Should free ebooks be free forever?

[Patricia]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

pdurrant and igorsk hit on the same point, which I think I'm onboard with. If they explicitly state it's not freely redistributable, that's one thing, and if they are nice enough to include the right creative commons license to redistribute, that's another. But what if they say neither?

Luckily this only applies to a few books I've collected over the years.

If a copyright-holder posts a book and doesn't mention any restrictions, then he still owns the copyright and you have to assume that the download is for personal use. A sensible author will say so explicitly. But silence doesn't mean that he has given up his rights.

[HarryT]

I agree with Patricia. The fact that you download it doesn't give you "redistribution rights" unless the author grants them to you. "Copyright" is exactly what it says - control of the right to copy.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

"Copyright" is exactly what it says - control of the right to copy.

I thought "Copyright" meant do a good job of duplicating it.

[Elsi]

Others have made the same point that I wanted to. And, it probably bears pointing out that when people are in a download frenzy, they are not likely to download the T&C information along with the book. Hours later, they would be hard-pressed to state what conditions were placed on the download. I do remember that Hal Spacejock is not to be placed on other servers, but that's because I've read the explanation several times. In my case, I just assume that books I download are for my personal use. Since I keep a record of where they were downloaded from, I can send that information instead.

[David J. Guyton]

Being an author myself, I would like to comment on this.

You guys are right, most (if not all) of the time, a free book is meant to gain readers, but free books are never meant for redistribution unless specifically stated by the copyright owner. If the author/publisher says nothing about redistribution, you should assume that it is not permitted. This is the same as getting a free single at a concert...it's free but still not legal to copy and redistribute.

Personally, I give out free copies of my book, but I do state that it is not for redistribution.

My main problem is that free distribution, when not done through Amazon, does nothing for my sales stats. Sales stats increase visibility and drive sales, but if you offer free books (not through Amazon) obviously they don't count towards your stats.

And often a reader will get a free book and not bother to read it or review it, which is bad for authors. I think when a reader pays for a book, they feel a certain level of obligation to read it and not forget about it.

FYI, Amazon will not allow Independent Authors to offer free books on Kindle, but they DO allow Traditional Publishers to do this. This new trend is beginning to flood the market with free books (which is fine by me) but they are counting those free books in the sales ranking system, skewing the numbers.

This means that unless your book is free, you can't get anywhere close to #1, even if #1 is a terrible book. THis is unfair to authors, but also unfair to readers who may use the sales ranking to buy or avoid books.

I price my book as low as possible ($0.99) to get the most readers possible.

[GeoffC]

Surely a price that is sensible, and pays for your artistry, is more important..

[pdurrant]

Any books here that aren't public domain should have explicit terms attached, usually a creative commons licence.

As far as I can see, the public domain books are freely distributable. Most you can do anything with. A few still have Project Gutenberg licences attached, and so couldn't (for example) be solf without being altered.

I think it would be very impolite to (say) download my version of Kidnaped/Catriona ("David Balfour") and put it in the Kindle store for $1 each, but I don't think it would be illegal.

Hmm.. although perhaps that's not a good example - I did add some extra links to unusual words to that one.

But for an unaltered text, with nothing except typo fixes, I don't think there's any copyright given by creating a particular ebook format, because although there is certainly work gone into the creation, there isn't much originality.

Mind you - that doesn't stop Museums & Galleries, for example, slapping a copyright notice on photographic reproductions of out-of-copyright originals, despite test case law (in the US) that says they don't have copyright in such images.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridgem..._v._Corel_Corp.

Originally Posted by tompe

That I also sometime wonder. It especially holds for most books here at MobileRead that nothing is said about the status of the book.

[JSWolf]

The thread really does not belong in the Kindle forum since it's not Kindle specific.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

But while it's free, it's also freely redistributable. So he puts up a copy on his website, let's say I grab it, then put it in a torrent or something as well. A year later he removes it from his website; I'm now responsible for knowing that and no longer redistributing it as well? But it's too late; it's already out there and a million other people could be redistributing it too. It seems unrealistic.

