# Library ebooks, DRM, back-up copies, and copyright law



## BookishMom (Oct 30, 2008)

I have a Kindle 1 and am thinking about getting a Kindle DX. I've recently begun investigating downloading eBooks from the library (via OverDrive and Netlibrary) for me and my family.

After researching the topic and learning how I could get the MobiPocket protected format eBooks to work on the Kindle, I'd like feedback on whether our Kindle community feels that using the current workaround to download MobiPocket format ebooks (via OverDrive from the library) to my Kindle is dishonest.

Some things I've been considering:

-There's a relatively small percentage of ebooks available in MobiPocket format, so we would still purchase books through Amazon.

-The books we would download via the library and convert for my Kindle 1 aren't "keepers". They expire just like other eBooks/Audiobooks on loan do. (The Kindle actually erases them when they expire.) If I enjoy a book enough to reread (I'm a hopeless re-reader), then I'll purchase a "keeper" copy for my Kindle from Amazon.

-If I get a second Kindle, I can deregister my Kindle 1 to let my children use it for library eBooks exclusively. It's _very_ appealing to me to *not * have my entire library available to them via my content manager.

-I like Amazon and shop there a lot for Kindle books as well as other merchandise. I want to support their efforts with the eBook industry and don't want to take sales away from them. However, I do still visit the library, Goodwill, yard sales, etc., for books (for my whole family, various ages, various interests - couldn't afford to buy every book we want when many of us read a book a day - if not more). However, when I download an eBook on loan from the library, I'd like to be able to read it on the eReader I've purchased to read eBooks - the Kindle. Does that make sense? In other words, I wouldn't want to purchase another eReader just to read eBooks on loan from my local library. (I don't like to read eBooks on my PC - it hurts my eyes.)

*Updated to add since original post:* I'm very interested in the new Sony Readers. They have most of the features of the Kindle and more, plus allow free use of Library ebooks and DRMd EPUB ebooks purchased from other companies. I want to see one in the flesh when they come out at the end of August 2009.

-I've researched the topic a little, and I get a sense that Amazon has known about this work-around since its inception (in 2007), but looks the other way because they're not really against using the Kindle for library downloads. They just don't want Kindle users to _purchase_ eBooks from anywhere else and read them on the Kindle. Books on loan are different, in their eyes.

I'm sure others may come up with other points - for and against this - but if you could share your feedback with me, I'd appreciate it. And, I know that we're not like the "other place" that likes to walk on the dark side, but just in case... let's keep it friendly, no matter what your opinion is.


----------



## CS (Nov 3, 2008)

I get e-books from my library, and I honestly don't care how Amazon feels about that. I have every right to use the library for e-books, just as I


Spoiler



never


 did before for paper books.

I don't know that Amazon is against people purchasing e-books from other sites. They would obviously _prefer_ for you to purchase it from them, but books from other sites do work on the Kindle as long as it's in Mobi/PRC format (such as books from Smashwords.com, etc.).


----------



## marianneg (Nov 4, 2008)

First, there is absolutely nothing wrong with purchasing ebooks from other sites.  If you choose not to, that is fine, but I can't see how there is any legal, ethical, or moral problem with doing so.

Amazon took, IMO, the position of a bully when it forced mobileread to stop hosting the scripts that made it possible for the Kindle to work with Overdrive.  Mobileread caved under the pressure, denying us any official word on the legality of it, but, again, I don't see any way that this runs afoul of any laws or amazon's TOS for the Kindle.


----------



## BookishMom (Oct 30, 2008)

Thanks to you both for sharing your opinions with me. I should've been more clear about purchasing eBooks from other companies - I know it's possible to buy them, but Kindle makes it difficult for certain formats, and the formats don't always transfer well to the Kindle. I really don't mind supporting Amazon because of their work in bringing the eBook industry forward, but I *was* feeling a little bullied (great way to explain it, Marianner) when I realized that I couldn't download eBooks from OverDrive on my Kindle.

I just recently joined a library with OverDrive and NetLibrary, and started out experimenting with audiobooks. I enjoy them, but I find I enjoy reading vs. listening more in most cases. When I started to download eBooks and found I couldn't read them on my Kindle, that's when I started researching more.

I worked on the script/Python download, and after much tweeking (mostly working to get everything in the same folder or it wouldn't work), I downloaded my first OverDrive eBook and it transfered to my Kindle without a glitch. I still have a few twinges about doing this, but I can't pinpoint why. I want to support authors by buying their works (and won't get pirated copies), but libraries have been loaning books for a long time and there's nothing wrong with reading them on my Kindle. I'd never be able to afford all the books I wanted to read.

Anyway, thank you again for your perspectives - I wasn't sure what kind of reception my question would get, and am relieved to find that you share my feelings.


