Ebook Reselling -Yea or Nay-

[djgreedo]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Win95 was atrocious. So were several of its followups. Plenty of people still want to buy WinXP, even though it's no longer supported.

Really? Have these people not heard of Vista and Windows 7? I cringe every day when I have to use XP at work.

No reliable system prevents the seller of a pbook from having a copy of that, either; it's just been the case that so far, those copies were lower-quality enough to be assumed to be a disincentive for copying and reselling for most people.

Not to mention that it's time consuming and costly to copy a paper book. It's simply not practical. What's worth more the $15 it costs to buy a book or several hours of my time and $5 in paper to copy it?

Insisting on different rules for digital purchases than physical ones will take, among other things, publishers & stores being willing to spell out the terms of the license, as opposed to sale. Sales are simple: you buy it, you own it; what you can do with it is defined by plenty of laws. Licenses are different for each license; there are no assumptions--and no limitations except as spelled out in the license itself.

Absolutely. I don't think we have a 'right' to buy and own a work of art. If the best way for the author and publisher to 'sell' their work is via a licence only, then I'm happy with that. Obviously consumers will vote with the wallet like they do with everything else.

As much as I'd like to advocate for a system like the B&N or Kindle's loaning feature that allows for complete transfer of ownership, I'm convinced that anything based on current DRM models is doomed to failure; there's just too much incentive to crack them just to retain access if you don't have an interest in transferring ownership.

I don't like DRM in principle. Personally the only DRM I actually use is Kindle DRM and that frankly doesn't inconvenience me in the slightest. I suppose if I one day buy a non-Kindle ereader I'll either lose my books or be forced to convert them, but I generally buy to read once.

The difference to a potential copyright infringer of DRM and non-DRM is negligible anyway.

Perhaps resale is not socially/economically feasible, but giving them away should be possible, because without the ability to share ebooks with friends, they're *never* going to become the dominant form of literature. Nobody got to love books by buying them full-price, or even only by reading them at libraries. Kids aren't going to become devoted ebook readers by limiting themselves to what their parents agree to put on their credit cards.

Good point. This is not just about the economics of ebooks but also the social aspect. I probably didn't pay for a book out of my own pocket until I was a late teenager. Until then books were gifts, borrowed from a library, or shared from friends and family. I probably would not be paying for books now if I wasn't exposed to those 'free' books in my youth.

This is a problem that *must* be solved. The current "solution" is "secondhand ebooks" (and music, and movies) "are on quasi-legal to illegal download sites," which, as much as it disturbs publishers, is likely a very stable arrangement.

It's a tough one to solve. Without the economics of supply and demand that comes with physical objects there is no solution that I can see yet. The only logical conclusion I can come to is that digital media will have no monetary value in the future. Artists and creators will have to find a way to fund their work and to profit from it that doesn't necessarily require a price to be placed directly on a copy of their digital work.

This is essentially how TV works - ads keep the content free. Same with radio.

I know that whenever ads are mentioned some people have a knee-jerk reaction and start rambling about the purity of books, but I really think ads will have to play a part in enabling authors to earn a living from their work in the digital age.

Unless authors and publishers can come up with a better idea that works.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by djgreedo

Really? Have these people not heard of Vista and Windows 7? I cringe every day when I have to use XP at work.

I despise Vista. Hate the stupid permissions games; hate that I have to login as an administrator to find out why it's not letting me do things. Haven't tried 7, but haven't heard that it fixed what annoys me most about Vista. (Top of the list: that I can't search by filetype+word-in-filename, and can't set individual search parameters without changing the standard ones.)

Absolutely. I don't think we have a 'right' to buy and own a work of art. If the best way for the author and publisher to 'sell' their work is via a licence only, then I'm happy with that. Obviously consumers will vote with the wallet like they do with everything else.

The issue isn't whether they'll sell with licenses; it's how long it'll take them to spell out the terms they want. Right now, they're insisting that ebooks are licensed without explicitly saying so in a spot that connects to sales (the Kindle info pages say that content is licensed--but the "download Kindle app + purchase books" page doesn't.), and the specific terms of the license, and penalties for breach of contract, aren't mentioned.

And it's not that publishers don't know what terms they want; it's that they know the public will reject those terms at the prices they're demanding.

