Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Want To Resell Your Ebooks? You'd Better Act Fast

timothy posted about 4 months ago | from the semantic-boundaries dept.

Books 72

Nate the greatest (2261802) writes "Here in the US it is legal to resell your MP3s on Redigi, and thanks to the UsedSoft decision you can resell downloaded software in Europe. But if you want to resell your ebooks you had better act fast. Tom Kabinet launched last week in the Netherlands to offer a marketplace for used ebooks, and it is already getting legal threats. The Dutch Trade Publishers Association (GAU) says that the site is committing piracy and if it doesn't shut down the GAU plans to take it to court. Citing a ruling from a German court, secretary general of the GAU Martijn David said that the question of legality had already been settled. Would anyone care to place a bet on whether the site is still in operation in 6 months?"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

The right to read. (4, Interesting)

scum-e-bag (211846) | about 4 months ago | (#47343931)

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html [gnu.org]

For Dan Halbert, the road to Tycho began in college—when Lissa Lenz asked to borrow his computer. Hers had broken down, and unless she could borrow another, she would fail her midterm project. There was no one she dared ask, except Dan.

This put Dan in a dilemma. He had to help her—but if he lent her his computer, she might read his books. Aside from the fact that you could go to prison for many years for letting someone else read your books, the very idea shocked him at first. Like everyone, he had been taught since elementary school that sharing books was nasty and wrong—something that only pirates would do.

And there wasn't much chance that the SPA—the Software Protection Authority—would fail to catch him. In his software class, Dan had learned that each book had a copyright monitor that reported when and where it was read, and by whom, to Central Licensing. (They used this information to catch reading pirates, but also to sell personal interest profiles to retailers.) The next time his computer was networked, Central Licensing would find out. He, as computer owner, would receive the harshest punishment—for not taking pains to prevent the crime.

Of course, Lissa did not necessarily intend to read his books. She might want the computer only to write her midterm. But Dan knew she came from a middle-class family and could hardly afford the tuition, let alone her reading fees. Reading his books might be the only way she could graduate. He understood this situation; he himself had had to borrow to pay for all the research papers he read. (Ten percent of those fees went to the researchers who wrote the papers; since Dan aimed for an academic career, he could hope that his own research papers, if frequently referenced, would bring in enough to repay this loan.)

Later on, Dan would learn there was a time when anyone could go to the library and read journal articles, and even books, without having to pay. There were independent scholars who read thousands of pages without government library grants. But in the 1990s, both commercial and nonprofit journal publishers had begun charging fees for access. By 2047, libraries offering free public access to scholarly literature were a dim memory.

There were ways, of course, to get around the SPA and Central Licensing. They were themselves illegal. Dan had had a classmate in software, Frank Martucci, who had obtained an illicit debugging tool, and used it to skip over the copyright monitor code when reading books. But he had told too many friends about it, and one of them turned him in to the SPA for a reward (students deep in debt were easily tempted into betrayal). In 2047, Frank was in prison, not for pirate reading, but for possessing a debugger.

Dan would later learn that there was a time when anyone could have debugging tools. There were even free debugging tools available on CD or downloadable over the net. But ordinary users started using them to bypass copyright monitors, and eventually a judge ruled that this had become their principal use in actual practice. This meant they were illegal; the debuggers' developers were sent to prison.

Programmers still needed debugging tools, of course, but debugger vendors in 2047 distributed numbered copies only, and only to officially licensed and bonded programmers. The debugger Dan used in software class was kept behind a special firewall so that it could be used only for class exercises.

It was also possible to bypass the copyright monitors by installing a modified system kernel. Dan would eventually find out about the free kernels, even entire free operating systems, that had existed around the turn of the century. But not only were they illegal, like debuggers—you could not install one if you had one, without knowing your computer's root password. And neither the FBI nor Microsoft Support would tell you that.

Dan concluded that he couldn't simply lend Lissa his computer. But he couldn't refuse to help her, because he loved her. Every chance to speak with her filled him with delight. And that she chose him to ask for help, that could mean she loved him too.

Dan resolved the dilemma by doing something even more unthinkable—he lent her the computer, and told her his password. This way, if Lissa read his books, Central Licensing would think he was reading them. It was still a crime, but the SPA would not automatically find out about it. They would only find out if Lissa reported him.