----------



## VictoriaP (Mar 1, 2009)

I don't think you're going to find too many people who think you shouldn't be able to read library books on the Kindle--quite the contrary, I think most of us strongly think it should be a lot easier to do!  You're also among a crowd that for the most part thinks nothing of "enhancing" our Kindles with better screensavers and better fonts--and the minute a folder hack appears, you better believe half or more of this place will be adding that to their Kindles as well. 

I haven't applied the script you used as I have a fair sized backlog to read already, but believe me, the day it was erased from MobileRead, I downloaded the cached wiki directions and all the files for it.  I agree completely with marianner, Amazon is being a bully about something that really isn't an issue.  Nothing in those specific scripts removes DRM from the files, and therefore should not be in violation of the TOS.


----------



## Kathy (Nov 5, 2008)

Sounds like you are doing everything right in my opinion. You are not trying to steal books, just read them on your Kindle.


----------



## marianneg (Nov 4, 2008)

Trust me, I'm a big defender of copyright law, but I have yet to hear a legitimate argument against this particular work around.


----------



## BookishMom (Oct 30, 2008)

Thank you, again, to everyone. I now have no twinges at all left. I don't know why I was so worried about this, but I'm glad I discussed it here. Hugs all the way around.


----------



## koolmnbv (Mar 25, 2009)

I realize you already got all your answers but I just wanted to add my $.02 and say I also agree with what everyone else above has said.


----------



## luvmy4brats (Nov 9, 2008)

I also agree with what every one else has said. If I didn't already have so many books waiting to be read, I would have done this myself. It's no different than checking out a DTB from the library. Don't feel guilty at all. 

Now that I think about it, I should do this myself. You might get some PMs from me about what tweaks you made.


----------



## BookishMom (Oct 30, 2008)

Thanks, also, to the newcomers to the conversation. I'd be happy to help anyone with getting the scripts to work, and I appreciate your kindness in supporting me.


----------



## Jesslyn (Oct 29, 2008)

I would like to add to this conversation as I use all the hacks that I found to manipulate any ebooks that I purchase so that I can read on my Kindle.  My question is this (brought up by a friend with a Kindle).  If you already own the DTB, is is 'immoral' (her word) or infringing on the copyright (my term) to get the ebook from a torrent, shared file site, etc.  Not with the intention to redistribute or share, just to read for yourself

Her example to me was Harry Potter.  I was complaining about it not being available in any format and she was horrified that I would even consider buying it on ebook as I have both hardcover and paperback of each book.  Then I started thinking about all the books that I have purchased multiple copies (couldn't find, bought another, then found the 1st one).


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

Jesslyn, that's an interesting question and I'm not sure I know the answer, but my husband and I were just talking about it.  A lot of people confuse the copyright for computer software (one copy per user or one copy per machine--depends on what you purchased) with the music industry which allowed people to buy a vinyl record and make other recordings FOR THEIR PERSONAL use, not for resale.  

I'm not positive with books, because in the past you couldn't exactly make a "copy" for yourself--and why would you when a copy was just another type of the same thing you owned--bulky pages?  So it's possible that it isn't covered all that well in current copyright.

I would think that legally you are okay, the only bad thing would be supporting or frequenting a site that...frankly is often way outside of copyright.  Meaning that the more people use them, the more illegal stuff appears on them. 

But still, I don't see how you would be outside the right to re-read in whatever format you chose.  Now, as to my opinion of Rowling being stubborn about e-books...


----------



## Jesslyn (Oct 29, 2008)

MariaESchneider said:


> Jesslyn, that's an interesting question and I'm not sure I know the answer, but my husband and I were just talking about it. A lot of people confuse the copyright for computer software (one copy per user or one copy per machine--depends on what you purchased) with the music industry which allowed people to buy a vinyl record and make other recordings FOR THEIR PERSONAL use, not for resale.
> 
> I'm not positive with books, because in the past you couldn't exactly make a "copy" for yourself--and why would you when a copy was just another type of the same thing you owned--bulky pages? So it's possible that it isn't covered all that well in current copyright.
> 
> ...


Speaking of pirating AND Rowling--the Harry Potter and other books were put up on Amazon's Kindle store today by someone today. They have since been pulled down by Amazon, but they were there for awhile.


----------



## BookishMom (Oct 30, 2008)

Jesslyn said:


> I would like to add to this conversation as I use all the hacks that I found to manipulate any ebooks that I purchase so that I can read on my Kindle. My question is this (brought up by a friend with a Kindle). If you already own the DTB, is is 'immoral' (her word) or infringing on the copyright (my term) to get the ebook from a torrent, shared file site, etc. Not with the intention to redistribute or share, just to read for yourself
> 
> Her example to me was Harry Potter. I was complaining about it not being available in any format and she was horrified that I would even consider buying it on ebook as I have both hardcover and paperback of each book. Then I started thinking about all the books that I have purchased multiple copies (couldn't find, bought another, then found the 1st one).