I don't like DRM in principle. Personally the only DRM I actually use is Kindle DRM and that frankly doesn't inconvenience me in the slightest. I suppose if I one day buy a non-Kindle ereader I'll either lose my books or be forced to convert them, but I generally buy to read once.

I read on three computers and a Sony, and once in a while on a Clie. I don't tolerate DRM at all, and don't currently have any software installed that deals with it. If I ever run out of quality books from Smashwords and DriveThruRPG, I'll consider changing my mind about that.

Good point. This is not just about the economics of ebooks but also the social aspect. I probably didn't pay for a book out of my own pocket until I was a late teenager. Until then books were gifts, borrowed from a library, or shared from friends and family. I probably would not be paying for books now if I wasn't exposed to those 'free' books in my youth.

It's a big problem that publishers aren't addressing, because they've never had to actively cultivate the used book dynamics. They've existed outside of publishers' attention ranges. Now, with publishers insisting that secondhand ebooks are not legal at all, we're in danger of setting up a weird double system, where an elite has purchased ebooks that they can discuss in public, and an underclass has bootleg downloads that they can't.

Guess which category inner-city pre-teens are going to fall into. Guess which category will include college students living on loans & grants.

This can work fine for several years--but when those kids, and those college students, get stable jobs later and could afford to join "the elite"--the legit versions have to be at least as good as the bootlegs to make it worth their while.

At best, you get inner-city kids & poor college students growing up reading legit free & cheap books from Smashwords and free downloads from indie author sites, and the "elite" reading books by the Big 6 publishers. And those publishers' sales will plummet when those kids become the dominant buying group, because the now-adults don't know or care about Big 6 books, because they grew up without reading them.

This is essentially how TV works - ads keep the content free. Same with radio.
I know that whenever ads are mentioned some people have a knee-jerk reaction and start rambling about the purity of books,

It's not a matter (IMHO) of the purity of books, but the effectiveness of advertising. In order to use ads to decrease the cost of ebooks, the ads have to bring in the advertisers more revenue than they spend on the ads (or the advertisers have to believe that).

How many of what kind of ads would it take to make an $8 ebook cost only $3? Would people recommend the ebook to their friends and get them to buy it? Or would they crack the DRM, strip the ads, and send their friends the plaintext version?

[queentess]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

It's a big problem that publishers aren't addressing, because they've never had to actively cultivate the used book dynamics. They've existed outside of publishers' attention ranges. Now, with publishers insisting that secondhand ebooks are not legal at all, we're in danger of setting up a weird double system, where an elite has purchased ebooks that they can discuss in public, and an underclass has bootleg downloads that they can't.

That's a really interesting way of looking at it, elite vs underclass.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Guess which category inner-city pre-teens are going to fall into. Guess which category will include college students living on loans & grants.

This can work fine for several years--but when those kids, and those college students, get stable jobs later and could afford to join "the elite"--the legit versions have to be at least as good as the bootlegs to make it worth their while.

Not even that, it also has to be as easy as pirating. And at the point where they finally become a paying customer, you're already battling the habits they've had for years. Why change that habit if it's going to cost me more and it's difficult to use and it's locked to one brand of device?

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

At best, you get inner-city kids & poor college students growing up reading legit free & cheap books from Smashwords and free downloads from indie author sites, and the "elite" reading books by the Big 6 publishers. And those publishers' sales will plummet when those kids become the dominant buying group, because the now-adults don't know or care about Big 6 books, because they grew up without reading them.

Another excellent point.

I also shudder to think of my child learning her grammar and spelling from the majority of stuff that's on Smashwords... I know I picked up most of my language skills from excessive reading.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

So torrent down loaders have no personal gain? They get free books, they rape the earth and humanity to save a few bucks, for personal profit. At least those in Somalia do it to avoid starving to death.

We're all in this together. Today I probably used a few kilowatts of electricity, but I don't own a car, I suppose everything will work out in the end.

[SensualPoet]

I have no desire to resell ebooks.

I have no real problem with the current DRM situation -- buying from Kobo or Amazon, being able to authorise/deactivate/reauthorise up to five devices to have access to these ebooks, unlimited downloading of these copies to these devices, etc.

