can there be a market for used digital content?

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by JaneFancher

When speaking of digital content, there is no (a) or (b), so...no, legitimate resale... I don't think so. Perhaps people need to learn to shop carefully and be content with actually owning the product.

Except it isn't ownership if you own something you can sell it, it's a license which you in theory own so you should be able to transfer it except you can't. So price ether needs to reflect this lesser value and it needs to be me made blear its a license not a sale (no buy now button because you can't actually buy it) or the rights of ownership have to be included (first sale doctrine.)


edit: sorry reading back I missed where this was covered.

[riemann42]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

People don't send each other links and say, "You *gotta* buy THIS!" Ebooks need to find a way around that problem.

My father showed me his (physical) copy of, The Big Burn by Timothy Egan. He informed me that he is telling all of his friends about it. He refuses to loan out his copy. Amongst his friends this is common. They all want to support an author who writes something great, so they each buy a new copy.

I bought an eBook version, in front of him, to show how easy it was. I'll read it someday. Buy your own.

Finally, I think a License, or rental, model could be twisted to include a used market. However, to work, it would require a new type of DRM. We can all state that we will delete it when we sell the book, but that is a load of bull. Mr. Jordan mentioned near the beginning of this thread that this type of DRM would have drastic implications for privacy. I agree.

So in short, I hope a used market never develops for eBooks. If we want to go DRM free, then we should all accept that the reselling of an eBook is not permitted until the copyright expires.

Off Topic: Copyright should last 50 years from time of initial publication, or Life of Author plus 25 years. Whichever is shorter. This should be implemented world wide, retroactively, 200 years ago.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by riemann42

Off Topic: Copyright should last 50 years from time of initial publication, or Life of Author plus 25 years. Whichever is shorter. This should be implemented world wide, retroactively, 200 years ago.

200 years ago it was 7 years with a renewal of 7.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by JaneFancher

On the CC site, we operate completely on the honor system. We even say flat out that we don't have a problem with lending the file, just please, if the person likes it, remember how we make our living and come buy a legitimate copy. We all of us write books designed to be reread. If you like it once, you're going to like it better the second and third time through.

There are a number of authors and small publishers who have similar attitudes--a bit of sharing is good, but they're nervous about giving any kind of official go-ahead for it. And that's understandable; our laws involving copyright are really, really screwy, and there's no way to give permission for "reasonable sharing and just don't be a jerk about it."

This is uncomfortable, and it's going to stay uncomfortable until/unless copyright law goes through some big changes. (Which are about due. Aside from the torrenting lawsuit psychoses, the attempts at 3-strikes punishments without convinctions, and the hassles of DRM removal for reasonable purposes--it's only a few years until The Mouse runs free. Expect Disney's lawyers to be launching a lawsuit to prevent that anytime in the next couple of years.)

I totally agree about the community thing. I posted elsewhere about the critical mass syndrome of publishing that has been completely destroyed by the Thor Tool decision. In that sense, ebooks will, I'm convinced, be the saviors of true alternative, quality fiction.
...
It's really pretty exciting, and just getting started.

This. Yes.

I want to go track down big publishers and tell them, do something *now*, while ebooks are young and tiny and the ebook market has no specific shape or direction. Try bold things, stupid things, because the old methods aren't going to work here, and right now--for the next few years and then it's gone--anything you do in the ebook market will have almost no effect on the pbook market.

Ebooks are a tiny niche with big enough attention being paid to them, that whoever is at the forefront of the first *working* model is going to get rich off it.

That may be Baen. It may be Harlequin, which uses DRM, and has ebooks that go out of print regularly (you can't get last year's ebooks on their site), but their books are cheap enough to be impulse buys, numerous enough to be subscriptions (they're formulaic enough to lack any surprises--either you like them or you don't), and if they're massively torrented (they are), it doesn't matter because their business model has never focused on convincing everyone to buy new books, but on getting the word out that there's *always* new ones available for purchase right now. It may be tiny groups like Closed Circle, authors working together to make *good* ebooks, and pitching them to sympathetic audiences.

It won't be the Kindle model, with its convoluted DRM rules and incompatibility with most devices, and Amazon's creepy overseer abilities. It won't be the iBookstore, with its even more restrictive setup. Those are going to remain niche markets (even if they're the *biggest* ebook markets at the moment), because they're *failing to catch the majority of readers.*

The majority of the potential ebook market is currently blog-surfing more than reading ebooks, because paying for badly-formatted content is almost against their religion. And mainstream publishers are utterly failing to catch their attention, because it's never occurred to them that the sales pitch can't be "Top on the NYT bestseller list!" but needs to be closer to "More fun than an hour of clicking at TVTropes.com!"

