Why e-books?

[LadyKate]

Originally Posted by HarryT

As I said a while ago, there are (and always have been) people with a misguided sense of entitlement. I certainly don't believe they represent the majority of readers, or even a significant minority. Most people who are serious readers have more respect for authors than to steal from them.

I know that from the first cookbook people have "stolen" without thinking by jotting down a recipe when asked by a friend or neighbor for their wonderful "fill in the blank" recipe.

It wasn't huge. It wasn't entire books (usually) and it was done on paper with a pen or pencil.

Was that a form of proto piracy?

[ratinox]

Originally Posted by LadyKate

In my opinion the copyright act needs to change. It needs to recognize the changes to what a book is and to provide different levels of protection for the works. A publisher should not be able to obtain the "entire" protection of the copyright act that the writer has by virtue of it being their work.

I disagree. It is a private contract when an author signs all rights to the work over to a publisher. The Constitution specifically forbids the US government from interfering with private contracts. Acts of Congress cannot change the Constitution.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by LadyKate

I know that from the first cookbook people have "stolen" without thinking by jotting down a recipe when asked by a friend or neighbor for their wonderful "fill in the blank" recipe.

It wasn't huge. It wasn't entire books (usually) and it was done on paper with a pen or pencil.

Was that a form of proto piracy?

I very much doubt it. See:

http://blogs.lexisnexis.co.uk/wipit/...ritish-bakers/

[LadyKate]

Originally Posted by jhowell

No. Those books were sold with the condition that the could be re-sold, giving added value to the buyer.

Anyone trying to legitimately sell used copies of out-of-print books is harmed (slightly) by the pirating of those books.

I do wonder at publishers not attempting to cover the "selling of used books" loophole. It does make people less sympathetic to people pirating a book that is not being sold anymore if there is the idea of used copies being available ... note I say idea not that it actually still exists.

If I pay 19.99 for an ebook and can't even let friends read it legally unless I lend them the book and the reader yet the person who purchases the paperback or hardcover can freely lend it and/or sell it? Isn't that somewhat unfair? (I know I balked at that price and was early enough overdrive to get it fairly quickly.)

[LadyKate]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I very much doubt it. See:

http://blogs.lexisnexis.co.uk/wipit/...ritish-bakers/

The way I read that a cookbook would be protected from photocopy but not from hand/written/typed copy?

So it the typesetting is not identical to the print book it would not be a breach as a recipe is not copyright but the book is? While the article indicated that a specific recipe could not be considered copyright, the entire book would be so if someone lifted the contents of a complete recipe book it would be considered a breach I am sure. I guess cookbooks are different than other books.

Hummm, what about the taking of a poem and needle-pointing it onto a wall hanging? or many wall hangings until the entire slim book of poetry is rendered into folk art? Is it the medium of the copy that makes it break copyright? or is it the amount of the work that is copied?

I remember when a blind friend of mine (many many years ago when audio books were not available except through some blind services) would request a tape of a book from a service. I wonder if that was considered "fair use" because it was accessibility although that term wasn't used until recently.

[LadyKate]

Originally Posted by ratinox

I disagree. It is a private contract when an author signs all rights to the work over to a publisher. The Constitution specifically forbids the US government from interfering with private contracts. Acts of Congress cannot change the Constitution.

I could say that's your country's way but I'm thinking that all rights to the work being signed away when one of those rights includes something that wasn't even possible at the time the contract was signed, therefore the author getting nothing for that particular right, is unfair.

Ebooks didn't exist and were not part of the contracts in the 20th century. It seems unfair that the author can't renegotiate, first with their current publisher and if that publisher has no interest in producing ebooks then with other publishers or have the ability to self publish those works.

[barryem]

Originally Posted by ratinox

I disagree. It is a private contract when an author signs all rights to the work over to a publisher. The Constitution specifically forbids the US government from interfering with private contracts. Acts of Congress cannot change the Constitution.

Here's a quote from Wikipedia about the Constitution's contract clause:
"The Contract Clause prohibits states from enacting any law that retroactively impairs contract rights. The Contract Clause applies only to state legislation, not federal legislation or court decisions."

According to that only the states face that prohibition. The US government isn't bound by it. Copyright law is federal.

Here's a link to the article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_Clause

Barry

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by LadyKate

The way I read that a cookbook would be protected from photocopy but not from hand/written/typed copy?

So it the typesetting is not identical to the print book it would not be a breach as a recipe is not copyright but the book is? While the article indicated that a specific recipe could not be considered copyright, the entire book would be so if someone lifted the contents of a complete recipe book it would be considered a breach I am sure. I guess cookbooks are different than other books.

Hummm, what about the taking of a poem and needle-pointing it onto a wall hanging? or many wall hangings until the entire slim book of poetry is rendered into folk art? Is it the medium of the copy that makes it break copyright? or is it the amount of the work that is copied?

I remember when a blind friend of mine (many many years ago when audio books were not available except through some blind services) would request a tape of a book from a service. I wonder if that was considered "fair use" because it was accessibility although that term wasn't used until recently.

Recipes are an odd duck.
You cannot copyright the ingredients. On instructions only if there is something special in them. Also, you have to be careful not to violate trademark laws.

Yes, Jell-O could send a DMCA if one writes a book on 69 ways to use Jell-O in romance.
Now you could do 69 ways to use flavored gelatin with no problems.

Even the major brands have to get permission to use someone else's product in a recipe they use.

Example, put a stick of butter in the chicken is basic instructions. However shove a stick of butter down the throat or up the rear can be because it is uncommon.

