Even if you buy a book, you're still only getting a license to the one copy of the book as manifested in the stack of bound pages that you hold. You don't have rights to make and give/sell copies of your own.
When you buy a hard copy you actually own it, you do not license it, and you can do with it as you please as long as you do not infringe on the rights of the copyright holder. You can sell it, lend it, etc.
eBooks are licensed. You cannot sell them, or lend them unless the right to lend is granted in the licensing agreement. I like the eBook format, but ownership is superior to licensing. Far superior.
Yes, because it doesn't even make sense. This is why I simply don't understand this conversation. There's nothing for me to resell, because we're discussing a virtual good. Implicit in the resale of an item is that I can no longer possess that item.
Talking about reselling eBooks makes almost as much sense as talking about reselling the sandwich I just ate for dinner. The only mechanism for creating personal value has been irrevocably consumed.
The points of ownership, right to resale, and lending are important ones. They represent a fundamental divide between two entirely different technologies used for the same purpose. At a very basic level comparing eBooks to print books makes almost no sense. As soon as we can dispense with the comparison we can start thinking about each system according to the value it creates.
What do you mean? Ebooks don't get consumed, they don't degrade. And how you sell it is quite obvious. Like you said, the new person possesses it and you no longer possess it. Give them the file and delete any temporary copies you may have.
That isn't an analogous scenario. The problem with trying to compare physical and virtual goods is that, for virtual goods, transferring requires copying. There is no way to transfer an electronic data file without copying it in some way. Until such a process is developed, analogies between physical and virtual goods will always be flawed.
Yes, because it doesn't even make sense. This is why I simply don't understand this conversation.
From what I gather, the point is exactly that: That one should be aware that there are more differences than eBooks being electronic versions of books.
I think the controversial points come from people having different use-cases. I wouldn't want to not have control over my books about Hebrew numerology that took me a while to track down. I wouldn't worry nearly as much about a book about a programming language. For some books, real possession is part of the value. For others, everywhere-accessibility is worth more.
This exactly. If you have a paper book, then removing that book (except via court, anyway) is theft. If it's digital and Amazon issues an arbitrary delete to Kindles, you've agreed to them being able to do it already.
This sort of thing is why I'm still not so comfortable with cloud media services in general. If you want a good example, look at the tracks that randomly get disabled on Spotify (sometimes when bands reform, sometimes, like Hotel California, apparently randomly).
What does it mean to sell an eBook? Lets say I went and actually bought an eBook from Amazon. How would I sell my copy of the eBook to you? Doesn't it have to be bound to HW to actually sell it (or DRM'ed). It seems like prohibiting transfer is the only reasonable solution, unless DRM is used.
But how do I give you an eBook and relinquish my ownership rights? It seems like it relies upon me voluntarily deleting the book. Just from a pragmatic perspective, is that really a feasible plan?
