The 'ebooks are not transferable' issue...

[ErwinOtten]

Originally Posted by rcuadro

Ahmen brother! I do the same with my sister.

You do the same thing with your sister as shighfield does with his wife ??

Oeh, that's BAD

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by shighfield

My wife and I read the same books all the time be it paperback or ebook. While we're breaking the law I don't care. There's no difference between what we do with ebooks and what we did with paper books.

Actually, maybe not.

A marriage forms a corporate entity. I do not know that the publishing industry has ever been able to show that the two of you are seperate persons legally for the purpose of reading a book purchased with your families money under color of law.

Until this is tried in court I take a very jaundiced view about whether there is any chance whatsoever that you are breaking a legitimate agreement.

[ficbot]

This is obviously a good example of why e-book contracts are overdue for review and rewriting

This is exactly my point

[dadioflex]

Edit.

[iterati]

The situation is similar to digital music distribution. Many owners of DRM enabled music found that their new devices/toys won’t play said music and next they started issuing complaints to shops. Therefore, thanks to cell phones and all the gadgets and maybe to piracy the distributors of digital music had no other options but offer DRM-free music (Amazon advertises that major). Eventually, the same will occur with e-books too, EXCEPT if a device/company owns 90% or more of the market and that won’t happen (already mobile phones and PDAs are good enough e-book readers).

Because regardless the signed contracts or the small letters, I find it creepy not able to use something I bought 5 years ago.

[JSWolf]

I do share eBooks with my wife and mother-in-law. I don't have any issues with doing so. It's no different then sharing pBooks as far as I am concerned. The only difference is that we can be reading the same book at the same time.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by dadioflex

Or, to rephrase what you said, you shouldn't necessarily expect the rules to be different either, so by that reasoning the rules on buying and selling second hand ebooks are too far in favour of the vendors and not far enough yet in favour of the customer.

That may be... but again, since no one is forced to buy, I wouldn't say the rules favor the vendors overly. After all, they have to keep you from walking away.

The laws concerning second-hand physical books clearly favor the customer: You can freely and legally trade or resell the books you've bought, fifty seconds or fifty years after the sale, and the writers and publishers never see another dime from transactions beyond the first sale. Obviously, publishers hate this, but do not have the resources to fight it (though it could be said that the slow elimination of used bookstores by the big box bookstores is a way to limit second-sale opportunities, and win the battle in the long run).

The laws in the case of most electronic media clearly favor the vendors: They have control, through DRM, in whether or not your ability use access their software is transferable to others after the initial sale. That, in itself, isn't a bad thing... but if consumers feel they are being taken unfair advantage of, they will fight the system until they feel satisfied they are getting a fair deal.

E-books are something between software apps and physical entertainment products: They may be delivered by software, but the content is created and owned independently of the software delivery method, and IMO, should be able to be legally divorced from the delivery method once the consumer has purchased it.

This is why I say e-books and other digital publications need their own laws to govern their use and better define fair consumer options... because at the moment, they are being improperly defined by other products to which they share only a superficial resemblance.

This is important: New laws specific to electronic publications may not mean the consumer will ultimately be free to do whatever they want... but as I said, if future laws are perceived as fair to both sides, consumers will be satisfied with a limited set of rights to the product, vendors will be satisfied they are being properly protected from loss, and (most) everybody will be happy.

[TallMomof2]

I only purchase DRM free music or rip my own CDs. The files are put on my file server for use within my immediate household. The kids know not to give copies of the music to their friends simply because that would be depriving the artist of earnings. I would have no problem with ebooks (obviously the ones without DRM) to share them amongst my immediate family. I would consider passing an ebook on to further flung family only if I deleted the file from my server/PCs/devices.

I know more than a few people who will not adopt ebooks because currently they lose the right of resale.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

If the issue here is whether or not it is okay to ignore and violate the contract you agreed to when purchasing the books... well, legally and morally, no. When you agree to abide by a selling contract, that's it. There's no going back and unilaterally changing your mind, and claiming the contract is no longer valid just because your situation (or just your state of mind) has changed

Yes, but some part of the contract might not be legally binding. I ignore all shrink wrap conditions since they are not legal for example. So for example if first sale gives you certain rights then you have these right and what the contract say does not matter.

[ficbot]

Steve, I disagree with you that the 'contract' you agree to when you buy is the final word. Things change and advances/difficulties crop up which cannot always be anticipated. Take cigarettes, for example. People bought/used them not knowing what they were really about. Are they now not allowed to sue because of what happened? Of course not. And many of them have gone to court and won. I realize ebooks are not quite the same thing, but the principle of 'you bought it, the end' is still relevant here. The courts have already proven that this is not the last word.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by tompe

Yes, but some part of the contract might not be legally binding.

Absolutely correct. Just because the vendor lists terms in a "contract/license" when you buy an eBook does not mean that they are enforceable.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Absolutely correct. Just because the vendor lists terms in a "contract/license" when you buy an eBook does not mean that they are enforceable.

Right, you can sign your rights away nor can a contract obligate you to something that is illegal. Any clauses in that agreement are voided automatically. So, if the first-sale doctrine applies to ebook (licenses) then it doesn't matter if the agreement says you can't sell/transfer it.

BOb

[Moejoe]

If all else fails, just get your cat or household pet to agree to any contracts, like this woman did with her cat. Surely these companies won't sue a cat, although the RIAA have sued children and the dead before, so anything is possible.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by ficbot

Steve, I disagree with you that the 'contract' you agree to when you buy is the final word. Things change and advances/difficulties crop up which cannot always be anticipated. Take cigarettes, for example. People bought/used them not knowing what they were really about. Are they now not allowed to sue because of what happened? Of course not. And many of them have gone to court and won. I realize ebooks are not quite the same thing, but the principle of 'you bought it, the end' is still relevant here. The courts have already proven that this is not the last word.

Although I understand what you are saying, the cigarette example isn't a good one. In that case, the cig manufacturers were purposely adding harmful addictive elements to their products and deliberately misleading the public that they were safe.

In the case of e-books, you know what you are buying, and you are told the stipulations of that sale. No court would overturn that unless the stipulations were intentionally concealed in order to convince you to buy.

Anyway, I don't want to argue the present legalities. I merely state that the laws as they stand should be amended to more accurately reflect the product in question, instead of being taken in whole cloth from another product type which is in fact not the same. The fact that there is so much legal ambiguity is a direct consequence of improperly applying laws from one product onto another inherently different product.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Clearly not, because you have agreed not to do this at the time that you bought the books. If these terms were not acceptable to you, you should not have bought the books in the first place.

Ah, but if only we all read EULAs every time we made a purchase....

There is a lot of stuff people put in agreements, even when fully aware that it's not enforceable. mobileread.com can put in their agreement, that if you ever quote a post from here on another forum, you agree, that they can take your house.

Sometimes common sense makes the best sense. If you buy a book, it is yours to use, or give away, that copy, as you see fit.

Electronic delivery, while hopefully reducing costs and thus the price charged of the end-user, should not change this basic premise.

Yeah, distribution is easier, but the printing press was just as big of a change.