Of course, if the school ever found out that he had given Lissa his own password, it would be curtains for both of them as students, regardless of what she had used it for. School policy was that any interference with their means of monitoring students' computer use was grounds for disciplinary action. It didn't matter whether you did anything harmful—the offense was making it hard for the administrators to check on you. They assumed this meant you were doing something else forbidden, and they did not need to know what it was.

Students were not usually expelled for this—not directly. Instead they were banned from the school computer systems, and would inevitably fail all their classes.

Later, Dan would learn that this kind of university policy started only in the 1980s, when university students in large numbers began using computers. Previously, universities maintained a different approach to student discipline; they punished activities that were harmful, not those that merely raised suspicion.

Lissa did not report Dan to the SPA. His decision to help her led to their marriage, and also led them to question what they had been taught about piracy as children. The couple began reading about the history of copyright, about the Soviet Union and its restrictions on copying, and even the original United States Constitution. They moved to Luna, where they found others who had likewise gravitated away from the long arm of the SPA. When the Tycho Uprising began in 2062, the universal right to read soon became one of its central aims.

Re:The right to read. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47344003)

Oooh fucking crybaby.
Your crying parade would have been SO much better if somewhere in there, authors had a right to live too. But noooo. This makes your story so incredibly stupid. You're entitled to people's works, and those people are entitled nothing. Right?

Re:The right to read. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47344017)

I still find it fucking hilarious that people think they have a right to control information.

Copy right is a temporary privilege created by a pragmatic government. Today it's been corrupted almost beyond recognition. No author may be compelled to produce work, so any author who thinks they are entitled by moral right to payment for the creation of copies of their work is welcome to fuck off and find another job - there are 7 billion other people in the world who aren't so whiny.

Re:The right to read. (2)

currently_awake (1248758) | about 4 months ago | (#47345789)

You are looking at the difference between purchase and rental. The IP companies want to "Rent" you movies/books/software/music. People want to "Buy" their stuff. The IP companies are using their money to move the laws so they can "Sell" you a rental license instead of buying a copy.

Re:The right to read. (3, Interesting)

St.Creed (853824) | about 4 months ago | (#47346163)

Fortunately, in the EU it's been slapped down hard. If you want to have a rental license, it means recurring payments and the right to cancel the license (why do you think Microsoft is focusing so hard on Office365 with its monthly payments?). If it's a sale, you get one payment but afterwards First Sale doctrine applies and the rights of the original seller are exhausted.

Sanest decision in years, IMO.

Re:The right to read. (5, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 4 months ago | (#47344023)

We're not talking about breaking into an author's house, stealing a transscript and copying it many times. We're talking about buying a legitimate copy from the author and passing that single, original medium along to somebody else.

Authors have right to be paid for their work. They do not have a right to be paid for paying customers selling the customers' property.

Re:The right to read. (3, Informative)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 4 months ago | (#47344215)

Authors have right to be paid for their work. They do not have a right to be paid for paying customers selling the customers' property.

Not entirely applicable here due to the type of property being resold, but the European Union disagrees with you under the 2001 Resale Rights Directive 2001/84/EC which entitles artists to receive a royalty on the resale of their original or limited works up to a total of 12,500 Euros. The directive sets out a sliding scale of royalty levels, from 4% up to a resale price of 50,000 Euros, to 0.25% for greater than 500,000 Euros.

This right is seen as an inalienable right of the artist.

Re:The right to read. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47344485)

Right.
Please explain how those costs translate into $20 ebooks when their "production" cost is negligible. And why should I care about pirating those, knowing the author will get 4% of that. Maybe. Or 0% if Amazon has "special" offers ...

Here's my advice. Pirate every book you want. When self-publishing will become a little older, then buy the books you've pirated. Only then, you'll know you've paid the right price TO the right people.

Second solution, buy a paper book. Then find a pirated ebook copy to have as a digital format. It's like ripping mp3's. You could alternately scan/photograph each page and make your own, it's YOUR book, right? You'll be keeping it's contents and the medium only for personal use.

PS the golden days of super-star authors are dead and gone. Everyone will have a fair shot, and THAT'S why publishers and vendors(fi Amazon) are trying to kill every ebook initiative outside their control.

