am i allowed to give away a legally bought ebook?

[Marcy]

Originally Posted by taustin

Generally speaking, it seems like the bigger a name you are, the more you'll be hurt by piracy, if only because everybody knows who you are to begin with. It's been a long, long time since Stephen King got any new fans because somebody passed on a bootleg copy of one of his books to a friend. But a relative unknown is far more likely to find new fans that way than, perhaps, through any advertising their publisher does.

I suspect there's no One True Way to approach the issue, and every author needs to figure out what's best for himself.

Eric Flint wrote an interesting series of essays on this very issue which I believe are available on the Baen's universe site.

He pretty much said what you said in the first paragraph above. If you're successful enough to be impacted by piracy, you're already raking in enough money that you shouldn't worry about it. Everybody else can only be helped by so-called piracy, because a mid-list or new author's biggest problem is someone discovering their books in the first place.

-Marcy

[Solicitous]

Originally Posted by Marcy

Eric Flint wrote an interesting series of essays on this very issue which I believe are available on the Baen's universe site.

That actually made me remember a question to ask I thought of some time ago. I understand places like Amazon and Kobo etc, they have T&C when paying for ebooks, but Baen I can't for the life of me see any T&C. Now being DRM free and with the number of Baen CDs they have on the net, what is the end result with buying from Baen? Do you own a copy of the ebook? Or like other publishers do you own a licence granting you unrestricted access (but not transferability of ownership)?? Can I legitimately buy a Baen ebook and give a copy to someone?

[Anke Wehner]

Regarding Baen...
You can give copies of anything on the Baen CDs to anyone you want, since it says so on the CDs.

With stuff in the Webscriptions shop, there's the copyright note... "All ebooks on this site are protected by copyright by their respective authors or assigns. This includes any free books that may be released for promotional purposes.

All rights are reserved, including the right to reproduce any book or portions thereof in any form."

So you shouldn't redistribute those free books, but link to the page where the book can be downloaded. (An author might decide they don't want to have the book distributed for free anymore, for example.)

On bought books, I'd say "should not be passed on".
Since you may not redistribute copies, and you will still have access to the book - Baen lets you redownload previous purchases - I don't think buying a book as a gift for someone else was in their plans. (e.g., I can't buy a second copy of an ebook I already bought.)

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Marcy

He pretty much said what you said in the first paragraph above.

He's one of the major sources of my information, in fact. Mr. Flint has his moments of, well, oddness (let's be polite), but he certainly know the business of writing and publishing.

[taustin]

Originally Posted by Anke Wehner

Regarding Baen...
You can give copies of anything on the Baen CDs to anyone you want, since it says so on the CDs.

And there are web sites where you can download every single one of them, which is allowed under the license printed on the CD.

[puddych]

you gave out money to buy this e book ..despite what any one says if I buy something I consider that I own it and can give it , lend it even destroy it...despite idiotic laws that constantly change (see copyright laws) to profit the money rakers rather than the buyers...sure give it away...

urs

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by puddych

you gave out money to buy this e book ..despite what any one says if I buy something I consider that I own it and can give it , lend it even destroy it...despite idiotic laws that constantly change (see copyright laws) to profit the money rakers rather than the buyers...sure give it away...

urs

The problem is not the lending it, but the making unauthorised copies of it. Nobody is going to object if you lend someone your ebook reader containing your one and only copy of the book; the problem occurs if you give someone a copy of the book - there are now two copies where there was formerly only one - ie you've created an unauthorised copy. That's the issue.

[Marseille]

Originally Posted by rwe

does the same apply to an ebook that i have legally bought, can i give this away without restrictions as well ?

There aren't many places that let you legally "buy" mass market ebooks. DRM, backed up by laws making it illegal to decrypt it, convert purchases into long term rentals. It isn't just that they've worked around the first sale doctrine, but also that when one generation of software and formats disappears, millions of dollars of old content is going to be (more legally than technically usually) trapped in obsolete formats. If you don't believe me, have a conversation with the portion of my music collection that is trapped in .rax (conversions so far have obliterated sound quality -- so an actual tech issue there).

