You are not the owner of Amazon Ebooks

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Taking this too seriously, it is quite unusual for a large corporation to live anywhere near that long.

There are many companies in Britain which are centuries old.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

I knew a person once who got a social security number for their dog who was dead by then. They claimed the dog as a dependant for welfare and later worked using the dogs name. Perhaps they are claiming the dog's pension now.

Helen

Tell me they worked as a security guard

[Rev. Bob]

Originally Posted by Vmurph

But paper + ink + glue = something I can legally sell on eBay or at a garage sale.
I can't plagiarize it, but I can sell it. eBooks that we purchase cannot be legally resold.

I'm working on that, actually...

Smashwords allows authors to use its stock license or write their own. I'm working on writing a license that would essentially amount to "treat it like a physical object" - that is, you're free to make backups for personal use, and you're free to give the book away or even sell it, but if you do transfer ownership, the license requires you to destroy any backups you may have made, or else transfer them to the new owner.

Note, as you point out above, that license and copyright are different; even with the above license, the author retains the copyright.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Rev. Bob

Note, as you point out above, that license and copyright are different; even with the above license, the author retains the copyright.

As of course is also the case with a paper book. Buying a paper book doesn't give you the right to read it out loud in public, for example. That would be classed as a "performance" of the work and require the specific permission of the copyright holder.

[Tarana]

While I can download them to different devices I can't lend or sell them after I finished and AFAIK if I stop subscribing to Audie I lose access to the account and the books if I haven't downloaded them.

Just an FYI, many people on the internet have reported that if they stopped their subscription to Audible, they retain access to their account without a problem. I've even asked Audible myself and they say that yes, you get to keep your account. They are ever hopeful that you will continue to purchase from them as either a subscriber or nonsubscriber. It's what happens after you die that is unclear. I'm sure the legalease says that they don't have to do anything, but in practice, given the proper paperwork, had changed an account of a deceased person into my name and then merged that account into mine. This was pre-Amazon purchase.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Tarana

Just an FYI, many people on the internet have reported that if they stopped their subscription to Audible, they retain access to their account without a problem.

Certainly has been true so far. I was a nonmember for years. I always had access to my account and books.

Of course, that doesn't help if they go out of business and shut their servers down.

DRM stripping issues aside, you used to be able to backup most Audible books to CD. Maybe you still can, but it's usually impractical.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Rev. Bob

I'm working on writing a license that would essentially amount to "treat it like a physical object"

So no downloads of replacement copies, no web access, no instant delivery, no changing fonts...all properties of the physical book.

What's the root pathological compulsion people have to equate p-books and ebooks, when their properties are so vastly different?

You say you're "working on it" like you're in a laboratory trying to come up with magic ebook paper, or you're busying lobby congress to come up with radical new laws to enable this.

Take a cue from O'Reilly. Just state your terms. Done. Easy.

Of course maybe you mean that you're working on terms that don't give the whole store away and want to protect your rights?
Then that's good. You recognize the issues that exist because of the different nature of the thing. Abandon the physical item comparisons and stick to that.

ApK

[ApK]

Originally Posted by Jack Torrance

( buying a license or buying the item goes I think most people will see that as semantics)

Most people, I've seen, do not appropriately invoke the word 'semantics' in discussions like this one.

Semantics is meaning. That's whole point. If you misunderstand the meaning of what you are asking for, how can you expect to get what you really want?

"Please give me an apple."

"Here you go."

"You gave me the wrong thing, please give me an apple."

"Here you go again."

"No, I want those apples that come from Florida, have the thick peel with the navels, segments inside, and you squeeze them to get sweet citrus juice."

"Do you mean you want an orange?"

"Oh, now you're just just arguing semantics."

Maybe if people understood the semantics of what they are asking for, they'd realize they are constantly asking for the wrong thing.