Re:The right to read. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47345697)

1. For the purposes of this Directive, "original work of art" means works of graphic or plastic art such as pictures, collages, paintings, drawings, engravings, prints, lithographs, sculptures, tapestries, ceramics, glassware and photographs, provided they are made by the artist himself or are copies considered to be original works of art.

2. Copies of works of art covered by this Directive, which have been made in limited numbers by the artist himself or under his authority, shall be considered to be original works of art for the purposes of this Directive. Such copies will normally have been numbered, signed or otherwise duly authorised by the artist..

Source: here [europa.eu] .

This does not even approach applying to books (or software, movies, music, ... -- essentially anything that is sold in mass-produced reproductions). Unless of course you think the author personally types every copy... :)

Re:The right to read. (1)

Sabriel (134364) | about 4 months ago | (#47347685)

Ah yes, "customer rights", we have dismissed that claim.

Re:The right to read. (2)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about 4 months ago | (#47345811)

I thought I bought a book yesterday.

Turns out what I bought was a downloadable 500-byte Adobe key that on certain selected devices (not even the majority of my book-reader devices) so long as certain seller infrastructure remains intact and the owners of that infrastructure feel willing will allow me to read the books using selected software. It will not allow me to excerpt the book, lend out the book, read using a reader program with superior features, print even the smallest part of the book or do anything that the "sellers of this book" don't want me to do.

It's a cookbook, so that means that if I need a copy of a recipe in the kitchen, I have to hand-copy it from the display screen.

For about $1.50 more I could have bought a physical copy of that book. I still wouldn't be able to print it, but at least I could have photocopied a page when I needed a recipe instead of copying it out longhand.

I'm not "buying any more e-books" via that channel. I'll stick to the channels that actually present me with usable copies of the books. In other words, sell me the book not a minimally-useful key that costs as much as the actual flamin' book itself!

Re:The right to read. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47348763)

For even less you could have torrented it...

Re:The right to read. (1)

carton (105671) | about 4 months ago | (#47346275)

Authors have right to be paid for their work.

Nobody has a "right" to be paid for their work. If I doodle in a sketchbook, or shit in a bucket on stage, there is no fundamental right to be paid for that just because it feels like work to me, or looks like work to a bystander. In the same way, those guys that wander into traffic and wash your windshield without asking you don't deserve to be paid for making driving more stressful.

This is relevant to the discussion because "right to be paid for work" soundbite is used in enthymemes like this:

1. $random_thing happened.
2. We could (a) pay the artist every time it happens, or (b) not pay the artist, some or all of the times it happens.
3. The right answer is (a) because artists and authors have a right to be paid for their work, and the situation wouldn't have arisen if they weren't working.

I agree we should pay artists and authors to convince them to do more work. Beyond that, I also agree artists should earn enough to live with dignity, matching our respect for the class of work they do, and this isn't happening uniformly enough right now. Neither is the same as "right to be paid for work" because neither implies that they should be paid every time a thing happens, nor even that they need to be paid specifically _for work_ at all (not that it's necessarily a bad idea to pay them "for work", just that it's not implied by what I agree with, and is not a "right").

This is a ridiculous argument, and we should stop making it. You're making it even sillier by adding,

  4. But we could also (a) make an exception, or (b) not make an exception.
  5. Right answer is (a) because "mah propertah," or something.

Instead we need to go back to 1 - 3 and make them complicated enough to capture what's really going on.

Re:The right to read. (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 4 months ago | (#47346557)

I guess you majored in "pedantry", with honors.

What "Authors have right to be paid for their work" means is that if other people want to use the result of their work, the authors can ask payment in return.

Ofcourse you fully understand what was meant, but thought treating another person like a moron would make you feel superior. Enjoy your fuzzy feelings.

Re:The right to read. (1)

HiThere (15173) | about 4 months ago | (#47347065)

That's OK. Given the normal author's contract they wouldn't be significantly paid for an additional e-book copy anyway.

IOW, it's not the authors who are complaining, it's either the publishers or, perhaps, Amazon.

Re:The right to read. (2)

Corwyn_123 (828115) | about 4 months ago | (#47344777)

No, not true. Back in the day (20th century), writers sold their work to the publishing house for a fee, and that's all they got for it, the publisher was now the owner and made the royalties. Then, it came that the writers didn't like this arrangement and changed it, demanding a fee (smaller than before), and royalties for each first time sold book (retail). After that, they got no additional royalties, the book buyer could read the book any number of times, loan it to friends, donate it to libraries or other charities, or, at least with paperback books, rip off the front cover and resell them, without paying royalty fees to the publishers/authors.

