A Fairer Fair Use?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by caleb72

But even I would not have a problem lending my Kindle loaded with a book to my mother (for example). Of course, that's mainly because I know she wouldn't understand how to remove the file from the device if she wanted to and I know damn well she would have no desire to keep a copy of any books I loan her anyway. But I can see that it's problematic for me to do so.

Neither would I, and neither would Amazon. It's perfectly OK for family members to share an Amazon account, and books. I think one has to apply common sense to these situations.

[Belfaborac]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I think, though, you have to make a separate between violating your terms of service with Amazon (which, as you rightly say, removing DRM is) and outright piracy - giving someone else a copy of a book that you've bought.

But you can only define lending your books to someone as piracy because of Amazon's TOS. I would think everyone on this forum has lent books to friends, but now, because they're ebooks that's suddenly a crime. It just doesn't wash. At all.

If anything, this discussion show that the current laws and regulations pertaining to ebooks are unworkable and just plain stupid. I've lent and given away books for half a lifetime and I'm not going to stop now just because they're no longer physical items. If that makes me a criminal, then I can live with that very easily. And if the police one day knocks on my door and says "we hear you've been a naughty boy Mr. B, lending books and such, so we're afraid it's the slammer for you. Now go pack whatever you think you might need for the next ten to twenty", then I'll man up and take that too.

[no.guru]

Wow. Whether lending a friend my reader so they can read my purchased content complies with a TOS or even the law is not a question I would ever remotely consider.

That some are willing to go through such extreme contortions to comply with rules that can't possibly be enforced would impress me if I were a better person, I suppose.

But I'm not, so I'm left shaking my head.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

But you can only define lending your books to someone as piracy because of Amazon's TOS. I would think everyone on this forum has lent books to friends, but now, because they're ebooks that's suddenly a crime. It just doesn't wash. At all.

No, it's copyright law. Nothing to do with Amazon's TOS. If you make a copy of a book without the permission of the copyright holder and give it to someone else, that's piracy.

[Kumabjorn]

Originally Posted by no.guru

Wow. Whether lending a friend my reader so they can read my purchased content complies with a TOS or even the law is not a question I would ever remotely consider.

That some are willing to go through such extreme contortions to comply with rules that can't possibly be enforced would impress me if I were a better person, I suppose.

But I'm not, so I'm left shaking my head.

So, you're perfectly happy with living in a grey zone? I agree that lending someone your Kindle, without making any copies shouldn't be a crime. Hence, the laws need to change.

If people aren't aware that they are committing a crime, the only way we'll make them work for change is to make it blatantly clear that what they are doing is a crime, such as the laws are written today. If Belfaborac was indited and sentenced I think you would get a huge uproar, people want to handle their eBooks the way they do their pBooks. As long as these questions are only discussed at MR we will not see any change in societies laws.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, it's copyright law. Nothing to do with Amazon's TOS. If you make a copy of a book without the permission of the copyright holder and give it to someone else, that's piracy.

Making a copy to give it to a friend (temporarily or not) is likely copyright infringement. (There's some potential defense there; it's a very thin case.) But lending them a legit copy, without making an extra one (like, handing over the whole ereader), may be a violation of the TOS, but is not a violation of law.

When I'm a bit braver, I'll contact Amazon and ask them about the "register 6 devices" and their constant suggestion that this be used for family members, and the "personal use only" part of the TOS.

[no.guru]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

So, you're perfectly happy with living in a grey zone?...

In the US there are countless laws on the books that can be enforced to charge anyone with a crime for practically any behavior. There's the law as written, and the law as practiced.

I know nothing about Sweden, but I suspect the legal situation is similar there. If your response is that there are no old laws on the books that everyone ignores - including the authorities - all I can say is uh huh.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by no.guru

Wow. Whether lending a friend my reader so they can read my purchased content complies with a TOS or even the law is not a question I would ever remotely consider.

Would you see a difference between lending your reader to a friend, and simply giving your friend a copy of the file so that they could read it on their own reader? I think we'd all agree that the second of these actions is piracy. Is there really a difference between them reading it on your reader and on their own?