I don't know what sales model(s) will work eventually; it's all scrambled right now. I'm enjoying seeing *different* business models, 'cos the old ones are not going to work in the long run.

[djgreedo]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

djgreedo - No, they were created for items sold to you. In law, the delivery method is not relevant. The differentiation is between product and service, not physical and digital.

There is no reason whatsoever to "think different" - if you want to strip the rights associated with sale, you can rent it or provide it as a service.

I think we're in general agreement - the rights and benefits of a paper book are intrinsic to its physical form, and those rights and benefits are a factor in the value of the book.

But I think treating an ebook as a service or rental is still limiting it to the current paradigm.

Over the last several years I've started consuming my media mostly digitally. I buy all my music from various online sources. I treat my music as much more disposable now. For instance I might buy a sing for $1, then a month later buy the album it's on. I will just delete the single since I now own two copies. I wouldn't try to sell that file for 50c. The amount of money involved is too small to worry about. When I was younger and buying CDs I would often swap or sell them with friends, but that was a physical item.

What I'm saying is that the way I percieve my ownership of this material is changing to suit its nature, and I think there will be an evolution of attitudes of consumers, content providers, and eventually laws to suit digital media better.

I think that digital media is in a way what the publishers want. They have always considered customers to be buying a licence to consume intellectual property, and the ability (or right) to resell that in its physical container has been a thorn in the publishers' sides. Customers have always expected to be buying a physical object that they can do with as the please (and rightly so).

Publishers therefore think that the actual value (i.e. price) of an ebook should be the same as a paper book, because it is the intellectual property that is being bought. The consumer thinks that a major part of the value/price is the physical object itself and the potential for reclaiming some of the original cost (and I agree).

But the actual value of an ebook needs to be low enough that consumers are comfortable with buying it despite having no resell value, and yet high enough that the publishers can provide quality material while earning a living for all the people involved in producing it. Most books already make very little money, and selling ebooks at a dollar each is not going to make the publishers more money than selling a paperback for $10.

Most people will happily pay $15 to go and watch a 2-hour movie (plus $45 for popcorn...). A $15 ebook entertains for far longer than 2 hours, so I don't understand why anyone would not be willing to pay $10-$15 for an electronic book that they don't have a right to sell (hypothetically, that is, as the law seems to allow reselling). And that is how I've been treating Kindle books. They are cheap enough that I feel reading them once and forgetting I ever bought them is something I'm pretty comfortable with.

[djgreedo]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

Why couldn't you have a digital model that was a kind of transferable license? That doesn't strike me as a laughable idea. It would be possible, for example, for Amazon to allow a Kindle book to be transferred to another user. I'm not promoting this as a great idea, but I would support it as something worth discussing. The point of the thread, I thought, was to ask the question as to whether there was a legitimate model or not.

The problem with that idea is that it requires DRM, and DRM is almost always a bad thing.

Couldn't we just find new ways of reaching the same goals? I like the Kindle sample idea, for example. I can get 15 pages of a book sent to my Kindle with no obligation. If I like what I see I can then buy the book. This is the digital equivalent of picking up a book in a shop and skimming through it.

There are so many ways of 'sampling' a book these days, and it should be much easier for people to make educated buying decisions.

Of course all of these problems will melt away if the concept of paying for digital media goes away and we and the creators find other (indirect) ways of funding, such as advertising, etc.

[Lemurion]

If I buy a physical book it can be read by one person in one place at one time.

If I buy an electronic book it can be read by more than one person in more than one place at one time.

(Even most major DRM schemes allow this to at least a limited degree.)

They're not the same thing, so treating them identically under the law is doomed to fail. You can't use them identically, so you can't treat them identically and have it work in the long run.

Some sort of new accommodation and understanding has to be found - and both sides need to buy in to it.

The first thing that has to happen is for publishers/providers to stop treating customers as the enemy.

[TGS]

A large part of the meaning of a word comes from the associations that it has. Ebook publishers rely on this to create a market for ebooks - ebooks are a lot like ordinary books, so if you like books there's going to be no problem with ebooks. But of course, ebooks are, in most respects, so unlike books that perhaps we need a different noun. The things I can't do with a ebook that I can do with a book:

• Own it (often I have only a license)
• Resell it
• Let someone borrow it (not usually and not easily)
• Give it away (again not usually and not easily)
• Have half a dozen open at the same time whilst I write a paper
• Decorate my study with them
• Give them as gifts (not as easily as giving books at least)

I could go on, but my point is that ebooks are more different from books than they are similar. The problem is that many of us try to relate to ebooks as if the were books - and we come up against frustration and annoyance when we are confronted by one of the many ways in which they are not like books.
The two sorts of solutions that seem to be suggested on this thread and others is either to make ebooks more like books, or to forget that they are any sort of book in the traditional sense at all.

