Slashdot Mirror
Extending UCITA To Printed Books?
mapmaker asks: "I recently purchased an application 'how-to' book (Inside AutoCAD Map 2000, OnWord Press) that utilizes a disturbing method of publication: the final 100 pages of the text aren't printed - they're included on the companion CD-ROM as PDF files. I'm not talking about extras or bonus material - these are integral parts of the text. The last page of the printed text simply states, 'Book Continued on Companion CD-ROM'. Leaving aside the fact that this is a dirty and underhanded method of cutting publishing costs, this is particularly disturbing because of the sticker that seals the CD jacket. It states: 'CD Enclosed. If the disc package seal is broken, the purchaser forfeits all return rights and privileges to the seller.'" Now this just does not sound right at all. Looks like I'll be avoiding books from OnWord Press in the future.
"In other words, to examine the complete text of this 'book' that I've bought, I must first agree to forfeit my legal rights as a consumer?"
I live in Virginia, the only state to have the dubious honor of passing UCITA into law. My question is this: Because some of the text of this book is contained in electronic files bundled with the printed portion, does UCITA give the weight of law to this preposterous shrink wrap "agreement"? And how does this impact existing laws pertaining to copyright, fair use, and consumers' rights?"
In the UK books are exempt from VAT (Value Added Tax) at 17.5%. However, this does not apply if the book has a CD-ROM inside the back cover. So for anybook including a CD you're paying 17.5% over the odds. Now that's unfair! How many people ever actually use the CD included anyway - as most code samples are usually available on the publishers web-site. Including the actual text of the book only on the CD is criminal!
First, on your question of UCITA; it depends on which state the "contract" of the EULA is written to apply in, not what state you live. Hence, when it becomes law in Maryland (which will happen first), even though I may be in say New York, and the company selling me something is in say Colorodo, they can still construe their EULA to be under "Maryland law".
Incidently, since different states appearently are all modifying UCITA in slightly different ways, the fact that some states have chosen to add consumer protections does not mean you nessisarly have them, even though you may be living in such a state. One could still have the EULA construed under a less friendly state's version of the law.
Certainly the intend of this is to strip you of your right of first sale and redistribution of the book. This is fundimentally wrong for several reasons; first, even in article I of the constitution, "copyright" as stated is both a limited right that "expires", it is neither property nor "permenant", regardless of the illegal action of our congress in the Sony Bono copyright extensions.
Altering a seal is a permenant action, and to deny further distribution or rights forever based on it seems inconsistent. Similarly, the DMCA allows for "access controls" on "copyrighted works" which remain in effect even if the copyright on a given work being so protected expires as intended!
All these efforts are clearly unconstitutional in this country and against the very notion of basic human rights, the right to communicate ideas, the right to think, things that are most basic of all.
Of course, I wonder what is to stop even a physical book from having a taped "seal" with a EULA that must be broken to open and read it?
The article author here appears to have bought the book over the internet, so previewing the book was not lost on him, but there are easy step to fix this: return the item, explaining exactly why you are returning it (i.e. "Don't agree to licensing terms"). Write to the book's *author* (not the publisher; authors are generally easier to get a hold of particularly) and ask why he released his book as such, and explain that it is a bad practice... it might be that the author didn't have a choice by the publisher, or was unaware of the final distribution, etc. Since the book has a limited audience (AutoCad) make sure that you post negative reviews wherever you can about the book to prevent others from making the same mistake.
Having a license on the CD, assuming that the CD has programs, is understandable. But IM(IAMAL)O, you bought the text, you have every right to use the text (including the PDF) in a format that follows from fair use. This is definitely a scary trend, and there's no way I can see it being useful save in cases where one or two chapters of a book cover something that does need licensing agreements (say, a piece of software uniquely distributed on the CD that is explained and used throughout a given chapter). The only way to fight it, as it appears to only be useful to computer topics, would be to simply outright ban books that do such, and make sure other professionals do the same, writing the various book authors at length.
Thank goodness this doesn't sound like anything ORA would try to do...
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
The decision was made to put this text on the CD-ROM to reduce the overall price of the book and make it less "telephone directory" like (as it is, it will tip the scales at 1,200+ pages). These appendices were requested by people who felt that the first edition of the book assumed that the reader was able to program and understood Ohm's law. These appendices are not central to the theme of the book and are superfluous for many readers.
I feel that in this case, putting the appendices on CD-ROM was a good compromise. The information on them is not part of the overall book, but is important information for some readers. The same amount of work (and cost) was put into making the pdfs as if they were going to be pages.
The reason for going with the software copyright statement for the pdf appendices was due to feeling from the McGraw-Hill (who publishes my books) corporate lawyers that this was the most appropriate method of protecting the electronic text/files/format.
I've written eight books so far and in none of these cases, sending a partially completed manuscript is acceptable. I doubt McGraw-Hill is any different in this regard than any other publisher. Even with seasoned writers, not many publishers are willing to start the copyedit/layout process without a completed manuscript, there is just too much danger or later chapters requiring substantial changes in early chapters.
I suspect that the last 100 pages of Inside AutoCAD Map 2000 are appendices and site links that are actually very appropriate in pdf format. Anything else will get the book/author/publisher hammered on Amazon.com and other Internet resources (like /.).
The pdf of the last 100 pages was probably done for cost reasons, but before you judge the situation, let's get some facts on what is contained in the pdfs. If it is straight text, then the complaints are justified. If it is appendices with vendor/site links, then maybe consideration should be given as to whether or not this is an appropriate way for providing this information.
As the Human Torch used to say: "Flame On!"
Mimetics Inc. Twitter
This is how copyrights work. They were not made to reward authors for their works; that part is only a means to the real end. The real end is to eventually enrich the public domain (this is why copyrights expire, although for human authors they only expire long after the person has died). It does this by providing authors a financial incentive, but in return for that incentive the author gives up some rights (such as control over how something is used by people who legitimately pay for it).
Corporations don't like giving up that kind of control; the sad fact is that ethics are rarely as profitable as unethical means. That's why they've been backing UCITA and the DMCA; they want to take legitimate rights away from the people all in the pursuit of The Almighty Buck. It's also why they have to be stopped; the government is supposed to exist primarily for our benefit, not theirs.
----------