"eBook versions of owned paper books" Popular Front

[neilmarr]

Amazon really is a frightening place, Harry ... a pity it's just so darned well organised and convenient. No question that there's not a general bookstore on the net to touch 'em yet. But monopolies are hungry beasts; never satisfied. Amazon is now a book store, a general store, a manufacturer, a printer, a publisher and a censor. It's all very Orwellian. Hoots. Neil

[macminer]

Originally Posted by Morlac

No call for insults.

I argue the following with the full understanding that none of this even applies to the argument at hand -- which deals with copyright and digital copying, not the movement of physical items.



You feel that way because your son has a relationship with you. Say that a stranger off the street found an unaccountable urge for a dictionary (perhaps he was stuck on a hard crossword puzzle?) and walked into your home to use your dictionary. Would you feel the same way?

Or perhaps you feel that way because a dictionary has low intrinsic value. Say that your son took your laptop instead. Still feel the same way?

Or perhaps the factor is that your son lives with you. Say that he took it with him as he was moving to Australia to go to university. He'll be back eventually, he's just borrowing it, right?




No, it does not necessarily mean that it "must include" those characteristics. I'd wager that many thieves justify their theft with the notion that they are only borrowing and fully intend to return the item/money/whatsit ... someday. A car thief probably does not have that intention. Someone who embezzles money from their employer or takes things from family and friends to pawn to support a drug/gambling habit certainly might fully intend to return it someday. Shall all theft cases await (a) the death of the owner, or (b) the destruction of the item, or (c) the end of time, so that we may best judge whether the owner has been "permanently deprived" of their property?




There are almost always exceptions in the law. That doesn't mean that the law itself is invalid or that simplified statements of the law are valueless.

Your first case concerns lost or abandoned property in a public place. Say I leave my book on my front lawn (say it's in a plastic bag so weather isn't an immediate concern). It's not "abandoned" -- it's on my property. It may be lost, but again, it's on my property. You have no right to come onto my property and help yourself to the book.

The second is not so much a matter of the act not being considered theft as the authorities and/or the owner choosing not to prosecute. There's a difference.




I'm not quite sure what the evidentiary value of your anecdote is meant to be. Clearly you were unhappy and upset when your property was taken from you. Clearly the police did not give you the kind of action you expected or wanted in response to the theft. Would it be better if the thief intended to mail your camera back to you in six months after he'd had an opportunity to take some pictures that would win him a contest prize that would allow him to pay for the operation that might save his second cousin's life?

1. It is enough to give one proof that falsifies the thesis to show that it is invalid. Since there are quite a few instances when taking something away without permission is not theft, it cannot be argued that taking something away equals theft.

2. As for insults: I have written that I cannot believe that people are so brainless. In the next paragraph I elaborated on that, saying that when emotions come to the fore, reasoning suffers.

3. The argument that someone related to me cannot steal from me is simply not valid, as well as the argument that someone unrelated to me always steals whenever he takes things away from me without my consent. Once more, an example to the contrary: if my son takes a bank note from my wallet and spends it on a candy, he has certainly stolen that money.
As I have said, there are multiple situations when one can take the property of another person without being accused of theft and any student of law will know this, so I don't think I have to elaborate on that.

4. The anecdote was just dark irony, not an argument. It was meant to show that in real life philosophical arguments do not matter very much.

5. As for legal terms concerning lost/abandoned property or using someone's property without their consent, they can differ. In my country (Poland) these cases do not fall into the category of theft. Actually, our Penal Code has a separate category for theft (par. 278), appropriation (par. 284), temporary taking someones car (par. 289) and still some other crimes against property. Copyright infringement certainly does not belong to any of these categories.

6. As for thiefs' statement that they only wanted to borrow the appropriated property, they might be lying or they might be saying the truth. If they say the truth and can prove it (for example, they left a note to the owner), they certainly won't be prosecuted for theft.

7. Finally, if the thief that had stolen my camera returned it to me after 6 months, with the pictures I took in Rome intact, I would not consider it theft but appropriation. If indeed the camera was needed for a life-saving purpose and this was the only way s/he could get it, I wouldn't bear a grudge against him (unless his act of appropriation meant I couldn't use the camera for a similar noble purpose).

