A moral dilemma

[Angst]

Originally Posted by khalleron

So, Angst, have you garnered enough opinions to have an opinion of your own yet?

'Cause we can wrangle until the cows come home, and never come to an agreement.

For what is worth, I decided not to "restore" any of my lost books. Occam's Razor. I have to take too many "leaps of faith" in order justify repatriating any of my books. It is much easier to admit the responsiblity is mine and get on with it.

I still have 60+ books in my TBR, and the value of the unread books, (10-15), is less than $100.

[stonetools]

DAMN!

I was just about to point out that you have LEGAL recourse against Fictionwise(and maybe its parent, B&N), because the licensing agreement existing at the time of youir purchase is that one that governs and they would be under a legal obligation to provide copies of the books or refund you your money.
YOu would have CRUCIFIED them in court( or more realistically, got them to refund you your money).

Anyway, glad you made the decision. Something to consider if you decide you want to go legal on them.

[ucfgrad93]

If the value of the lost books is less than $100, then it doesn't seem worth the time and effort to sue Fictionwise.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by stonetools

DAMN!

I was just about to point out that you have LEGAL recourse against Fictionwise(and maybe its parent, B&N), because the licensing agreement existing at the time of youir purchase is that one that governs and they would be under a legal obligation to provide copies of the books or refund you your money.
YOu would have CRUCIFIED them in court( or more realistically, got them to refund you your money).

FW's previous terms were that they'd keep books available for 3 months. I'm pretty sure that changed a lot more than 3 months ago, though, so I'm not sure about the "crucified" part.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

If I have an e-book and I do not strip the DRM or back up my books and they are lost, I should not expect to be able to replace them for free.

At least, that is my take on it.

Mine, too, although my reasoning is a bit different, and has a caveat.

I think that in the digital universe, what you get is not a license to use, or a copy of a digital object which you can "own." Instead, I think that what you get is a service - something along the lines of "convenient access to the digital content."

You buy that access in the context of a commercial transaction in which the provider agrees to allow access to the content. What kind of access, and how long you have that access, is dependent on the agreements inherent in that transaction, so long as those agreements are fair and reasonable (as opposed to overreaching contracts of adhesion imposed by the stronger party to the agreement, usually the seller.)

Sometimes, the seller agrees to keep a backup copy for you. Sometimes the seller doesn't. If the seller doesn't agree to expend its resources (time, energy, disc space) to keep a backup for you, you have the obligation to keep one for yourself, or get someone else to keep a backup for you.

It seems to me that you have no right to secure that backup from someone else who has not agreed to keep the backup for you.

So suppose I had a copy of the ebook and you asked me if you could copy it. If I said "okay," I think you could copy it, but if I said "no," I can't see that you would have any moral claim which would compel me to allow you to make a copy.

Likewise with the library. But we all know that the library will say "no."

So my answer is that if you can find someone who will agree to give you another copy, it is ethical for you to accept it, but if you can't find someone, you are out of luck.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by screwballl

Modern fair use law as it pertains to ebooks means you can strip DRM for legally owned items (physical or digital) provided it stays within your possession. Current ebook DRM falls under the "prevention of theft", not "prevention of ownership"... versus music/movies fall under "prevention of ownership" since you are legally only allowed to use it in its original form, aka DVD, Bluray or legal streaming (aka netflix) video, not allowing you to make a backup or copy even if you own the physical media or pay for the viewing service.

It was originally the same way (Fair use) for music and movies until the music/movie mafia criminalized civil law.

I'm curious - is this a distinction you find in US law, and if so, where?

In a later post, you say:

Music and movies also have the same fair use laws, BUT they also have the DMCA which essentially states "...if the originally produced media contains no copy protection, then you have the right to make backups or copy to another medium provided it stays within your possession. If the original media DOES contain copy protection or DRM then you must purchase a new or different medium for a different device, or if your original is lost, stolen or leaves your possession for any reason."

Are you quoting a specific provision of the law, or part of a legal opinion, or is this your own paraphrase of something, and if so, what?

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by khalleron

I have to disagree - if the theory is that you're sold, not a book, but a license, then the publisher IS obligated to provide free replacements. Or should be, anyway.

These are the two poles that everyone seems to fixate on, sometimes taking contrary positions depending on how the question is framed. This is why I believe that IP law is incoherent. When you get different answers to the same question depending on how it is framed, something is wrong.

My own belief is that digital content itself is neither bought nor licensed. What is bought or licensed is convenient access to the content, which may or may not include continued access or other access services like backup. And I also believe that once you have access, the provider cannot restrict what you do with that access so long as you do not provide access to anyone else who has not himself bought access.

I'm not saying that this is the law, because it isn't. But I do think that it is the economic and physical reality of the situation, and that eventually the law will catch up to it, unless the providers can keep it from happening. And I also think that ethical behavior should be premised on reality, not the law, at least to the extent that the law gets out of sync with reality.

[khalleron]

The problem is when the publishers try to have it both ways - they try to skirt the 'fair use' provisions of US copyright law by arguing you're not buying the actual content, but a license to use that content.

But when something happens to that content, then they apply the same argument they use to physical objects - you broke it, too bad.

Software companies don't do this - as long as you still have the key (and many of them will send you a new key if your software is registered), it doesn't matter to them where you obtain the replacement content from. Check it out of the library, borrow it from a friend - many will also allow you to download it directly.

But book and music publishers try to straddle the line between physical content and license but keep all the marbles for themselves. It's a 'heads I win, tails you lose' argument much of the time.

[Fbone]

Did Fictionwise notify it's customers before ending it's relationship with the large publishers?

Did they remind everyone to download content?

[transmitthis]

One day my dream will come true:

I dream of a world where you securely register with a Entity (group of company's or slimier) From then on they handle your media hub.

Every time you purchase Digital media, be it Books, Games, Videos, Software, etc it will be copied and stored to your Hub.

Through out your entire life this Hub will always be there for you, just need to verify your identity and have access to any and all of your previous purchases.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by transmitthis

One day my dream will come true:

I dream of a world where you securely register with a Entity (group of company's or slimier) From then on they handle your media hub.

Every time you purchase Digital media, be it Books, Games, Videos, Software, etc it will be copied and stored to your Hub.

Through out your entire life this Hub will always be there for you, just need to verify your identity and have access to any and all of your previous purchases.

That's Google's dream too.

[James_Wilde]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

As stated by the op If these were paper books that had gotten lost, damaged, or burnt up in a fire what would you do?


Helen

I'd use some of my insurance money to buy new copies.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by transmitthis

One day my dream will come true:

I dream of a world where you securely register with a Entity (group of company's or slimier) From then on they handle your media hub.

Every time you purchase Digital media, be it Books, Games, Videos, Software, etc it will be copied and stored to your Hub.

Through out your entire life this Hub will always be there for you, just need to verify your identity and have access to any and all of your previous purchases.

This is what apple are seeking to do with iCloud and iTunes, I think. It will probably work well where they have what you want and are prepared to pay their price. My hope is that competition forces more openness (because people shop with the more open supplier), so that we can get our purchases from more than one place while viewing them all together - but I'm not holding my breath.

[kacir]

Originally Posted by Angst

So here's my question:
Is it ethical for me to strip the DRM from the library copy and save a copy to my hard disk?

*I* think it is ethical. I have no doubt that there will be posters that will scream bloody murder when they read the question.

The important thing is what YOU think.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by kacir

*I* think it is ethical. I have no doubt that there will be posters that will scream bloody murder when they read the question.

The important thing is what YOU think.

Just to fulfill the prediction:

BLOODY MURDER!!!