Gizmodo: How Much It Actually Costs to Publish an Ebook vs. a Real Book

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by carbonize

I did just find...

Again, in the EU if it looks like a sale, smells like a sale and is marketed as a sale (or has a "buy" button), it's a sale.

[carbonize]

Well that's an ambiguous response at best.

[asjogren]

"apparently when you buy a CD you are agreeing to a licensing agreement. "

I bet a competent lawyer would rip that apart. Is the CD being treated as a product? Or, as licensed "software"? I doubt they can claim both depending on the situation.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by asjogren

"apparently when you buy a CD you are agreeing to a licensing agreement. "

I bet a competent lawyer would rip that apart. Is the CD being treated as a product? Or, as licensed "software"? I doubt they can claim both depending on the situation.

CDs had DRM stricken down as it installed software on a PC to block ripping the CD to MP3s.

However, it's held up on DVDs and Blu Rays. It's been held up to be illegal to crack the copy protection and rip the DVD or burn a copy. And you have all those warning screens before you get to the movie which make it very clear that you own the disc, but only the right for private viewings and that you can't distribute copies, show it in public etc.

Point being, the laws aren't really clear/consistent on this kind of stuff.

[carbonize]

Point being, the laws and ass where the man with the most money can pretty much do what he wants.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by carbonize

I did just find this which is one guys commenting that apparently when you buy a CD you are agreeing to a licensing agreement.

That's what the RIAA claims, but it's just as bogus as the argument that eBooks are licensed. The music industry tried to use that argument to shut down used CD stores at one point, and failed.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

CDs had DRM stricken down as it installed software on a PC to block ripping the CD to MP3s.

What does whether it's a license or a sale have to do with DRM?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

And you have all those warning screens before you get to the movie which make it very clear that you own the disc, but only the right for private viewings and that you can't distribute copies, show it in public etc.

They could put on a warning screen saying that you were only allowed to watch the movie if you're wearing a pink tutu... it doesn't mean anything.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

What does whether it's a license or a sale have to do with DRM?

They argued that you didn't really own the music, you owned a license to listen to music on that CD, and thus had no right to burn a copy, rip it to MP3s etc. That was their justification for putting on the DRM. And DRM was the way to enforce the license--so they go hand in hand.

Courts didn't rule against the DRM because of the license issue being illegal, they ruled against it because the CD installed files on the user's PC with no warning etc.

Originally Posted by Shaggy

They could put on a warning screen saying that you were only allowed to watch the movie if you're wearing a pink tutu... it doesn't mean anything.

My point is that courts have upheld that the copy protection encryption on DVDs and Blu Rays is legal, so really you're just buying a license to watch that disc, and not owning the content, so you can't back it up, copy it, make a digital version for your laptop etc.

And the warnings have legal backing. Try advertising a few public viewings of some new release movies at at bar or club you own and see what happens when it gets noticed and you get taken to court.


We can all talk till we're blue in the face about what the situation should be. But at least in the US in recent years most court rulings have been in favor of protecting copyright holders and not consumers rights. Extending copyright to 70 years after death. Upholding DVD encryption. Giving a slap on the wrist to software companies that only resulted in them having to be very clear that people were buying licenses etc.

And there's thus little reason to believe it will be any different with e-books as the niche grows and some DRM/licensing cases appear before the courts.

[carbonize]

Last I checked it was only Sony that had auto run software on their audio CDs and they got hammered because they never warned people about it and it hid it's self like a root kit. Sony can hardly comment on people copying music given they invented the Minidisc.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

Courts didn't rule against the DRM because of the license issue being illegal, they ruled against it because the CD installed files on the user's PC with no warning etc.

That's my point, it had nothing to do with license vs sale.

My point is that courts have upheld that the copy protection encryption on DVDs and Blu Rays is legal, so really you're just buying a license

Whether or not DRM is legal doesn't have much to do with whether it's a license vs a sale. You can legally own something that has DRM on it. They are completely separate issues.

And the warnings have legal backing. Try advertising a few public viewings of some new release movies at at bar or club you own and see what happens when it gets noticed and you get taken to court.

That's because public viewing violates copyright law, it has nothing to do with that warning. What you are allowed to do or not allowed to do is not defined by the warning that the MPAA puts on the DVD, it's defined by copyright law.

Giving a slap on the wrist to software companies that only resulted in them having to be very clear that people were buying licenses etc.

You mean by upholding first sale doctrine? That's not really a slap on the wrist... and they still aren't clear that you are buying a license, which is why first sale doctrine continues to apply to things like CDs, DVDs, and software. There are plenty of places that you can buy used CDs, DVDs, and software because the individuals own them, the original company has no say in it.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Whether or not DRM is legal doesn't have much to do with whether it's a license vs a sale. You can legally own something that has DRM on it. They are completely separate issues.

In theory yes. In practice they tend to go hand in hand as DRM is often used to protect stuff publishers are trying to sell as a license.

That's because public viewing violates copyright law, it has nothing to do with that warning. What you are allowed to do or not allowed to do is not defined by the warning that the MPAA puts on the DVD, it's defined by copyright law.

Of course. I was just saying the warnings are stating the penalties of breaking copyright law. So I wasn't sure what you're above post's point was. They can put whatever warnings they want, but they only put ones that are backed by law--at least currently.

You mean by upholding first sale doctrine? That's not really a slap on the wrist... and they still aren't clear that you are buying a license, which is why first sale doctrine continues to apply to things like CDs, DVDs, and software. There are plenty of places that you can buy used CDs, DVDs, and software because the individuals own them, the original company has no say in it.

Yes, but most worthwhile (i.e. successful and needed) software is sold as a license (many as yearly licenses that you have to renew each year if you want it to keep working)--and you're right they still aren't clear. So they're still more or less doing what they were doing before--so yes it was slap on the wrist at most

Point being, current/recent rulings in the US are favoring copyright holders/publishers and not consumers. No reason to expect e-book rulings won't follow this trend.

Again, not saying I support that--just that's what the trend is and there's no reason to think it will change any time soon as corporations run the country, and will do so even more going forward with the Supreme Court ruling overturning the limits on corporate contributions to campaigns.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

They can put whatever warnings they want, but they only put ones that are backed by law--at least currently.

Not really. There are certainly scenarios which go against the standard "warning" which are fair use. It's also very misleading in that the penalties they state are for criminal infringement, not civil. Also, getting back to the original point, it doesn't have anything to do with license vs sale. That warning is not a license agreement.

Point being, current/recent rulings in the US are favoring copyright holders/publishers and not consumers.

Recent rulings regarding sale vs license have certainly favored consumers.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

So they're still more or less doing what they were doing before--so yes it was slap on the wrist at most

To me "slap on the wrist" is used to mean "they got off lightly". The software company wasn't the defendant in those cases, they were the plaintiff. There's not much more a court does to the plaintiff other than say "you lose".

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

My point is that courts have upheld that the copy protection encryption on DVDs and Blu Rays is legal, so really you're just buying a license to watch that disc, and not owning the content

Vernor v Autodesk. Content may be a sale and still have conditions attached. Conditions no not automatically make it a licence.