HarperCollins Sues Open Road Over E-Book Rights

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

So, "share" means something different from the common dictionary definition, and they expect readers to just understand that? The TOS says "you are not authorized to share, sell, or distribute the work to others." Most of us assume "distribute" means "hand them my functional copy." Apparently, you *are* allowed to distribute, as long as you're not making extra copies?

Correct. This is why I contacted them, for their definition of "share."


Does that mean you can sell also, as long as you're not making extra copies--like, if you downloaded your purchases to a flash drive and then sold that? (If not, is it against the TOS to get out a reader I don't use much anymore, load a copy of a book onto it, and hand that to another person? It's okay to share as long as I'm taking a financial risk?)

No, to the first question as selling it wouldn't be "non-commercial." And yes, to the second question as long as you don't have a copy of the book on your computer even as a backup.

The "buy extra copy for another person" is a brand-new feature that didn't exist a couple of months ago.

This is part of SW's "honor system." They would prefer you and your spouse each buy your own copy. Two separate accounts? When I said this was silly, the CSR said it is also OK to share the device. First one read the book then give the device to spouse/child.

I'm also unsure about the "your ereader" part. I live in a community property state, and we don't have "mine" and "his" appliances. We have devices that one of us prefers to use more than the other, but it's understood that we own everything jointly.

True, which is why they don't mind the sharing of devices. The device can be equally owned by two people. State laws and "community property" statutes override T&C. I meant ereader as the one in your hand or attached to your 'puter.


I am not fond of "oh, you know what we really mean!" TOS, when they've been used as grounds for lawsuits in some situations. If they mean you can share as long as you're not making an additional digital copy, they need to say that.

Agreed. This is I asked them for clarification. In the end, it sounded like one file per household.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

It's okay to share as long as I'm taking a financial risk?)

In a sense, yes. If you lend your paperback to someone, you risk not getting it back and being out the cost of the book. You can't easily blast paper backs across the Internet to share with a billion of your closest friends. The ease of sending ebooks remove the risk and difficulty barriers that are inherent in sharing physical media, so it's really not surprise that the IP owners impose different barriers for the different format.
But I suspect everyone realizes this already.

I am not fond of "oh, you know what we really mean!" TOS

I agree with you there in principle, and would prefer some reform, but the arguments here in practice are teetering on the edge of failing a 'reasonable person' test. The terms of the TOS, in most cases, seem not to be in danger of going over that edge, because "we know what they really mean!"

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Fbone

I meant ereader as the one in your hand or attached to your 'puter.

But it's not her 'puter, it's their 'puter, and as for the hand, she gave that to him in marriage.

[stonetools]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Not according to the TOS on most ebook store sites. Amazon, B&N, Fictionwise & Smashwords all have TOS bits that prevent any sharing whatsoever, with the small exception that B&N has built their one-time two-week lending into the TOS. However, ebooks are claimed to be for personal non-commercial use only, an installable on devices that you own only.

(Non-commercial use... apparently, you can't use B&N ebooks for job research.)

If it's reasonable to ignore that part of the TOS, why not ignore other parts as well?

Er, wrong . Amazon allows you to share your library across different machines. Amazon's TOS doesn't explicitly allow it, but neither does it explicitly bar it. I believe most major retailers' TOS are the same on this.
What it means in real life is that if Papa Kindle Owner buys an ebook, Mama Kindle Owner and Junior Kindle Owner can read the ebook on their Kindles or Kindle App supported devices. Indeed, this ebook can even be shared with Brother Kindle Owner in another city or Sister Kindle Owner in another state. Ain't the Internet wonderful?
This is apparently enough sharing for the general public, who don't care about the inability to resell ebooks ( probably because most people don't resell books. They keep them , or when they get tired of hauling them around, give them away. )
Now techies have been beating the drum about limitations on sharing ebooks for quite some time now-to a collective yawn from the general public. May be the general public are just fine with buying a limited license. It certainly appears so, since they are buying more and more ebooks. I have yet to hear a single non-techie person complain about limitations on sharing, and until that happens, I conclude that the GP are happy with things as they are.

[stonetools]

So, "share" means something different from the common dictionary definition, and they expect readers to just understand that?

The dictionary definition of share:

transitive and intransitive verb use something along with others: to have or use something in common with other people
"We shared an apartment."
2.
transitive and intransitive verb take responsibility together: to take equal responsibility for something along with other people
"We shared the blame."
3.
transitive and intransitive verb let somebody use something: to allow somebody to use something or have part of something
"I shared my ice cream with him."
4.
transitive verb divide something equally between people: to allocate equal parts of something to different people or groups
"She shared out the money among her six grandchildren."
5.
transitive verb have similar feeling or experience: to have something the same as or in common with somebody else
"He shared my view that the plan would not work."
6.
transitive verb tell somebody something: to express something to another person rather than keeping silent
"Do you want to share your feelings?"

LINK

It apparently doesn't cover " making a copy of something and giving that copy to another, while keeping the original for oneself".
It appears that the various TOS do comply with the traditional dictionary definition of "share ".

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Fbone

No, to the first question as selling it wouldn't be "non-commercial." And yes, to the second question as long as you don't have a copy of the book on your computer even as a backup.

But they've already said, "the exact terms in the TOS aren't important." The TOS says personal use only, and non-commercial use only. Does that mean they don't allow use of their book for job-related research? I'm thinking no. Does it mean you're forbidden to learn a marketable skill from their books? I'm thinking no. So they mean something other by "non-commercial" than the common uses of that, too.

If I don't have a copy on my computer even as a backup, why can't I sell it, and just tell them to remove the book from my library? (Or even just not re-download it. I can sell a house even if I keep a copy of the keys; it only becomes a crime if I use them to get into a place that's no longer mine.)

Agreed. This is I asked them for clarification. In the end, it sounded like one file per household.

If that's what they mean, the TOS should say that. While "household" is a blurry term also (does it include students away at college? Even our voting registrations aren't sure), it is different from "personal use only."

I don't have a lot of respect for companies who try to coerce people into following rules that the companies themselves believe are unreasonable.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I don't have a lot of respect for companies who try to coerce people into following rules that the companies themselves believe are unreasonable.

She said everything is on the "honor system." Take that to mean what you'd like.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

If that's what they mean, the TOS should say that.

This is why we have the reasonable person tests.

If everything in every doc of this type had to be spelled out with no ambiguities to anyone, every thing like this would be as long as the unabridged OED.

Of course, this is also why we have lawyers.