Now, in the 21st century, the rights to everything have gone from the buyer to the creator/seller, you never really own anything, you just rent it/pay a license fee to use it. Once you're done with something, a house, a car, a book, a record, tape, or CD (oops mp3's), you aren't permitted to sell them, or if you are, through only authorized houses/websites, you have to pay the original creator/author/producer Royalty fees, so they can continue to make money on something years or decades after it was first written, published and sold for the first time.

I thought, at least in US copyright law, there was a provision for first sale, which states (paraphrased), the creator/seller receives royalties for the first sale of a work, and nothing thereafter.

What has come of our world? What's come of our countries, with PAC and other such Trade agreements between countries, they're trying to align all copyright, patents, and trademarks, so it's the same all over the world. We are moving into a world that the original story of this thread, will come true. It's up to us the people, to do something about it, before it's too late. But, that'll never happen, because people are too pacified by the system, too apathetic, and too cowed, to believe they have the ability to do anything.

Welcome to the future, we've created it, now we have to live in it. It was foretold, and we did nothing about it when we heard the prophecies, our children and our children's children will be the inheritors of our creation (maybe we can make some royalties from them).

Re:The right to read. (2)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 4 months ago | (#47346027)

Authors have a right to live, they DONT have a right to FORCE licensing on 7 billion people. Copyright is a SOCIAL BARGAIN and copyright maximalists have pushed too far. Its time to push back.

The right to read. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47344147)

Calling all faggots!

So can I interest you in a new tinfoil hat? Shut the fuck up with this RMS bullshit and try to enjoy life a bit more by maybe making a friend or two.

Resell them? (3, Interesting)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 4 months ago | (#47343935)

I get most of my books from qbittorrent. I didn't realize they might have a resell value. A lot of my other books come from Kindle Cloud. I knew that I could loan a book out, but I had no idea that I could "resell" it.

This is why I like dead tree books. I can do with it what I want. Hell, I can even shred it, roll it, and smoke it if I want.

Re:Resell them? Why the heck not ? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47343981)

Funny how commercial entities (which the GAU obviously is, even if they do not sell anything themselves) seem to think that when the carrier material changes -- in this case from wood to ... nothing? -- the rights for that what actually has the value, the "message" if you will, suddenly also changes.

Is this maybe another of those "if its 'with a computer' than all bets are off" thingies patents seem to float so well on ?

Re:Resell them? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47344011)

I think what they mean is resell them . . . . after you copy them, of course.

Re:Resell them? (1)

flyneye (84093) | about 4 months ago | (#47344803)

Without my glasses, I thought the headline was "Want to resell your body?", no kiddin. It did make me think though, about perceived ownership and rights. What do we really own and what are we licensed to "borrow/operate"?

            From a standpoint of laws designed to protect you from yourself and even recent forced healthcare ; the government has an interest in YOU as a commodity that adds to the Gross National Output thereby increasing the amount of $credit$ available to it with your service as collateral. Kinda like seeing the map of the universe with the little --->"you are here"---- marked....
I think in the end, we just do what we can, while we can, with what we have until it is regulated for monetary interests by someone who claims rights unopposed.

I've heard tales that thin paged King James Bibles roll a mighty spleef, Jah LOVE!

Re:Resell them? (1)

currently_awake (1248758) | about 4 months ago | (#47345803)

Under current law you can't "Sell" your body, or parts. Otherwise people would be getting offers for kidneys and such. It also stops slavery, though indentured servitude still exists.

Ebooks worth nothing to me (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47343947)

Yep thanks stick your e-books up your arses. I won't spend money on them. Plenty to read that is free thanks. Fuck the publishers.

Wait, what ? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47343953)

You can't apply someone else's laws to your own country, that's what sovereignty is all about, a ruling in Germany should have no bearing on Dutch law and would be dismissed as irrelevant, what if that ruling was from Saudi Arabia ? India ? Tanjeekystan ?

they are still gonna get sued but the allegers are gonna have to have a better argument than "but in x they said"

Re:Wait, what ? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47343961)

The law covers Europe. Netherlands and Germany are both in Europe. So it is very likely it can be used.

