Looking for info on selling 'used' ebooks

[JD Gumby]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

I know, I'm not an idiot. The point is that it can never ever be checked if I *did* keep a copy for myself. That's the reason why selling software and ebooks is impossible in most countries.

*shrug* And it can't be determined (without a massive violation of rights, anyways) that I haven't scanned or photocopied or transcribed a copy for myself when I resell a physical book.

Some things you have to take on trust - and most people will be honest enough to delete it, same as most people won't take the very simple step of running books they borrow from the library (Adobe Digital Editions, for example, doesn't delete the files from your Start -> Documents -> My Digital Editions directory when you return them or delete them from the program's library) through a DRM remover so they can keep using them after they are no longer authorized to do so.

[pidgeon92]

Originally Posted by JD Gumby

*shrug* And it can't be determined (without a massive violation of rights, anyways) that I haven't scanned or photocopied or transcribed a copy for myself when I resell a physical book.

Maybe not, but all three of these methods require work, work that would probably cost as much as the book in terms of hours spent. Stripping the DRM off of my ebooks takes no effort at all on my part, and any copies are indistinguishable from the original.

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

The point is that it can never ever be checked if I *did* keep a copy for myself.

This is an argument used by collectors of child pornography-yet they do get caught. Often it's by tracking the purchase/downloading of something illegal-but other times it's simply 'run across' by somebody checking their hard drive. Often a tech. I'll grant that a tech would have no way of knowing whether or not you'd already sold the books found still on your drive-but it'd be enough to raise suspicions & possibly get a warrant to seize your computer.

Personally I'm concerned about what's right & what's wrong-not about whether or not I can be caught. I guarantee that no matter who thinks "it's impossible to catch me" it's not-anybody can be caught although not everybody is. You can go with the odds (possibly 90% of US taxpayers get away with cheating on their income tax) or you can avoid the risk. (If you get audited you pay more-in time, worry, preparation, inconvenience-than you probably save in 10 years of cheating. And if you've been cheating then you'll pay even more. Finding a single instance causes the auditors to dig deeper-imagine being required to come up with receipts from 10 years ago!)

For now I'm going to see what happens with the case against ReDigi assuming it's appealed. The court's reasoning seems fatally flawed but that's JMO-an appellate judge (or higher) might believe otherwise. The kindest interpretation of the judge's decision is that he's hiding his real reason which might be the impossibility of ensuring, on a grand scale, that people aren't cheating. I've seen other lower court decisions based on this type of reasoning & all (that I know of) have been overturned on appeal. That's why lower courts are now coming up with 'excuses' to hide the real reason for their decision.

Difficulty of administering this is a problem-that can be solved by auditing the sellers' computers. Publishers (whether music or books) don't like this approach because legally they need to get a warrant. They'd much rather base their 'warrant' on something that's public such as the (re)sale. I can understand their desires-I simply don't see why the legal system should bow to them.

[HarryT]

The court's reasoning doesn't seem at all "flawed" to me. The judge ruled, if memory serves me correctly, that resale of digital goods necessarily involves making a copy, and that the act of making a copy, if done without the permission of the copyright holder, constitutes copyright infringement, and that this remains the case regardless of whether or not the previous owner deletes their copy. That's perfectly true.

What evidence do you have to support your belief that this is not the Judge's "real" reason for his verdict?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The court's reasoning doesn't seem at all "flawed" to me. The judge ruled, if memory serves me correctly, that resale of digital goods necessarily involves making a copy, and that the act of making a copy, if done without the permission of the copyright holder, constitutes copyright infringement, and that this remains the case regardless of whether or not the previous owner deletes their copy. That's perfectly true.

What evidence do you have to support your belief that this is not the Judge's "real" reason for his verdict?

That could be the reason that's said for the ruling and it's possible the real reason is because the judge is in the pocket of the BPHs.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

This is an argument used by collectors of child pornography-yet they do get caught. Often it's by tracking the purchase/downloading of something illegal-but other times it's simply 'run across' by somebody checking their hard drive.

The key difference here is that child pornography is illegal to possess; a copy of Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban is not. A copy of it on one's hard drive is not direct evidence of illegal activity. HP:POA is illegal to copy without permission (except where fair use applies), but there is no way to know just from looking at it whether a particular digital copy was legitimately acquired.

For now I'm going to see what happens with the case against ReDigi assuming it's appealed. The court's reasoning seems fatally flawed but that's JMO-an appellate judge (or higher) might believe otherwise. The kindest interpretation of the judge's decision is that he's hiding his real reason which might be the impossibility of ensuring, on a grand scale, that people aren't cheating.

Another interpretation is that, like many judges, his income level is such that he doesn't purchase used goods, and is oblivious to the amount of harm it does to the economy to remove them from the marketplace--and that he's unaware of how much copying is involved in the modern business world. He's relying on a basic interpretation of copyright law: Unauthorized copy = illegal, without considering that all computers do is make copies and process them.