[Belfaborac]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, it's copyright law. Nothing to do with Amazon's TOS. If you make a copy of a book without the permission of the copyright holder and give it to someone else, that's piracy.

My bad, I should have written Amazon's TOS and copyright law - as they relate to lending of ebooks. I'm perfectly fine with not being legally able to upload my books to TPB or wherever. I'm also perfectly fine with not being able to copy them a hundred times and mailing a copy to everyone I know. What I'm in no way fine with is being able to neither lend, nor give away books any longer just because they're now in a different medium. As long as copyright law prohibits those actions, which I've legally enjoyed for decades, I'll happily ignore and break the law.

[no.guru]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Would you see a difference between lending your reader to a friend, and simply giving your friend a copy of the file so that they could read it on their own reader? I think we'd all agree that the second of these actions is piracy. Is there really a difference between them reading it on your reader and on their own?

I see more risk for me if I lend a copy instead of a device. I'm aware they could copy the content in either case without my knowledge and I would still be liable for having distributed it. With a file they could innocently leave the copy on their device/computer and someone else could distribute it.

Calling it piracy for me to lend my device is extreme IMO. In only a small percentage of cases will it result in unauthorized copying. The device would almost always come back to me without any content being copied.

If I told a friend of mine about a wonderful book I was reading, they would almost always get the book themselves if they wanted to read it.

[Kumabjorn]

Originally Posted by no.guru

In the US there are countless laws on the books that can be enforced to charge anyone with a crime for practically any behavior. There's the law as written, and the law as practiced.

I know nothing about Sweden, but I suspect the legal situation is similar there. If your response is that there are no old laws on the books that everyone ignores - including the authorities - all I can say is uh huh.

You're absolutely right, every country has laws that are obsolete, nobody enforces them. That is however not the question here. I'm trying to make the point that eBooks should not be treated any other way then pBooks in the legal sense as well as the practical. I'm fairly sure that everybody here on MR would not consider lending their eReader to someone, again no copies being made, as perfectly kosher. The problem is not the individual, the problem is that the law is not keeping up with the times. Hence, people might be sentenced, maybe even severely so, for something they have always been able to do, but no longer are allowed because we have had a paradigm shift in medium.

[no.guru]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

You're absolutely right, every country has laws that are obsolete, nobody enforces them. That is however not the question here. I'm trying to make the point that eBooks should not be treated any other way then pBooks in the legal sense as well as the practical. I'm fairly sure that everybody here on MR would not consider lending their eReader to someone, again no copies being made, as perfectly kosher. The problem is not the individual, the problem is that the law is not keeping up with the times. Hence, people might be sentenced, maybe even severely so, for something they have always been able to do, but no longer are allowed because we have had a paradigm shift in medium.

We're in agreement overall. An argument could also be made for breaking the law as a way of changing it, as well as for the more moderate route of observing it and educating the masses.

Pioneers like Belfaborac - with whom I am in good agreement on this topic - would break the law and pay the penalty, and that's admirable.

For the record, I don't count myself as a pioneer, because I know I would sit in jail knowing I could be home reading pbooks and regretting ever getting into ereaders at all.

[caleb72]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

So, you're perfectly happy with living in a grey zone? I agree that lending someone your Kindle, without making any copies shouldn't be a crime. Hence, the laws need to change.

I don't think lending someone your Kindle in itself is against the law. It's all about copies - where they are, are they made?

Here is how I'm currently interpreting things and I may well be wrong because I'm not a lawyer and haven't read through this extensively:

- When you purchase an ebook you implicitly agree to Amazon's terms of service (TOS). They do not represent copyright law in themselves, they are a license agreement. This is what Amazon wants you to observe with your purchase.

So - here's my take on a couple of scenarios:

1) You purchase an ebook from Amazon. A copy of this book remains on the Amazon content server and a copy is delivered to your Kindle. This is fine by Amazon's TOS, but is it a break of copyright law by Amazon? My take (in a vacuum) is yes. Amazon could theoretically have broken the law in doing this. However, the content creators must grant certain permissions to Amazon to make copies of content under certain conditions (or otherwise the business model would fail). This would also be why content creators can prevent Amazon putting ebooks in their prime lending scheme etc.. which is effectively a way of sending all sorts of unpurchased copies out to different consumers.