Re:Wait, what ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47343969)

By Europe i mean the European Union - which btw (at least not yet) none of the other countries your mention are members of.

Re:Wait, what ? (3, Interesting)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 4 months ago | (#47344031)

The ruling is a German ruling, not a European ruling (Europe has it's own court).
German rulings do not apply to Europe or any part of Europe other than Germany.

Re:Wait, what ? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47344401)

That is a regional court in a part of the country that is best know for the joke that it doesn't actually exist and nothing much beyond that.
Even within Germany that ruling is about as irrelevant as it can get.

Re:Wait, what ? (1)

Carewolf (581105) | about 4 months ago | (#47346063)

German rulings do not apply to Europe or any part of Europe other than Germany.

A German court ruling doesn't even apply to another case in the same German court, nor a Dutch ruling to another Dutch court. None of these countries are common law countries, which means precedence is non-binding. They do however _look_ at other court rulings and look at the arguments and conclusions, which you can do across any curistiction, so in most countries (since only very few are common law like the UK and US), looking at a ruling from another country is not that odd especially when the laws are the same or similar.

Re:Wait, what ? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47344451)

It's not that easy. In general central european coutries have very similar laws and the judicial communities to exchange their views on topics that concern the overall european community. So while strictly speaking the german ruling is not applicable, it is highly likely that a dutch court would come to the same conclusion (especially in areas like copyrights, where most local laws are variations of the same EU directive).

However, citing a decision from a "Landgericht" and stating that the matter had been settled is quite daring. In Germany, no legal matter is really considered to be settled unless there is a decision from the Federal Court of Justice, so two more levels of appeal are possible before that matter can be considered to be settled

Re:Wait, what ? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47343963)

Nope.

1) Lots of countries take into consideration rulings from elsewhere, even if they aren't binding, e.g. Commonwealth;

2) Sometimes there is a specific legal hierarchy, so e.g. a ruling on interpretation of European law in one EU state would definitely be relevant to another;

3) Various horrid international treaties on trade and IP mean that countries end up respecting each others' legal rulings (except when they don't - for example, the US expects everyone "free trade" treaties, but isn't stupid enough to do so itself). It's a lot easy to set up a restriction than it is to tear it down. So, rulings on copyrights and patents tend to have legal force across borders, but one country cannot invalidate a patient or copyright internationally.

Re:Wait, what ? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47344851)

The entire U.A.E. was incarcerated today for gross violations of health, sanitation, child endangerment and bestiality after irritating Uraguay with strong body odor.
It'll be whorld whore III. Gimme a beer.

Fortunately, it will be banned! (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 4 months ago | (#47343965)

Banning has already eradicated many other invisible activities, such as growing and smoking marijuana. I'm waiting for another smashing success here!

Re:Fortunately, it will be banned! (2)

kurkosdr (2378710) | about 4 months ago | (#47344019)

"Banning has already eradicated many other invisible activities..." They 'll just sell you a computer with Secure Boots on steroids (always enabled, allowing only fully "certified" images to run) which also is glued-shut and has glued-on components, so you can't open it without destroying it. https://www.ifixit.com/Teardow... [ifixit.com] Good luck with installing a custom OS on that. I hope I am wrong, but soon some Hollywood Legislator will ban devices with unlocked bootloaders like Nexus devices and mandate always-enabled secure boots on all devices (phones, tablets, laptops etc).

Re:Fortunately, it will be banned! (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 4 months ago | (#47344091)

Damn! If only it were possible to build a computer on your own using generic circuitry...

Re:Fortunately, it will be banned! (1)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 4 months ago | (#47344207)

Oh, by the way...I'd like to take this opportunity to coin and spread a new term for this: "guerilla computing". To my knowledge, nobody has ever used that in this meaning. So I'd like to claim priority. :-)

Re:Fortunately, it will be banned! (1)

dl_sledding (1624921) | about 4 months ago | (#47352055)

I have copyrighted the term "gorilla computing". Your "geurilla computing" is much too close auditorily to my copyrighted term that I forbid you to use it in any commercial or non-commercial way, without paying me for the use of it of course. Anything for a dollar, or any other recognized form of payment, including but not limited to bitcoin, Galactic Credit Standard and gold-pressed latinum.

