Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Want To Resell Your Ebooks? You'd Better Act Fast

Posted by timothy on from the semantic-boundaries dept.

Nate the greatest (2261802) writes "Here in the US it is legal to resell your MP3s on Redigi, and thanks to the UsedSoft decision you can resell downloaded software in Europe. But if you want to resell your ebooks you had better act fast. Tom Kabinet launched last week in the Netherlands to offer a marketplace for used ebooks, and it is already getting legal threats. The Dutch Trade Publishers Association (GAU) says that the site is committing piracy and if it doesn't shut down the GAU plans to take it to court. Citing a ruling from a German court, secretary general of the GAU Martijn David said that the question of legality had already been settled. Would anyone care to place a bet on whether the site is still in operation in 6 months?"

49 of 72 comments (clear)

  1. The right to read. by scum-e-bag · · Score: 4, Interesting

    https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

    For Dan Halbert, the road to Tycho began in college—when Lissa Lenz asked to borrow his computer. Hers had broken down, and unless she could borrow another, she would fail her midterm project. There was no one she dared ask, except Dan.

    This put Dan in a dilemma. He had to help her—but if he lent her his computer, she might read his books. Aside from the fact that you could go to prison for many years for letting someone else read your books, the very idea shocked him at first. Like everyone, he had been taught since elementary school that sharing books was nasty and wrong—something that only pirates would do.

    And there wasn't much chance that the SPA—the Software Protection Authority—would fail to catch him. In his software class, Dan had learned that each book had a copyright monitor that reported when and where it was read, and by whom, to Central Licensing. (They used this information to catch reading pirates, but also to sell personal interest profiles to retailers.) The next time his computer was networked, Central Licensing would find out. He, as computer owner, would receive the harshest punishment—for not taking pains to prevent the crime.

    Of course, Lissa did not necessarily intend to read his books. She might want the computer only to write her midterm. But Dan knew she came from a middle-class family and could hardly afford the tuition, let alone her reading fees. Reading his books might be the only way she could graduate. He understood this situation; he himself had had to borrow to pay for all the research papers he read. (Ten percent of those fees went to the researchers who wrote the papers; since Dan aimed for an academic career, he could hope that his own research papers, if frequently referenced, would bring in enough to repay this loan.)

    Later on, Dan would learn there was a time when anyone could go to the library and read journal articles, and even books, without having to pay. There were independent scholars who read thousands of pages without government library grants. But in the 1990s, both commercial and nonprofit journal publishers had begun charging fees for access. By 2047, libraries offering free public access to scholarly literature were a dim memory.

    There were ways, of course, to get around the SPA and Central Licensing. They were themselves illegal. Dan had had a classmate in software, Frank Martucci, who had obtained an illicit debugging tool, and used it to skip over the copyright monitor code when reading books. But he had told too many friends about it, and one of them turned him in to the SPA for a reward (students deep in debt were easily tempted into betrayal). In 2047, Frank was in prison, not for pirate reading, but for possessing a debugger.

    Dan would later learn that there was a time when anyone could have debugging tools. There were even free debugging tools available on CD or downloadable over the net. But ordinary users started using them to bypass copyright monitors, and eventually a judge ruled that this had become their principal use in actual practice. This meant they were illegal; the debuggers' developers were sent to prison.

    Programmers still needed debugging tools, of course, but debugger vendors in 2047 distributed numbered copies only, and only to officially licensed and bonded programmers. The debugger Dan used in software class was kept behind a special firewall so that it could be used only for class exercises.

    It was also possible to bypass the copyright monitors by installing a modified system kernel. Dan would eventually find out about the free kernels, even entire free operating systems, that had existed around the turn of the century. But not only were they illegal, like debuggers—you could not install one if you had one, without knowing your computer's root password. And neither the FBI nor Microsoft Support would tell you that.

    Dan conclud

    --
    Does it go on forever?
    1. Re:The right to read. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I still find it fucking hilarious that people think they have a right to control information.

      Copy right is a temporary privilege created by a pragmatic government. Today it's been corrupted almost beyond recognition. No author may be compelled to produce work, so any author who thinks they are entitled by moral right to payment for the creation of copies of their work is welcome to fuck off and find another job - there are 7 billion other people in the world who aren't so whiny.