Jesslyn, my husband and I have talked about this very issue, so I'm glad you brought it up. Since I first started this thread, I've done a lot of research on the issue of ebooks and DRM, etc, and my understanding of the topic has increased a lot.

I now have no problem at all with doing what I have to do to read library ebooks on my Kindle, but I *always * delete them afterwards. Always.

I also have no problem with stripping the DRM from books I *purchase * and back them up so they will readable on any device I choose to buy in the future. That way if Amazon (or any other format I purchase) is no longer supported in the future, I'm still able to read the book I purchased. (I'm a rereader, so that's important to me.) Many folks (whether proponents of DRM or not) adamantly state that removing DRM for _your own personal use as a back-up copy _ is not illegal and is allowable under current copyright law. I don't share these books with people other than my children. I never share them with others as I would a dead-tree-book, just because I don't feel comfortable doing that with my current beliefs/understanding of DRM and copyrights.

Now back to your question. On the one hand, once I purchase a book, the author gets his/her royalties, and that's my main concern, so why not get a free ebook version to read on my Kindle (or whatever device)? On the other hand, if I want (for whatever reason) a hardcover and paperback version of a book, I'd have to *purchase* both versions. I wouldn't be able to go into a bookstore and tell them that since I've already purchased a hardcover, I'm just going to walk out with the paperback without paying for it thankyouverymuch. Property is property, whether it's virtual or physical. Making a back-up copy of a physical book doesn't make as much sense as a back-up copy of a virtual book, so I can't reconcile with that argument, either.

Those are the arguments that my husband and I go back and forth with. I think it's wrong (with my current understanding of DRM/copyright) and my husband says that JK Rowling got royalties for my purchase already, so get the ebook version however I can get it and donate the hardcovers to Goodwill. I won't be making a profit from the hardcovers, and am just replacing them with declutter-friendly ebook versions. He's got a point. But still... I don't know.

I'd love to hear what everyone else thinks!


----------



## BookishMom (Oct 30, 2008)

I've changed the title of this thread to be more descriptive of the discussion. I apologize for any confusion this change causes.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

Bookish, you make some good points on the whole hardcover, paperback, electronic...however (and this is just a thought that you caused to spawn in my little brain, not judgment) if you sell the hardback or take it to goodwill...the author doesn't get a royalty when a new customer buys the book.  Thus...have you cheated the author?  (I'm not so sure about that, but wanted to bring the point up.)  You kept a copy.  So if you want to re-read it...you still have that ability without paying again, yet...if you SOLD that book...you profited.  If you gave it to goodwill, they profited (in a manner of speaking.)

Isn't it tangled?

As an author there's two thoughts that run through my brain.  One, if you read it and sell a copy, that gets the book out there to a potential reader and that is a good thing.  The only way to build fans is to have them know about your book.  They might not be willing to spend full price on an unknown author so you did me a favor by circulating the book.  The downside is that I see no royalty from the book and if my publisher doesn't sell out of enough copies...there goes my next book.  I'm of the view that it isn't up to the reader to be second guessing all the time.  Most readers I know do both:  They sell some copies, they donate copies to senior citizen centers or libraries, they keep some copies.  They buy some new, some used.  This is just the manner of books.  They are, in their own helpful way, keeping the boo in circulation in a manner that has been accepted and acceptable for a long time.

As for the legality, I'm guessing that if you purchased a hardback copy and kept it, yet also came across an electronic copy and kept it...you'd still be within copyright.  I'm guessing that if you then sold or gave away the hardcopy...and kept the electronic copy, you'd be violating the literal copyright.  But I'm not a lawyer.  So that's just a guess.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Maria, you make a valid point.  I believe that the concept of a "backup copy" is only valid as long as one keeps the original.

Copyright is extremely complicated.  Quilters struggle with copyright law constantly, and unless one actually consults a copyright lawyer, it's a very murky area.

If in doubt, you could always consult the publisher of the book in question and see what THEY think.  

Betsy


----------



## marianneg (Nov 4, 2008)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> Maria, you make a valid point. I believe that the concept of a "backup copy" is only valid as long as one keeps the original.


Exactly. You are not entitled to a "backup" of something that you no longer own. You have now illegally distributed a second "logical" copy, a pretty clear violation of copyright law.


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

I love my Kindle, but I think Amazon's draconian control over the contents on them is absurd.  They've even outpaced Apple in their demand that they control the iPod and all its contents.  Music purchased from the iTunes store comes in a format exclusive to Apple - AAC - and can not be played on any other MP3 player.  However, you do have the option of burning an audio CD of that music and that music becomes yours to do with as you please - just as it would if you had purchased a regular CD from a store.

Amazon has gone a step further: not only are the ebooks for the Kindle only exclusive to the Kindle - there is nothing you can do with that format beyond reading it on the Kindle.  You are, in effect, renting the book from Amazon.  If your Kindle breaks, or/and you just choose not get another one, too bad: the books you purchased with your own hard-earned cash are gone.  We all went into it knowing this, but it doesn't make this ok on Amazon's part.  It may be legal, but I don't think it's ethical.  Amazon holds Kindle users hostage to their - Amazon's - whims.  So as far as I'm concerned, if anyone gets around their system, I will cheer them on!


