Another wrinkle in sale-vs-license

[starrigger]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

The industry doesn't have a say in it. Copyright law and first sale say whether or not resale is allowed.

I was debating on reasonableness, not legality per se. I don't know the details of the "first sale" provision of copyright. Can you elaborate? Does it address digital files explicitly?

Has anyone made a case (persuasively) that you ought to be able to resell your used MP3 files when you're done with them?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by starrigger

Has anyone made a case (persuasively) that you ought to be able to resell your used MP3 files when you're done with them?

What makes you think you can't?

[starrigger]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

What makes you think you can't?

Not saying you couldn't, but you don't see a lot of people putting their used MP3s up on ebay, do you? Possibly (just possibly) that's because the appearance of copyright violation would loom so large--whether there's an actual violation or not--that it would be just asking for intervention.

[speakingtohe]

Perhaps if ebooks could be licensed (tied) to a single device only then many problems would go away.

Or better yet a time bomb similiar to what ADE has for library books. You can read the book forever if you still own it but must renew your license after a certain time.
You could sell the book but must reregister it to new owner so when yours expires it is done.
If you have lent it to your bud who hasn't finished reading it then too bad.

Like any protection it can be overcome, but if it was fair to buyers most wouldn't.

[starrigger]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Perhaps if ebooks could be licensed (tied) to a single device only then many problems would go away.

Or better yet a time bomb similiar to what ADE has for library books. You can read the book forever if you still own it but must renew your license after a certain time.
You could sell the book but must reregister it to new owner so when yours expires it is done.
If you have lent it to your bud who hasn't finished reading it then too bad.

Like any protection it can be overcome, but if it was fair to buyers most wouldn't.

I wouldn't advocate that, because that would just be even more onerous DRM than what we have now. Understand that I'm simply expressing what I think are perfectly reasonable concerns on the part of the publishers. I don't agree with them, necessarily; I just think we need to understand them. I prefer the DRM-free model myself, and asking our customers to join in a mutually respectful relationship.

I think I personally would not feel good about reselling my ebooks like used paperbacks. That feels like a road I don't want to go down.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Perhaps if ebooks could be licensed (tied) to a single device only then many problems would go away...

And what happens when the single device dies? Especially since it is tied to the single device only, you can't make a back up.

[theducks]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

And what happens when the single device dies? Especially since it is tied to the single device only, you can't make a back up.

What if your paper book got hit by Flood, Fire or Pests. Same thing.
No book

Just imagine if all those manuscripts and books now in Museums, had to have complied with the "Single Owner/User" concept being fostered buy Authors (Yes, Authors. They signed the letter of copyright contract with the publisher).

Hand-me-down libraries: Kaput (Must destroy all books upon death of single licensee).

[Gwen Morse]

Originally Posted by theducks

What if your paper book got hit by Flood, Fire or Pests. Same thing.
No book

True. However, there's a difference between not keeping your books stored in a dry location and a hardware vendor releasing a buggy firmware upgrade that "eats" your ebooks. Or a validation server being turned off with no recourse to renew a license.

If my house floods or burns down, my insurance (indirectly) covers the cost of replacing my book collection. There is no insurance for ebooks.

[Fat Abe]

Originally Posted by Gwen Morse

If my house floods or burns down, my insurance (indirectly) covers the cost of replacing my book collection. There is no insurance for ebooks.

That's an interesting point. If your Kindle goes up in flames, you can probably re-download your ebooks onto the replacement device. Thus, there would be no need for your insurance company to reimburse the cost of the ebooks. However, suppose that a seller refused to provide you with free replacement downloads. Would the purchase fall into the category of software, and would the insurance company reimburse you for the cost of the software, assuming that you had a rider covering such a product? This seems like a natural form of rider for an insurance company to offer, especially if the damage is limited to that caused by fire. Good question to ask my agent next week.

[speakingtohe]

I am sort of missing a couple of crucial pointdshere.

Currently if you buy/license a book you are entitled to have it on your computer and a reader at the same time. You can back it up to storage media and keep it in a safe place, back it up online, redownload it etc. If Amazon goes out of business next week you can read it again on your computer.
And there are other options.

Second point being if this was a pbook would you want to own it forever? Most people don't have the space to store even half a book a week over a long period and if you don't read at least half a book a week, why buy an ereader.

Third point is that ebooks and their licensing do not take away any of our rights. You can still buy paper editions and keep them as long as you want. You can borrow paper books from the library. In addition you can get free ebooks and borrow ebooks from the library. Try borrowing a cheese burger from MacDonald's.

[clockworkzombie]

Given the six device limit ADE allows for device authorisation, for example, I think people removing the DRM convert the licence the publisher thinks you are buying into an effective sale.

DRM removal may or may not be legal wherever you are but once removed the publisher or distributor cannot deny access like Amazon did with the George Orwell title.

This may not be germane to the topic, however, I think it is important.

[taming]

Originally Posted by clockworkzombie

Given the six device limit ADE allows for device authorisation, for example, I think people removing the DRM convert the licence the publisher thinks you are buying into an effective sale.

Adobe starts with 6, but over time they sorta slip additional authorizations into your pool. When you do exceed your limit (I did, btw) they reset your account if you ask.

[clockworkzombie]

Cool, thanks for the ADE info. When I first signed up to Digital Editions I looked for instructions on how to remove and reset the limit of authorisations and could not find anything. That made me nervous. With iTunes for example once you have authorised 5 computers there is an option to reset all authorisations, letting you re authorise as you wish.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

In a case related to music, not ebooks, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled

The Supreme Court has just recently declined to hear the case. (from Teleread.) The ruling is now final, and a precedent for the 9th Circuit of the USA.

What's interesting, I think, and I haven't seen it mentioned in this thread, is that the licencees in this case are not the public who buy copies of the music. They are the retailers selling copies of the music.

So the case says nothing about whether the ebooks we buy are really sold or licensed. But it does say that Apple, Amazon, etc., are licensing the master copies from the producers, and any fees paid by them to the producers of the originals for this are license fees, not wholesale prices.

I suspect that publishers will be making sure that this is sorted out in new contracts. But if they insist that ebooks are covered by older contracts, it seems that there is a strong argument that they're covered only as licensing, for which the authors are generally due 50% of the net fee.

This also means that musicians who have been getting nothing from the music business for downloads because royalty rates are so low, and they've never 'earned out', might find that with 50% of the net income from downloads, they might actually be due some money!

[Kali Yuga]

When did publishers explicitly claim that ebooks are licenses rather than sales?

Also, chances are that the language regarding both digital commerce and licensing are completely different in author/publisher contracts than for musician/label contracts. It's common for a musician to license a song for use in a commercial, for example. Authors, not so much.

This ruling won't even apply universally to all musicians, since newer contracts are much more explicit about harmonizing digital use royalty rates with recording rates.