2) You purchase an ebook from Amazon and you create a backup copy on your laptop with the DRM untouched in a program like Calibre. Here, you haven't broken Amazon's TOS because you haven't interfered with the security mechanisms and you are still limited to Amazon registered devices/apps to view the content. However, you're in muddier water when it comes to copyright laws and this is where people starting talking about fair use. Fair use is the explanation that may allow you to make your own personal back-up copies of content.

3) Same as 2 but you remove the DRM. You've violated Amazon's TOS - however is there any change to the copyright position? I think this is one that people argue about. My position is no, there is no difference between this and scenario 2 as far as copyright law goes, but I'm sure many would argue otherwise (including some content creators).

4) You have multiple account holders on your Amazon account and content is shared amongst devices. This is not a breach of Amazon TOS and it's only as much a breach of copyright law by Amazon in the same way as scenario 1 as at any given time there is only supposed to be 1 copy in circulation and 1 copy on Amazon's content server. And again, if any additional permission was required by Amazon it would have been granted by the content creator.

5) Same as scenario 4 but you have a back-up copy on your laptop. OK - this is where I start to sink into mud. If you leave DRM on the file you're still not breaching Amazon's TOS, but is there a breach of copyright law. There are now mulitple copies of the file in circulation for one purchase. And I'm guessing if you're not connected to Amazon's content servers you can view your copy of the product at the same time as your fellow account holder. Oops - now it starts looking like we're in trouble even though we've attempted to comply with Amazon's TOS. I haven't dug deeply enough to see if there's a clause that covers this (there might be), but it would seem even Amazon's TOS are not sufficient to protect the consumer from breaking the law. I would even argue that perhaps it is Amazon that is breaking the law here as it is they who are granting the copies to fellow account holders.

6) Same as 5, but your backup has removed DRM. A breach of Amazon's TOS and (it appears to me) a breach of copyright law

7) You loan your Kindle with purchased DRM content on it to whomever your want. As long as that Kindle is still connected to your account and as long as you haven't created back-ups, this is neither a breach of Amazon's TOS nor is it a violation of copyright law.

8) Scenario 7 with any backup option taken (with or without DRM) may not be a breach of Amazon's TOS (see scenarios above) but it will be a violation of copyright law as far as I can see.

I'm not saying I'm 100% right. This is just me looking at different scenarios and trying to interpret them. It may be that scenario 5 in particular is covered somehow with agreements Amazon makes with content creators. But it does make you sit back and think a bit as a content consumer how easy it is to break certain laws without even intending to.

This is why I've chosen to live in my own little grey area. I attempt to follow copyright laws in spirit even if sometimes it may not be to the letter. As for Amazon's TOS, I've pretty much blatantly chosen to breach them by removing DRM from my content which probably makes me not a very nice customer for them - but I guessing most people here wouldn't want to lynch me for that disgression even though Amazon might.

[Laridae]

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

What I'm in no way fine with is being able to neither lend, nor give away books any longer just because they're now in a different medium. As long as copyright law prohibits those actions, which I've legally enjoyed for decades, I'll happily ignore and break the law.

But it's precisely because they are in a different medium that the rights of the consumer have changed. Of course we, as consumers, would love it to be business as usual with what we've always considered "our property" bought and paid for.

But, consider for a moment the transaction from the producer's point of view. The fundamental difference now is that the eBook is now easily replicated, ad infinitum, at practically no cost, and with no loss of quality. That situation has never happened before with normal, material property.

And that changes everything! It's not business as usual anymore, I'm afraid. And the buffalo no longer roam the great plains either, I'm afraid, sigh!

[Kumabjorn]

Laridae makes an interesting point.

How many posts do we have about publishers, usually Big 6, needing to get with the times. Adapt to the new market realities. If we do believe that, shouldn't we then embrace the same need for change among consumers?