Just because the author gives it away doesn't mean you have the right to give it away. And if you want to give it away, all you have to do is give the link to where you got it and if it's still there, the people you gave the link to can get it. Otherwise, they missed out and either have to buy it or do without.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

But for an unaltered text, with nothing except typo fixes, I don't think there's any copyright given by creating a particular ebook format, because although there is certainly work gone into the creation, there isn't much originality.

But what if you add a cover or some images?

[pdurrant]

Good question. I suspect that it wouldn't take much to get a new copyright on the ebook. Just adding a short foreword should be enough. Not that that would prevent other people extracting the text itself and reusing it, but it would prevent republication of the complete ebook. Whether adding a cover is enough originality, who knows?

So the safest behaviour, as well as the politest, is just direct people here, rather then re-hosting the files.

Originally Posted by tompe

But what if you add a cover or some images?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Good question. I suspect that it wouldn't take much to get a new copyright on the ebook. Just adding a short foreword should be enough. Not that that would prevent other people extracting the text itself and reusing it, but it would prevent republication of the complete ebook. Whether adding a cover is enough originality, who knows?

So the safest behaviour, as well as the politest, is just direct people here, rather then re-hosting the files.

Since my ideal is GPL I think that what is distributed anywhere should be distributed with the same conditions as the sources used to put it together.

But regardless of how things are distributed an electronic copy should always contain information about how it can be redistributed. Otherwise we will get unnecessary problem similar to orphaned works when people in 20 years time want to use a copy they have available.

[pdurrant]

Of course, GPL can only apply to works still in copyright.

That's a very good point about including terms in electronic copies. An excellent idea.

Perhaps a recommended paragraph of distribution terms for public domain ebooks formatted for upload at Mobileread would be useful. I'm not sure the best way to get one written and agreed though. And it obviously would be voluntary to use it.

Originally Posted by tompe

Since my ideal is GPL I think that what is distributed anywhere should be distributed with the same conditions as the sources used to put it together.

But regardless of how things are distributed an electronic copy should always contain information about how it can be redistributed. Otherwise we will get unnecessary problem similar to orphaned works when people in 20 years time want to use a copy they have available.

[NormHart]

When I buy a paperback it is mine. I can give it to a friend or throw it in the fire, I paid for it and it is mine. Even if I get it at the library annual give away it is still mine and I can do what I want with it.

Except reproduce it and distribute it. I can sell it but I can not sell copies of it.

So far as I am concerned these are the exact rights I have to an ebook. If I want to give it to someone I'll do that and delete it from my Kindle collection. If the author doesn't like it and uses DRM then I won't buy her/his book. If he/she is really worried about piracy then they should stick to paper and let the enlightened authors have the ebook market.

BTW if you want an example of how free ebooks stimulate sales of related books check out His Majesty's Dragon by Naomi Novik offered for free at Amazon. Her other three books in the series were not even visible on the Amazon best seller list, now all three are in the top 35 (Sci-Fi). That is some good money and a real good return on the risk taken to offer the book free. Of course I didn't buy any of them since Random House has infected them with DRM.



(That should calm the wolf for now since I mentioned both Amazon and Kindle.)

[ChaosInc]

Originally Posted by NormHart

(That should calm the wolf for now since I mentioned both Amazon and Kindle.)

Hope so anyway. Now on to talkin'...

Now to state something I am sure I missed someone answering:

Someone said in the first page that if they had downloaded a book from a website and then that website decided not to have the book for download anymore, that they would delete the book.


Why?
If I downloaded a free book from an author's website, I will not delete it when that book is no longer available for free download from that website. It is mine, and deleting books just due to a site not having them anymore for free is to me silly. If I don't like the book, yes, then I will delete it, but just 'cause of a site change?

Also there are lots of sites that are no longer on the web. Does that mean this person thinks anything from them has to be deleted? (I am not talking about the illegal type of site content either!)

oh well, life's a pain in the ar**, isn't it?