DRM and Purchasing?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Doonge

Yes and yes, depending on context.

Renting is cheaper than buying for short-lived uses. Of course if you want somehing that you will use all your life, renting is more expensive. When I go in vacations somewhere, I rent a car, I don't buy one. Which was the context I used: I'd buy DRM books if those were one time reading only, and preferably cheap.

And when you "buy" an unDRMable ebook (which doesn't exists), it means you don't even own the bits of the ebook. Thus you rent. It means some software it always supervising your "property".

I've read here that some publishing houses went down and their ebook were only partially (if at all) managed by other houses. As a result, people lost parts of their library, and I don't recall if refund were planned (I think they got some coupons to use in the new publishing house only).
That doesn't sound like owning stuff.

Why not just use the correct terminology, and say that you are buying a licence for the book? I really see no need to mis-use words such as "rent". An ebook licence is not a rental agreement by any definition of the word.

[pwalker8]

Of course, the use of the word license is a misuse of the word as well. It's a bit like the use of the word intellectual property, because it implies that ideas can actually be property which can be owned by someone. An idea is, of course, not property in any real sense.

The word license is used to get around the first use legal doctrine, to wit, that once you sell something, you can not restrict the buyer's ability to sell that item to someone else. I can understand why various companies want to establish a monopoly on selling their products or restrict the used market for their products, but then again, I can understand why Eisner considers it stealing to fast forward through commercials. But, just because I understand why someone wants to force other people to do something, doesn't mean that I consider it valid. To a great extent, the IP and Licensing movements want to have the best of both worlds, all the privileges and none of the responsibilities.

For the most part, few people consider buying a digital book simply purchased the license to use that digital content. They consider it buying a book, just like buying a book in a physical bookstore. The concept of buying a license is merely a legalistic construction. DRM is simply a method to enforce copyright protections. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Apache]

Originally Posted by cadele

I prefer to buy rather than borrow, and I like to re-read. I wouldn't knowingly buy an ebook I couldn't remove the DRM from.

This is what I do and how I feel also.
Apache

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Of course, the use of the word license is a misuse of the word as well. It's a bit like the use of the word intellectual property, because it implies that ideas can actually be property which can be owned by someone. An idea is, of course, not property in any real sense.

Forgive me for saying so, but you appear to be contradicting yourself. First you say that you consider that you own an ebook, not merely possess a licence to it, but then you say that intellectual property doesn't exist and can't be owned by anybody. You can't have it both ways: if intellectual property can't be owned, you can't own an ebook.

The dictionary defines the word "licence" to mean "a certificate, tag, document, etc, giving official permission to do something", and this is precisely what a licence to use computer software, digital music, ebooks, etc, is: permission to do something with the item. I honestly can't see how you can consider this to be a misuse of the term.

For the most part, few people consider buying a digital book simply purchased the license to use that digital content.

I can only conclude that if such people exist, they have not actually taken the trouble to research what it is that they are buying, because it is a licence. Amazon specifically tell you this in their Ts and Cs: "Digital goods are licensed, not sold".

[crane3]

Didn't read all of the Ts & Cs. Does it specifically state that the ebooks may only be used by a Kindle or a Kindle app? If not, then disinfection violated the T&C. Also, if not, then the T & C is invalid as the product is faulty & definitely a "lemon" since it cannot be read with another book reader if it has DRM.

I believe that it is similar to the claims by Lotus & other software vendors in the days of copy protection of floppy diskettes for apps. The claim for the copy protected diskettes was that if one doesn't like it, one can just format the diskettes for other use. Problem was the the diskettes were copy protected with a laser hole & the the app would check that particular sector for an error before proceeding. The laser holed disks could NOT be reformatted as the formatting app will get an error & just say "bad diskette". The vendors lied.

[Tarana]

I can't read ordinary paperbooks due to vision damage. I don't buy ibooks because not only can I not remove the DRM, but I can't use the Voice Dream or other text-to-speech software with the DRM in place. Amazon has some books where I can't use the text-to-speech software. I just download, remove DRM, put on my Fire or Kindle Keyboard and wham, text-to-speech! For those rare books that I can't convert, I simply return them for a refund. Yep, I need to change the line spacing - it just isn't an option.

[Doonge]

I'm not an english speaker, so my choice of words is not always appropriate.

Regardless, if you consider that what we do with ebook is not buying them (but buying their license), I think it's fair to consider that buying a license to read ebook is closer to renting ebook than it is to buying them. Not that I care, I don't even understand why that's a point of discussion.

Additionally, and I trust your choice of word "buying license to read ebooks", the sellers involved in this aren't very transparent about this even if it's in some legalese document appended to them that nobody reads. I've checked Kobo bookstore, Nook bookstore and Amazon, and all of them have "Buy" buttons, or "Put in the caddie" next to the "ebook" word, or "ebook version". None have an UI where it says "Buy the license" instead of "Buy the ebook".
Probably because being more transparent about it would hurt their sales (if their price remain the same). Not judging personally, but you yourself seem to blame the readers for not reading the legalese, yet what about this behaviour?


Finally, digital content you download on your computer has a physical presence. It can be duplicated, modified etc... as technology allows it (and it allows plenty). Unlike ideas.
You can have "instances" (programmatically speaking) of ebooks. Not instances of ideas.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Forgive me for saying so, but you appear to be contradicting yourself. First you say that you consider that you own an ebook, not merely possess a licence to it, but then you say that intellectual property doesn't exist and can't be owned by anybody. You can't have it both ways: if intellectual property can't be owned, you can't own an ebook.