I have no problem with folks who really want to share DRM ebooks buying a second device to share them on. Ereaders are becoming so inexpensive this isn't much of a barrier if share with friends regularly.

Originally Posted by pdurrant

And yet, on the related question of whether an ebook can be inherited, I'm firmly on the side that says, "Of course ebooks can be inherited".

This is an interesting point: what happens if a husband and wife have separate Amazon accounts (funded by his and hers credit cards), and one of them dies? or goes blind? Access to those ebooks disappears for the surviving spouse.

Part of the solution might be a mechanism which allows ALL the titles in an account (no cherry-picking) to be transferred to another account. In effect, one account is closed and all the goods appear, still fully DRMed, elsewhere.

Interestingly, in principle, that would be a way to donate to libraries, too. (Except libraries may have delete the copies 26 uses later; and the current Overdrive system can't handle this.)

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by SensualPoet

This is an interesting point: what happens if a husband and wife have separate Amazon accounts (funded by his and hers credit cards), and one of them dies? or goes blind? Access to those ebooks disappears for the surviving spouse.

Part of the solution might be a mechanism which allows ALL the titles in an account (no cherry-picking) to be transferred to another account. In effect, one account is closed and all the goods appear, still fully DRMed, elsewhere.

Currently, none of the DRM'd ebook stores or publishers allow transfer of purchases, for any reason whatsoever. If they did, one person could buy ebooks and say, "cancel my account; transfer all contents to this new person"--which would entirely disrupt publishers intentions of locking digital purchases to a single consumer. (Theoretically, the original person would lose all access to the site, but it's not like it'd hard to make a new account with a different username & email, perhaps with a different credit card.)

There's no reason DRM couldn't allow transfer of content. No reason the "loan for two weeks, once," feature couldn't be "move this book to a different person's account permanently." Publishers are terrified that if they allow *any* transfer of digital content, books will be bought once, by one person, and shared all over the web, a library with an infinite waiting list. They'll claim that allowing transfer of a deceased's purchases to a spouse or other heir will be abused, that they'll be flooded with fake death certificates and lose out on thousands of purchases.

Lack of ability to share content with spouses on a different account, or share with children without giving them access to purchasing, is one of the objections to DRM. Lack of inheritability hasn't been addressed in court yet (AFAIK) but I expect it to show up in the next few years, and I expect Amazon to say "no, those aren't inheritable; the license ends when the purchaser dies," which I expect to be held up by at least a lower court, followed by a complaint to a higher court demanding access to the deceased's notes and bookmarks, if not the purchased content.

I wouldn't be surprised if an inheritance case became the first real test of the purchase-vs-license status of ebooks.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Lack of ability to share content with spouses on a different account, or share with children without giving them access to purchasing, is one of the objections to DRM. Lack of inheritability hasn't been addressed in court yet (AFAIK) but I expect it to show up in the next few years, and I expect Amazon to say "no, those aren't inheritable; the license ends when the purchaser dies," which I expect to be held up by at least a lower court, followed by a complaint to a higher court demanding access to the deceased's notes and bookmarks, if not the purchased content.

I wouldn't be surprised if an inheritance case became the first real test of the purchase-vs-license status of ebooks.

That sounds like curing the symptom while ignoring the disease.

For Amazon's intents and purposes, ebooks are single use/user items. You are allowed to read them as often as you like, but there is no point which the reader is able to say I have finished reading this book and will now begin to read it again.

The lending system recently implemented is a joke. Turning single use items into double use items, and was most likely added as a conciliatory measure, possibly to give weight to Amazon's own arguments in this future legal case you propose.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

One consideration is the license agreement. If that says that ownership is not transferable, you'd be in breach of contract if you were to re-sell it. Non-transferable software license agreements are not uncommon. The terms and conditions of most bookstores do say that ownership cannot be transferred, and you have agreed to those terms when you buy the book.

Actually, I've never agreed to any terms. No box has popped up saying I have to agree. No site has ever said you have to read this. So really, is the EULA worth anything since I never actually agreed to it?

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Actually, I've never agreed to any terms. No box has popped up saying I have to agree. No site has ever said you have to read this. So really, is the EULA worth anything since I never actually agreed to it?

Most commercial sites have a line that says "you must agree to our Terms and Conditions in order to register," with T&C being a link to a popup box or another page; you have to click "yes" to finish registration & be allowed to buy anything. Most people don't read them; they just click yes.