The publishers I suspect would like us to pursue the latter course of action, yet at the same time all their marketing and the general discourse of ebooks encourages me to think of these electronic files as books - which of course they are not. So, if the producers of ebooks want me to stop thinking of their products as books they should start being honest about what they are selling me - a license to use an electronic file - and not just in the "fine print" but in the very presentation of their product.

[JaneFancher]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

The first thing that has to happen is for publishers/providers to stop treating customers as the enemy.

Speaking as an author who is trying very hard to work with the readers to be fair and who has been rather arbitrary ripped a new one (well, they've tried, but it hasn't worked ) by some of the members here, I'd say that goes both ways.

On the plus side, as always the immensely helpful and interesting folks far outnumber the ... less so.

But I appreciate the sentiment and absolutely agree with you.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by djgreedo

I think we're in general agreement - the rights and benefits of a paper book are intrinsic to its physical form, and those rights and benefits are a factor in the value of the book.

Huh? No, we are not even slightly in agreement! The intrinsic worth of content is based on the content itself, not the medium on which it comes.

EU law is quite clear that this is the case legally, as well.

But I think treating an ebook as a service or rental is still limiting it to the current paradigm.

"treating"? No, it's an option if publishers don't want to sell ebooks, it gives them certain responsibilities. Publishers are trying to get the best of both worlds, to the detriment of the consumer, and then whining when consumers go to the darknet instead.

I treat my music as much more disposable now

And that's your choice. But please don't pretend it's anything but your free choice.

What I'm saying is that the way I percieve my ownership of this material is changing to suit its nature, and I think there will be an evolution of attitudes of consumers, content providers, and eventually laws to suit digital media better.

Yes, certainly, if you continue to push this anti-consumer crusade, standing side by side with big content, then you're likely to push the younger generation into political activism and a private copy exemption. Is that your "better suited"?

Publishers therefore think that the actual value (i.e. price) of an ebook should be the same as a paper book, because it is the intellectual property that is being bought. The consumer thinks that a major part of the value/price is the physical object itself and the potential for reclaiming some of the original cost (and I agree).

...You have that potential with the digital copy. Simply because the wrapper is different does not change your rights under law, and the exhaustion doctrine still applies.

The comfortable ideas of people with a lot of disposable income are all very well, but limiting the reading of poorer people based on the concept that the wrapper content is in determines their rights will simply - and is allready starting to - create an underclass without adequate information access, because it's locked away simply because of the medium.

The medium is not the message and never has been, the medium is simply a display mechanism for the message.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by TGS

So, if the producers of ebooks want me to stop thinking of their products as books they should start being honest about what they are selling me - a license to use an electronic file - and not just in the "fine print" but in the very presentation of their product.

EU law is quite clear on this - if it looks like a sale, smells like a sale and is presented as a sale? It's a sale, and exhaustion doctrine applies.


Ms Fancher - You have treated user's rights in law as a joke. This, I'm afraid, speaks volumes to me. In the long run, that attitude can only help spark support for the private copying exception I see looming on the horizon (you may wish to check the success of the PirateParties in the EU, it's far from negligible, politically...and they're just getting started) and which I believe only an attitude of respecting users rights can fight off.

In the end, there has to be a reasonable alternative between the private copy exception and the "you'll pay repeatedly and like it" attitude of big media, and mocking user's rights is most decidedly on the side of big media, given their current legal attacks on said rights.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

EU law is quite clear on this - if it looks like a sale, smells like a sale and is presented as a sale? It's a sale, and exhaustion doctrine applies.

But a sale of what? As far as I understand it, (which, admittedly isn't far), in the UK books are zero rated for VAT, but ebooks are standard rated. The rationale for this is that ebooks are not "goods" but a service. Thus, it might be a sale but we are not buying what we think we are buying, (or rather, not buying in my case).

[riemann42]

DawnFalcon,

To return to the OPs question. Can there be a used market for eBooks? I repeat an emphatic No. Any attempt to do so would encourage more DRM.

However, you make a very valid point about Law right now. My suggestion is that we change this law.

Am I anti-consumer? No. Not at all. I am anti-DRM, and against publishers and bookstores telling me how I can use their digital product. You may strongly disagree with me, and call me anti-consumer if you like for feeling this way. It is a fair argument. I just feel that DRM is more harmful than lack of resale rights.

I am also pro-author and pro-creator (ok, my face just turned red when i reread that). I think that seeing digital purchases as a per-household arrangement one time sale is the best compromise.

