Used bookstores, harbors of piracy?

[HarryT]

You may agree, Steve, but the law doesn't. You are infringing copyright by the act of creating an unauthorised copy. It's entirely irrelevant whether or not you subsequently read it.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You may agree, Steve, but the law doesn't. You are infringing copyright by the act of creating an unauthorised copy. It's entirely irrelevant whether or not you subsequently read it.

Kinda like when people get unauthorized ebooks of Harry Potter before they're officially released.

[HarryT]

Yes, exactly.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes, exactly.

[TCCPhreak]

Hmm.. I always like to consider things I bought or aquired (e.g. as gift) as "mine". I like to thing "I own this" and connect certain rights to it.

Of course, those are not rights to everything. Making a private backup for myself is one thing, when putting such a copy on the internet for everyone to enjoy should trigger a "this doesn't seem right"-feeling.

But among the rights I consider "fair" is the option to lend it to another person, sell it to another person or simply give it away completely. Although modern media industries want to tell me that I'm wrong in this, but passing books on to another people is part of our culture.

Having the physical medium ensures that I am able to do this even if the industry doesn't want me to. Without a physical medium containing the un-drm-ed information, people often are surprised that the industry voids them of the rights they take for granted (from knowing the physical medium).

On the other hand: with physical media it's rather difficult to go beyond "fair" usage (it still takes time to copy a book), with digital media, a copy is rather easy and "hard DRM" quickly becomes "no DRM".

I've read books that my parents read and I suspect that the same (physical) book has also been read by my grandparents. Should the media industry be payed twice or trice for that issue? I've read some of those books several times. Should I have to pay several times? As said: One of the great advantages of having a physical medium is that I can do this without having to worry about media industry. I "own" it and don't have to report to anyone how often I read it or lend it to other people - because "Here, try it out. I think you'll like it" is far more likely to interest people in an author's works than "You should probably buy this book from this author. I guess, you'll like it".

If they like it, they probably will buy it at some point. Maybe I'm wrong or I'm the only one but if I like something, I want to "own" it. I love reading on my Kindle but I wouldn't trade "all ebooks on the world" for the physical books on my shelves.

Some books are not available new anymore. In those cases, used bookstores and flea market are the only way to retrieve their information. Even if a book is still available new, I'd still probably want another edition. Even if the used bookstore has the same edition, I like my right to choose between a shiny new expensive copy or a copy "with history, tears and pencil marks from previous owners".

So used bookstores really are harbors: Harbors of information and harbors of history - but not harbors of piracy. The industry likes to put the "piracy" on everything they don't like and that doesn't make them money (there's been a german study on how many people download books without paying and they immediately tagged all this as piracy, gently forgetting about Gutenberg and such). They already tag copies of stuff piracy (and probably right) but labeling the same (physical) book as pirated because it switched owners is just wrong.
I understand that they don't like "their" stuff (you may note that I never speak of the author's penny for books sold) being used/read without them getting money from it, but trying to forbid "voyages of books" as they've been part of our culture for generations just to get more money is just plain wrong.


There's another point that somehow seems to be missing from the discussion: waste.
I don't like throwing stuff away. I always prefer it to get a new owner. It took ressources to create "stuff", it will take ressources to create it again if another person needs it and by throwing "stuff" away, I'm making it fill up the (limited) space on trashyards.
Double this for books, a.k.a. "dead-tree"-versions of texts. I respect books and I always feel as if I'm disrespecting the work of an author if I throw his book away (yes, it really fills bookshelves when you're buying books and never throw them away). You may argue that books can be printed on recycled paper but it still needs toner, it still needs to be printed. I think that between "passing on the same book to someone" and "letting the book be recycled and recreated" there's still a large difference in CO2-imprint and everything. Re-usage almost always is even better than recycling.
I've heard of a study on what PC is recommended if you want to leave the least possible CO2-imprint. Result: If it still works, keep using for old PC for some more years - because the imprint in creating the new PC is higher than what your old PC does (even if not that energy-efficient).

I'm no tree-hugger but if the industry wants me to throw away still-usage stuff just so they can sell new one, I like to choose the environment over their money.

TCC

[plib]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You may agree, Steve, but the law doesn't. You are infringing copyright by the act of creating an unauthorised copy. It's entirely irrelevant whether or not you subsequently read it.

That rather depends on where you live. If he spent a weekend a few hundred miles north he'd be entirely legal, read or not (at least until the ***AA purchased Bill C11 is passed).

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by danskmacabre

I reread lots of books, Loads of Tolkien books, many other authors. In addition to that I refer back to books checking facts etc as well, so I will always want to keep books I buy, ebooks or not.

If someone has a photographic memory and can remember every word of every book they have ever read, would recalling these words be copyright infringement? What if someone's memory was less than perfect? Would it be permissible for them to use some sort of memory augmenting device so that they can better recall books they have read?

There is no need to keep anything, as long we can access the texts.

[plib]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

If someone has a photographic memory and can remember every word of every book they have ever read, would recalling these words be copyright infringement? What if someone's memory was less than perfect? Would it be permissible for them to use some sort of memory augmenting device so that they can better recall books they have read?

A lawyer, somewhere, is saying "Thank You".

[spindlegirl]

Originally Posted by Fluribus

My basic message to the entertainment industry is, "I can do without you!"

I kind of feel the same way. I think it must be a growing up thing. I watch a few things here and there but don't have tv, opting instead for occasional dvd watching of loans.