----------



## BookishMom (Oct 30, 2008)

MariaESchneider said:


> Bookish, you make some good points on the whole hardcover, paperback, electronic...however (and this is just a thought that you caused to spawn in my little brain, not judgment) if you sell the hardback or take it to goodwill...the author doesn't get a royalty when a new customer buys the book. Thus...have you cheated the author? (I'm not so sure about that, but wanted to bring the point up.) You kept a copy. So if you want to re-read it...you still have that ability without paying again, yet...if you SOLD that book...you profited. If you gave it to goodwill, they profited (in a manner of speaking.)


Oh, good point! Hmmm... Well, it's like giving anything else away, or selling anything else - the manufacturer or producer won't get a profit from it because it's used. The manufacturer/producer/publisher/author has a right to initial profits, but not future profits from reselling. So I don't think I've cheated the author, in this instance. I would cheat the author if I were to download a book from a shared site because I wanted a different version, though. I think. If I could buy used ebooks from a legitimate site, then no. I think... hmmm. I'm going to have to think about this more once I'd had my chocolate fix for the day! 



> Isn't it tangled?


Yes, very!



> As for the legality, I'm guessing that if you purchased a hardback copy and kept it, yet also came across an electronic copy and kept it...you'd still be within copyright. I'm guessing that if you then sold or gave away the hardcopy...and kept the electronic copy, you'd be violating the literal copyright. But I'm not a lawyer. So that's just a guess.


To make sure I understand... I can get an ecopy of one of the Harry Potter books (as a backup) from a shared files site in good conscience if I already own the hardcover. But if I sell or give away the hardcover, then I should delete the ecopy. Right? If I didn't understand correctly, let me know. If I got it right, that's definitely something to think about (after my chocolate, of course  ). It's nice to hear from an author about this, and I appreciate the great discussion.


----------



## BookishMom (Oct 30, 2008)

DYB said:


> Amazon has gone a step further: not only are the ebooks for the Kindle only exclusive to the Kindle - there is nothing you can do with that format beyond reading it on the Kindle. You are, in effect, renting the book from Amazon. If your Kindle breaks, or/and you just choose not get another one, too bad: the books you purchased with your own hard-earned cash are gone. We all went into it knowing this, but it doesn't make this ok on Amazon's part. It may be legal, but I don't think it's ethical. Amazon holds Kindle users hostage to their - Amazon's - whims. So as far as I'm concerned, if anyone gets around their system, I will cheer them on!


Actually (and I'm ashamed of myself for not reading the fine print and fully understanding what I was purchasing), I didn't go into it realizing that Amazon insists that I'm _renting_ the ebooks. When I click on that button, it says "Buy it Now", not "Rent it Now". And I would most definitely not spend nearly as much for an ebook I'd only be renting as I would for a paper version (I usually wait for paperback versions, so I'm comparing the paperback price). But that's my fault for not reading the fine print.

That said, I still consider myself buying the ebook and I will strip DRM to keep a back-up copy until they change that button to say "Rent it Now" and lower the price to no more than half or even less of the paperback price... kind of like a NetFlix deal.

I like what I see coming from Sony. If I were to purchase a reader today, knowing how Amazon thinks about its ebooks, then I'm almost positive I wouldn't even give the Kindle a second glance. I'm waiting to see the Sony 600 face-to-face before purchasing, but I have a feeling that it's going to become my reader of choice due to all the new features and the open access to library books and even DRM'd books from other stores (in ePub format - they're getting rid of their own proprietary format).

Thanks for bringing up the "renting" thing. It's been a sticking point for me for the last few weeks and I've wanted to vent about it forever!


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

BookishMom>  I hear ya!  And I didn't know there was a way to strip the DRM from the amazon "rentals!"

I'm very glad to see that Sony is jumping on the DRM-free bandwagon.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

I'd like to point out that stripping the DRM violates copyright, no matter how much you feel it is justified.  If you don't agree with Amazon's policies, the best protest would be to not purchase their products.  AND, let them know why!

Betsy


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

BetsyTheQuilter>  I'm not arguing with you because I really don't know the answer, but how is stripping DRM a copyright violation?  Whose copyright?  The file itself is software and breaking it might violate some law, but is it copyright?  It would be a copyright violation if one made copies of the book and distributed them.  But how is it copyright violation to tamper with the software?  If I buy a hardcover - and tear it to pieces in my house - am I violating anyone's copyright?  Isn't the book mine to do with as I please?


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

While DRM is a knotty issue, and there's always a lot of debate between lawyers, current law seems pretty clear.