The legality of this hasn't been tested in court. While click-agreements have been confirmed as legal, click-agreements that are buried on another page or are deliberately hard to read (like being in all caps, or a tiny scroll box) haven't been confirmed as a legitimate way to present them.

And, of course, agreeing to terms that are illegal to require doesn't obligate people to adhere to them. If the terms say, "these terms may change at any time," and you agree, that doesn't mean they can change the terms to say "all users in states that end with the letter 'A' are required to pay a $50/month fee," and bill your credit card for it; nor does it mean that if they change the terms to say "all registered users are required to house and feed the board of directors of BookStore Inc on request."

Saying, "you agree not to resell or give away this book" may not be legally enforceable, just like it's not legally enforceable for a physical bookstore to put a sign on the door that says "you agree not to give away these books when you're done reading them; they must be thrown into shredders for recycling; if you don't agree to those terms, you may not buy here."

If you fail to follow the terms, the store may refuse to sell to you--but they can't prosecute you for it.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

In that situation I would ask the author for a review copy and then send them back a version with the corrected grammar. Unfortunately the Kindle software does not have an easy method for this, but I assume it is being worked on.

That's what ePub is for. Ask for an ePub copy, convert to Mobi, load on the Kindle and read. Any errors, correct in the ePub version and when it's all corrected, send that back. Also you can fix any formatting that needs fixing too.'

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I'm torn on this one.

So long as the retailer continues to provides on-line access to copies of the purchased ebook that can be re-downloaded at any time, I don't see how it can be possible to sell on an ebook.

That's easy. The person buying the eBook will need to have an account on the same site. Then when the sale is made, the eBook gets transferred from the seller's account to the buyer's account. Then the buyer can download it and transaction done. If this is the way it's done, then there is no way for anyone to sell more then one copy of a given eBook because it would requite the seller to have it in an account in an online eBook store.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by djgreedo

Really? Have these people not heard of Vista and Windows 7? I cringe every day when I have to use XP at work.

Vista was a nasty piece of work. It was awful. It was almost as bad as WinME. There is no reason Vista should ever have existed.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Most commercial sites have a line that says "you must agree to our Terms and Conditions in order to register," with T&C being a link to a popup box or another page; you have to click "yes" to finish registration & be allowed to buy anything. Most people don't read them; they just click yes.

The legality of this hasn't been tested in court. While click-agreements have been confirmed as legal, click-agreements that are buried on another page or are deliberately hard to read (like being in all caps, or a tiny scroll box) haven't been confirmed as a legitimate way to present them.

And, of course, agreeing to terms that are illegal to require doesn't obligate people to adhere to them. If the terms say, "these terms may change at any time," and you agree, that doesn't mean they can change the terms to say "all users in states that end with the letter 'A' are required to pay a $50/month fee," and bill your credit card for it; nor does it mean that if they change the terms to say "all registered users are required to house and feed the board of directors of BookStore Inc on request."

Saying, "you agree not to resell or give away this book" may not be legally enforceable, just like it's not legally enforceable for a physical bookstore to put a sign on the door that says "you agree not to give away these books when you're done reading them; they must be thrown into shredders for recycling; if you don't agree to those terms, you may not buy here."

If you fail to follow the terms, the store may refuse to sell to you--but they can't prosecute you for it.

Take amazon for example. I've had an account long before the Kindle and the first time they sold eBooks. So in that case, there was no way of agreeing to the terms for eBooks when creating the account as I had it before Amazon had the EULA. So because I've never agreed and they've never had me agree to it, does that mean the EULA is invalid? I would think so.

[Giggleton]

This thread is sort of pointless. Ebooks are going to retain their method of payment within the book and be freelyshared and read before actual purchase.

End Of Line.

[feenix1363]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

This thread is sort of pointless. Ebooks are going to retain their method of payment within the book and be freelyshared and read before actual purchase.

End Of Line.

There are to many people all to willing to shut a thread down, for no good reason imho.

The thread was started to provoke discussion and get opinions. So its as pointless as any other discussion.

On any forum you're going to find threads that either go against what you believe, or that don't interest you. If you reply to each saying that you find it 'pointless' you're going to be really busy