"If you can afford an ebook reader, you can afford ebook prices"

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by scveteran

I could agree with your argument about being able to sell or loan out the ebook on one simple condition. That there is a system in place that ensures that only one ebook reader at a time has that ebook available to be used. This would also require that no one would be able to make a copy of the file. It is strictly transferred from one reader to another. So when you loan it out, you can't access it. When you sell it, it is gone from you forever.

Agreed. And that is something that needs to be implemented.

If I sell or give away a physical book I own, I no longer have a copy.

There needs to be a system to transfer a license for an e-book to another user, that also deletes the copy from your account to avoid having the person give copies away while keeping their own on their e-reader, PC etc.

But it's a damn tough thing to implement, as any DRM scheme--even one allowing such transfers--will be circumvent by immoral folks that have no problem getting free copies of stuff, or keeping their copy and giving copies to friends etc.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by scveteran

That there is a system in place that ensures that only one ebook reader at a time has that ebook available to be used. This would also require that no one would be able to make a copy of the file. It is strictly transferred from one reader to another. So when you loan it out, you can't access it. When you sell it, it is gone from you forever.

Any other method of allowing you to "loan or sell" the file really is nothing more than demanding the right to be able to infringe on others copyrighted works.

So the first sale doctrine only applies if any kind of infringement is made impossible? I COULD copy a cd and sell the original, I don't do it but i could do it. If you can verify and control where a file I pay for is, if and where i can back it up, how and when I lend it then it isn't my file.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

In what way does an infringing copy cause harm to the point of being a criminal act?

Just think of the future when a book, album or movie is ONLY available as a digital file.

If someone downloads an illegal copy, they will NEVER buy a copy of it as they already have the exact file they'd pay to obtain.

Thus that company will never see a dime from them for that content, and I think that's cause for criminal harm. Just like someone who steals a DVD will never buy that DVD as they already have a copy.

The difference is in the digital age a store/company etc. hasn't lost a physical copy as there are NO physical copies to be stolen anymore. But in both cases a sale is lost. The difference is in the all digital future, only potential sales CAN be lost, as there is no more physical, tangible product to lose.

Fair use laws need to be redone to be much more clear as to what one can and can't do with their digital content they've bought. Hardly an insurmountable task. People should be able to make copies, put it on differen machines of theirs etc. They should be able to transfer/sell it to others second hand as long as they don't keep a copy for themselves (just like you can burn a copy of a CD for the car, but can't burn a copy then sell your originally legally etc.).

Tax is a non issue. You don't see the government suing thieves as they didn't get sales tax on items they obtained through stealing the physical items.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

So the first sale doctrine only applies if any kind of infringement is made impossible? I COULD copy a cd and sell the original, I don't do it but i could do it. If you can verify and control where a file I pay for is, if and where i can back it up, how and when I lend it then it isn't my file.

Well it is a civil violation to buy a cd, copy it and sell the original.

But your later point is valid.

As we go to a digital age, the fact of the matter is that people will no longer pay to own a physical copy of things.

They will pay for a license to access digital content.

Hell, as the internet speeds up and super-broadband is everywhere and super reliable (never down due to back up servers etc.) we'll probably not even download files but just pay for access to files we can stream instantly anytime and anywhere.

There's a full on digital revolution and in 50 years, 100 years etc. people won't be buying music, movies, books etc. They'll just be paying for unlimited access to them.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by scveteran

Nothing you have said so far in this thread justifies your theft. The truth is you want a product and you think it is alright for you to steal it because it is not available to you in the way that you want it, at the price you want it, and/or the time you want it.

That is definately not a valid legal reason to steal from someone. IMO it also is not a moral reason for your behavior.

I never said or indicated I was coming from or standing on the moral right. I am of the evergrowing voice that the publishers MUST listen to. we are the new reality! they need to understand that we have a voice and will share our opinion.

A LOT!

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

Well it is a civil violation to buy a cd, copy it and sell the original.



Hell, as the internet speeds up and super-broadband is everywhere and super reliable (never down due to back up servers etc.) we'll probably not even download files but just pay for access to files we can stream instantly anytime and anywhere.

There's a full on digital revolution and in 50 years, 100 years etc. people won't be buying music, movies, books etc. They'll just be paying for unlimited access to them.

There's a quick and easy way to make sure people know Oceana has always been at war with Eurasia keep absolute control over content. This is really all any of us are arguing, control. Publishers control content to make money but could also just as easily do it or hide something or put forth a non monetary agenda. You take away DRM they scream and cry about piracy and the poor authors who mostly aren't getting anything more than their advance anyway.

Are you a publisher? if not why do you want them having control over content, there's certainly not right to profit only the right to try.

[dmaul1114]

It's not control over content, it's keeping people from getting copyrighted material without paying for it.

I don't give a crap about publishers. If anything, I hope the digital revolution will KILL publishers, record labels etc. as authors, artists etc. can cheaply distribute their material on their own and get much more of the profits--which the deserve as the content creators!

I care about the content creators getting paid for their work. And the fact is, people don't illegally download books, music etc. as they hate publishers and record labels. They do it because people suck and they just want to get stuff for free.

Thus we need a system to help authors, musicians etc. get paid for their work, vs. having people pirate it. As even if publishers die, people will still pirate books rather than buying it from the authors website.