But as I get older I like to direct my own amusement rather than having it spoonfed to me. Yes there are some musicians I like to listen to, and authors I like to read, but for the most part, I have my own hobbies.

As for the original topic at hand. I hadn't known til now that second-hand books were so evil. I always thought of them as whimsical, practical and thoughtful gifts. I still do. I didn't realize that what people did with physical property they owned was even on people's "outrage" radar. I'll always buy physical books because they make the most awesome instant gifts if a friend is having a birthday or something. "well, I read the book and liked it, it's in new condition, I'll wrap it up!"

It's no different than me chopping up some celery and carrots and going to my friend's house to put it in her soup and we can eat it together.

[TCCPhreak]

Originally Posted by spindlegirl

It's no different than me chopping up some celery and carrots and going to my friend's house to put it in her soup and we can eat it together.

Luckily, soup, celery and carrots are not DRM-protected...
If they were, your friend's soup may refuse to work together without buying additional "one-meal-only"-licences.

Makes you kinda think which ideocracys pass in the media world which would be absolutely ridiculous in "real life".

TCC

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by spindlegirl

I kind of feel the same way. I think it must be a growing up thing. I watch a few things here and there but don't have tv, opting instead for occasional dvd watching of loans.

But as I get older I like to direct my own amusement rather than having it spoonfed to me. Yes there are some musicians I like to listen to, and authors I like to read, but for the most part, I have my own hobbies.

What you describe isn't "growing up" (not to say your tastes aren't maturing), but a revolution in the way information is disseminated; the fact that we even can self-direct our entertainment choices to the extent we now can is exciting and, if you're part of the old entertainment industry, terrifying beyond words. The internet creates so many new entertainment choices and ways to find and consumer those choices that it's becoming as likely that someone will sit in front of their computer as their TV.

Edit

Sorry about the above - the book I recently picked up (Too Big to Know) has sunk barbed hooks deep into my brain. So ya, my posts will probably be insufferable for the week or so.

[JimKal]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It IS illegal in many places. Where I live, for example, rubbish belong to its owner until it's collected, at which point ownership of it is transferred to either the local council or their appointed rubbish collection contractor.

An interesting point Harry. But, I believe that in most jurisdictions in the US the law is different. Anyone is free to look in someone else's trash and take something because the "owner" has abandoned it. I would point to a well know situation here where a former candidate for President was involved in the making of a sex tape. A former employee claimed that he came into possession of the tape when the mistress discarded it. She later claimed that she had not discarded it, thus claiming it as her possession. In the US, for the most part, you want to be careful what you throw away. (Hence, the popularity of shredders.)

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by spindlegirl

As for the original topic at hand. I hadn't known til now that second-hand books were so evil. I always thought of them as whimsical, practical and thoughtful gifts. I still do. I didn't realize that what people did with physical property they owned was even on people's "outrage" radar. I'll always buy physical books because they make the most awesome instant gifts if a friend is having a birthday or something. "well, I read the book and liked it, it's in new condition, I'll wrap it up!"

Well as the saying goes, if everyone read second hand books, authors would have no incentive to produce new works.

I've bought a lot of used books in my day as well, they sure are a lot cheaper, but why? it's the same content. The package might be slightly worn but I don't mind.

You say that you believe in the ownership of a book as physical property, ebooks do not exist outside the physical world, they are still physical objects, indentations on magnetic disks, and encrypted, but still physical.

[spindlegirl]

Ahh I mostly meant that as I personally got older, I mostly prefer my personal hobbies (I knit, play several musical instruments, spin wool, etc) to the kind someone else performs and we read or watch. In re-reading my post above, I came across sounding like I think my hobbies are somehow better. No, just something I prefer. I apologize for the tone that may have been easily read in my other post.

I also enjoy second hand books because a) I can actually afford them most of the time, and b) If I were an author I probably wouldn't mind seeing my books in a second hand shop. It meant that someone else saw value in what I write and that my work isn't throwaway with a one month shelf-life like magazines. (or at least that's how I would *want* to see it )

I'm not really seeing a shortage of people wanting to write. People still want to write, still want to create, still want to be storytellers. But because most of us have to watch our budget, we try to maximize the amount of enjoyment we can have without having to pay someone all the time.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Well as the saying goes, if everyone read second hand books, authors would have no incentive to produce new works.

Well, yes, and if everyone bought used cars, auto makers would have no incentive to make new cars. However, the chances of everyone buying used cars are zero, just as the chances of everyone reading used books is zero. In the real world, the question is not what would happen if the used market share was 100 percent (bad for authors but impossible), but rather what would happen if the used market was just a little bigger that today (arguably good for authors).

Think about what might be the reason for textbooks being so expensive. Someone will say that one reason is all the students who have to buy those books. Something in this direction is a factor, but most don't really have to buy them, because college libraries have them in the reserve room. I'd say that another reason for high university textbook prices is the robust used market. Students can buy the book used for, say $75, and sell if back to the bookstore for $50. Since the net cost for most student is then a reasonable $25, the publisher can get away with charging the few affluent students who buy new, and the library, a retail price of $125. Sometimes more.

One reason the eBook revolution will likely hurt the average author is that it harms the used market. This is a class of problem that may not have a solution.

P.S. This is not meant to criticize what Giggleton wrote, just to reflect off it. Maybe we agree. Maybe I'm just his or her pompous alter ego