    2. Re:The right to read. by mwvdlee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      We're not talking about breaking into an author's house, stealing a transscript and copying it many times. We're talking about buying a legitimate copy from the author and passing that single, original medium along to somebody else.

      Authors have right to be paid for their work. They do not have a right to be paid for paying customers selling the customers' property.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    3. Re:The right to read. by Richard_at_work · · Score: 3, Informative

      Authors have right to be paid for their work. They do not have a right to be paid for paying customers selling the customers' property.

      Not entirely applicable here due to the type of property being resold, but the European Union disagrees with you under the 2001 Resale Rights Directive 2001/84/EC which entitles artists to receive a royalty on the resale of their original or limited works up to a total of 12,500 Euros. The directive sets out a sliding scale of royalty levels, from 4% up to a resale price of 50,000 Euros, to 0.25% for greater than 500,000 Euros.

      This right is seen as an inalienable right of the artist.

    4. Re:The right to read. by Corwyn_123 · · Score: 2

      No, not true. Back in the day (20th century), writers sold their work to the publishing house for a fee, and that's all they got for it, the publisher was now the owner and made the royalties. Then, it came that the writers didn't like this arrangement and changed it, demanding a fee (smaller than before), and royalties for each first time sold book (retail). After that, they got no additional royalties, the book buyer could read the book any number of times, loan it to friends, donate it to libraries or other charities, or, at least with paperback books, rip off the front cover and resell them, without paying royalty fees to the publishers/authors.

      Now, in the 21st century, the rights to everything have gone from the buyer to the creator/seller, you never really own anything, you just rent it/pay a license fee to use it. Once you're done with something, a house, a car, a book, a record, tape, or CD (oops mp3's), you aren't permitted to sell them, or if you are, through only authorized houses/websites, you have to pay the original creator/author/producer Royalty fees, so they can continue to make money on something years or decades after it was first written, published and sold for the first time.

      I thought, at least in US copyright law, there was a provision for first sale, which states (paraphrased), the creator/seller receives royalties for the first sale of a work, and nothing thereafter.

      What has come of our world? What's come of our countries, with PAC and other such Trade agreements between countries, they're trying to align all copyright, patents, and trademarks, so it's the same all over the world. We are moving into a world that the original story of this thread, will come true. It's up to us the people, to do something about it, before it's too late. But, that'll never happen, because people are too pacified by the system, too apathetic, and too cowed, to believe they have the ability to do anything.

      Welcome to the future, we've created it, now we have to live in it. It was foretold, and we did nothing about it when we heard the prophecies, our children and our children's children will be the inheritors of our creation (maybe we can make some royalties from them).

    5. Re:The right to read. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      1. For the purposes of this Directive, "original work of art" means works of graphic or plastic art such as pictures, collages, paintings, drawings, engravings, prints, lithographs, sculptures, tapestries, ceramics, glassware and photographs, provided they are made by the artist himself or are copies considered to be original works of art.

      2. Copies of works of art covered by this Directive, which have been made in limited numbers by the artist himself or under his authority, shall be considered to be original works of art for the purposes of this Directive. Such copies will normally have been numbered, signed or otherwise duly authorised by the artist..

      Source: here.

      This does not even approach applying to books (or software, movies, music, ... -- essentially anything that is sold in mass-produced reproductions). Unless of course you think the author personally types every copy... :)

    6. Re:The right to read. by currently_awake · · Score: 2

      You are looking at the difference between purchase and rental. The IP companies want to "Rent" you movies/books/software/music. People want to "Buy" their stuff. The IP companies are using their money to move the laws so they can "Sell" you a rental license instead of buying a copy.

    7. Re:The right to read. by RabidReindeer · · Score: 2

      I thought I bought a book yesterday.

      Turns out what I bought was a downloadable 500-byte Adobe key that on certain selected devices (not even the majority of my book-reader devices) so long as certain seller infrastructure remains intact and the owners of that infrastructure feel willing will allow me to read the books using selected software. It will not allow me to excerpt the book, lend out the book, read using a reader program with superior features, print even the smallest part of the book or do anything that the "sellers of this book" don't want me to do.

