being on the board or not, why would a publisher want to specifically prevent you from sharing a book? You are claiming that they are intentionally taking that right away from the consumer. Why, what purpose of the publisher would that server, what benefit or monetary gain is to be made from it?

What monetary gain? Are you serious? If you can't share a book, they have to buy their own copy. Which means two copies sold instead of one. If they can close down the used-book market, it means more sales and more monetary gain as well.

Look, I understand you are trying to be fair to everyone here, but try not to bend the devils advocate position so far that you poke yourself

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

The creator does not have the right to prevent loaning or resale. They don't have the right to prevent fair-use copying, either. (I'm not claiming that torrenting is fair-use copying; I'm pointing out that some DRM inhibits fair use copying as well as illegal copying.)
...
Copying got cheaper. That doesn't change the nature of the laws involved.
...

There is no reason that, in order to enforce those rights, the public should allow them to claim *new* rights--preventing loaning and resale of creative content.

This is true. Currently copyright law does not address resale of products.

True, because copies can be made easily that does not change the law, but changes in technology often result in changes to the law. That could very well be the ultimate result. I don't know. Any change technological or otherwise ofter result in changes to laws to continue to enforce the intent of that law. Copyright law itself has changed many times (good and bad) due to changes in society, technology, etc.

As I said the industry is in flux due to the change in format/technology. The laws have not changed, the publishers have chosen the current method (DRM) in an attempt to protect the author's rights in the current environment. The is no reason to assume that rights associated with one form or format apply equally to another form. The formats are inherently different and must be managed differently. You can travel across town by Bus, Car or Bicycle they all result in the same goal to travel across town but the rights and laws applicable to each one is different.

[DawnFalcon]

Of course copyright law does.

First sales Doctrine / Exhaustion of Rights.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Regardless of being on the board or not, why would a publisher want to specifically prevent you from sharing a book? You are claiming that they are intentionally taking that right away from the consumer. Why, what purpose of the publisher would that server, what benefit or monetary gain is to be made from it?

They already do this. B&N's sharing software allows sharing of an ebook, one time, up to two weeks--and many publishers have opted to *not allow* this function to work with their books.

Presumably, they think they will sell more books if their customers can't share the ones they have.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

They already do this. B&N's sharing software allows sharing of an ebook, one time, up to two weeks--and many publishers have opted to *not allow* this function to work with their books.

Presumably, they think they will sell more books if their customers can't share the ones they have.

Okay, but why? What's the reasoning. Still that's almost the opposite of the issue under discussion. Shaggy is claiming that across the board the publishers are specifically conspiring to take this right away from consumers with the current DRM. Clearly if some are allowing it for the limited sharing of B&N then some clearly appear to be open to it.

My question is not whether they are or are not doing it (clearly some are based on your information) but what would be the benefit to them to specifically limit this right to share or sell books in the same manner as pbooks? I can't see any. If you can please point it out. I refuse to believe that they would just do it for malice, corporations don't do that, the are driven by the bottom line.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by kennyc

My question is not whether they are or are not doing it (clearly some are based on your information) but what would be the benefit to them to specifically limit this right to share or sell books in the same manner as pbooks? I can't see any. If you can please point it out. I refuse to believe that they would just do it for malice, corporations don't do that, the are driven by the bottom line.

And my question is, why aren't they all allowing it? Why do they think it's reasonable to limit how ebooks can be loaned, now that the tech makes it possible? Why did B&N set the "loaning" to one time, two weeks, instead of "as long as you like" and "as many times as you like?"

Adobe can authorize a new device, and un-authorize an old one--why can't their servers shift DRM ownership of a particular ebook to a new device, instead of an entire account at once? Why didn't publishers insist on *that* programming, instead of a new DRM method only usable on a few readers?

They're not doing it for "malice." They're doing it for *greed*--they don't want to allow a secondhand market for ebooks, neither free or sold. They have the technology to make it difficult to hand off an ebook to a friend when you're done, so they implement that, regardless of the consumer's right to resell what they've bought.

Publishers have convinced themselves that it's wrong to transfer ownership of ebooks, that an ebook is not like a physical book, but more like a single-person license to access content. Every action they take supports this claim. However, US legal rulings disagree; their economic model treats ebooks as sales, therefore they are legally sales.

[Bob T]

Originally Posted by kennyc

My question is not whether they are or are not doing it (clearly some are based on your information) but what would be the benefit to them to specifically limit this right to share or sell books in the same manner as pbooks? I can't see any. If you can please point it out. I refuse to believe that they would just do it for malice, corporations don't do that, the are driven by the bottom line.

You answered your own question..."the are driven by the bottom line."

That's why they are doing it...greed, money, sales figures, stock prices....
If you can't borrow a book, you have to buy it...or steal it...
They are hoping you'll buy it if they make borrowing it difficult enough...but I think they are making an error in judgment...

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

....

Adobe can authorize a new device, and un-authorize an old one--why can't their servers shift DRM ownership of a particular ebook to a new device, instead of an entire account at once? Why didn't publishers insist on *that* programming, instead of a new DRM method only usable on a few readers?

They're not doing it for "malice." They're doing it for *greed*--they don't want to allow a secondhand market for ebooks, neither free or sold. They have the technology to make it difficult to hand off an ebook to a friend when you're done, so they implement that, regardless of the consumer's right to resell what they've bought.

...

#1 because Adobe does not track on a single book/purchase basis. They only authorize the sale and the seller and consumer tracks the purchase. To allow single ebook ownership would require a centralized system to track every ebook in order to fully implement it and insure that it was being managed properly.

#2 perhaps that is the reasoning they are thinking it is a lost sale and they would actually sell another copy. That may or may be true, but I'll agree it could be the reasoning wrt selling a book but loaning a book should still be of no concern to them other that it would have the potential to sell additional books so you would think that would be pushing for it. (B&N apparently did).

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Bob T

You answered your own question..."the are driven by the bottom line."

That's why they are doing it...greed, money, sales figures, stock prices....
If you can't borrow a book, you have to buy it...or steal it...
They are hoping you'll buy it if they make borrowing it difficult enough...but I think they are making an error in judgment...

Maybe so. They may see it as a lost sale.

All DRM and restrictions do for me is piss me off. I think they will learn that just like the music industry did and we'll end up in the same place (unfortunately).