> the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA") includes provisions that make it illegal for ANY consumer to override DRM technologies that may interfere with lawful access or use to a digital work.


http://www.aallnet.org/committee/copyright/pages/issues/drm.html

Betsy


----------



## CegAbq (Mar 17, 2009)

DYB said:


> I'm very glad to see that Sony is jumping on the DRM-free bandwagon.


I'm not entirely convinced that Sony is jumping on any DRM-free bandwagon. They are still tied to the Adobe Digital format; they are not adopting a DRM-free epub format.


----------



## BookishMom (Oct 30, 2008)

Betsy the Quilter said:


> I'd like to point out that stripping the DRM violates copyright, no matter how much you feel it is justified. If you don't agree with Amazon's policies, the best protest would be to not purchase their products. AND, let them know why!
> 
> Betsy





> While DRM is a knotty issue, and there's always a lot of debate between lawyers, current law seems pretty clear.
> 
> http://www.aallnet.org/committee/copyright/pages/issues/drm.html
> 
> Betsy


On the surface it seems pretty clear and non-debatable, doesn't it? But when you get into the exceptions for *personal use*, then it's not so clear. And that's where lawyers (and those who've studied it way more than I have) say that it's *not* illegal to strip DRM (for back-up purposes, basically). That said, the only way I think it will become completely clear is for it to be tested in court.


----------



## BookishMom (Oct 30, 2008)

CegAbq said:


> I'm not entirely convinced that Sony is jumping on any DRM-free bandwagon. They are still tied to the Adobe Digital format; they are not adopting a DRM-free epub format.


They're not, but they're jumping off the proprietary bandwagon by getting rid of their DRM'd format so that users can purchase Adobe ePub's from anywhere (regardless of whether they're DRM'd or not). They're going to allow those who've purchased ebooks with their DRM'd proprietary format (which hasn't been hacked yet, from what I understand) to replace them with ePub formats once the switch is made.


----------



## hackeynut (Dec 16, 2008)

Jesslyn said:


> I would like to add to this conversation as I use all the hacks that I found to manipulate any ebooks that I purchase so that I can read on my Kindle. My question is this (brought up by a friend with a Kindle). If you already own the DTB, is is 'immoral' (her word) or infringing on the copyright (my term) to get the ebook from a torrent, shared file site, etc. Not with the intention to redistribute or share, just to read for yourself
> 
> Her example to me was Harry Potter. I was complaining about it not being available in any format and she was horrified that I would even consider buying it on ebook as I have both hardcover and paperback of each book. Then I started thinking about all the books that I have purchased multiple copies (couldn't find, bought another, then found the 1st one).


Yeah, I know the feeling. My thought on it is this. My wife has both hardback and paperback of all the Harry Potter books. She has unabridged audio on several as well. I refuse to feel like I'm committing some immoral act just because I want to consume the books we own three times over in a different format that is unavailable through normal means.


----------



## Leslie (Apr 7, 2008)

hackeynut said:


> Yeah, I know the feeling. My thought on it is this. My wife has both hardback and paperback of all the Harry Potter books. She has unabridged audio on several as well. I refuse to feel like I'm committing some immoral act just because I want to consume the books we own three times over in a different format that is unavailable through normal means.


But I am assuming you paid for those hardback, paperback, and audio books. And I am also assuming that you expected to pay for those versions, and didn't expect to get a discount because you had already bought them previously. So why should acquiring the books in yet another format, even if it it the fourth time, be free?

I also own all the HP books in multiple versions (and languages) and multiple copies of many of the books. If they came out for the Kindle, I'd *buy* them in a second, no questions asked and not expecting any special consideration because I am a prior owner. Just my $.02.

L


----------



## Athenagwis (Apr 2, 2009)

Thanks Betsy for the link, that is really helpful and I am glad to see a civilized conversation about this as it is something we all need to think about.  

I do believe that I saw once that there are a few reasons that you are legally allowed to strip DRM, and I believe one of them is if there is no longer support for your files, you are allowed to strip the DRM to be able to use them elsewhere.  So if Amazon no longer supports the Kindle, then at that point I would be able to strip my files and use them on a new reader.  Of course this would be without passing them along to anyone else, I would still only be allowed to have only one copy of them (or one per device in my home as was allowed by Amazon).  For this reason, I am keeping back-up copies of all my files rather than letting Amazon have control of them.  Yes we all say it’s highly unlikely that Amazon would go bankrupt or stop supporting Kindle, but these days you never know, and I bought those files and I want to be able to use them today as well in 30 years.  For today, I use them on the Kindle, without stripping the DRM because that’s what supports them, but when they are no longer supported there, I will have them to use elsewhere, and at that point I won't feel bad about stripping them.

Rachel


----------



## Leslie (Apr 7, 2008)

If there was a book I read today (or this week or this year) that I might remotely think I'd want to read in 30 years, I'd buy a paper version. I know that will still be usable and accessible but I can't say that about a digital format.

As I said in a presentation recently....I can read this version of my dissertation (written in 1987).










