E-Book Piracy: The Publishing Industry's Next Epic Saga?

[Bilbo1967]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Let's not get personal. As I said above. You are arguing something you don't really know.

Does the word 'hypocrite" mean anything to you, kenny?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by kennyc

As I said above. You are arguing something you don't really know -- unless you are on the Board of Directors of HarperCollins. You are assuming that is the reason. It's not.

So you're on the Board of Directors?

The technology to enforce DRM in the same manner as pbooks if not trival by any means.

It already exists.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Bob T

Last year I bought Adobe Flash CS3 software, used, legally.
CS4 is the latest version, CS3 is an older revision.
The original owner deactivated his legal copy through Adobe and sold it to me.
I installed it, legally reactivated it through Adobe and now it is legally mine to use with Adobe's permission.

I've known people to do the same thing with Sony VegasPro and other software...
It can be done...and is being done, yes...

Right and it's a much smaller set of products to manage. So the management of it is way less costly. Please note that I'm certainly not saying it can't be done, but that it is not trivial because it has to manage every ebook sold.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Not in the digital world. The same issues exist.

The issues with fair use and first sale are no different in the digital world, provided that copyright law is still followed.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

Does the word 'hypocrite" mean anything to you, kenny?

There is a difference in calling someone a name and pointing out something they clearly have no knowledge of.

Do you have any knowledge of DRM, or publishers contracts or board of directors decisions wrt ebooks?

Or are you just taking pot shots?

Wanna join the discussion?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

The issues with fair use and first sale are no different in the digital world, provided that copyright law is still followed.

The issues with rights and management of those rights in digital art are the same as for ebooks, music, etc.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Right and it's a much smaller set of products to manage. So the management of it is way less costly. Please note that I'm certainly not saying it can't be done, but that it is not trivial because it has to manage every ebook sold.

I'm not sure why you think it's so difficult to create a DRM system that supports lending/selling eBooks. It already exists, Publishers are just choosing to artificially limit it (or outright not allowing it).

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by kennyc

There is a difference in calling someone a name and pointing out something they clearly have no knowledge of.

It's interesting that you pointed out that my opinion was invalid because I have no direct knowledge of it, and yet your opinion is valid. I assume that means you have direct knowledge?

I also didn't realize that saying I envied your naivete was "calling you a name". I apologize if you took it personally. That was certainly not my intent.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

But you are advocating the old mold. Copyright was self-enforcing when it took lots and lots of capital to make a copy of a product as cheaply as the copyright owner could. So no one would risk the capital to make copies. Now anybody can do it, for peanuts. Any way to compensate authors has to accept that fact, and work with it. Maybe there's no answer, I don't know. But I do know you can't stuff the trumpet note back into the trumpet.

Not at all. I'm agreeing with you. If we are to preserve the intent of rights and copyright in particular then something very different must happen given the new technology. You're right there may be no answer, I certainly don't know what it is nor do I claim to know. This may just be one of those lull points of civilization like the dark ages ..... wouldn't that be something given the advanced technology we've created. Technology and no humanity.

[Bilbo1967]

Originally Posted by kennyc

There is a difference in calling someone a name and pointing out something they clearly have no knowledge of.

Yes- of course. When somebody else does it, it's ignorance, when you do it, it's justified

Originally Posted by kennyc

Do you have any knowledge of DRM, or publishers contracts or board of directors decisions wrt ebooks?

No - sorry, we don't all mix in your exalted circles. We are all, of course, extremely grateful that you are prepared to descend to our level to give us the benefit of your magnificence.

Originally Posted by kennyc

Or are you just taking pot shots?

Well spotted - you're a freakin' genius!

Originally Posted by kennyc

Wanna join the discussion?

Well, no - thanks.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

It's interesting that you pointed out that my opinion was invalid because I have no direct knowledge of it, and yet your opinion is valid. I assume that means you have direct knowledge?

I also didn't realize that saying I envied your naivete was "calling you a name". I apologize if you took it personally. That was certainly not my intent.

Calling someone naive is a bit of name calling in my view.

My point with the board of directors thing is that they would be the only body that would actually know if they were implementing certain business practices for a particular reason (such as to deprive the consumer of rights).

In discussions such as these there are always assumptions and points of view. As I see it you are advocating only from the consumer point of view and attempting to paint the enemy as evil which may or may not be true.

I'm trying to stand up more for the rights of the creator of works that make all this possible. (and yes unfortunately the publishers are in the middle of it).

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Bilbo1967

...

Well spotted - you're a freakin' genius!



Well, no - thanks.

There ya go then.

[Bob T]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Right and it's a much smaller set of products to manage. So the management of it is way less costly. Please note that I'm certainly not saying it can't be done, but that it is not trivial because it has to manage every ebook sold.

To a point you are correct, but it is all done automatically and doesn't involve human intervention....

And based on that, I have to agree with those that say it is an industry choice and not a technological limitation...

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

I'm not sure why you think it's so difficult to create a DRM system that supports lending/selling eBooks. It already exists, Publishers are just choosing to artificially limit it (or outright not allowing it).

It does not exist. It would have to be implemented. The B&N/Adobe social drm is the closest thing as I see it to what you are wanting, but it does not fully duplicate the "rights" one has with paper book. It would have to allow for removing that book from a purchasers authorizations on both the that persons computer and at the seller on an individual book basis which means keeping track at a central site of all ebook sales for that type of drm. The Social-DRM as implement is no where near that complicated and is probably easily circumvented -- I don't have experience with it so can't say for sure -- but I do know that it is not near the complexity needed to assure that a ebook sell has the same characteristics as a pbook. But that begs the question which Ralph has raised -- why should it be the same? I don't know. And I don't know that it should all I am advocating it protection of the creator's rights along with consumer rights.

However we get there is good for me.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Bob T

To a point you are correct, but it is all done automatically and doesn't involve human intervention....

And based on that, I have to agree with those that say it is an industry choice and not a technological limitation...

But the technology is significantly complex (see my post above) as I see it you would have to have a system that tracks all ebook sales. A significantly more invasive DRM than we currently have.