So where do we go from here? Your arguments about EU Law are likely correct (In the US, likely not. Assume that consumers have no rights in the land-of-the-free-and-brave). Certainly many of us assume that purchasing an eBook confers ownership, and the rights of ownership seem to include the rights of resellers.

I think we need to have a Digital Consumers and Creators Bill of Rights Treaty. It would confer on consumers the right to:

* Consume purchased media on any device they wish, as long as this does not include public display of the media.

* Share media with all members of a household, within reason. A household would not, for example, include an entire dorm. Furthermore, for corporate consumers, unless explicitly stated, the right to consume the media would go to a single employee.

* Backup, preserve, convert, and modify media in any way they choose, as long as it is for personal use and not resold or distributed outside of a single household.

* Digital media ownership grants rights to content. Content would not need to be repurchased. If a new medium is developed for same content, the consumer is within his/her rights to convert it or to commission a third party to perform this conversion.

In return for these rights, come these responsibilities:

* Digital Content cannot be resold without the permission of the copyright owner.


Compare the above set of rights and responsibilities to a system which would maintain current right of resale and ownership:

* Digital content can be purchased and used by one individual.

* Transfer of content is legal, as long as transfer is permanent.

* Consumer can't convert media to another format, or distribute media without exchanging the license.

* To ensure that the system works, a DRM scheme would be required, and violating the DRM would be a criminal offense.


Of course the ideal CONSUMER system would grant all the rights of the first and the second, without the DRM. Problem here is that the system will be abused. The current used CD market is an example of this abuse.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by TGS

But a sale of what? As far as I understand it, (which, admittedly isn't far), in the UK books are zero rated for VAT, but ebooks are standard rated. The rationale for this is that ebooks are not "goods" but a service. Thus, it might be a sale but we are not buying what we think we are buying, (or rather, not buying in my case).

No, the rationale is that printed books are a specific exception to VAT rating, and ebooks are not, since they are not "printed". The UK government has admitted they have the power to zero-rate ebooks, but chose not to.


riemann42 - You are wrong. The law says I can resell, and your quoting the line of big media lobbying organisations is plainly and simply factually incorrect.

"Am I anti-consumer? No. Not at all."

No, you're "just" effectively massively pro-big media (and in the longer term, creating more support for the private copy exemption lobby) with taking that stance. DRM is no more and no less than an excuse.

If you want to change the law, sure, let's hear the specific proposals, but to claim with a straight face that existing law doesn't allow resale is propaganda. Remember that if the law is reviewed, you will only have a very small say, and big media will have a very large say - how do you propose to stop them getting their way?

The current system is not ideal, but it has the advantage of allowing consumers some rights, which big media is repeatedly trying to strip.

Ah, specifics...you are, quite simply, proposing to strip first sale/exhaustion doctrine rights. And in return...what? Well, let's see... given media is sold in the EU, you're proposing people get their existing rights, stripping commercial organisations of reasonable display rights, limiting private lending of media...and oh, ONE new right, to outsource format conversion of media they own.

It's an absolutely terrible "deal" for consumers, it's more like a phase 1 wishlist for big media. You are simply and plainly incorrect on how you view current rights - it's a sale, you can sell it on, you can do anything with it not restricted by copyright (i.e. copies outside your direct control), etc. - in the UK, personal format shifting and DRM stripping and is not "legal", but it IS completely non-prosecutable, it's simply not in the public interest to prosecute (and so the CPS won't).


"The current used CD market is an example of this abuse."

Ohnoes, people exerting their legal rights is abuse.

...

You're shilling for big media. My bad, nothing else in this post addressed to you is remotely relevant, I see. Sigh, I should know better than to respond to astroturfing...

[DJHARKAVY]

Originally Posted by riemann42

I think we need to have a Digital Consumers and Creators Bill of Rights Treaty. It would confer on consumers the right to:

* Consume purchased media on any device they wish, as long as this does not include public display of the media.

* Share media with all members of a household, within reason. A household would not, for example, include an entire dorm. Furthermore, for corporate consumers, unless explicitly stated, the right to consume the media would go to a single employee.

* Backup, preserve, convert, and modify media in any way they choose, as long as it is for personal use and not resold or distributed outside of a single household.

* Digital media ownership grants rights to content. Content would not need to be repurchased. If a new medium is developed for same content, the consumer is within his/her rights to convert it or to commission a third party to perform this conversion.

In return for these rights, come these responsibilities:

* Digital Content cannot be resold without the permission of the copyright owner.

What about audio? Does that come under the same umbrella?

Otherwise, sounds good to me...