I can't read this one:


----------



## Athenagwis (Apr 2, 2009)

Good point Leslie!   And yet another reason paper books will never truly be replaced.

Rachel


----------



## DYB (Aug 8, 2009)

We're using the word "books" loosely here, I guess. The files on those floppies might be books and you should be able to use those files - if you created them or paid for them - even when the floppies are no longer useful. Hence the whole DRM debacle. A Kindle is not a book, but the files we download from Amazon are words that constitute chapters and make up books. If Kindle is no longer usable, just like the floppies - those files on them with words and paragraphs and chapters should still be readable...one hopes. While Kindle books are cheaper than some hardcovers and some paperbacks - let's face it, they're not _that_ cheap! If we are all actually expected to only use these ebooks for as long as amazon sees fit - we're just throwing money out the window!


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

> I can get an ecopy of one of the Harry Potter books (as a backup) from a shared files site in good conscience if I already own the hardcover. But if I sell or give away the hardcover, then I should delete the ecopy. Right?


That's pretty much what I meant about backups in general--only when it comes to HP, I don't think the logic applies because those are not legal copies. Those sites that allow posting of illegal copies are hindering a lot of authors (many of whom do not have the money that Rowling has made). Some of the sites ARE making money off those illegal postings even if it is by getting advertisers to pay for ads on the site, venture capitalists who hope to turn sites into money making operations or referrals and things like that. So there's a fine line there. As someone else pointed out, people do pay for hardback/soft/audio and still pay for each so it isn't *quite* so clear-cut as it might seem at first glance. I think Rowling should make e-copies legally available, but since she hasn't chosen to do that, then I think ethically, I'd have to abide by her wishes since it is her product to sell or not. It's sort of like...well, as long as the bad guy is supplying me with something I want, I'll overlook the legality...but then when that same guy turns around and takes something from YOU...well, it isn't so great anymore. I mean, if someone came to your house and demanded you sell your china cabinet because he had a buyer for it...you wouldn't want to just have them cart it away.

In reality, if you want a backup of your hardcover, I think the ethical thing to do is to scan it yourself. (or photocopy it.) Much like making a tape recording of vinyl for your own use, you expended the cash resources on the tape and the player and the vinyl. It's a little bit different when someone else does the work, posts it up on the site (and may be making money in subtle ways that aren't even noticeable).

There is a lot of material out there that has a creative commons license--and you are allowed to listen to it, distribute it without making a profit, use it and so on. Most authors that choose to do that (and several of my shorts that were originally published online I then sold audio as a creative commons) know that they are making it available much as a paperback today--to be distributed freely, but acknowledging the author. Rowlings and others never intended to "give" their work to many of the sites that are posting them and that creates another whole set of...Hmmm.

Just more random thoughts as I think through this with the rest of you!!!

Maria


----------



## Athenagwis (Apr 2, 2009)

I would have to say on the whole HP back-up deal, that I agree with those that think it’s probably not right to download a pirated version of the book as back-up.  A back-up is just that, a second copy that YOU made from something that you own.  By downloading the e-book from a pirate site, you have not made this copy from something you have in your house.  If you scanned the book in and kept a copy on your computer and did not share it with anyone else, I think that would constitute a back-up, but supporting pirates in the name of “back-up” is not right.

A second caveat in this whole thing is the fact that e-books are not sold as “back-ups to paper copies”.  They are sold as a product in and of themselves.  So just because you own a paper copy does not automatically give you the right to own the e-book as a “back-up”.  What about someone like Stephen King who does have his books in e-book format, would you demand that he give you all his e-books for free as “back-up” to the paper copies you already have?  Or would you walk into a book store and demand that they give you a free paperback as a “back-up” to the hard cover you are buying?  

A “back-up” copy is just that, a copy that you produce yourself from the product you have in your house.  If you own Michael Jackson on vinyl, you are allowed to make a copy of that vinyl, on to tape or CD, for yourself in your own home.  If you do not have the ability to do this at your house, owning that vinyl disk does not in any way, shape, or form give you the right to go out there and download all those MJ songs for free off the internet.  That would not be considered making a “back-up copy” of the vinyl.  

And if you are able to make a back-up of the vinyl yourself, you also do not have the right to keep the back-up and sell the original copy.  If the original copy is no longer in your possession, neither should the back-up be.  Unless of course the original was damaged or stolen, which would be the reason you made the back-up in the first place.  If you sold or gave away the original record, the back-up should go with it, and you should no longer have access to that record.

Just my thoughts and understanding of the copyright laws.  I certainly don’t want to start a fight in this very civil conversation, but I felt I needed to say what I said regarding this matter.