      It's a cookbook, so that means that if I need a copy of a recipe in the kitchen, I have to hand-copy it from the display screen.

      For about $1.50 more I could have bought a physical copy of that book. I still wouldn't be able to print it, but at least I could have photocopied a page when I needed a recipe instead of copying it out longhand.

      I'm not "buying any more e-books" via that channel. I'll stick to the channels that actually present me with usable copies of the books. In other words, sell me the book not a minimally-useful key that costs as much as the actual flamin' book itself!

    8. Re:The right to read. by spire3661 · · Score: 2

      Authors have a right to live, they DONT have a right to FORCE licensing on 7 billion people. Copyright is a SOCIAL BARGAIN and copyright maximalists have pushed too far. Its time to push back.

      --
      Good-bye
    9. Re:The right to read. by St.Creed · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Fortunately, in the EU it's been slapped down hard. If you want to have a rental license, it means recurring payments and the right to cancel the license (why do you think Microsoft is focusing so hard on Office365 with its monthly payments?). If it's a sale, you get one payment but afterwards First Sale doctrine applies and the rights of the original seller are exhausted.

      Sanest decision in years, IMO.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    10. Re:The right to read. by carton · · Score: 1

      Authors have right to be paid for their work.

      Nobody has a "right" to be paid for their work. If I doodle in a sketchbook, or shit in a bucket on stage, there is no fundamental right to be paid for that just because it feels like work to me, or looks like work to a bystander. In the same way, those guys that wander into traffic and wash your windshield without asking you don't deserve to be paid for making driving more stressful.

      This is relevant to the discussion because "right to be paid for work" soundbite is used in enthymemes like this:

      1. $random_thing happened.
      2. We could (a) pay the artist every time it happens, or (b) not pay the artist, some or all of the times it happens.
      3. The right answer is (a) because artists and authors have a right to be paid for their work, and the situation wouldn't have arisen if they weren't working.

      I agree we should pay artists and authors to convince them to do more work. Beyond that, I also agree artists should earn enough to live with dignity, matching our respect for the class of work they do, and this isn't happening uniformly enough right now. Neither is the same as "right to be paid for work" because neither implies that they should be paid every time a thing happens, nor even that they need to be paid specifically _for work_ at all (not that it's necessarily a bad idea to pay them "for work", just that it's not implied by what I agree with, and is not a "right").

      This is a ridiculous argument, and we should stop making it. You're making it even sillier by adding,

        4. But we could also (a) make an exception, or (b) not make an exception.
        5. Right answer is (a) because "mah propertah," or something.

      Instead we need to go back to 1 - 3 and make them complicated enough to capture what's really going on.

    11. Re:The right to read. by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      I guess you majored in "pedantry", with honors.

      What "Authors have right to be paid for their work" means is that if other people want to use the result of their work, the authors can ask payment in return.

      Ofcourse you fully understand what was meant, but thought treating another person like a moron would make you feel superior. Enjoy your fuzzy feelings.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    12. Re:The right to read. by HiThere · · Score: 1

      That's OK. Given the normal author's contract they wouldn't be significantly paid for an additional e-book copy anyway.

      IOW, it's not the authors who are complaining, it's either the publishers or, perhaps, Amazon.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    13. Re:The right to read. by Sabriel · · Score: 1

      Ah yes, "customer rights", we have dismissed that claim.

  2. Resell them? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I get most of my books from qbittorrent. I didn't realize they might have a resell value. A lot of my other books come from Kindle Cloud. I knew that I could loan a book out, but I had no idea that I could "resell" it.

    This is why I like dead tree books. I can do with it what I want. Hell, I can even shred it, roll it, and smoke it if I want.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    1. Re:Resell them? by flyneye · · Score: 1

      Without my glasses, I thought the headline was "Want to resell your body?", no kiddin. It did make me think though, about perceived ownership and rights. What do we really own and what are we licensed to "borrow/operate"?

