"eBook versions of owned paper books" Popular Front

[GntlmnBndt]

Rather than complaining to Amazon, your better bet may be to support the publishers that already do this sort of thing. A few were pointed out in the thread. I did not see Baen, which has included with some hardbacks a CD containing not only the book itself, but often earlier books by the author and a selection of other Baen offerings.

The vitriol of this thread is startling. I must admit I do not feel strongly about the need to convert pbooks to ebooks since I haven't purchased a pbook in years, other than graphic novels. In fact most of the books I have purchased of late are not available as pbooks, or only as Print on Demand.

The Bandit

[Lo Zeno]

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

If download a copy of a file of an image of a book, how have I taken anything? And unless I you are an expert in the various legal codes of the world, I would not make such sweeping statements. In traditional interpretations of Islamic law, copyright as it is practiced in the west is for the most part not recognized. The property rights inhere in the physical book and not in the content. For example, if I have purchased a copy of the Davinci Code, according to this interpretation of Islamic law, I have the right to copy it in whole or in part and even to republish it. The main the right that the author possesses is the right to be identified as the as creator of the work. Intellectual Property is not a recognized concept in every law system.

Luqman

Do you live in a country where "traditional interpretation of islamic laws" are applied?
If not, ask YOUR lawmakers why do they fine you if you download a digital copy of a book. Because they do. I don't care about morality, ethics, religions, any-other-nonsense-philosophical-bullshit:FACTS ARE THAT all north american countries, central american countries, all european countries, and almost every south american country except maybe two fine you if you share and download digital content without purchasing it; more than that, fifteen (but maybe more) European countries (I admit ignorance about American countries) consider it on par to unauthorized appropriation.

And lo and behold, unauthorized appropriation is another word for stealing.

Now, in my previous post I was just angry and tired because an interesting discussion derailed on an infertile road; now, I have made my last point.

I can't care less if you don't agree with what lawmakers decided. If lawmakers decided that sharing content (and in way too many cases sharing content is not limited to internet sharing: it includes photocopies, and as many of you keep forgetting photocopying a book and selling those photocopies has always been forbidden in almost every western country) is a crime, then you can only suck it up and obey, or get fined/go to jail. Or, you can become a politician and try to change the laws.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Lo Zeno

Do you live in a country where "traditional interpretation of islamic laws" are applied?
If not, ask YOUR lawmakers why do they fine you if you download a digital copy of a book. Because they do. I don't care about morality, ethics, religions, any-other-nonsense-philosophical-bullshit:FACTS ARE THAT all north american countries, central american countries, all european countries, and almost every south american country except maybe two fine you if you share and download digital content without purchasing it; more than that, fifteen (but maybe more) European countries (I admit ignorance about American countries) consider it on par to unauthorized appropriation.

And lo and behold, unauthorized appropriation is another word for stealing.

Now, in my previous post I was just angry and tired because an interesting discussion derailed on an infertile road; now, I have made my last point.

I can't care less if you don't agree with what lawmakers decided. If lawmakers decided that sharing content (and in way too many cases sharing content is not limited to internet sharing: it includes photocopies, and as many of you keep forgetting photocopying a book and selling those photocopies has always been forbidden in almost every western country) is a crime, then you can only suck it up and obey, or get fined/go to jail. Or, you can become a politician and try to change the laws.

Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong again. I have no idea why you brought up Islamic Law, seems strangely incoherent. But in my country (the UK) and most of europe, the sharing of digital material without monetary gain comes under Copyright Infringement, a civil, not a criminal matter. You might be fined in my country (nobody has yet) for uploading but not downloading (not considered a civil infraction). They may even get you on a technicality, but if the sharing of copyrighted material were actually 'theft' you wouldn't be able to access Google, this site wouldn't be running for you to post your ill-informed claims (most of the youtube videos and avatars are under copyright and would not be allowed) and you'd miss out on a hell of a lot of culture you now enjoy.

Again, for those terminally under the dissillusion that the old world actually exists on the internet:

Sharing is caring
Sharing is not theft
At worst it is copyright infringement
At best it is the extension of our natural inclination to gather and foster knowledge

[Lo Zeno]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I have no idea why you brought up Islamic Law, seems strangely incoherent.

Read two or three posts above yours.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Lo Zeno

Read two or three posts above yours.

Found it now, but it makes your points nonetheless coherent. You're still arguing that something happens that doesn't. In the UK (as in most of Europe) sharing copyrighted material is a civil offense, not a criminal one, and certainly not theft. Uploading is viewed as more problematic, but you're perfectly okay to download copyrighted material in the UK and you'd be breaking no laws, same for Canada actually, and I think Spain, Sweden, Holland and some others.

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by Lo Zeno

And lo and behold, unauthorized appropriation is another word for stealing.

No. It's not.
If you don't believe me, just take a look at the Codice Penale of our country.

Originally Posted by Lo Zeno

Now, in my previous post I was just angry and tired because an interesting discussion derailed on an infertile road; now, I have made my last point.

Which is the wrong one.

Originally Posted by Lo Zeno

I can't care less if you don't agree with what lawmakers decided. If lawmakers decided that sharing content (and in way too many cases sharing content is not limited to internet sharing: it includes photocopies, and as many of you keep forgetting photocopying a book and selling those photocopies has always been forbidden in almost every western country) is a crime, then you can only suck it up and obey, or get fined/go to jail. Or, you can become a politician and try to change the laws.

OK.
And, please note, saying "copyright infringment is not theft", is not saying "it's legal".
If Moejoe had said "file sharing is not driving over speed limit" what'd you say?



