Funny I don't feel like a criminal

[JSWolf]

I do share my eBooks with family. And I don't find it a problem. I'd do the same thing if it was a paper book. Technically this may be wrong, by morally, I feel fine about it.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No they aren't. The poster claimed that "there was only one copy". I am simply pointing out that this is highly unlikely to be true.

Perhaps the original poster would prefer to amend his statement to say "only one other person has copies". I'd be fine with that.

One copy floating around means there is one copy not in his possession. The copy his mother has is that one.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by =X=

I do agree with you however that it is silly that with a physical book it's perfectly okay to lend somebody a book but an electronic book it is treated as copyright infringement.

=X=

That's because lending someone a physical book does not involve making a copy of it, hence (self-evidently) copyright does not enter into it. When you give someone a copy of an e-Book, the operative word is "copy", hence copyright law does apply.

Originally Posted by HarryT

So you deleted all copies from your PC? You've removed the copy you downloaded from your internet cache? You've deleted the copy of the e-mail from the "send items" folder of your mail program? If the answer to any of these is "no", then how can you say that "there is only one copy floating around"?

Actually I agree you have a point. If only to totally remove the temptation to recover a copy for one's own use latter on.

I am also on the iffy side of even passing on the ebook file, even it all traces are then deleted. The analogy to what can be done with a paper book is nice, but it still remains the fact that a digital file is not the same as a paper book. Even if you are so scrupulously honest (about erasing all copies of the file from your computer and other devices) the person you passed the file onto is free to make copies and send them anywhere.

It's a real contradiction While I maintain the right to do whatever manipulation I choose to an ebook file I have legally purchased in order to make it useful to me I know the action opens up the possibility for me to share it in ways that deprive the seller of his legitimate rights and interests.

But a least from a moral standpoint that is what it will always come down to. Each individual's moral integrity. DRM can't substitute for that.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No they aren't. The poster claimed that "there was only one copy". I am simply pointing out that this is highly unlikely to be true.

Which is a silly technicality.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Which is a silly technicality.

OK, let's continue to look at it, shall we?

Mother receives a copy in an e-mail - that's one additional copy.
Mother saves the e-mail attachment to hard disk - that's two copies.
Mother copies the book to an e-book reader - that's three copies.

Really, however you choose to look at it, there are multiple copies involved. You may regard it as a "silly technicality"; I must beg to differ.

[edbro]

Originally Posted by HarryT

OK, let's continue to look at it, shall we?

Mother receives a copy in an e-mail - that's one additional copy.
Mother saves the e-mail attachment to hard disk - that's two copies.
Mother copies the book to an e-book reader - that's three copies.

Really, however you choose to look at it, there are multiple copies involved. You may regard it as a "silly technicality"; I must beg to differ.

Why so quick to assume that he is wrong when he says there is only one copy? Innocent until proven guilty (on that charge, anyways)

So, when you purchase a book and copy it to your reader, do you then delete it out of your library software?

[omk3]

Ok I understand what you are saying Harry, but really, what does it matter, from a practical point of view, how many copies there are in one person's possession? In this sense, even when I legally download a book and do not remove DRM, I still have at least one copy on my computer and one copy on my reader, so two copies, though I have only bought the rights to one. Do I infringe any copyright just because I don't delete from my computer when I transfer to the reader?
And does all this discussion even matter?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by omk3

Ok I understand what you are saying Harry, but really, what does it matter, from a practical point of view, how many copies there are in one person's possession? In this sense, even when I legally download a book and do not remove DRM, I still have at least one copy on my computer and one copy on my reader, so two copies, though I have only bought the rights to one. Do I infringe any copyright just because I don't delete from my computer when I transfer to the reader?
And does all this discussion even matter?

Nope. Doesn't matter in the slightest. And I certainly have no "moral problem" with it.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

OK, let's continue to look at it, shall we?

Mother receives a copy in an e-mail - that's one additional copy.
Mother saves the e-mail attachment to hard disk - that's two copies.
Mother copies the book to an e-book reader - that's three copies.

Really, however you choose to look at it, there are multiple copies involved. You may regard it as a "silly technicality"; I must beg to differ.

All of which are incidental copies that are created in the act of using or transferring the content. None of which is what copyright was really meant to cover.

If they are loaning to multiple people at the same thing, that would be bad. If they want to read the eBook at the same time their mother is, that would be bad. The stuff you're talking about is just the nature of how digital files work. It's a technicality and has nothing to do with the spirit of copyright. What you're talking about is the same thing as opening an application to read the eBook, which then loads another copy into RAM (oh no!).

[=X=]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No they aren't. The poster claimed that "there was only one copy". I am simply pointing out that this is highly unlikely to be true.

Perhaps the original poster would prefer to amend his statement to say "only one other person has copies". I'd be fine with that.

Okay Harry let's go along with your silly argument, because it is.

Let's analyze the implicates of what you are trying to say. Since what you imply that that act of just deleting is not enough where do we stop?

First off book loaded in memory resides there for some time, is person required to reboot.
What about the physical disc drive. Just deleting it is not enough, as a SW recovery program can recover the eBook.

What about companies who sell eBooks, if they relocate the file stating from one directory to another, or backup their servers. Are they required to pay out twice?

Most DRM allow one to register multiple devices to one account. What if each eBook reader loads that book according to you their in CopyRight violation and so is the Company that allows this since CopyRight is own by the author/publisher not the DRM licensee. Does the company payout for every copy made?

Question here is what is the moral difference between having two devices registered to one account and sharing a book that way and sending one out to your mother?

=X=

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by =X=

Let's analyze the implicates of what you are trying to say. Since what you imply that that act of just deleting is not enough where do we stop?

No, I didn't say that at all. Perhaps I misread the original post, but I believe that the original poster has given his mum a copy while retaining the book himself, and has made no attempt to delete it from his own machine. My apologies if I've misunderstood the intent.

[Sydney's Mom]

My inlaws have separate Amazon accounts, and didn't want to create another, so they are trading their respective kindles back and forth. This is what we are reduced to.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

OK, let's continue to look at it, shall we?

Mother receives a copy in an e-mail - that's one additional copy.
Mother saves the e-mail attachment to hard disk - that's two copies.
Mother copies the book to an e-book reader - that's three copies.

Really, however you choose to look at it, there are multiple copies involved. You may regard it as a "silly technicality"; I must beg to differ.

Actually, it works like this...

Mother receives a copy in e-mail - that's one additional copy
email program decodes that attachment and saves it to hard disk - still one copy
Mother copies the book to an eBook reader - that's two copies.

So you've overstated things by one copy

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No they aren't. The poster claimed that "there was only one copy". I am simply pointing out that this is highly unlikely to be true.

No, he did not claim that. He claimed that there were only only one copy floating around which is true definitely in a legal/broad sense but also according to me in a technical sense since old files not used on a hard disk are not floating around.