                  From a standpoint of laws designed to protect you from yourself and even recent forced healthcare ; the government has an interest in YOU as a commodity that adds to the Gross National Output thereby increasing the amount of $credit$ available to it with your service as collateral. Kinda like seeing the map of the universe with the little --->"you are here"---- marked....
      I think in the end, we just do what we can, while we can, with what we have until it is regulated for monetary interests by someone who claims rights unopposed.

      I've heard tales that thin paged King James Bibles roll a mighty spleef, Jah LOVE!

      --
      *Repent!Quit Your Job!Slack Off!The World Ends Tomorrow and You May Die!
    2. Re:Resell them? by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      Under current law you can't "Sell" your body, or parts. Otherwise people would be getting offers for kidneys and such. It also stops slavery, though indentured servitude still exists.

  3. Re:Wait, what ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The law covers Europe. Netherlands and Germany are both in Europe. So it is very likely it can be used.

  4. Re:Wait, what ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Nope.

    1) Lots of countries take into consideration rulings from elsewhere, even if they aren't binding, e.g. Commonwealth;

    2) Sometimes there is a specific legal hierarchy, so e.g. a ruling on interpretation of European law in one EU state would definitely be relevant to another;

    3) Various horrid international treaties on trade and IP mean that countries end up respecting each others' legal rulings (except when they don't - for example, the US expects everyone "free trade" treaties, but isn't stupid enough to do so itself). It's a lot easy to set up a restriction than it is to tear it down. So, rulings on copyrights and patents tend to have legal force across borders, but one country cannot invalidate a patient or copyright internationally.

  5. Fortunately, it will be banned! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    Banning has already eradicated many other invisible activities, such as growing and smoking marijuana. I'm waiting for another smashing success here!

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
    1. Re:Fortunately, it will be banned! by kurkosdr · · Score: 2

      "Banning has already eradicated many other invisible activities..." They 'll just sell you a computer with Secure Boots on steroids (always enabled, allowing only fully "certified" images to run) which also is glued-shut and has glued-on components, so you can't open it without destroying it. https://www.ifixit.com/Teardow... Good luck with installing a custom OS on that. I hope I am wrong, but soon some Hollywood Legislator will ban devices with unlocked bootloaders like Nexus devices and mandate always-enabled secure boots on all devices (phones, tablets, laptops etc).

    2. Re:Fortunately, it will be banned! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

      Damn! If only it were possible to build a computer on your own using generic circuitry...

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re:Fortunately, it will be banned! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Oh, by the way...I'd like to take this opportunity to coin and spread a new term for this: "guerilla computing". To my knowledge, nobody has ever used that in this meaning. So I'd like to claim priority. :-)

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    4. Re:Fortunately, it will be banned! by dl_sledding · · Score: 1

      I have copyrighted the term "gorilla computing". Your "geurilla computing" is much too close auditorily to my copyrighted term that I forbid you to use it in any commercial or non-commercial way, without paying me for the use of it of course. Anything for a dollar, or any other recognized form of payment, including but not limited to bitcoin, Galactic Credit Standard and gold-pressed latinum.

  6. Re:Resell them? Why the heck not ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Funny how commercial entities (which the GAU obviously is, even if they do not sell anything themselves) seem to think that when the carrier material changes -- in this case from wood to ... nothing? -- the rights for that what actually has the value, the "message" if you will, suddenly also changes.

    Is this maybe another of those "if its 'with a computer' than all bets are off" thingies patents seem to float so well on ?

  7. The site does not commit piracy ... by Alain+Williams · · Score: 2

    it is just a market place. ''the site operates on an honor basis.'' it expects that once you have sold your e-book that you delete it from your machines. If you do not then it is you who commits piracy. It is an issue of trust: the book publisher/author knows that it is all too easy for someone to sell a book once they have read it but still keep the copy. But just because it is easy does not mean that everyone will keep a copy. I do have to admit that many will sell and keep.

    I do not know what the answer it, shutting down a market place or wrapping the book in DRM are not the answers.

    1. Re:The site does not commit piracy ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If you're making money off the deal, it's not piracy, it's bootlegging.

    2. Re: The site does not commit piracy ... by Alain+Williams · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Who reads a book twice?

      You might not want to read a novel more than once, but many books are not story books. Eg: an academic text book; a reference book - these you might read and want to keep so that you can look up points of detail later.