MP3s mostly got freed because DRM had served its purpose for iTunes. Jobs didn't need DRM anymore because had already exploited it to get people to adopt his store and use it habitually, and so he was able to graciously remove the restrictions and now you can actually buy digital music. I had, before the iPad and the success of the Nook, hoped that Amazon would be on a similar path of reaching such success that they could afford to be gracious. But since the market is still anyone's game, DRM is going to be around for a while. Not to prevent piracy, but to help lasso and retain customers (and to get you to 'buy' the same content, over and over again).

Originally Posted by HarryT

The problem is not the lending it, but the making unauthorised copies of it. Nobody is going to object if you lend someone your ebook reader containing your one and only copy of the book;

And every other book you own. They will complain if you transfer your one and only copy to another person leaving no copy behind for yourself (so you aren't deprived of your reading hardware and entire library), because to do so typically requires removing DRM that ties the book to one account, which is illegal even without duplication. That isn't ownership.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by David Marseilles

MP3s mostly got freed because DRM had served its purpose for iTunes. Jobs didn't need DRM anymore because had already exploited it to get people to adopt his store and use it ...

This is untrue. It is very well known that Mr Jobs wanted the iTunes music store to be DRM-free from the outset; it was the record companies who insisted on DRM.

I don't understand what you mean when you say "MP3s mostly got freed...". The MP3 format does not, and never has, had DRM. What has it been freed from?

[Marseille]

Originally Posted by HarryT

This is untrue. It is very well known that Mr Jobs wanted the iTunes music store to be DRM-free from the outset; it was the record companies who insisted on DRM.

You're very trusting. At a minimum, regardless of any one individual's subjective desires, Apple benefited from DRM by locking more and more people into their ecosphere and then took the bars off the doors only once habit had taken the place of those technological restrictions.

I don't understand what you mean when you say "MP3s mostly got freed...". The MP3 format does not, and never has, had DRM. What has it been freed from?

They were freed from non-use by commercial retailers. Commercially purchasable MP3s were unleashed on the public because DRM'd formats had already served their purpose of restricting consumer choice.

[elcreative]

Never mind HarryT, you're arguing with someone who "knows" all about 'Evil Apple" so never lets the facts get in the way of rhetorical statements...

Originally Posted by HarryT

This is untrue. It is very well known that Mr Jobs wanted the iTunes music store to be DRM-free from the outset; it was the record companies who insisted on DRM.

I don't understand what you mean when you say "MP3s mostly got freed...". The MP3 format does not, and never has, had DRM. What has it been freed from?

[Marseille]

And evil and Amazon and evil Google and evil Microsoft. Companies aren't good or bad, they're profit-centered. Every company has used DRM in exactly the same way Apple did, albeit less successfully -- using the ruse of piracy to lock down paying consumers into their ecosystem. If you want to write off 20 years worth of patterns of DRM usage because you think I'm a fanboy or anti-fanboy.

Weirdly, you seem to have entirely missed the point that what Apple ultimately did was a positive market force that I had hoped Amazon would repeat before the ebook market got all splintered again. If you can't stomach one not entirely positive statement about Apple, that says more about what you "know", than it does about me.

[elcreative]

Weirdly, you seem to have missed a factual point... Apple didn't want DRM... this received wide coverage at the time on the 'net, in the press and TV news and documentaries... this was the point HarryT was making and I was agreeing with... your reply was hinting at conspiracies, "You're very trusting..." and anti-Apple in its import. I'd make similar statements about similar remarks concerning any business practice from any business where the facts were being ignored.

I wasn't ignoring any possible positive points, simply commenting on a single thing from you're statement and HarryT's.

Personally I think all DRM is a bad thing because it always interferes in a consumers' abilities to use a product but in many ways the internet generations have brought it on themselves by regarding everything as fair game for being acquired for nothing... I also believe that those who produce or aid in the production of any media, are entitled to be paid for their work.