Rachel


----------



## hackeynut (Dec 16, 2008)

Leslie said:


> But I am assuming you paid for those hardback, paperback, and audio books. And I am also assuming that you expected to pay for those versions, and didn't expect to get a discount because you had already bought them previously. So why should acquiring the books in yet another format, even if it it the fourth time, be free?
> 
> I also own all the HP books in multiple versions (and languages) and multiple copies of many of the books. If they came out for the Kindle, I'd *buy* them in a second, no questions asked and not expecting any special consideration because I am a prior owner. Just my $.02.
> 
> L


Simply put, if Rowling put them out for the Kindle, I would buy them. I would like nicely formatted Kindle copies, but she hasn't. And regardless, I've purchased 7 items from her 3 times a piece. I'm not going to feel like a criminal for using a fourth method of reading the same thing that she has not made available.


----------



## hackeynut (Dec 16, 2008)

Athenagwis said:


> I would have to say on the whole HP back-up deal, that I agree with those that think its probably not right to download a pirated version of the book as back-up. A back-up is just that, a second copy that YOU made from something that you own. By downloading the e-book from a pirate site, you have not made this copy from something you have in your house. If you scanned the book in and kept a copy on your computer and did not share it with anyone else, I think that would constitute a back-up, but supporting pirates in the name of back-up is not right.
> 
> A second caveat in this whole thing is the fact that e-books are not sold as back-ups to paper copies. They are sold as a product in and of themselves. So just because you own a paper copy does not automatically give you the right to own the e-book as a back-up. What about someone like Stephen King who does have his books in e-book format, would you demand that he give you all his e-books for free as back-up to the paper copies you already have? Or would you walk into a book store and demand that they give you a free paperback as a back-up to the hard cover you are buying?
> 
> ...


I absolutely understand where you are coming from here. Also, I think it would be great if books started including a code to download a digital copy, much like many DVDs have


----------



## Jesslyn (Oct 29, 2008)

Leslie said:


> But I am assuming you paid for those hardback, paperback, and audio books. And I am also assuming that you expected to pay for those versions, and didn't expect to get a discount because you had already bought them previously. So why should acquiring the books in yet another format, even if it it the fourth time, be free?
> 
> I also own all the HP books in multiple versions (and languages) and multiple copies of many of the books. If they came out for the Kindle, I'd *buy* them in a second, no questions asked and not expecting any special consideration because I am a prior owner. Just my $.02.
> 
> L


Hmmm....I'm writing this without referring to my original post, but I may not have been clear. If a book that I own is available, I'll buy the ebook. For example, I have purchased The Stand so many times that my DH (NOT a reader) actually recognizes the title now and I get the "Don't you already have that" question. But when it became available for the Kindle, I bought it. My question was more for books that aren't yet available in ebook format. So I'm not violating any DRM as the content is not available in 'digital' format.

Its another story for content that is in digital format, with DRM that is not yet on the Kindle store (I recently got The Cold Kiss of Death and The Sweet Scent of Blood from waterstones.com). MY feeling is that if I purchase an electronic copy of anything that has a perpetual license, as long as I am the only consumer of that product, then it is mine to do with as I choose. Frankly, I would take that premise to court any day of the week. I have no problem with DRM being tied to a person or number of devices, just let me choose the device. I really don't have a problem with DRM on books because unfortunately authors take a hit that musicians don't. Authors don't have the opportunity to make up $ from pirated music by giving a concert. Once a book has been illegally distributed, the money can't be obtained thru other means.


----------



## Leslie (Apr 7, 2008)

> Authors don't have the opportunity to make up $ from pirated music by giving a concert. Once a book has been illegally distributed, the money can't be obtained thru other means.


Very, very good point.

L


----------



## Athenagwis (Apr 2, 2009)

Jesslyn said:


> Authors don't have the opportunity to make up $ from pirated music by giving a concert. Once a book has been illegally distributed, the money can't be obtained thru other means.


What?? I don't get to see RJ Keller in concert?? "I'M A LUMBERJACK!!"

hehe

I totally and 100% agree with you. We don't live in a Robinhood society, we don't get to take intellectual property from the rich and give it to the poor.

Rachel


----------



## Athenagwis (Apr 2, 2009)

hackeynut said:


> I absolutely understand where you are coming from here. Also, I think it would be great if books started including a code to download a digital copy, much like many DVDs have


That would be very nice of an author to do. And I think it would be a great marketing scheme, kind of like getting a free t-shirt when you join a rock band's fan club.

E-books are their own market and while I wholly think that publishers could find many, many more ways to utilize them than they currently are, I think the expectation that we somehow have the right to these digital copies is unfair to the authors.

Rachel


----------



## 4Katie (Jun 27, 2009)

> Yeah, I know the feeling. My thought on it is this. My wife has both hardback and paperback of all the Harry Potter books. She has unabridged audio on several as well. I refuse to feel like I'm committing some immoral act just because I want to consume the books we own three times over in a different format that is unavailable through normal means.


Exactly!


----------



## BookishMom (Oct 30, 2008)

Athenagwis said:


> Thanks Betsy for the link, that is really helpful and I am glad to see a civilized conversation about this as it is something we all need to think about.


