Does your will include gifting your ebooks?

[latepaul]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If a court rules that "non transferable licence" arrangement can't be enforced, then yes, it could, in which case the state would do what it always does in such situations, and sell it off (usually by auction).

IANAL but it strikes me that the only thing that creates any "property" in the first place is the license. If a court were to rule that the "non transferable" status of the license did not apply then we'd revert to the default case which is general copyright applies, which means that the potential inheritor has no more rights than fair use/fair dealing etc would confer. Which is the same as anyone else, so they wouldn't "inherit" anything specific.

This is distinct from inheriting a physical object which happens to contain the information for a copyrighted work and where one does not need to copy it in order to use it. We can debate that last point when it comes to DVDs and CDs but it's fairly well established that the implied license to use the content is transferred with the object.

That would seem to me to be the logical out working of copyright law as I understand it but again IANAL.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by latepaul

IANAL but it strikes me that the only thing that creates any "property" in the first place is the license. If a court were to rule that the "non transferable" status of the license did not apply then we'd revert to the default case which is general copyright applies, which means that the potential inheritor has no more rights than fair use/fair dealing etc would confer. Which is the same as anyone else, so they wouldn't "inherit" anything specific.

This is distinct from inheriting a physical object which happens to contain the information for a copyrighted work and where one does not need to copy it in order to use it. We can debate that last point when it comes to DVDs and CDs but it's fairly well established that the implied license to use the content is transferred with the object.

That would seem to me to be the logical out working of copyright law as I understand it but again IANAL.

Yes, that's precisely the problem with digital goods - they are intangible.

One specific example: I'm a keen photographer, and the program I use to manage my photographs is, like most serious photographers, Adobe Lightroom. If I'd bought Lightroom on DVD, I could resell it, but I didn't buy a DVD, I bought a download. This is a completely intangible thing. I can't resell it, and I can't transfer it to another person.

[pdurrant]

I think that this is where we really do need a new law. One that specifies what rights people have to the digital content that they pay for.

I'd prefer a new law that specifies that when people buy digital content, they get the right to transfer the licence. But what I'd really like to see is some clarity.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I think I'd personally wait for the legal issues to be resolved before considering the matter. To be honest, I can't really think of anyone who'd be interested in my ebook collection. Nobody I know personally is a keen reader.

Same for me. My wife and daughters do not share my interest in reading genres. However, as the files are digital, I wouldn't "will" them to someone as everyone who cared too could have a copy. Which goes to WHY ebooks are licensed and not sold. There is no way to control the freely copy aspect of digital.

When you "give a digital file" you sill have the digital file.

Frankly, if my family figures out how to retrieve our tax information and photos I'll be satisfied. eBooks are way down the list of my priorities of caring about whether anybody ever can get to upon my death.

Facebook? Absolutely. I'd want my family to have access to my fb, google+, twitter etc.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by Katie1

Well Don't care who gets mine. They are ALL copied to my External HD.. drm gone! BUT know my son he will Clean it & put his SIMS games on the HD

[HomeInMyShoes]

Yep, it's an ugly one. No one has really addressed the issue of what a digital artifact really means in comparison to a physical one.

Part of me thinks this is just both sides being wrong. The corporations want to make money so they would side with licensing dies with the individual and individuals don't want things to disappear when they die.

Let's look at books themselves. An author writes a book and readers are up in arms when descendants inherit the copyright and this goes on for generations and they are benefitting from something they had nothing to do with, but then bookbuyers want the rights of the books they buy digitally to go to their ancestors. It seems a bit the same to me in how do and should rights pass to the offspring. In the case of physical objects they can become collectors items in their scarcity over time. Digital items not so much, they pretty much maintain the value of what it could be gotten for on the street at the current time.

I don't know what I'm trying to say, but parts of me think the bequest of digital license items is ludicrous. Some will be up in arms saying I bought the item, but most of the fine print reads that you didn't buy the item.

If I think about this as a corporation, I can see a zero game in the end. The money to be made on old titles approaches zero because everyone has bequeathed the item to the offspring who bought a few more over the years and the pile is gigantic after a few generations. More books then could ever be read in the offspring's lifetime. The only money to be made is on new content. Maybe that is as it should be, but I am not sure. When only new content makes money we lose items to the backlist which never see the light of day again. While knowledge will continue to move forward I can see many paths of knowledge disappearing into the abyss of passed on rights that no one uses.

I'm probably talking nonsense now, but I'm just spewing ideas right now to see if anything makes sense to me.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes, that's precisely the problem with digital goods - they are intangible.

One specific example: I'm a keen photographer, and the program I use to manage my photographs is, like most serious photographers, Adobe Lightroom. If I'd bought Lightroom on DVD, I could resell it, but I didn't buy a DVD, I bought a download. This is a completely intangible thing. I can't resell it, and I can't transfer it to another person.

Actually, you can transfer a copy to another person. http://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/p...t-license.html

Shari

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by shalym

Actually, you can transfer a copy to another person. http://helpx.adobe.com/x-productkb/p...t-license.html

Shari

Thanks, Shari. That's useful to know.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It does (in the UK, at least) if the deceased has no living relatives. In that situation, the estate goes to the Treasury.

So the UK government owns the rights to all the Richard Allen books?

[HarryT]

I'm afraid I've no idea who Richard Allen is, but if he died intestate and had no living relatives, then yes, his estate would have gone to the Treasury, following which anything considered valuable would have been sold.

[pidgeon92]

Originally Posted by Lynx-lynx

What about making arrangements for any on-line accounts that you have at the time of your demise?

For example if you had any accounts that had photos of you and/or your family etc in them. Facebook is one such account, (and I don't have a Facebook account), but there are other accounts which wouldn't be 'closed' and may remain open and accessible for ever.

Would you leave instructions as to your account details and request the acccount/s to be closed?

My family consists of me, my husband, and our three dogs. My husband has access to all of the online accounts, we keep all passwords in 1password. My dogs cannot type, and so far have shown no interest in the internet or anything digital. In the event that my husband and I kick off at the same time, our wills dictate that everything we own will get sold off and all proceeds and other monies are going to specific charities.

As for accounts staying open forever after my demise, I have no feeling about it one way or the other.

[Tarana]

Having recently had a serious health scare, I updated my will to include ownership of my digital accounts. As the lawyer said (and mentioned here in earlier posts) that even though it is, so far, untested in court, as with the case of frequent flyer miles, if it looks like a purchase, it will likely be treated as one in future proceedings. I already inherited someone else's ebook library at Amazon, so no reason why my sisters can't inherit mine. Once the credit card is cancelled, the Audible account would go to a non-family member (I provide my audiobooks to a group of seniors).

Ultimately though, archiving on home HD externals is probably best bet if you want them used by other family members.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Tarana

I already inherited someone else's ebook library at Amazon, so no reason why my sisters can't inherit mine.

How did that work? Amazon simply transferred the books to your account?

[Tarana]

So the UK government owns the rights to all the Richard Allen books?

UK government cannot 'own' the rights to an author's work unless there is some law that says otherwise. Any royalties for a dead author goes to their estate. How the sales of books are administered depends on the contract with the publisher. In some cases, unless specifically mentioned, death with no heirs just means that the current contract continues until it reaches public domain (in the past, the author or his/her heirs had to apply for extensions). Residuals will continue into the author's estate and then, presumably, to the UK Treasury.

[murg]

Actually, I did have an interesting thought from all of this.

Assuming that ebooks are transferrable (at least to governmental bodies), could you leave your ebooks to your local library and could they then loan them out?

Remember, that government can write the laws to exclude themselves from any restrictions...