A Fairer Fair Use?

[Belfaborac]

I guess that's a good point. I've never downloaded a book more than once and have never looked at those library functions, so I wouldn't know what mechanisms they offer. I buy the book, download it and that's that. I've never lent a book to someone either for that sake, but I've given away a good number, which technically amounts to the same thing in that I move the files to someone else's PC.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's true, and if only it were that simple and straightforward there wouldn't be a problem. But what about the copy in your "Library" at whatever bookstore you bought it from. Can you delete that? Many bookstores don't provide a mechanism for doing so.

That's their problem. If I sell my house but the bank refuses to take away my copies of the keys, that doesn't mean I'm guilty of breaking & entering by keeping them. It's illegal for me to re-download a book once I've given it away; it's not illegal for me to have the *ability* to download it again. (Storing a book next to a photocopy machine is not a violation of copyright. Having access to a collection of files it's illegal to download is not a crime.)

And since many digital libraries now insist you must download your book quickly or lose access to it, obviously those libraries are not intended to be a permanent repository.

Digital books haven't removed the need for a physical medium; they've just changed the nature of that medium. If I buy an ebook, download it to a flash card, I could loan or sell or give away that card. (And, potentially, a whole bunch of other data.)

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

That's their problem. If I sell my house but the bank refuses to take away my copies of the keys, that doesn't mean I'm guilty of breaking & entering by keeping them. It's illegal for me to re-download a book once I've given it away; it's not illegal for me to have the *ability* to download it again. (Storing a book next to a photocopy machine is not a violation of copyright. Having access to a collection of files it's illegal to download is not a crime.)

With the very greatest respect, I have to disagree with you. The breach of copyright occurs at the point that you give the book away, because by doing that you've created an unauthorised copy. It doesn't matter what you subsequently do; the copy you've given away is unauthorised.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HarryT

With the very greatest respect, I have to disagree with you. The breach of copyright occurs at the point that you give the book away, because by doing that you've created an unauthorised copy. It doesn't matter what you subsequently do; the copy you've given away is unauthorised.

If I download my purchases to an SD card in my ereader (as I often do), I haven't made an unauthorized copy. If I later give away that card, I haven't made an unauthorized copy.

(This is all hypothetical; I own exactly one memory card, and I use it to move books between my Sony and PEZ.)

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

If I download my purchases to an SD card in my ereader (as I often do), I haven't made an unauthorized copy. If I later give away that card, I haven't made an unauthorized copy.

It's only an authorised copy as long as you use it. Buying a book grants you the right to make copies for your own use, but not for someone else's use.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's only an authorised copy as long as you use it. Buying a book grants you the right to make copies for your own use, but not for someone else's use.

I wasn't talking about making any copies after the initial download. Download to memory card (entirely authorized use); give memory card to someone else when I'm done with it (no copy is made).

This may be part of why Kindles no longer have memory card slots.

[Ntsimp]

I understand that a number of software companies have construed copyright law so as to say that you need permission to copy bits from a disc you own into your computer's RAM. If courts have upheld that interpretation, then the law is an ass.
What about the copy of the book on each of my retinas? What about the copy in my brain? Everybody recognizes these as a necessary part of exercising my right to read the book I bought. Well, the "unauthorized" copies in my computer are an equally necessary part of exercising my rights. Same with lending a book to someone. I don't need the copyright holder's permission to do that, whether the book is on paper or in a file. If that involves making an "unauthorized" copy of a file, then so be it. It's a necessary part of exercising a right I have.
If there are people abusing the right to lend books by committing actual piracy, then the proper response is to go after the guilty few pirates, not to take away everyone else's right to lend.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I wasn't talking about making any copies after the initial download. Download to memory card (entirely authorized use); give memory card to someone else when I'm done with it (no copy is made).

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I completely agree that the copy you've made on your memory card is entirely legal - for you. But it becomes illegal when you give it to somebody else.

Just as it's fine to make a backup copy of a computer program that you've bought, but you can't then give that copy to another person.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. I completely agree that the copy you've made on your memory card is entirely legal - for you. But it becomes illegal when you give it to somebody else.

Why? No unauthorized copy has been made.

Just as it's fine to make a backup copy of a computer program that you've bought, but you can't then give that copy to another person.

I wasn't talking about "backup"--if the only copy I have is on a memory card, why can't I give the physical medium to someone else?

... Can I loan the ereader itself to someone else? Can I give it away with books on it? (Possibly, not if those books are also on my computer, but again, we're at "I have access; that's not the same as having used them.")

I am firmly rejecting any notion of ebook law that claims it's illegal for my spouse and children to read books I've purchased. I am wary of claims that it's illegal for me to hand my ereader to a coworker to read a short story at lunch. (And, by extrapolation, "you're going to camping over the weekend? Here, take my reader; the batteries should last until Tuesday.") Any system for sorting out what behaviors are and aren't allowed with digital content are going to have to consider those situations.

[Kumabjorn]

Let me see if I understand this reasoning correct.

During the summer I usually don't read a lot (this has changed with getting an eReader) so a few friends of mine, who do read during the summer, would come over to my house and ransack my bookshelves. I would usually lend them somewhere between 25 and 30 books. The deal was that by August 15 they were to be returned, even if they were in the middle of a book. No excuses, no extensions.

If I instead lend them my Kindle for six week, when I take a break from reading, I would essentially be considered an IP pirate? August 15 I get my Kindle back. No excuses, no extensions. No copy, either legal or illegal, has been made.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I am firmly rejecting any notion of ebook law that claims it's illegal for my spouse and children to read books I've purchased. I am wary of claims that it's illegal for me to hand my ereader to a coworker to read a short story at lunch. (And, by extrapolation, "you're going to camping over the weekend? Here, take my reader; the batteries should last until Tuesday.") Any system for sorting out what behaviors are and aren't allowed with digital content are going to have to consider those situations.

How are these situations any different than copyright infringement? The creator has not been compensated for these extra reads, that is the issue right? As long as the creator is compensated for each copy, we should be able to make as many copies as we like.

Any digital content with a price tag attached to it pre-consumption is going to end up on the light or dark net (brightness depends on personal view)

It's probably going to take awhile to get this all sorted out

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

If I instead lend them my Kindle for six week, when I take a break from reading, I would essentially be considered an IP pirate? August 15 I get my Kindle back. No excuses, no extensions. No copy, either legal or illegal, has been made.

If you simultaneously retained any copies of those books yourself at the same time that your friends had them, then yes, you would be.

[no.guru]

Originally Posted by Phogg

I have zero use for any software other than a browser that does not work without an internet connection.

We have seen this idea before.

How did divx ultimately work out for Circuit City?

Not only that, but why were dumb terminals (i.e. cloud storage and cloud computing) of the 1970s replaced by local PCs?

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If you simultaneously retained any copies of those books yourself at the same time that your friends had them, then yes, you would be.

Let's just move forward a year or so, to cloud access of our books. Some are against this idea of not actually downloading a copy of an ebook, but many don't mind and read on their phones anyway.

In this near future no copies are ever really made, yes temporary files exist in your phone's memory, but the "courts" have told us those aren't exactly copies...

It would be fine to simply sell/give away your Amazon cloud book account wholesale to another yes? or no?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by no.guru

Not only that, but why were dumb terminals (i.e. cloud storage and cloud computing) of the 1970s replaced by local PCs?

Cost. I was involved in numerous mainframe to PC transitions during the 1980s; the cost savings were enormous.

(Although I'm not sure I see the relevance to the current topic!)