By a simple "unauthorized copies are illegal" interpretation, I could create a website on my own servers, and say "I don't allow anyone running a PC instead of a Mac to copy my words; anyone who visits my website from a PC is guilty of copyright infringement." I could set up a PC-Accessible version of my website and put a $50/month subscription fee on it. Then I could track some site visit numbers, and start handing out lawsuits. I wouldn't even have to give notice on the website itself--technically, one is supposed to get permission before making a copy, and the fact that "everyone else allows this kind of copying" is irrelevant.

Of course that's ridiculous. But that's the kind of ridiculous that comes from not acknowledging that the meaning and purpose of "copies" have changed, and copyright law needs to be adapted to the reality of computers and the internet.

Difficulty of administering this is a problem-that can be solved by auditing the sellers' computers. Publishers (whether music or books) don't like this approach because legally they need to get a warrant. They'd much rather base their 'warrant' on something that's public such as the (re)sale. I can understand their desires-I simply don't see why the legal system should bow to them.

It's not the warrant they object to (although that's part of it) but the concept that resale is legal. They've been trying to get rid of the first sale doctrine for a hundred years, and keep looking for new ways to evade it, to require that only the first buyer gets access to the content.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

By a simple "unauthorized copies are illegal" interpretation, I could create a website on my own servers, and say "I don't allow anyone running a PC instead of a Mac to copy my words; anyone who visits my website from a PC is guilty of copyright infringement." I could set up a PC-Accessible version of my website and put a $50/month subscription fee on it. Then I could track some site visit numbers, and start handing out lawsuits. I wouldn't even have to give notice on the website itself--technically, one is supposed to get permission before making a copy, and the fact that "everyone else allows this kind of copying" is irrelevant.

Of course that's ridiculous. But that's the kind of ridiculous that comes from not acknowledging that the meaning and purpose of "copies" have changed, and copyright law needs to be adapted to the reality of computers and the internet.

At least in Europe, it has been.
Transient copies created as an essential part of the process of using the item are excluded, as is (through complicated wording) caching of data to speed up browsing, which would also otherwise be illegal.
Providing that you have legal access to the content being browsed, the acts of copying required to actually deliver the content to you are not infringing.

Originally Posted by JSWolf

That could be the reason that's said for the ruling and it's possible the real reason is because the judge is in the pocket of the BPHs.

You don't need conspiracy theories in this case. Computers and copyright law are fundamentally incompatible because copies are explicitly made in the use of digital media. Some situations can be dealt with through licensing since it is enforceable, such as downloading a file from the vendor's server onto disk or copying a file from disk into memory. These are enforceable because transaction records may be kept, may that be the vendor's server logs or the vendor's reading software. If a copy of the data doesn't have a transaction record that compiles with the license, it is likely in violation of the license.

Other cases cases are harder to deal with through licensing since they are difficult to enforce. A vendor may permit the resale or transfer of the media through their own servers because they are maintaining the transaction history. (Problem is that they don't want to do this because it is not in their interests.) An individual could do the same, but you run into the issue of verifying the authenticity of that transaction, either because the logs are easy to forge or no record is kept. In other words, it is not possible to verify whether a transferred copy is in compliance with copyright law.

ReDigi is an interesting case because they were handling that sort of thing. Yet it does raise the question: how do you determine who is permitted to transfer media? The simple answer is that you leave it up to the vendor or trade organization, which raises the problem where they don't want to do it because it is not in their interest. The other option is for the government to license bodies. That runs into a brick wall because people either don't care about such issues or because people are opposed to government sticking their fingers into things (and many of those people are the very same ones who want to see the resale of digital goods).

So we end up back where we started: you can't resell purely digital goods.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

So we end up back where we started: you can't resell purely digital goods.

... without an effective DRM system. With such a system, it is entirely possible.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

This is an argument used by collectors of child pornography-yet they do get caught. Often it's by tracking the purchase/downloading of something illegal-but other times it's simply 'run across' by somebody checking their hard drive. Often a tech. I'll grant that a tech would have no way of knowing whether or not you'd already sold the books found still on your drive-but it'd be enough to raise suspicions & possibly get a warrant to seize your computer.

1st. A tech has no business checking the files on your hard drive when repairing a computer. There is no need than going any further than the BIOS to see if a hard drive works, and no need to do anything besides booting the computer to the desktop.
2nd. If I need to bring my computer in to have it repaired (which will normally only happen with a notebook, as I build my workstations myself), then it'll go in with a completely formatted hard drive. If need be, I'll take the drive out of the computer and wipe it using another.
3rd. Even if he does and finds books there, he can't know if you actually bought them, so informing authorities would be done purely on a hunch. Most techs wouldn't even do it. They might with stuff such as child pornography.