Small sematic misstatement in revisions log list

[snipenekkid]

Maybe this was pointed out when the original update was added but I did not find any discussion of it. It's not an issue with Calibre at all but a bit of confusion over what one is really "buying", or more accurately not buying, with an ebook.

I was catching up on the list of changes in Calibre and noticed the following:

• Launch of a new website that catalogues DRM free ebooks. http://drmfree.calibre-ebook.com[0.7.48]
  A growing catalogue of DRM free ebooks. Ebooks that you actually own after paying, instead of just renting

It's a minor thing but even without DRM I have yet to find a TOS/EULA which allows one to resell an ebook purchased, even from Baen. So to say those are books someone "actually own" is just a tiny bit misleading and incorrect in all but maybe a few isolated cases.

It's a minor thing and people who know enough to use Calibre are likely to not know what the truth is. However as more less technically inclined being to use Calibre and read your changes log there could be some unfortunate inferences all pointing back to that comment.

[Starson17]

Originally Posted by snipenekkid

even without DRM I have yet to find a TOS/EULA which allows one to resell an ebook purchased, even from Baen. So to say those are books someone "actually own" is just a tiny bit misleading and incorrect in all but maybe a few isolated cases.

Unfortunately, snipenekkid is right. I haven't looked at all cases, but take Smashwords,the first publisher listed at Open Books. They license the copy, not sell it. Here's their applicable license to the buyer (End User) for the book you get from them:
It starts with:

10. End Users. “End-Users” who pay whichever fee is set by the Author to purchase a Work are allowed to use each copy of the Work in any reasonable non-commercial manner in compliance with copyright law and pursuant to this Agreement.

You would think that the words "purchased" and "reasonable" would imply you get the same rights as you get when you purchase a regular paperback, but the very next subsection says:

10a. Rights of Use.
1. Purchased works: As End User, you acknowledge that all Work furnished by Smashwords is licensed for the use of the End Users of the Site and may not be sublicensed or resold. If you purchase a work, you hold a non-exclusive, non-transferable, and non-distributable right of use. In other words, you are free to enjoy it for your own use, but you are not authorized to share, sell, or distribute the work to others.

They still stick to the idea that the copy you buy is not yours, it's licensed to you to use.

I hate to say it, but it gets worse. If you buy the ebook, you have agreed under certain (probably very limited) circumstances to indemnify them (pay them for damages they suffer) and pay their attorneys:

13a. General. You (Author or End User) will indemnify and hold Smashwords and its licensees, successors and assigns, and its and their distributors, customers, officers, directors, members, employees and agents, harmless against any expense (including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys’ fees and disbursements) or judgment, settlement or other liability arising out of any claim or legal proceeding asserting claims contrary to any warranty or representation made by You in this Agreement.

There's nothing unusual about all this. I certainly applaud Open Books and Smashwords for selling DRM-free. All the DRM restricted books have even worse restrictions, but this does highlight the underlying "license not sell" mentality that surrounds ebooks. I'd like to see a simple statement when I buy an ebook that I'm actually buying it, and if I want to lend it to my brother or give it to my mom, I can do so without running the risk of getting sued.

[kovidgoyal]

To me, the concept of "own" is about being able to modify/reformat/format shift the text far more than resell it. I've never resold a book in my life, but I do one of the above to almost every ebook I own.

[Starson17]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

I've never resold a book in my life, but I do one of the above to almost every ebook I own.

I can't quite say the same.

Ages ago, I used to "trade" at a local used bookstore 2 for 1 all my scifi/pulp novels. I also sold a few of my textbooks. Other than that, I've never sold any either. I have given them, loaned them or traded them to my family/friends, though. I don't really even want the right to sell them, but I want back the right to share/give what I've purchased.

We used to have an informal group that met every weekend for something unrelated to books. Each person threw a book or two into a shopping bag when they'd finished reading it. The bag got passed around each weekend. The person with the bag would comment about what they'd liked when they handed it to someone else. People would take what they wanted and return what they'd read, with their name marked inside. Eventually, when a book got old, or most names had been marked, the owner would take it back out. There were always more books going in than would fit in the bag. There's no legal way to do that with ebooks, and I miss the sharing.

I once saw a software "license" that was really simple and said it was to be treated like a book - if I sold it or gave it away, I couldn't continue to use it. Oddly, I've never seen anything similar for an ebook.

I wonder if there are any sellers that treat the ownership of ebooks like paper books and sell the copy you buy, not "license" it.

[kovidgoyal]

I can certainly see how own might mean different things to different people, but then that would be true of pretty much any word h

[Manichean]

Originally Posted by Starson17

I once saw a software "license" that was really simple and said it was to be treated like a book - if I sold it or gave it away, I couldn't continue to use it. Oddly, I've never seen anything similar for an ebook.

The difficulty is that you're physically unable to continue reading a book after you sold it, which isn't the case with ebooks or software. I think what publishers are fearing is a huge "second-hand" market for ebooks spawning all of a sudden and completely eroding most of their business- I know I would prefer to get a cheaper ebook from someone else than buy it full-price from the publisher, in most cases. The fact that this hasn't happened for paper books is probably because you'd actually have to walk to the post office, which just isn't that convenient for most people.

I heard of a sharing model sometime where establishments like coffeeshops would have a small shelf where patrons could just put their finished books if hey didn't want to keep them and pick a new one. That would be a neat thing to have, for books as well as for ebooks, but sadly, I've never seen this anywhere around where I live.

[Starson17]

Originally Posted by Manichean

The difficulty is that you're physically unable to continue reading a book after you sold it, which isn't the case with ebooks or software.

Yes. I certainly understand the concerns of publishers and authors. Imagine if the license did say the ebook could be resold. There would rapidly arise a market for "used" ebooks. Suddenly the used ebookstore is legit. Yet, it's very difficult to prove that a book was actually paid for and not kept by the original purchaser. How many would buy a book and instantly resell it on the used market, while keeping a copy? How many shady "used" ebookstores might arise that claim to be reselling used ebooks, but are really just pirating them? How does the publisher/author prove that the books being sold are or are not legit?

Yes, I can see their concerns and problems. Still, I have regrets over the loss of rights that came with my decision to go electronic. When it comes to family and friends, many ebook buyers try to do what's fair, and reasonable, and seems to be right, regardless of the details of the license. Still, I hate the legal uncertainty around whether I can let my mom read the book after I'm done with it.

In case it's not clear, I sincerely appreciate the efforts of everyone connected with Open Books. I'd far, far rather have no DRM and a license than DRM and a license. The fact that I'd like no DRM and no license does not diminish at all my appreciation for those who have given us the no-DRM option.