EU vice-president: Copyright legislation is “pushing people to steal”

[eschwartz]

I don't really care about the British spellings, but I am still outraged over the Philosophers Stone/Sorcerers Stone thing in the Harry Potter books.

There is no such thing as a Sorcerers Stone.

It has apparently been arbitrarily decided that we Americans, but not the British, will be too stupid to have heard of Nicholas Flamel.

[pdurrant]

There was a 1914 book of that name, but looking at google n-grams it does seem that Philosopher's Stone was used widely even in the US. A very poor decision to change it by the US publisher.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

There was a 1914 book of that name, but looking at google n-grams it does seem that Philosopher's Stone was used widely even in the US. A very poor decision to change it by the US publisher.

We had this discussion last year, too:
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...d.php?t=237444

And here I'll only point out that the wild success of the book in the US suggests it was very good decision by the US publisher, who perhaps had some skill in knowing what sort of words and meter work best in American book titles.

[DiapDealer]

I think they could have called it Harry Potter and the Piece of #57 Limestone Gravel and the book would have been just as successful.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I think they could have called it Harry Potter and the Piece of #57 Limestone Gravel and the book would have been just as successful.

If only we could peer through the quantum foam like in Michael Crichton's 'Timeline,' we could know which title would have had what effect.....

[Little.Egret]

Originally Posted by darryl

1. The concept of "privity of contract" applicable in common law countries simply states the obvious. That is, that the contract cannot bind persons who are not party to it. This means that if a party sells outside the jurisdiction any action for breach of contract must be against that party, not against the buyer.
{...}

But since the copyright owner has an action for breach of copyright against the ebook buyer ?

One of the curiosities of the new EU ebook VAT scheme, based on buyer location, is that tax fraud may be involved too.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by Little.Egret

But since the copyright owner has an action for breach of copyright against the ebook buyer ?

One of the curiosities of the new EU ebook VAT scheme, based on buyer location, is that tax fraud may be involved too.

No. The EBook buyer has not done anything which breaches the copyright.

As for VAT, the starting point is who is actually made liable under the particular legislation.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Little.Egret

One of the curiosities of the new EU ebook VAT scheme, based on buyer location, is that tax fraud may be involved too.

It has always been the case that if you circumvent geographical restrictions for the purpose of buying a book in a country with a lower tax rate, or, come to that, thereby avoid paying VAT entirely, you lay yourself open to a charge of tax evasion, which is a criminal, not merely civil, offence.

[tompe]

And that also hold if the tax rate is higher than anothet non-zero rate.

[Little.Egret]

Originally Posted by darryl

No. The EBook buyer has not done anything which breaches the copyright.

As for VAT, the starting point is who is actually made liable under the particular legislation.

Think about it.

In order to read a ebook you need a license to copy for the purpose.

The seller has no authority to issue such a license for the buyer's actual location so the buyer is in breach of copyright law.

And if you mislead and thereby get a lower price (avoiding or reducing VAT), that's fraud that doesn't depend on details of tax law.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by Little.Egret

Think about it.

In order to read a ebook you need a license to copy for the purpose.

The seller has no authority to issue such a license for the buyer's actual location so the buyer is in breach of copyright law.

And if you mislead and thereby get a lower price (avoiding or reducing VAT), that's fraud that doesn't depend on details of tax law.

What you have in an appropriate case is a breach of a contractual warranty between buyer and seller. Most breaches of contract or of a licence do not invalidate the contract or licence, but give the other party a right to recover damages for the breach. At least in most cases under current arrangements my view is that the buyer does receive a valid licence.

[LadyKate]

Originally Posted by gweeks

Yes.

Nor are they allowed to say "You may not buy this any more." Any copies already out there can be resold. That doesn't mean you can make another copy and sell it. This is why used book stores can still sell books even after they are no longer being printed.

The whole ebooks are a license and not a book messes with this, but there is no requirement that the law interpret it that way. Congress can say a book is a book is a book and ebooks become just another book that can be resold. I don't think it's likely, but there's nothing in the law that stops it. The current law hasn't been well tested yet either.

Greg

It strikes me as very unfair that ebook pricing does not reflect the inability to sell the used book. Used book stores don't provide any income for the author or publisher yet I can not even legally let someone in my household read my book unless I either pass over my device to them or add their device to my account.

Perhaps the market that is hurting the most from ebook popularity is the used book market.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by LadyKate

It strikes me as very unfair that ebook pricing does not reflect the inability to sell the used book..

Maybe it does reflect it. And then it also reflects all the added value that ebooks offer that paper does not. Instant delivery, adjustable fonts, multiple copied etc etc etc.

[howyoudoin]

Originally Posted by ApK

Maybe it does reflect it. And then it also reflects all the added value that ebooks offer that paper does not. Instant delivery, adjustable fonts, multiple copied etc etc etc.

I don't buy that. Paperbooks provided more features like portability, weight, reproducibility, accessibility compared to stone tablets and yet were not priced higher. The only difference is that with paperbooks, the benefits of new technology were passed on to the reader, whereas with ebooks the publishers are holding on to the greater profits themselves instead of passing them on to the reader.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by ApK

Maybe it does reflect it. And then it also reflects all the added value that ebooks offer that paper does not. Instant delivery, adjustable fonts, multiple copied etc etc etc.

Agreed. I think that everything is necessarily taken into account when publishers experimentally see what the market will bear.

Now, if there is a showing that a publishing company has, year after year, Apple-esque profit margins, or moderate profits only because of extraordinary executive pay, I can see focusing on that. Is publisher CEO pay too high? Probably. But compared to tech companies, it's not so bad, and I don't think it amounts to a significant portion of what folks pay for eBooks.