      Having said that:: I have read 'Lord of the Rings' 3 times.

    3. Re: The site does not commit piracy ... by Alain+Williams · · Score: 2

      That is the whole point -- with an e-book you can sell it and still have/keep a copy to use, something that you cannot do with a paper book. This is what the publishers want to stop.

    4. Re: The site does not commit piracy ... by koreanbabykilla · · Score: 2

      i feel bad for you. You have really never read a book that you again want to read years or decades later? There are many thousands of books i have read many times. You are either young, or base your reasoning on only having read what you can get from the magazine section of the grocery store.

    5. Re: The site does not commit piracy ... by currently_awake · · Score: 1

      You can keep a dead tree copy, if you have a scanner or a photo copier. It's just so much easier when the original is already digitized. If the open source community had DRM then we could ensure "Selling" a book included all copies.

    6. Re: The site does not commit piracy ... by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Who reads a book twice?

      Actually, everyone I know who actually reads for pleasure does it from time to time. Including me.

      Which reminds me, we're coming up on the sesquicentennial of Gettysburg. Time to pull out one of my histories of that battle and reread it before the Fourth.

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    7. Re:The site does not commit piracy ... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      The content industry (music, video, books, games) considers that reselling the works is an evil act and they'll do what they can do prevent it regardless of whether or not the law allows it. Thus DRM, which is promoted to the naive as merely copy protection is really designed to shut out the market for used items.

    8. Re: The site does not commit piracy ... by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Who reads a book twice

      Who listens to a song twice? Who watches a movie twice? Who plays a video game twice? Who ever does anything twice?

      Face it, most people will want to use their purchased content more than once. Especially books (sheesh, seriously, you don't read them more than once?). Now you'd have a point if someone paid only $1.99 for a book, album, game, or movie, but when you're being charged $20-$60 for a product then hell yes I am either going to use it more than once or I am going to exercise my legal rights to resell it when I'm done.

    9. Re: The site does not commit piracy ... by camazotz · · Score: 1

      Who reads a book twice?

      Everyone else has jumped on you for this, but...seriously: do you really think books are one-off disposables? Really?!?!? I've got an extensive library and I read a ton of content every week. I have a lot of favorites I have read a second, third or sometimes even fourth time. I have reference books and informational books I draw upon time and again. Who reads a book twice? People who read, that's who.

    10. Re: The site does not commit piracy ... by dl_sledding · · Score: 1

      Amen.

  8. Re:Wait, what ? by mwvdlee · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The ruling is a German ruling, not a European ruling (Europe has it's own court).
    German rulings do not apply to Europe or any part of Europe other than Germany.

    --
    Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  9. How is it piracy? by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    Assuming no other copy of 'your' book exists, its not piracy, any more than the library is.

    Now, perhaps if you cant guarantee there are no other copies, i suppose they could say something, but that should be on the seller to be complaint, not this company.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  10. Re:Wait, what ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That is a regional court in a part of the country that is best know for the joke that it doesn't actually exist and nothing much beyond that.
    Even within Germany that ruling is about as irrelevant as it can get.

  11. Re:Wait, what ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's not that easy. In general central european coutries have very similar laws and the judicial communities to exchange their views on topics that concern the overall european community. So while strictly speaking the german ruling is not applicable, it is highly likely that a dutch court would come to the same conclusion (especially in areas like copyrights, where most local laws are variations of the same EU directive).

    However, citing a decision from a "Landgericht" and stating that the matter had been settled is quite daring. In Germany, no legal matter is really considered to be settled unless there is a decision from the Federal Court of Justice, so two more levels of appeal are possible before that matter can be considered to be settled

  12. Tangible Property by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Why is it that when prosecuting file sharers, the IP firms of the world are adamant that "digital property" is no different than tangible property (that "stealing" a movie or song is the same as stealing a car), but when that interpretation favors the customer they're suddenly all about digital property isn't the same as tangible property? Yeah, fuck you guys. That's why I pirate everything I can.