Originally Posted by David Marseilles

And evil and Amazon and evil Google and evil Microsoft. Companies aren't good or bad, they're profit-centered. Every company has used DRM in exactly the same way Apple did, albeit less successfully -- using the ruse of piracy to lock down paying consumers into their ecosystem. If you want to write off 20 years worth of patterns of DRM usage because you think I'm a fanboy or anti-fanboy.

Weirdly, you seem to have entirely missed the point that what Apple ultimately did was a positive market force that I had hoped Amazon would repeat before the ebook market got all splintered again. If you can't stomach one not entirely positive statement about Apple, that says more about what you "know", than it does about me.

[Marseille]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Weirdly, you seem to have missed a factual point... Apple didn't want DRM... this received wide coverage at the time on the 'net, in the press and TV news and documentaries... this was the point HarryT was making and I was agreeing with... your reply was hinting at conspiracies, "You're very trusting..." and anti-Apple in its import. I'd make similar statements about similar remarks concerning any business practice from any business where the facts were being ignored.

That it was reported is a fact. That it was true is not. No conspiracy theory is needed to believe that a multibillion dollar corporation's communications in the course of negotiations with other multibillion dollar corporations included "spin". It would be incredible, in fact, to presume that something coming from any company of that size was the unfiltered, unabridged truth (or "fact"). To do so would ignore the fact that multinational corporations, like politicians, have talking points and PR campaigns aimed at bettering their market positions, negotiating positions and strengthening their brand. Communications are a means to achieve a goal and no more. If you take those campaigns at face-value, yes, I'm going to refer to you as "trusting". And although you assumed I meant that negatively, I actually find the trait admirable. I wouldn't want to be trusting myself, but it's nice to know someone is.

What's more, I did not ignore this claim. My statement to HarryT focused on the impact, on the results to Apple, rather than Apple's subjective intent. They benefited from DRM whether they desired its existence or not. When they led the way to freeing music from its grasp, they had already reaped the rewards that DRM offers to outlets.

So based on a single thing I didn't actually do, you condescendingly dismissed me and any thought I might have as being the result of some sort of weird vendetta. That's very thoughtful, classy and fair of you.

Never mind HarryT, you're arguing with someone who "knows" all about 'Evil Apple" so never lets the facts get in the way of rhetorical statements...

[elcreative]

OK so I am totally wrong... proof please... reliable source (preferably sources) to show that Apple wanted DRM... the data that they didn't want it came from more than one source and was not some "campaign"... you say all are liars, prove it, otherwise my casual dismissal of you seems completely justified and I was not being condescending just dismissive... also justified as witnessed by your classic dismissal of companies as incapable of the truth... they often are but not always.

I was not in fact disputing your statement, "They benefited from DRM whether they desired its existence or not." but that is not relevant to the comment that was being discussed as to whether Apple wanted DRM... separate subjects... Your concentration on what you think I was doing rather than what I was, is also, to quote you, "very thoughtful, classy and fair of you."

You can hopefully finish this pointless (by now) backwards and forwards for good or at least leave it until tomorrow as I think I'll get some sleep...

Originally Posted by David Marseilles

That it was reported is a fact. That it was true is not. No conspiracy theory is needed to believe that a multibillion dollar corporation's communications in the course of negotiations with other multibillion dollar corporations included "spin". It would be incredible, in fact, to presume that something coming from any company of that size was the unfiltered, unabridged truth (or "fact"). To do so would ignore the fact that multinational corporations, like politicians, have talking points and PR campaigns aimed at bettering their market positions, negotiating positions and strengthening their brand. Communications are a means to achieve a goal and no more. If you take those campaigns at face-value, yes, I'm going to refer to you as "trusting". And although you assumed I meant that negatively, I actually find the trait admirable. I wouldn't want to be trusting myself, but it's nice to know someone is.

What's more, I did not ignore this claim. My statement to HarryT focused on the impact, on the results to Apple, rather than Apple's subjective intent. They benefited from DRM whether they desired its existence or not. When they led the way to freeing music from its grasp, they had already reaped the rewards that DRM offers to outlets.

So based on a single thing I didn't actually do, you condescendingly dismissed me and any thought I might have as being the result of some sort of weird vendetta. That's very thoughtful, classy and fair of you.