Me, too. I've wanted to discuss these issues with others, and am glad here we can have different opinions and still be civil to each other. {{{{Hugs}}}} to everyone! 



> Yes we all say its highly unlikely that Amazon would go bankrupt or stop supporting Kindle...


Rachel, that's the thing... from what people have said, Amazon got into ebooks in the past and then got out of it. They eventually restarted everything with the Kindle. I don't know anything more than that (the format of their previous ebooks, if they had a reader, etc), just that they were in it and got out of it in the past. So did Barnes & Noble (although they just jumped back in, too). So did other companies. Same thing happened with the music industry. So, to me, it's not as unlikely as I once thought it would be and that's why I de-DRM everything when I purchase it and then store it as a back-up file.


----------



## BookishMom (Oct 30, 2008)

> Just my thoughts and understanding of the copyright laws. I certainly don't want to start a fight in this very civil conversation, but I felt I needed to say what I said regarding this matter.


Rachel, great points, and you were very civil in stating it, so no fights from me!


----------



## BookishMom (Oct 30, 2008)

> MY feeling is that if I purchase an electronic copy of anything that has a perpetual license, as long as I am the only consumer of that product, then it is mine to do with as I choose. Frankly, I would take that premise to court any day of the week. I have no problem with DRM being tied to a person or number of devices, just let me choose the device. I really don't have a problem with DRM on books because unfortunately authors take a hit that musicians don't. Authors don't have the opportunity to make up $ from pirated music by giving a concert. Once a book has been illegally distributed, the money can't be obtained thru other means.


I agree completely, and that's a good point about authors and musicians.


----------



## hackeynut (Dec 16, 2008)

BookishMom said:


> Rachel, great points, and you were very civil in stating it, so no fights from me!


No fights from me either! Obviously I have a different (and probably minority opinion), but I certainly see both sides.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

> They're not, but they're jumping off the proprietary bandwagon by getting rid of their DRM'd format so that users can purchase Adobe ePub's from anywhere (regardless of whether they're DRM'd or not). They're going to allow those who've purchased ebooks with their DRM'd proprietary format (which hasn't been hacked yet, from what I understand) to replace them with ePub formats once the switch is made.


BTW, I am sure that Amazon will eventually jump away from the proprietary format--as soon as the marketplace demands it (ie when it makes sense for them.) But right now, they don't have tons of competition. Other ebooks can be read on their device and they end up with the support of the publishers because they protect the books in some manner at the moment.

Sony made that statement like they would be open-source, but the fine details showed that they weren't really all that open so the products still aren't that much different.

The exciting thing is that there are more and more products that let people read electronically. The more competition, the better for us readers!


----------



## BookishMom (Oct 30, 2008)

Hi everyone,

I just wanted to post an update about the new Sony 600. Several Canadians have already had a chance to see them and the reviews aren't very positive. They say the touch function is still negatively impacting screen clarity. Here's a link to videos, and there are other reviews at the MobileRead forum:

http://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=54294

I still want to compare it side-by-side with my Kindle, but from what I see on these videos, I think my Kindle 2 is still going to be my reader of choice.


----------



## Shizu (Oct 27, 2008)

Thanks for the update BookishMom. Too bad with the glare and seems 505's font is much darker. I think I'll just stick with my Kindles and 505 for now. I went to Target the other day, I didn't see 505. wonder what happened to it.


----------



## BookishMom (Oct 30, 2008)

Shizu said:


> Thanks for the update BookishMom. Too bad with the glare and seems 505's font is much darker. I think I'll just stick with my Kindles and 505 for now. I went to Target the other day, I didn't see 505. wonder what happened to it.


Some say that they've stopped producing it; others say they're just slowing down production while trying to promote the 300 and 600 models. They'll probably keep producing them if the 600 continues to get negative reviews.


----------



## Mike D. aka jmiked (Oct 28, 2008)

DYB said:


> Music purchased from the iTunes store comes in a format exclusive to Apple - AAC -


Not true.

"AAC's best known use is as the default audio format of Apple's iPhone, iPod, iTunes, and the format used for all iTunes Store audio.

AAC is also the standard audio format for Sony's PlayStation 3 and is supported by Sony's Playstation Portable, latest generation of Sony Walkman, Walkman Phones from Sony Ericsson, Nseries Phones from Nokia, Android based phones, Nintendo's Wii (with the Photo Channel 1.1 update installed for Wii consoles purchased before late 2007), the Nintendo DSi, *and the MPEG-4 video standard*." (Wikipedia)

Mike


----------



## CegAbq (Mar 17, 2009)

DYB said:


> Music purchased from the iTunes store comes in a format exclusive to Apple - AAC - and can not be played on any other MP3 player.


I have a Creative Zen which will play AAC files; I just upgraded my itunes songs to the non-DRM'd format so I could natively transfer them to my player.


----------