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Morlac

You feel that way because your son has a relationship with you. Say that a stranger off the street found an unaccountable urge for a dictionary (perhaps he was stuck on a hard crossword puzzle?) and walked into your home to use your dictionary. Would you feel the same way?

"Feel the same way"--inasmuch as "not believe it was theft," yes. Not in the sense of "have the same emotional reaction. A stranger who walked into my home without permission to use my dictionary may be guilty of breaking & entering, tresspassing, or other crimes--but not "theft."

No, it does not necessarily mean that it "must include" those characteristics. I'd wager that many thieves justify their theft with the notion that they are only borrowing and fully intend to return the item/money/whatsit ... someday. A car thief probably does not have that intention. Someone who embezzles money from their employer or takes things from family and friends to pawn to support a drug/gambling habit certainly might fully intend to return it someday. Shall all theft cases await (a) the death of the owner, or (b) the destruction of the item, or (c) the end of time, so that we may best judge whether the owner has been "permanently deprived" of their property?

"Intent to deprive the owner" doesn't mean "without intent to return." The intent is to take it away from the owner now, or it's not theft.

If, however, a company accidentally put the contents of their sales account budget into an individual salesperson's bank account, and he spent it, that is not "embezzlement," nor is it "theft." He took money that was not his--but without intent to deprive the rightful owner of it; he did not realize he was not the rightful owner of the money. (Perhaps he thought the bank had recalculated his loan payments and was correcting a previous error.)

If a person enters a parking lot, puts a key into a car, and drives off with it--not realizing the car next to his was the same make & model, and used the same key--again, not theft. (This has happened.)

Taking a book left on a park bench is not theft; the assumption is that the original owner has no more legal claim to it, or at least, no ability/intention to recover it. (Taking a dollar left found on a park bench follows the same rule. Is it "theft" to pick up spare change found on the ground?)

There are plenty of crimes that involve appropriation or use of someone else's property, but are not "theft." Pouring glue in the keyholes to someone's car prevents use of the car, but isn't theft; rearranging the books in a library by size & color instead of numerical listing, and hiding some in boxes on top of the shelves, is not "theft." Likewise, opening a rival bookstore next to another bookstore, offering more titles, longer hours, and more pleasant staff, is not "theft" of their business.

And creating an unauthorized copy is not "theft," because the original is still fully usable by the original owner. It can be "prevention of payment"--but that's not inherently a crime; authors are allowed to give away freebies, and there are plenty of legal ways to keep people from getting paid for their work. (If nobody buys the book, the publisher doesn't get paid for what they invested. If a nasty review convinces people the book isn't worth buying, they don't pay for the book.)

"Not paying" is not theft. "Copying" is not theft. "Copying and not paying," while sometimes illegal (fair use & CC licenses are among the reasons why not), and sometimes a crime (not the same as "illegal"), is also not "theft."

[doreenjoy]

Originally Posted by K-Thom

Also your assumption of simply isn't correct. While most publishers wholeheartedly accept the DRM on their titles, it's Amazon's technology and Amazon's business decision to implement DRM.

This is absolutely true, and I have a contract between Amazon and my publishing company to prove it.

And no, I'm not going to share it here.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by doreenjoy

This is absolutely true, and I have a contract between Amazon and my publishing company to prove it.

And no, I'm not going to share it here.

Are you able to share a relevant quote or two, or would that violate privacy agreements? (Or violate general good-business-sense of not revealing your contracts when you don't need to?)

[edembowski]

I've said before that I do not believe that Amazon will ever offer no cost/low cost "upgrades" for paper book owners to ebooks, mostly because

1/ no financial gain
2/ they are not the publisher, and do not own the rights to do this.

O'reilly is a publisher, and they do have an opportunity for financial gain.

When I got this book (The ScreenOS cookbook), the PDF was available after registering, and now they have an upgrade path to get this in all digital formats they provide (pdf, ePub and mobi) for $4.99.

- Ed

edit: If anyone here works with Juniper firewalls, I do highly recommend this book.

[jaxx6166]

I've actually been the sucker that buys multiple format/size books

In the past, the long long ago, before ebooks...I had bought hardcovers AND paperbacks of the same books. The paperbooks were just so darn convienant.