Dismissive replies along the lines of "Now you are just arguing semantics" applies when a discussion inappropriately shifts from the real issue to the language used to describe the issue.
In this case, the terms ARE the issue. People incorrectly bring import and assumptions to the words "own" and "buy" which they simply don't have. They try to address the issue by merely FORCING incorrect semantics onto the issue, and therefore they are never making any arguments for the REAL issue, which is licensing terms and copyright law.
My argument is that people need to realize that mistake and shift FROM the incorrect semantic arguments TO the real issue.

ApK

[Jack Torrance]

Originally Posted by ApK

what he said up there

ApK

[crossi]

Originally Posted by HarryT

As of course is also the case with a paper book. Buying a paper book doesn't give you the right to read it out loud in public, for example. That would be classed as a "performance" of the work and require the specific permission of the copyright holder.

Really? In early grade school after recess our teacher would read for a while from a book before nap time.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by crossi

Really? In early grade school after recess our teacher would read for a while from a book before nap time.

Really. Context matters.
(Those grade school textbooks are expected to read aloud so it is considered fair use. Reading HUNGER GAMES aloud in a reading circle is fair use, doing so to a crowd in a park isn't.)

Sadly, the BPHs argued TTS is performance and put restrictions on Kindle TTS.

[speakingtohe]

For me, in most cases, buying an ebook license is preferable to buying a paper book. If the choice was between buying an ebook license and 'owning' the ebook outright price would be the determining factor.

We do not have that choice and if we did I would expect a license to cost significantly less. I don't expect an ebook license to cost less than a paper book because their are significant differences, the important one for me is ebooks are more convenient.

I've paid a lot for convenience in my life I am sure. For 50 cents I can bake a loaf of bread and sometimes I do, but often I pay $3+ for a baked loaf that is not as tasty and $5 for a bakery loaf. And I can't even resell the bread after I have eaten it.

And I have seen many people who invariably have a tuna salad or a ham sandwich for lunch at a restaurant for $5-$15 while it is pretty easy to slap some mayo and ham and lettuce between 2 slices of bread for under $2.

Of course food does have a limited ownership as eventually it will disappear into your stomach or a moldy mess.

Maybe leasing/renting a car or a property or even a steam cleaner is similar in concept. Of course with these you have the ongoing payments. A lot cheaper for a one time use but can be far more expensive long term.

And most people have valid reasons for choosing renting over owning or convenience over cost.

As APK said it is important to know what you want and why you want it and what you are willing to pay to have things exactly to your liking.

I would pay a small sum extra for an ebook edition if I really wanted the book. Doubtful I would pay double. I would buy paper or do without. I don't expect anyone to sell me something on my terms. It is their product and their right to make the terms especially on a convenience product. (I am speaking as a privileged person living in a reasonable society here, I know that it is not the same everywhere)

I prefer to own if the cost is less long term and I will use it weekly or even monthly, and I have room to store it. I would think that if it becomes viable to sell ebooks with the same terms as paper books, the cost would go up and the convenience would go down. Would most people leap at the chance to pay more for less if the only benefit was ownership and the absolute right of resale?

Ebooks cost the same long term or significantly less if borrowing from the library. They don't charge you extra to read it again. No storage, easy to buy from home and instant gratification.

Outright ownership would provide me with little benefit. I can't gaze fondly upon it, or display it in a cabinet for the world to see, even with a paper book I never enjoyed reading the ones I bought any differently than those I borrowed.

And the danger of them being taken away? Could happen and has although I think they were all given back, but that is one incident in maybe 100,000 or so? Not too long ago that all unapproved books were confiscated in China with additional dire consequences to the owner.


Helen

[Rev. Bob]

Originally Posted by ApK

So no downloads of replacement copies, no web access, no instant delivery, no changing fonts...all properties of the physical book.

I disagree with all of those stances...with the exception being that if you transfer ownership, you should no longer get replacement copies - because doing so means it's no longer yours to replace.

Originally Posted by ApK

What's the root pathological compulsion people have to equate p-books and ebooks, when their properties are so vastly different?