The site does not commit piracy ... (2)

Alain Williams (2972) | about 4 months ago | (#47343985)

it is just a market place. ''the site operates on an honor basis.'' it expects that once you have sold your e-book that you delete it from your machines. If you do not then it is you who commits piracy. It is an issue of trust: the book publisher/author knows that it is all too easy for someone to sell a book once they have read it but still keep the copy. But just because it is easy does not mean that everyone will keep a copy. I do have to admit that many will sell and keep.

I do not know what the answer it, shutting down a market place or wrapping the book in DRM are not the answers.

Re:The site does not commit piracy ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47344035)

If you're making money off the deal, it's not piracy, it's bootlegging.

Re: The site does not commit piracy ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47344043)

Who reads a book twice? Oh yeah duplicating copyrighted material and on selling for profit is STILL ILLEGAL.

I don't suppose it would be just as hard to police, enforce, investigate and prosecute as it would be 100s of years ago. The argument is that individuals may be more tempted and inclined to sell a digital copy more than once as not every one had access to a printing press 100s of years ago or could get away with photocopying 100s of pages without the boss noticing decades ago.

Perhaps the philosophical question is - are people more inclined to commit a crime if the likelihood of not getting caught is reduced?

Re: The site does not commit piracy ... (3, Insightful)

Alain Williams (2972) | about 4 months ago | (#47344069)

Who reads a book twice?

You might not want to read a novel more than once, but many books are not story books. Eg: an academic text book; a reference book - these you might read and want to keep so that you can look up points of detail later.

Having said that:: I have read 'Lord of the Rings' 3 times.

Re: The site does not commit piracy ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47344081)

Then why are you selling it if you still need it? You missed the point completely.

Re: The site does not commit piracy ... (2)

Alain Williams (2972) | about 4 months ago | (#47344099)

That is the whole point -- with an e-book you can sell it and still have/keep a copy to use, something that you cannot do with a paper book. This is what the publishers want to stop.

Re: The site does not commit piracy ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47344191)

Well, it's possible to scan books, or even just 'xerox' them. Where quite common among students, buy a used text book, make a couple of copies of it, sell the book.

Or just borrow it at a library.

Re: The site does not commit piracy ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47344195)

That is quite inaccurate, I can scan a book and have a copy, printed or otherwise. It's just that it's currently less practical to have/keep a copy of a book in the manner to which you refer to. It doesn't mean it can't/won't happen.

Re: The site does not commit piracy ... (1)

currently_awake (1248758) | about 4 months ago | (#47345819)

You can keep a dead tree copy, if you have a scanner or a photo copier. It's just so much easier when the original is already digitized. If the open source community had DRM then we could ensure "Selling" a book included all copies.

Re: The site does not commit piracy ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47346209)

I have read 'Lord of the Rings' 3 times.

I'm so sorry to hear that. My condolences.

Re: The site does not commit piracy ... (2)

koreanbabykilla (305807) | about 4 months ago | (#47344449)

i feel bad for you. You have really never read a book that you again want to read years or decades later? There are many thousands of books i have read many times. You are either young, or base your reasoning on only having read what you can get from the magazine section of the grocery store.

Re: The site does not commit piracy ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47348285)

If you are honest with yourself, you don't re-read most book you get. Either you don't try not titles, or don't read much if you keep going back to stuff you've already read. In your entire life, how many books have you read, and of those, reread?

Re: The site does not commit piracy ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47345877)

Any book that is not worth repeated readings is not worth reading in the first place.

Re: The site does not commit piracy ... (1)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | about 4 months ago | (#47346479)

Who reads a book twice?

Actually, everyone I know who actually reads for pleasure does it from time to time. Including me.

Which reminds me, we're coming up on the sesquicentennial of Gettysburg. Time to pull out one of my histories of that battle and reread it before the Fourth.

Re: The site does not commit piracy ... (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 4 months ago | (#47346891)

Who reads a book twice

Who listens to a song twice? Who watches a movie twice? Who plays a video game twice? Who ever does anything twice?

Face it, most people will want to use their purchased content more than once. Especially books (sheesh, seriously, you don't read them more than once?). Now you'd have a point if someone paid only $1.99 for a book, album, game, or movie, but when you're being charged $20-$60 for a product then hell yes I am either going to use it more than once or I am going to exercise my legal rights to resell it when I'm done.