Now I'm having the same problem with ebooks, my paperback collection has started to shrink and my ebook collection grow. I still cant get over the not having the actual physical copy of the book for authors I like, or where I think they're pretty.

Ergo, I have just about every Weiss/Hickmann, Brooks, Koontz, and several others thrown all about my library and e-devices. I think it'd be a great feature to have and would probably buy a lot more hardcover books for myself if I had the option to get an ebook for free, or upgraded

Something like "complete my album" that itunes offers.

But then again, with Amazon's pricing right now books are already a steal.

I think Brandon Sanderson experimented with this when Warbreaker was released. I think he was offering an ebook thru Tor if you bought the hardcover. Some of our other author friends on this site have done similar things. You know who you are

[spaze]

I think some are asking just way to much. What the original poster is asking is just like "Because I have purchased the Indiana Jones saga on VHS tapes back in the 80s, Universal Studios should send me the Indiana Jones DVD package for free."

[braver]

The naysayers here remind me of the Soviet "kolkhozniki" -- the rather backward peasants collectivized by Stalin in the 1930s. They hated the middle-class "kulaks" more than anybody else, and their most desired state was complete sameness. Anybody "better off" was suspicious. All those nonsensical references to "so if I owned a VHS should I also get a Blu-ray" deserve the same response: back to the kolkhoz, comrade!

[HansTWN]

why always expect to get everything for free? If companies can't make any money, how do they pay their employees? How do people live, why do they work at all? Be serious, we all like a freebie and it might be great public relations for a publisher to give it to you, put -- how can you DEMAND it with a straight face?

[braver]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

why always expect to get everything for free? If companies can't make any money, how do they pay their employees? How do people live, why do they work at all? Be serious, we all like a freebie and it might be great public relations for a publisher to give it to you, put -- how can you DEMAND it with a straight face?

Anybody who didn't read the postings in the thread and jumps to type -- back to the kolkhoz, comrades, increase the milk and corn production!

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by braver

The naysayers here remind me of the Soviet "kolkhozniki" -- the rather backward peasants collectivized by Stalin in the 1930s. They hated the middle-class "kulaks" more than anybody else, and their most desired state was complete sameness. Anybody "better off" was suspicious. All those nonsensical references to "so if I owned a VHS should I also get a Blu-ray" deserve the same response: back to the kolkhoz, comrade!

Troll.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Troll.

Cheers,
PKFFW

Yep!



.

[macminer]

Originally Posted by braver

The naysayers here remind me of the Soviet "kolkhozniki" -- the rather backward peasants collectivized by Stalin in the 1930s. They hated the middle-class "kulaks" more than anybody else, and their most desired state was complete sameness. Anybody "better off" was suspicious. All those nonsensical references to "so if I owned a VHS should I also get a Blu-ray" deserve the same response: back to the kolkhoz, comrade!

Well, I actually come from a country (Poland) which had some "kolhoz" population, although minor compared to Soviet Union, and you may be closer to the mark than you think. The "kolhoz" mentality is appalling, as if the kolhoz people were a different human species - we actually call it "homo sovieticus". It includes two important features: 1) everyone who tries to be better off than the rest is indeed suspicious; 2) respect for any kind of property, be it private or collective, is tiny or non-existent. Together with this disrespect for property goes lack of respect for work - since their own labour is hardly worth anything, they treat all work likewise.

I guess you might say that both sides in this thread reflect a bit of that kolhoz mentality: the argument that you can't claim your right to something non-standard (in this case a cheaper e-book because you own a pbook) reflects the egalitarian attitude. But, on the other hand, the argument that you should be "given" an ebook because you own a pbook reflects lack of recognition of somebody's work - in this case the companies that create and manage the ebooks.

I believe there is some middle ground, so if neither argument is taken to the extreme, both can be valid. In my opinion, the customer should be able to ask for a reduction in price for an ebook if they have a proof of purchase for the pbook in any form (a receipt, CC statement, on-line purchase recorded in a database etc.)

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by macminer

In my opinion, the customer should be able to ask for a reduction in price for an ebook if they have a proof of purchase for the pbook in any form (a receipt, CC statement, on-line purchase recorded in a database etc.)

Do you also think that the customer should be able to ask for a reduction in the price of a paperback book if they've previously bought the hardback?