Probably about equivalent to your apparent compulsion to misread my intentions on this, which I clarified in the same post. I want people to be able to treat ebooks that use this license the same way everyone currently can treat physical books, in terms of transferring ownership, loaning, and so on. I despise the current model in which, if I spend thousands of dollars on an ebook library and then die in a car accident, that library legally "evaporates" and nobody else gets to read them. That's tilted far too heavily in favor of corporations, and readers should have more rights than that. When I started writing my own book, it seemed hypocritical of me to use a license that I disagree with so fundamentally, so I'm working on making a different license.

Originally Posted by ApK

You say you're "working on it" like you're in a laboratory trying to come up with magic ebook paper, or you're busying lobby congress to come up with radical new laws to enable this.

Working on the wording of the license, and I've got the O'Reilly page bookmarked as a model I may want to use.

Originally Posted by ApK

Of course maybe you mean that you're working on terms that don't give the whole store away and want to protect your rights?

Exactly.

I will give respect to Disney on the whole "license vs. own" issue, in that they have a disc replacement program for their DVDs and Blu-rays. It makes sense; you bought it, you registered it with their Magic Code, so they know you own it. Since you bought a license, they'll replace a damaged disc. Yes, there's a fee attached, but last time I checked, it was a reasonable one. That's a decent way of letting the license work for the customer.

[ApK]

We are in agreement about everything you are doing, of course. I am only using your message to continue my rant because I wanted to highlight this one aspect of your message:

Originally Posted by Rev. Bob

Probably about equivalent to your apparent compulsion to misread my intentions on this, which I clarified in the same post. I want people to be able to treat ebooks that use this license the same way everyone currently can treat physical books.

YOU know exactly what you are doing, and you are doing all the right things, but because you choose to claim that you are doing your license "the same way everyone currently can treat physical books", you are MISLEADING many in your audience.
You are perpetuating the myth that ebooks and pbooks are directly analogous and that what works for one CAN and SHOULD directly work with the other.

This is simply not true, and we would not really want it to be so. We WANT the advantages that ebooks give, like instant delivery and easy backup and transfer, and we need to deal with the differences, like the ability distribute an unlimited number of perfect, free copies at the touch of a button, to address the rights of content owners.

You are NOT making ebooks work "the same way everyone currently can treat physical books" as you know very well. What you are doing is giving users some additional rights over the ebook content. So I beg, you, please say it that way.

YOU and I know that "the same way everyone currently can treat physical books" is just shorthand to convey that, but many other apparently do not.

This is at the root of the "own" versus "license" mistake as well.
At some level, maybe subconciously, many people think that ebooks are just like pbooks.
The same people think that "owning" an ebook will somehow automatically let them do ALL the same things with it as they could with a pbook they own.
They do not seem to grok the idea that with a pbook, they "own" a hunk of paper and glue, which carries with it some content, which is licensed to them according to the terms of copyright law--rules governing an abstraction which everyone is at least passingly familiar with from living in a post-Gutenberg world.
With an ebook, there is no equivalent, and the ENTIRE process is ONLY about access rights to the ephemeral digital content, it is NOTHING BUT an abstraction, and it's a relatively new abstraction which is still having it's rules worked out.
We need to focus on making those rules, not get stuck in the abyss of thinking that saying "own" and "pbook" is good enough to get what we want.
It isn't.

OK, I think I'm done ranting for this thread.

ApK

[ApK]

OK,
Just ONE more rant, to the OP or anyone else who is bothered that ebooks are licensed, not "owned."

Please tell me, clearly and precisely: If you "owned" it, what exactly is it that you would "own?"

The electrical impulses that traveled across the Internet to deliver the book to you?
They were gone as soon as the transfer ended.

The magnetic flux patterns on your hardrive where the data is stored?
That's gone if you copy the data elsewhere.

The file construct?
Then if you delete the file by accident you should have to buy another copy, just like with a pbook, right?

What, exactly? Please explain.