BTW: luckily, but not for long I fear, we're still a democracy and we can change the law...
A proposal is already being presented to the Parliament.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

and btw I'm getting sick of MoeJoe derailing every thread that has even the most remote connection with digital media, copyright and authors rights.

Let's please try to stick to the topic at hand and report off-topic posts.

Derailing? You're the one derailing, not me. I gave my opinion on the topic and suggested an alternate route, then we got all you 'the sky is falling' if we don't pay every single time we're entertained Johnnies ranting and raving about theft, even though none of you actually know a thing about file-sharing or the law that governs it and you all get it completely wrong every single time.

A hat is not a giraffe
A scooter is not a pencil
Sharing a digital file is not theft

Simple concepts. Grasp them. Adjust your sails.

[Kali Yuga]

Brace yourselves for... an on-topic post.

I disagree with braver's initial stance that purchasing a paper book automatically entitles the owner to a digital copy provided by the publisher. Purchasing media in one format does not entitle you to other formats; e.g. if I buy Halo for the XBox, that does not automatically give me a copy of Halo for PC (unless the publisher chooses to offer it that way). As far as I know, you are legally entitled to scan your paper book for your own purposes, but obviously this is not feasible for an individual.

You should also consider that the overwhelming majority of books were bought long before digital versions were available, let alone considered as a viable option. If you bought a vinyl record in 1975, you may be entitled to convert that record to a digital format -- at your own cost. Are you entitled to an MP3 provided to you by, and therefore at the cost of, the publisher? Should current media purchases include a future "conversion surcharge" or "format upgrade protection" fee? (I'm sure THAT would be a real winner. )

And how, exactly, should the publisher verify that you have the book? You could have sold, lost or damaged it since the time of purchase. Even just co-ordinating a project like this would require significant expenses, since you would have to provide a proof of purchase and ownership, which would need to be verified somehow.

Last but not least, ideally an ebook should (and hopefully soon, will) be all that you need. Bundling electronic and paper versions together should be, at best, a stopgap on the way to the increasing market share of ebooks.

[wayrad]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

As far as I know, you are legally entitled to scan your paper book for your own purposes, but obviously this is not feasible for an individual.

Certainly it's more work than having it handed to one on a platter, but "not feasible"? I'm glad I didn't find that out before doing my first 50 or so...

[Patricia]

Please could members recall that we are an international forum and that different laws apply in different jurisdictions.
Therefore, it is inaccurate to make sweeping generalisations about copyright or whether copying violates copyright, is an example of theft etc.

For what it's worth, I've done a spot of idle googling and have discovered that Afghanistan doesn't currently have copyright relations with the U.S. So copying and reproducing the latest Dan Brown is legally permissible in Afghanistan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghani...pyright_issues

A similar situation obtains in Iran and Laos:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_and_copyright_issues
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...pyright_length
and we have a few Iranian members, I believe. They may be dismayed to find themselves categorised as lawbreakers if they are engaging in an activity which is entirely licit in their own country.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Patricia

For what it's worth, I've done a spot of idle googling and have discovered that Afghanistan doesn't currently have copyright relations with the U.S. So copying and reproducing the latest Dan Brown is legally permissible in Afghanistan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghani...pyright_issues

Also, the Marshall Islands.

[Teddman]

Originally Posted by braver

Alas, the "digital upgrade" feature only allows you to read page images on the Web.

Yeah, lost in all of this discussion is the fact that Amazon's "digital upgrade" feature is a joke.

Can anyone defend it? Now that they are so behind the Kindle, either offer an upgrade path to a Kindle version or don't bother. I don't know anyone who would think buying a paper book and then paying more on top of it to read it on a PC in a highly restricted format is worthwhile.

Either make the digital upgrade as currently offered a free bonus or offer a nominally priced Kindle upgrade.

[braver]

I didn't realize there's a crowd obsessed with copyright laws here. As the initiator of the thread, I'd expressly ask them to refrain from thread-hijacking and create their own threads for their favorite debate.

I understand that currently the publishers are not seeing the light and there're logistical issues of proving ownership for the books bought in the 1970s. Tough luck, I say -- we're not discussing it here.

The question at hand is that now, for the first time in human history, when buying paper books and ebooks on Amazon and B&N, you CAN

-- keep a history of ownership
-- be eligible for digital upgrade if the publishers provides a discount

My question to the community is:

Is this something you'd prefer to manually scanning your paper books? Is this something you're willing to DEMAND from publishers and Amazon, as customers with leverage -- spending lots of money on books in ALL formats?

E.g., how about writing an email to Amazon Customer Service? As an ex-Amazonian (who saw an early Kindle shown around in secrecy!), I know first hand that Jeff Bezos takes those contacts very seriously -- and that's why Amazon is the best.

If you want your digital upgrade, WRITE to Amazon. ASK for what you want! That's all I'm suggesting.

[Hellmark]

The only way I can see it as happening effectively, is offer a ebook for free/nominal fee, when ever you buy a paperbook. And from then on treat them as two book sales.

[edembowski]

Originally Posted by braver

...Is this something you'd prefer to manually scanning your paper books? Is this something you're willing to DEMAND from publishers and Amazon, as customers with leverage -- spending lots of money on books in ALL formats?...

I certainly think this should be the case, although I don't think it's a reasonable expectation that this would be granted retroactively. Thee are publishers that provide electronic copies with the print version, and I think the best way to spread that is to support those publishers, as well as the writing campaign you suggest.

- Ed