Sideloading: Own content or "from somewhere else"

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by mgmueller

I don't know, whether it actually can be taken down.
I'd prefer so, else I'd react all the time and spend way more time and energy, than I wanted to do.

Simple. Unsubscribe from this thread, put it on your ignore list... no one is forcing you to continue reading this thread, even though you started it.

[Mort1997]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Inconceivable!

(I might have to watch that movie tonight)

[gweeks]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

It is more than despicable, it is illegal since the books in question were more than just TXT files. They had the copyrighted work of the person who uploaded them -- the unique, handcrafted CSS design and HTML tagging which gave it its look, as well as possibly images which may have been derived from the public domain, but may have been created by the uploader.

Merely using those books as a source for the text is not a problem, but that would have little point, since you can already get them from so many places.

To clarify: the thief in question pirated uploaders' hard work. Formatting is legally copyrightable. (I believe the books in question were doubleshuffle's in case he remembers where the original thread was. I don't.)

You seem to have missed the point. If it was uploaded as public domain it does not have copyright on it and you therefore cannot impose down stream restrictions. Now if someone uploaded it and claimed public domain while it was someone elses work it's no different than if they do it to a modern commercial book. Once you release your own work as public domain you have given up the copyright.

Greg

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by gweeks

You seem to have missed the point. If it was uploaded as public domain it does not have copyright on it and you therefore cannot impose down stream restrictions. Now if someone uploaded it and claimed public domain while it was someone elses work it's no different than if they do it to a modern commercial book. Once you release your own work as public domain you have given up the copyright.

Yes, exactly. And things like CSS and choice of HTML tags do not fall within the scope of copyright. Formatting is NOT legally copyrightable. In order to claim a copyright on the work, you'd need to do something such as write your own introduction to it, add endnotes, etc.

[Doonge]

Even if pirates are the ones that hold the most to sideloading, would that constitue an argument against sideloading?

I don't get the point of this poll after OP explained why he did it.


At some point, OP explained there's different definitions of sideloading one could use.

Is it loading through USB stick? That's a poor definition because everything I can do through USB I could do through wifi if my device software gives me control over the wifi.

Whatever definition it is, it is not pirating because it's two different things even if pirating need some form of control over your device (and your files). It's just the ability to get books from any source, including pirate ones. It's the ability to decide for yourself what your sources are. If you delegate this right (choosing source), and if the Kindle doesn't allow you to load books from other publishers, it doesn't allow you to sideload, and it would suck.

What would a honest consumer gain by not having the possibility to sideload?
How to you even deprive dishonest consumers from their ability to sideload? Remember that only one open device brand (or easily bricked) is sufficient for dishonest people to be able to load pirated content.

What is there to gain for honest consumer by limiting their device while that is unlikely to affect dishonest consumers anyway?

[Mathemagician]

I have been actively listening for 3 months, but never before posted.
So be gentle.
And please read to the end before getting to any conclusions.
I have studied stochastics and would like to contribute from that perspective.
Let me begin with an example:
7 years ago there was outrage in the medical community.
A detailed article in a reputable medical journal seemingly proving the lower IQ of blacks within the US citizens.
The test was highly specific, very detailed and the results beyond any doubt.
But then research did proof: Within the white participants, there was a far bigger portion of academics than in the group of black participants. Academical degrees of course don't proof intelligence. But it is an empirical fact, that it is more likely to rank higher in IQ tests with some level of education.
From a stochastics perspective:
The test was flawless and meticulous.
But the interpretation was flawed and made the results worthless.
In this context it probably would have made sense to conclude the impact of socio-economic status on education and indirectly on IQ.
In our studies, we have put seemingly absurd aspects into perspective.
You can compare the reading behavior of blonde Scandinavians to the mating rituals of chimpanzees in Kongo. Statistically, that's without fault and absolutely legit.
But you have to put your interpretation to the test at the end.
Statistically speaking, it's not a problem at all to exclude some groups and not cover the entirety of users.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by gweeks

You seem to have missed the point. If it was uploaded as public domain it does not have copyright on it and you therefore cannot impose down stream restrictions. Now if someone uploaded it and claimed public domain while it was someone elses work it's no different than if they do it to a modern commercial book. Once you release your own work as public domain you have given up the copyright.

Greg

AFAIR, that was precisely the problem -- the uploader in question uploaded it under copyright. I think it was a CC license.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes, exactly. And things like CSS and choice of HTML tags do not fall within the scope of copyright. Formatting is NOT legally copyrightable. In order to claim a copyright on the work, you'd need to do something such as write your own introduction to it, add endnotes, etc.

If you copy someone's HTML verbatim, I am pretty sure it IS a copyright violation. If you base your work off of theirs, that is indistinguishable from reverse-engineering it, and you are untouchable.

In any event, I believe the uploader in question may well have written an introduction.

I lost track of the thread.

But I do know that the uploader in question was quite upset "that his copyrighted work was ripped off".

[Sunlite]

This will probably mess up your poll, but it is the truth anyway.

I voted for 'I download my content for free from "somewhere else", maybe convert to the target format and sideload to my hardware of choice.'. For me that 'somewhere else' are mainly fanfiction pages and occasional a site for PD work (i.e. Mobileread).

It is never stuff I should have paid for to comply with the law.

I hope you are ok with this answer, too.

[Tarana]

I try to avoid paying for eBooks, it's easy to find all my stuff online.

I know several people who never pay for ebooks - they use the library, they use the free books offered through B&N, Amazon, free books from Baen, etc. Long list of ebooks available from Guttenberg Project, of course.

[Byrdie]

Another reason I sideload -- I just don't like where the software on my tablet puts my books. My library is arranged the way I had it on my old reader and I wanted to keep the system I had because it works for me. Maybe I'll change that when I get a new reader, but only if their way really is better than mine.

[piperclassique]

Wibble.....

[LadyKate]

Sideloading is easier for me as I like to have a large selection of books of various genres on my tablet so I use a 32 gig sd card.

As for why I convert ebooks... well, I bought my first ebooks in pdb format and lit format... both these formats have been abandoned yet the books I bought are still good and I admit to being a "re reader" of favorite authors.

[The Tree Squirre]

I have always used this method simply because these readers have a nasty Orwellian side to them. If anyone remembers the news reports from July of 2009 when Amazon ironically deleted copies of George Orwell's 1984 from Kindle readers en masse.

Sideloading guarantees that you can back up your copies. It also allows you to keep your device offline and prevent attempts of the reader's service provider to execute any strange whims to "memory hole" any books from your collection!

[The Tree Squirre]

Originally Posted by mgmueller

From an early beginning, one had been able to rip his CDs and convert to MP3s.
For eBooks, it was way more complicated.
Yes, you can scan and OCR for way over 2 decades already.

I've done both. I'd rather pay for the CD because none of the compressed online formats are as pure as the old fashioned CD.. Those MP3 versions are hollow compared to the lossless CD rendering. It gets annoying after a while, especially at low bitrates. I call it "MP3 fatigue" The same goes for OCR'ed books. Tirose OCI7 errcrs can be anroying after a while!

...and since compaines like B&N are killing ability to routinely sideload, I am going back to old fashioned paperback for quality and reliability! This digital technology isn't always what it's cracked up to be!