If I wrote a cookbook and used Pillsbury refrigerated pie crusts and Comstock Apple Pie Filling, it would be in my best interest to get permission.
I could just type refrigerated pie crust and canned apple pie filling and be fine.

Oh you will notice if I post one of my recipes online, it will be original in one way or another.
This is more to keep an eye on who is borrowing it for their own purposes.

[barryem]

Originally Posted by LadyKate

I do wonder at publishers not attempting to cover the "selling of used books" loophole.

Publishers did try to sue to prevent selling used books some decades ago. I forget just when. They lost the suit. Google "first sale doctrine" for more information.

Barry

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

...OK, name me some products that are free to copy and distribute that make their producers money?

I am sorry but your question is unclear as I don't know if you are saying free to copy/free distribution, or free to copy/ priced distribution, or whether by distribution you mean by a seller or by a non commercial individual, or whether by copy you mean by the producer or by a non commercial individual.

I am assuming that in your question there is no inference that the example you ask for was to include the making of illicit multiple copies by a purchaser and they then distributing those for free into the wild. I am also assuming that you are not referring to producers selling their goods for free (although as another has pointed out, that can be part of a successful model). Those assumptions because nowhere have I claimed those things and your question is framed as a challenge.

I will therefore assume that you mean that the product is easy to copy at no cost by a non commercial individual who has bought a copy from a commercial producer under a market model different to the current eBook one. In that case I have given the example already, and that is music where one can buy tracks for a small fee with no DRM, or pay a small fee for the ability to copy the track to portable media (e.g. a CD).

The producers of the recordings and the artists of any ability that make them seem to me to be doing very well. Of course, there are still illicit copies being made and distributed (and the music industry very actively pursues the most active individuals seeding or otherwise electronically distributing them). As I think Ratinox has alluded to, the Music industry likely has some way to go to further their model.

So, how is this working out for Music with respect to illicit copying for illicit distribution? I suspect two things; the number of new entrants to illicitly downloading music is declining rapidly, and the number of long standing downloaders is declining.

Without long time accurate monitoring of statistics on popular torrent (for example) sites as to the number of new music torrents uploaded each day, which is something I have not done, it is not easy to give hard objective evidence for what I suspect. But by way of example, and what really brought the matter to my attention is, as some will know, what was probably the most popular torrent site was recently closed down by authorities. In the meantime, until they get up and running again, a community forum has been set up by its management team (excluding the one in jail ) on which, among other things, threads exist into which people can give links to torrent files they have made available.

The numbers are interesting, since that forum was set up there have been (as of now) a total of only 18 posts in the Applications thread, 49 posts in the Movies thread, 56 posts in the Music thread, 107 posts in the Games thread, but a total of 1,628 posts in the Books thread.

It needs to be kept in mind that not all posts include a link to a torrent file and a very few have several links, and that the download item that a torrent is given for is not necessarily under any rights protection. There are in fact less than 56 torrents available in the Music thread. It is not possible to establish how many downloads have occurred (and even if that was available many downloads are opportunistic because they are free) but it is blindingly obvious that most of the activity there is for eBooks and that the activity there in music is very small.

I suspect that the low (and decreasing) number of Movie downloads is due to the streaming model that is now used where past movies can be viewed for virtually no cost at all (a months subscription to unlimited viewings being not much more than the cost of one eBook). That could be another example in response to your question. Of course industry has made it difficult to make good copies of the stream (e.g. DVD recorders not having digital input interfaces), but as a movie is able to be streamed multiple times the restriction is mostly irrelevant. Again, I suspect they have some room to go in further developing their model (e.g. for new releases).

[ratinox]

Originally Posted by barryem

According to that only the states face that prohibition. The US government isn't bound by it. Copyright law is federal.

Not the Contract Clause. The Fifth Amendment's Takings Clause which restricts the government ability to take private property. Federal legislation which specifically targets contracts and contract rights (contract rights are property) runs afoul of the Takings Clause.

[ratinox]

Originally Posted by LadyKate

I could say that's your country's way but I'm thinking that all rights to the work being signed away when one of those rights includes something that wasn't even possible at the time the contract was signed, therefore the author getting nothing for that particular right, is unfair.

Perhaps, but it's not the government's job to ensure that "you" don't do anything stupid like forfeiting your copyright rights. It's your responsibility as an author or your agent's responsibility as your agent.

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by ratinox

Perhaps, but it's not the government's job to ensure that "you" don't do anything stupid like forfeiting your copyright rights. It's your responsibility as an author or your agent's responsibility as your agent.

Or in other words: READ THE FINE PRINT before signing any contract.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

The problem is that it is so easy to copy digital files that it is impossible to try selling them without legal protection against copying, donationware works in very few circumstances.

Originally Posted by ratinox

I think you're making the same mistake that some traditional publishers (including RIAA and MPAA) keep making. The best way to make a profit from digital content isn't by selling digital content. It's by selling everything else around it.

I disagree with you, and agree with MikeB1972. And one of your examples, Baen books proves you wrong. (They make a profit from selling digital content.)

However, Baen's model wouldn't work without legal (not technical) protection against copying.

Copyright is necessary. It's just got out of hand, and is now excessive.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by ratinox

Perhaps, but it's not the government's job to ensure that "you" don't do anything stupid like forfeiting your copyright rights. It's your responsibility as an author or your agent's responsibility as your agent.

It depends. As you say, it's not the law's responsibility to stop an author from being stupid, but in the UK at least there is a law called the "Unfair Contract Terms Act" which prohibits grossly unfair terms in commercial contracts. A publisher claiming rights in a medium which did not exist at the time that the contract was signed could be considered an unfair contract term, and an author could take legal action under the Act to recover those rights if the publisher refused to engage in that new medium.