LICENSE TO READ
Mar. 24th, 2008 09:29 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
defrogITEM [via BoingBoing]: E-books that you buy for the Amazon Kindle or Sony Reader are not, strictly speaking, yrs. Maybe.
According to Gizmodo, Columbia Law School's Science and Technology Law Review has reviewed the fine print of the user agreements for both the Kindle and Sony Reader, and based on the legalese, what yr buying when you buy an e-book is not the book itself, but a license to read it. That doesn’t mean you can’t keep the file forever, or that Amazon or Sony can legally take it back from you. But it does mean that if you lend it to a friend, or resell it, yr a lawbreaker.
Whether this is good or bad may depend on whether you think there should be no difference between buying a physical book or an e-book in terms of ownership and the inherent rights therein (i.e. the right to lend and resell yr copy). From what I can tell, there IS a difference, and if Amazon and Sony are doing anything wrong, it’s that they’re using language like “buy books” as if it means the exact same thing. Maybe that’s intentional – perhaps it’s the only way they can justify charging $10 for a digital book.
I’m no fan of DRM, but maybe what we’re witnessing here is a fundamental shift in the way media is consumed. As far as I know, there’s no reason why the same logic wouldn’t apply to digital music and video. Some people compare book “licensing” to DVD rentals, which people accept already. Maybe we’re moving to a permanent rental/lease system where fan ownership is restricted and nothing is free.
Anyway, read the Gizmodo comments for some interesting debate – which includes some comments from Christopher Moore (who you should all be reading anyway), who has some legit concerns over what making e-books too easy to share would mean for people trying to earn a living from writing books – and how licensing is an appealing way to help them make money from their work.
Which may or may not bode well for my future career as a science fiction writer, but then I’ve already realized that I’m probably not going to be able to give up my day job anyhow, as I can’t afford a 75% pay cut at the moment.
Either way, I may not have to worry. Stuff like this is probably what’s going to keep the analog book market alive for a few more decades – that and our sick fetish for bookshelves overloaded with dead trees. That’s the other trade-off, of course – killing all the rain forests. Oh well.
Timber
This is dF
According to Gizmodo, Columbia Law School's Science and Technology Law Review has reviewed the fine print of the user agreements for both the Kindle and Sony Reader, and based on the legalese, what yr buying when you buy an e-book is not the book itself, but a license to read it. That doesn’t mean you can’t keep the file forever, or that Amazon or Sony can legally take it back from you. But it does mean that if you lend it to a friend, or resell it, yr a lawbreaker.
Whether this is good or bad may depend on whether you think there should be no difference between buying a physical book or an e-book in terms of ownership and the inherent rights therein (i.e. the right to lend and resell yr copy). From what I can tell, there IS a difference, and if Amazon and Sony are doing anything wrong, it’s that they’re using language like “buy books” as if it means the exact same thing. Maybe that’s intentional – perhaps it’s the only way they can justify charging $10 for a digital book.
I’m no fan of DRM, but maybe what we’re witnessing here is a fundamental shift in the way media is consumed. As far as I know, there’s no reason why the same logic wouldn’t apply to digital music and video. Some people compare book “licensing” to DVD rentals, which people accept already. Maybe we’re moving to a permanent rental/lease system where fan ownership is restricted and nothing is free.
Anyway, read the Gizmodo comments for some interesting debate – which includes some comments from Christopher Moore (who you should all be reading anyway), who has some legit concerns over what making e-books too easy to share would mean for people trying to earn a living from writing books – and how licensing is an appealing way to help them make money from their work.
Which may or may not bode well for my future career as a science fiction writer, but then I’ve already realized that I’m probably not going to be able to give up my day job anyhow, as I can’t afford a 75% pay cut at the moment.
Either way, I may not have to worry. Stuff like this is probably what’s going to keep the analog book market alive for a few more decades – that and our sick fetish for bookshelves overloaded with dead trees. That’s the other trade-off, of course – killing all the rain forests. Oh well.
Timber
This is dF
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
on 2008-03-24 03:52 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2008-03-24 03:52 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2008-03-24 06:47 pm (UTC)of course they are worried, cos when you have an electronic file, you can "lend" it to 1000 friends at one time... but I don't think they can do much about it. I don't buy the ebook replacing the real thing entirely concept, ebook is just alternative medium. I love that I have the option to read the book straight away and not having to wait at Post Office's mercy. Bookshelves fetish or not, book is not platform-dependent at all, it will always have this edge.