Phoenix Pick chooses the Kindle format-time to boycott!

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by Harmon

As far as I'm concerned, the only way that a publisher has the right to demand that everyone who wants the book has to buy the book is if the publisher is willing to sell the book to anyone who is willing to buy it.

If a publisher decides to sell a book only through Amazon, locked into the Kindle through DRM, then it has decided not to sell the book to everyone who is willing to buy it.

So in that situation, I'm perfectly willing to get myself a pirated copy for my 505. Moreover, I would be perfectly willing to get myself a pirated copy even if I had a Kindle.

On the other hand, if a publisher has made a book available in several different DRMed formats, even if available at different prices from different distributors, or if the publisher has made the book available in a single nonDRMed format which anyone can buy and convert, then I think that it is wrong to pirate the book.

And as a consumer, you have the right to NOT purchase the book – what you don’t have, and what’s not protected, is your right to take it. Is the book available in hardcopy, if the answer is yes, you have more than enough access to it, so again, stealing is not the alternative.

See, I don't believe that an ebook is the publisher's property, to do with as it wishes. The copyright law gives the publisher the right to decide NOT to sell the book. But it does not give it the right to sell the book to you, but not to me. Once the publisher decides to sell a book, it has to treat all buyers equally. If it decides not to, it has no moral claims to make against any buyer. (I'm not even sure if it has any legal claims, but that's a different thread...)

I’m sorry, but this is beyond ridiculous - please show me where in life’s little handbook it says your heart must be given all that it desires, your every want and need catered to. Are you done? That’s right, it doesn’t.

[GlennD]

It seems highly appropriate to let a publisher know that you WOULD have bought a book that they're publishing, but unfortunately it was not available in a format they sell. That way they get this kind of feedback and can factor in potential sales vs the cost of making a well formatted copy available in multiple formats.

But it also makes sense for Kindle users to buy Kindle formatted books that they are interested in - that way a publisher receives the best kind of feedback ($$$) that there is actually a market for ebooks in general. (And look! We could sell more by selling other formats!)

This is a market still in its infancy, and we need to not treat publishers as the enemy. Just try to get the message across in terms that they understand (potential sales).

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

Is the book available in hardcopy, if the answer is yes, you have more than enough access to it, so again, stealing is not the alternative.

That's a good point.

But let's explore it a little.

Of course, you have no objection if, instead of buying a new treebook, I walk around the corner to my friendly neighborhood used book store and buy a used copy there. Perfectly legal.

So your objection can't be that I am not paying the writer/publisher. You will be happy so long as I pay somebody., i.e., the used book dealer.

Now, under the law, it is seems clear that I can scan the used book I just bought to space shift it for my own use. No different than Tivoing a television program. So I buy the book, and then scan it into my 505. Perfectly legal. Absolutely fair use.

But notice the rather odd result. In order to satisfy your sense of legality/morality, I have to pay a used book dealer for the privilege of having an ecopy of a book, because the writer/publisher won't sell me an ecopy.

Well, I suppose that your position has some economic force. Presumably, the price of the new treebook incorporates the used book factor in some fashion. But I think that the whole process is rather attenuated, particularly since there is no reason that the writer/publisher can't just sell me an ebook I can read, and be done with it.

But your observation does provide a safe harbor for those whose thinking is different than mine.

[Harmon]

I said:

See, I don't believe that an ebook is the publisher's property, to do with as it wishes. The copyright law gives the publisher the right to decide NOT to sell the book. But it does not give it the right to sell the book to you, but not to me. Once the publisher decides to sell a book, it has to treat all buyers equally. If it decides not to, it has no moral claims to make against any buyer. (I'm not even sure if it has any legal claims, but that's a different thread...)

Then Good Old Neon said:

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

I’m sorry, but this is beyond ridiculous - please show me where in life’s little handbook it says your heart must be given all that it desires, your every want and need catered to. Are you done? That’s right, it doesn’t.

The first difficulty with your position is that what I said is to some extent, y'know, the "law." A publisher (or writer) simply does not have an absolute right to control all uses of a book. What the copyright law gives is a limited right. That limited right includes the right not to publish or sell the book - as I admit.

But that limited right does not include the right to prevent "fair use" of the book. So once a book is published, all the "fair use" aspects of the law come into play.

So it seems to me that the only real difference between your position and mine is that I think that "fair use" incorporates a duty for the publisher to sell the book to anyone who has the money to pay for it, and you don't.

I fail to see what is so "ridiculous" about that.

But what do you really believe? For example, do you think that the copyright law gives Amazon the right to sell a book only to a person who first buys a Kindle? You do? Then, how about only to a person who first stands on his head while drinking a glass of water? Yes?

If that is your belief, it seems to me that it is your position, not mine, which is "beyond ridiculous."