Re: The site does not commit piracy ... (1)

camazotz (1242344) | about 4 months ago | (#47351399)

Who reads a book twice?

Everyone else has jumped on you for this, but...seriously: do you really think books are one-off disposables? Really?!?!? I've got an extensive library and I read a ton of content every week. I have a lot of favorites I have read a second, third or sometimes even fourth time. I have reference books and informational books I draw upon time and again. Who reads a book twice? People who read, that's who.

Re: The site does not commit piracy ... (1)

dl_sledding (1624921) | about 4 months ago | (#47352069)

Amen.

Re:The site does not commit piracy ... (1)

Darinbob (1142669) | about 4 months ago | (#47346879)

The content industry (music, video, books, games) considers that reselling the works is an evil act and they'll do what they can do prevent it regardless of whether or not the law allows it. Thus DRM, which is promoted to the naive as merely copy protection is really designed to shut out the market for used items.

Simple solution (0)

itzly (3699663) | about 4 months ago | (#47344089)

Just pirate the books instead.

How is it piracy? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 4 months ago | (#47344217)

Assuming no other copy of 'your' book exists, its not piracy, any more than the library is.

Now, perhaps if you cant guarantee there are no other copies, i suppose they could say something, but that should be on the seller to be complaint, not this company.

In the world of shareware/freeware? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47344273)

This happens CONSTANTLY: I know, & found my wares in books from the USA & for instance, Germany, many times (minus my explicit permission allowing them to include it on CD's or floppies that came with the book).

Personally?

I didn't *mind* it so much to be honest!

(As it's good 'p.r.' for me is why, even helped on job interviews many times, splitting hairs vs. my competition, which is LARGELY why I did freeware actually - for THAT very purpose, over the decades - well, that & getting BOUGHT OUT + having my code put into successfully commercially sold wares too).

* I.E./E.G. - I would write said publisher asking for a copy of the book, or magazine, & every SINGLE time, they'd send me one, gratis (for doing what they did minus asking me of course).

APK

P.S.=> It happens, & it's not necessarily a "bad thing" either, per my statements above... +, hey: It gets you a FREE COPY of that book or magazine too (if not a subscription, which happened for me once too) - bonus!

... apk

Re:In the world of shareware/freeware? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47345695)

APK needs to be hanged from a light pole and left to rot. The only thing we know is that he likes to rape children and needs to be locked up. I encourage everyone to report that sick fuck to the police and get him removed from society until he stops destroying innocent lives. His name is Alexander Peter Kowalski and he lives at 903 East Division St., Syracuse, NY 13208 (he was born 01/31/1965; his mother is Jan Kowalski, born 12/03/1933. I encourage everyone to call his neighbors and warn them that he may have raped and\or murdered their children and uses HOSTS files to evade police detection when he looks at child porn. If anyone lives in his area, I suggest printing out some fliers and stapling them around his neighborhood with a large "PAEDO WARNING!" on the top.

Hey, psycho troll: Get THIS straight, freak... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47346047)

You're obviously attempting to project your OWN issues onto me, & failing as I don't harm children in ANY way, nor am I some pedophile freak!

So understand that, above ALL else - they're the future & not corrupted by life, which YOU obviously are...

(Heck - I can't even dislike you, & instead, I pity you, I truly do. You're damaged goods, psychologically (obviously)).

QUESTION: Just how BADLY did I spank you (after you brought it on yourself, no doubt, as I do *NOT* start trouble, I only finish it to MY satisfaction) in some technical debate here, that it's "got your goat" to this very day?

Has to be that, since your "geek angst" is still 'up' & what-not... lol you're all "butthurt" over it still & ODDS ARE way, Way, WAY STRONG you brought it on yourself, attempting to attack your betters (in myself) just when you probably "thought you knew it all" & I utterly SCHOOLED your lame undereducated ass, totally!

APK

P.S.=> Answer that please - I am *truly* curious, since you're acting worse than a woman does when you tell her to "hit the road, you're fired", lol... apk

Tangible Property (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47344617)

Why is it that when prosecuting file sharers, the IP firms of the world are adamant that "digital property" is no different than tangible property (that "stealing" a movie or song is the same as stealing a car), but when that interpretation favors the customer they're suddenly all about digital property isn't the same as tangible property? Yeah, fuck you guys. That's why I pirate everything I can.