The dictionary defines the word "licence" to mean "a certificate, tag, document, etc, giving official permission to do something", and this is precisely what a licence to use computer software, digital music, ebooks, etc, is: permission to do something with the item. I honestly can't see how you can consider this to be a misuse of the term.



I can only conclude that if such people exist, they have not actually taken the trouble to research what it is that they are buying, because it is a licence. Amazon specifically tell you this in their Ts and Cs: "Digital goods are licensed, not sold".

No contradiction. I'm not buying intellectual property, i.e. an idea. I'm buying a book that is stored digitally rather than printed on paper. The only difference between the two is that a digital book is a lot easier to copy than a paper book. I own my copy of the ebook. The intellectual property piece of ebooks is the ability to make copies and give/sale those copies to someone else, i.e. copyright. Copyright applies both the digital books as well as paper books, as I'm sure you are aware. Legally there is no practical difference. There are only logistics differences.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Doonge

Additionally, and I trust your choice of word "buying license to read ebooks", the sellers involved in this aren't very transparent about this

With the greatest respect, I'm afraid I have to disagree with you. Eg, look at the "Kindle Store Terms of Use" at Amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/custom...deId=201014950

Look at item 1, "Use of Kindle Content". It says:

Upon your download of Kindle Content and payment of any applicable fees (including applicable taxes), the Content Provider grants you a non-exclusive right to view, use, and display such Kindle Content an unlimited number of times, solely through a Reading Application or as otherwise permitted as part of the Service, solely on the number of Supported Devices specified in the Kindle Store, and solely for your personal, non-commercial use. Kindle Content is licensed, not sold, to you by the Content Provider.

(Emphasis mine)

This makes it absolutely clear that you are buying a licence, does it not?

Really, if people don't take the trouble to learn what it is that they're buying, that's entirely their own responsibility. If I can find these conditions, so can anyone else.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

No contradiction. I'm not buying intellectual property, i.e. an idea. I'm buying a book that is stored digitally rather than printed on paper.

A book is intellectual property (or, to be more specific, its contents are). Only concrete expressions of ideas, such as books, chemical formulas, industrial processes, logos, etc, are protected by intellectual property laws. There's no protection for ideas in the abstract.

[Doonge]

Originally Posted by HarryT

With the greatest respect, I'm afraid I have to disagree with you. Eg, look at the "Kindle Store Terms of Use" at Amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/custom...deId=201014950

Look at item 1, "Use of Kindle Content". It says:



(Emphasis mine)

This makes it absolutely clear that you are buying a licence, does it not?

Really, if people don't take the trouble to learn what it is that they're buying, that's entirely their own responsibility. If I can find these conditions, so can anyone else.

I don't see how that rebuke what I said, as I specifically laid that out. You are just repeating yourself without taking into consideration what I said, so where is the respect here?

And with the greatest respect, if you are unable to grasp what I say in my tiny post, why would you assume that, on top of reading legalese, people would understand it?



edit:
Quoting you

You can't have it both ways: if intellectual property can't be owned, you can't own an ebook.

If intellectual property can't be owned (hypothesis), it doesn't say anything about ebook as ebook can still be owned (and duplicated at will), regardless of intellectual property (well, especially if intellectual property is not a legal set of rule).
You could say however that with intellectual property, "owning" ebook becomes an ambiguous term, so two people could argue endlessly if they don't define what they mean by owning. And a moderator would smack them down unless the moderator himself is one of the two arguing ambiguous words without defining them.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Doonge

I don't see how that rebuke what I said, as I specifically laid that out. You are just repeating yourself without taking into consideration what I said, so where is the respect here?

I was responding directly to what you said. You said that sellers are not being transparent about what they're selling. I responded by pointing out that Amazon specifically tell you that "Kindle Content is licensed, not sold". That's plain English, not "legalese". I really don't see how it could be stated any more plainly or clearly!

[Doonge]

I said that they weren't very transparent. Not that they were not at all transparent. Nuances.

Again: the purchase button on those websites tend to imply you buy ebooks, not that you buy licenses. UI means user interface.




I think it would be better if you gave more leeway when you engage in discussion. It's like you do everything to be right on the most minute points of contention, and forego the general gist.

I already knew you somewhat from our previous exchanges, which is why I got out of my way to admit that there was some legalese accessible by users. I just wanted to say that for LAZY users, the experience could clearly be more transparent.

Again, it's the fool's money, no judgement, but I stress this point because you bash only one way, but is it necessary?

[Cinisajoy]

Originally Posted by Doonge

I said that they weren't very transparent. Not that they were not at all transparent. Nuances.

Again: the purchase button on those websites tend to imply you buy ebooks, not that you buy licenses. UI means user interface.

They did not put it in legalese. They put it in simple English, in a document that the customer should read.

That to me is VERY transparent.

If the user can't be bothered to read the T&C, that is all on the user and not Amazon.

Why should someone take their time to make something easier for as you put it a Lazy user?

Oh and HarryT and I sometimes misunderstand each other. Leads to interesting discussions.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Doonge

I said that they weren't very transparent. Not that they were not at all transparent. Nuances.

Again: the purchase button on those websites tend to imply you buy ebooks, not you buy licenses. UI means user interface.

I'm afraid we must agree to differ. I don't see how the fact that you're buying a licence could be expressed any more clearly than with the plain English statement that "Kindle Content is licensed, not sold". You feel differently. Let's leave it at that.