And for my last post, I'm not thrilled about an all digital, all streaming media future. But that's just where the media industry is going in the digital era. But at the same time, some of that is stubborn nostalgia I think

I have 300+ movies on DVD/Blu Ray. I seldom watch them as mainly watch discs from Netflix and stream movies on Netflix Instant Watch as I'd usually rather watch something for the first time. So in the end, I'd probably be better off not buying copies of stuff and just relying on Netflix. And the same is probably true for books, music etc.--as long as your fears aren't true and we don't end up with censorship, controlled selection etc.

[Iphinome]

I know I'm getting pretty far off topic but of course there will be censorship, if it's in someone's interest to censor they'll try it which in an odd way makes it in all our best interests to keep it from happening.

Back to the slightly less off topic...

If you want to help musicians authors and the like I respectfully suggest you make the publishers your target. There's a reason the phrase Hollywood accounting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_accounting exists. These are the people who hold musicians in indentured servitude, the ones who don't want to allow ebooks and if they do they want it so drm encumbered to be useless denying authors even the chance at more royalties.

You say you don't care if they go out of business but they're the ones who file civil cases against alleged copyright infringers and keep any judgments they may get. Those awards don't go to the author musician actors or directors. No one's telling you to share files but you're picking on people who are sticking it to the bad guys, whatever their personal motivations.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

There needs to be a system to transfer a license for an e-book to another user, that also deletes the copy from your account to avoid having the person give copies away while keeping their own on their e-reader, PC etc.

Sure, you just build a system with a remote spying capacity for IP holders onto your PC.

Orrr, you just transfer the licence and remove it from the app's library, and stop treating the consumer as the enemy. DRM's a dead letter for downloaded content, even the RIAA have stopped trying...

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by scveteran

I could agree with your argument about being able to sell or loan out the ebook on one simple condition. That there is a system in place that ensures that only one ebook reader at a time has that ebook available to be used. This would also require that no one would be able to make a copy of the file. It is strictly transferred from one reader to another. So when you loan it out, you can't access it. When you sell it, it is gone from you forever.

Barnes & Noble has this tech--their loaning ability could just as easily be giveaway-permanently ability. It's as effective at preventing unauthorized copies as any other form of DRM.

But they didn't make it usable the same way physical book loans are, and they didn't make it able to be permanent, and they allowed publishers to refuse to participate.

The technology to transfer ownership of ebooks without allowing unauthorized copies exists; publishers are refusing to allow customers to exercise their rights.

re: criminal penalties--

Originally Posted by Iphinome

[Citation Need]

Copyright Infringement—Penalties—17 U.S.C. § 506(a) and 18 U.S.C § 2319
Up to 5 years, $250,000, for "the reproduction or distribution, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, with a retail value of more than $2,500."

Hm. Which seems to mean that copies of Harry Potter ebooks aren't prosecutable by this law, because they have no retail value--they aren't on the market at all. All a person would have to do to avoid this law is make sure their distributions stayed under $2500 retail value in a 6-month period. If they're distributing content that isn't purchasable, this law may not apply at all. (Books that aren't commercially available as ebooks; comics/manga; digital conversions of out-of-print albums.) Even distributing songs--you'd have to prove an awful lot of distributions to hit $2500 worth of copies at $.99 each.

[Crowl]

Originally Posted by mgmueller

In my opinion 10 is an entirely arbitrary limit (it may make sense because of our love for decimal figures). My rule of thumb would be something like:
Price for paperback minus X%.
X could be variable: Small or even "0" shortly after initial release. Getting bigger over time. Ending somewhere in the range of 20%.

This is the way I would look at pricing rather than it having to be some fixed price.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

[SNIP]
re: criminal penalties--

Copyright Infringement—Penalties—17 U.S.C. § 506(a) and 18 U.S.C § 2319
Up to 5 years, $250,000, for "the reproduction or distribution, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, with a retail value of more than $2,500."

Hm. Which seems to mean that copies of Harry Potter ebooks aren't prosecutable by this law, because they have no retail value--they aren't on the market at all. All a person would have to do to avoid this law is make sure their distributions stayed under $2500 retail value in a 6-month period. If they're distributing content that isn't purchasable, this law may not apply at all. (Books that aren't commercially available as ebooks; comics/manga; digital conversions of out-of-print albums.) Even distributing songs--you'd have to prove an awful lot of distributions to hit $2500 worth of copies at $.99 each.

Nope. They'd just ask for statutory damages. And compute the "retail value" using the statutory damages as the amount. (I know that's of dubious legality, but it's been done in music-uploading cases by the RI-f-ing-AA...)

Xenophon

[SCION]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

...
Something being priced to high doesn't justify stealing a copy....

@ kindlekitten
If your children gave such a reason for committing theft what would your reaction be?

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Crowl

This is the way I would look at pricing rather than it having to be some fixed price.

Yep, fixed pricing is silly. Prices need to be flexible, both on some schedule (like hardcover, then cheaper paper back, with e-book pricing to match in terms of % drop at that time etc.), as well as flexible to drop as demand drops.

Think of movies. A DVD comes out at $20-25 MSRP. A year or two later you see it for $5-$15 everywhere--and not just in store sales promotions, but because the MSRP has dropped as sales have bottomed out.

I've never understood why books and music don't see that same type of pricing. Start high, and taper down as demand dwindles. All we get with books is a cheaper paperback--but we rarely see the cover price on that paperback dropped down the road like we do with MSRP on movies.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by SCION

@ kindlekitten
If your children gave such a reason for committing theft what would your reaction be?

in a situation where activities, behaviour, and acceptance are going to help set the policies of the publishers from here on out, I would say "good on ya'"

it's called Civil Unrest. Tried and True Technique