Re:Tangible Property (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47349157)

Too bad I ran out of mod points before I got to this post. Thumbs Up.

Why can't I (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47344627)

If they can sell a copy but still keep the original, why can't I?

Two kinds of people (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47344977)

Those who pay for ebooks and those who don't. Why would anyone who pays for ebooks use such a site to pirate ebooks, and why would anyone who doesn't pay for ebooks?

Darn Happy (1)

tmjva (226065) | about 4 months ago | (#47345151)

Happy I never wasted my money nor time on ebook technology:

IMDB quote:
"Star Trek: Court Martial (#1.20)" (1967)
Cogley: Books, young man, books. Thousands of them. If time wasn't so important, I'd show you something. My library. Thousands of books.
Captain James T. Kirk: And what would be the point?
Cogley: This is where the law is. Not in that homogenized, pasteurized synthesizer. Do you want to know the law? The ancient concepts in their own language? Learn the intent of the men who wrote them, from Moses to the tribunal of Alpha III? Books.
Captain James T. Kirk: You have to be either an obsessive crackpot who's escaped from his keeper, or Samuel T. Cogley, attorney at law.
Cogley: You're right on both counts. Need a lawyer?
Captain James T. Kirk: I'm afraid so. ?"

Re:Darn Happy (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about 4 months ago | (#47346069)

There is nothing wrong with plaintext ebooks. They are as useful and powerful as their physical counterparts.

Re:Darn Happy (1)

HiThere (15173) | about 4 months ago | (#47347093)

No. Sometimes e-books are better, and sometimes they are worse, but I've never found a time when they were the same. E.g., it's much easier to search a plaintext ebook. But it's less pleasant to read one in the bathtub.

Thoughts of an author... (1)

Sasayaki (1096761) | about 4 months ago | (#47347263)

I write books for a living (see sig). I've published 7 novels and 20-ish short stories/novellas, whatever.

My gut feeling is that if you paid for anything I wrote, you can resell it, as long as you do it once and delete the original. Yes, I know there is no way I can enforce this, but I also don't really give a shit.

Most authors do not feel this way and I'm not really sure why. I suspect it's because there's a feeling that most people won't do this and will just be reselling books en-masse for their own profit. Obviously, this is bad. If anyone can take a book I wrote and sell hundreds of copies for their own gain, well, that's not good for me. I wrote it, only I can sell it in that manner. If you bought a copy, you can re-sell it, but only that copy. It makes sense to me.

Opposition to re-selling of purchased ebooks (once, and with full transferal of the right to read the ebook) is quite prevalent amongst the author community, but I feel that this fails, largely, to take into account that there are hundreds if not thousands of ebook piracy sites where almost all of our for-pay work is available for free with no such restrictions. Yet I still sell thousands of dollars of books a month.

Accordingly, I still feel confident that I can sell books, for profit, mainly because I price aggressively, and sites like Google Play/Amazon/etc are convenient and people are happy to pay a few bucks for convenience.

If your readers are your enemy you've already lost.

Re:Thoughts of an author... (1)

Quirkz (1206400) | about 4 months ago | (#47350411)

Yeah, I don't get the opposition, either. Considering nearly every writer I know loves books stores of all kinds, including used book stores, it seems absurd to object to reselling a digital one in exactly the same way physical ones have been resold in the past. I tend to assume most of it boils down to the fear if someone can resell once they'll resell a bunch of times.

Bought one ebook from Amazon, will never do again (1)

mnt (1796310) | about 4 months ago | (#47348629)

Having switched completely to all kinds of unixes and FirefoxOS on the phone i'm unable to read that DRM-bullshit amazon is selling. Will never buy an ebook that has DRM again. And it's even more outrageous that the Sellers claim i can't resell it, so i will probably not buy an ebook again, DRM or not.

Re:Bought one ebook from Amazon, will never do aga (1)

rhyous (1727822) | about 4 months ago | (#47351235)

I believe in DRM free ebooks, too. My book, Fire Light (Trinity of Mind book 1), is DRM free. I also know a few other authors that sell DRM free books. However, I haven't even taking time to see if I can actually transfer them. I just click the box, DRM free when I publish.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?