  13. Darn Happy by tmjva · · Score: 1

    Happy I never wasted my money nor time on ebook technology:

    IMDB quote:
    "Star Trek: Court Martial (#1.20)" (1967)
    Cogley: Books, young man, books. Thousands of them. If time wasn't so important, I'd show you something. My library. Thousands of books.
    Captain James T. Kirk: And what would be the point?
    Cogley: This is where the law is. Not in that homogenized, pasteurized synthesizer. Do you want to know the law? The ancient concepts in their own language? Learn the intent of the men who wrote them, from Moses to the tribunal of Alpha III? Books.
    Captain James T. Kirk: You have to be either an obsessive crackpot who's escaped from his keeper, or Samuel T. Cogley, attorney at law.
    Cogley: You're right on both counts. Need a lawyer?
    Captain James T. Kirk: I'm afraid so. ?"

    --
    Tracy Johnson
    Old fashioned text games hosted below:
    http://empire.openmpe.com/
    BT
    1. Re:Darn Happy by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      There is nothing wrong with plaintext ebooks. They are as useful and powerful as their physical counterparts.

      --
      Good-bye
    2. Re:Darn Happy by HiThere · · Score: 1

      No. Sometimes e-books are better, and sometimes they are worse, but I've never found a time when they were the same. E.g., it's much easier to search a plaintext ebook. But it's less pleasant to read one in the bathtub.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  14. Re:Wait, what ? by Carewolf · · Score: 1

    German rulings do not apply to Europe or any part of Europe other than Germany.

    A German court ruling doesn't even apply to another case in the same German court, nor a Dutch ruling to another Dutch court. None of these countries are common law countries, which means precedence is non-binding. They do however _look_ at other court rulings and look at the arguments and conclusions, which you can do across any curistiction, so in most countries (since only very few are common law like the UK and US), looking at a ruling from another country is not that odd especially when the laws are the same or similar.

  15. Thoughts of an author... by Sasayaki · · Score: 1

    I write books for a living (see sig). I've published 7 novels and 20-ish short stories/novellas, whatever.

    My gut feeling is that if you paid for anything I wrote, you can resell it, as long as you do it once and delete the original. Yes, I know there is no way I can enforce this, but I also don't really give a shit.

    Most authors do not feel this way and I'm not really sure why. I suspect it's because there's a feeling that most people won't do this and will just be reselling books en-masse for their own profit. Obviously, this is bad. If anyone can take a book I wrote and sell hundreds of copies for their own gain, well, that's not good for me. I wrote it, only I can sell it in that manner. If you bought a copy, you can re-sell it, but only that copy. It makes sense to me.

    Opposition to re-selling of purchased ebooks (once, and with full transferal of the right to read the ebook) is quite prevalent amongst the author community, but I feel that this fails, largely, to take into account that there are hundreds if not thousands of ebook piracy sites where almost all of our for-pay work is available for free with no such restrictions. Yet I still sell thousands of dollars of books a month.

    Accordingly, I still feel confident that I can sell books, for profit, mainly because I price aggressively, and sites like Google Play/Amazon/etc are convenient and people are happy to pay a few bucks for convenience.

    If your readers are your enemy you've already lost.

    --
    Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
    1. Re:Thoughts of an author... by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I don't get the opposition, either. Considering nearly every writer I know loves books stores of all kinds, including used book stores, it seems absurd to object to reselling a digital one in exactly the same way physical ones have been resold in the past. I tend to assume most of it boils down to the fear if someone can resell once they'll resell a bunch of times.

      --
      The Quirkz Handbook of Self-Improvement for People Who Are Already Pretty Okay
  16. Bought one ebook from Amazon, will never do again by mnt · · Score: 1

    Having switched completely to all kinds of unixes and FirefoxOS on the phone i'm unable to read that DRM-bullshit amazon is selling. Will never buy an ebook that has DRM again. And it's even more outrageous that the Sellers claim i can't resell it, so i will probably not buy an ebook again, DRM or not.

  17. Re:Bought one ebook from Amazon, will never do aga by rhyous · · Score: 1

    I believe in DRM free ebooks, too. My book, Fire Light (Trinity of Mind book 1), is DRM free. I also know a few other authors that sell DRM free books. However, I haven't even taking time to see if I can actually transfer them. I just click the box, DRM free when I publish.