Slashdot Mirror
Slashdot Asks: Should It Be Legal To Resell E-Books, Software, and Other Digital Goods? (arstechnica.co.uk)
There's no one stopping you from selling the CDs and DVDs that you buy, so why can't you do the same with e-books, music albums, movies, and other things you've downloaded? Ars Technica reports about a Dutch second-hand e-book platform called Tom Kabinet which has been "at a war" with Dutch Publishers Association (NUV) over this issue. This is seen as a threat to the entire book industry. German courts have suggested that the practice of reselling e-books should be stopped, whereas Dutch courts don't necessarily see it as an issue. What's your view on this?
But with it likely comes harsh(er) DRM that means total end to end tracking.
How about a blockchain for books?
Signature v3.0, now with 42% less memory usage.
It should be illegal to resell these things because it should be illegal to sell them in the first place. Such things are nothing but human thought, there is nothing tangible here, nothing that can break or be replaced or fail. Information by its very nature is infinitely reproducible, that is what makes it so valuable to the human race and is the reason we have achieved dominance over the planet. Assigning costs, prices, or artificially erecting barriers to the free and total dissemination of information in any/all forms should be the crime here, not the other way around.
Books deteriorate, digital files do not. There is already a de-facto limit on how much a physical good can be re-sold. Lifting that limit by allowing digital resales changes the status quo, and is unfair to publishers. However, an outright ban on reselling goods would also change the status quo. There should be a happy medium.
Fast Federal Court and I.T.C. updates
I really wanted to say yes, but there are a lot of issues with this concept. It benefits the readers but hurts society at large, (undermining ownership rights, lowering the number of copies floating around for non-owners to discover, use).
The used market is predicated on depreciation preventing people from competing with the original sellers. You buy X brand new for $Y, use it up some, then sell it for $Y - z.
Without depreciation, what you are doing is more similar to renting a book, rather than buying and reselling it. You get full use of it, but it is returned in practically the same state, with only time being gone.
Renting e-books would be a BAD idea - it would hurt the writers tremendously and the general population would no longer own the books, which would leave the population open to giving up ownership rights, something that has high value for society, but low values for the individuals as a whole.
A better question would be to clarify ownership after Death. I bought ebooks, and both they and my account should be inheritable after death.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
DRM isn't really about copy protections, it's more about preventing exactly this situation. They know pirates have broken in and anyone who wants a pirated copy can get them, but they want to prevent legal owners from creating a used book market, or a used game market, a used movie market, etc. Not to mention re-gifting (for those people who think resellers are evil). The biggest threat that publishers see is the reseller, not the pirate.
But why shouldn't I be allowed to sell it? If I bought it, used it, and no longer want it. Why shouldn't I be able to sell it for less than the "source". That's the way the rest of the world works.
Do I really have to show you how to make a photocopy? Or how to copy a CD or DVD?
And while you might argue that making a copy of a book is actually a bit of a hassle, there is no argument in this area with CDs and DVDs. Actually, copying a CD, selling the CD and retaining the copy is actually illegal. As would be retaining a copy of that ebook.
So, can I hear again why this question is "ridiculous"? Preferably with better arguments for your side.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
*shakes head*
I can't help but be reminded of history here. When Gutenburg demonstrated his printing press, the scribes and clergy of the period fell all over themselves with condemnations, onerous laws forbidding the "profane" reproduction of sacred works, and literal goon squads to try to symie the tide of availability that literature now enjoyed.
Fast foward, and here we are again. The people who once controlled production (the print houses and publishers) are falling all over themselves with condemnations, onerous laws forbidding the "immoral" reproduction of profitable works, and sending law enforcement (literal goon squads) to try and stymie the tide of availability that literature now enjoys.
Publishers: As useful and necessary today, as buildings full of clergy and scribes were in Gutenburg's day.
That is to say, less and less every day.
And good riddance.