3 ms·

Perhaps people are realizing that "buying" an ebook doesn't mean that you own it. For example, you can't resell it or lend it to your friend. Basically what S

Perhaps people are realizing that "buying" an ebook doesn't mean that you own it. For example, you can't resell it or lend it to your friend. Basically what Stallman says.

krrrh 11y ago
This is true in a traditional conception of ownership, but you own an ebook better in other ways. I.e., I've moved a lot in the last few years to the point where I have given away, or just recycled, most of the paper books I've owned. I still have all the ebook a I've ever purchased. I lost my kindle in a train station last month. I could still access the books I was reading on my phone the same day, and when I get a new kindle all the books will be there with little effort (including notes). While Stallman's old essay was amazingly prescient and showed an understanding of how ecosystems around media distribution that few had at the time, the part he didn't understand was how consumers would differently weigh the benefits and definitions of ownership.
- tmalsburg2 11y ago
  This is an interesting thought. However, the fact that you were able to give up the ownership of your paper books doesn't mean that you owned them any less than your ebooks. The opposite is true because it's an integral part of ownership that you can give it up or lose it. Ebooks may be more convenient in some situation but that doesn't mean that we have to redefine the meaning of ownership. Further, I suspect that even Amazon would agree that you technically do not own the ebooks that you "bought" from them.
honestcoyote 11y ago
I've always thought if the DRM can be easily removed, then it's the same as not having DRM at all. Every purchase I've made from Amazon has the DRM stripped and the files placed in a personal backup. On occasion, I'll send an ebook I purchased to a friend if they expressed an interest. It feels like ownership to me. Even though in legal terms I have the right of resale of all my physical books, in practical terms there's almost no reason to bother. Outside of a few collectibles, it's not worth much. Therefore, lack of resale on the ebooks doesn't feel much more punishing than the practical lack of resale of the physical books.
grahamburger 11y ago
Whenever I hear again of that Stallman essay I run this thought experiment - what if e-books came first? Would Stallman have then written an essay about the inherent problems of paper books when compared to e-books? (They are more difficult to transport, they can be lost, stolen or burned, they can't be encrypted or transmitted instantaneously across the planet, negative environmental impact, etc.)
- Spivak 11y ago
  Probably not as none of those points impact the freedoms of the user. If DRM encumbered e-books came first I don't think he would find physical books an acceptable solution because of the points you mentioned but no doubt he would maintain that physical books were superior for freedom.
  - grahamburger 11y ago
    I don't know about that - I mean book burnings and censorship definitely impact the freedom of the user. Arguably more than the ability to lend/resell the book.

Perhaps people are realizing that "buying" an ebook doesn't mean that you own it. For example, you can't resell it or lend it to your friend. Basically what Stallman says.

krrrh 11y ago

This is true in a traditional conception of ownership, but you own an ebook better in other ways. I.e., I've moved a lot in the last few years to the point where I have given away, or just recycled, most of the paper books I've owned. I still have all the ebook a I've ever purchased. I lost my kindle in a train station last month. I could still access the books I was reading on my phone the same day, and when I get a new kindle all the books will be there with little effort (including notes). While Stallman's old essay was amazingly prescient and showed an understanding of how ecosystems around media distribution that few had at the time, the part he didn't understand was how consumers would differently weigh the benefits and definitions of ownership.

tmalsburg2 11y ago
This is an interesting thought. However, the fact that you were able to give up the ownership of your paper books doesn't mean that you owned them any less than your ebooks. The opposite is true because it's an integral part of ownership that you can give it up or lose it. Ebooks may be more convenient in some situation but that doesn't mean that we have to redefine the meaning of ownership. Further, I suspect that even Amazon would agree that you technically do not own the ebooks that you "bought" from them.

honestcoyote 11y ago

I've always thought if the DRM can be easily removed, then it's the same as not having DRM at all. Every purchase I've made from Amazon has the DRM stripped and the files placed in a personal backup. On occasion, I'll send an ebook I purchased to a friend if they expressed an interest. It feels like ownership to me. Even though in legal terms I have the right of resale of all my physical books, in practical terms there's almost no reason to bother. Outside of a few collectibles, it's not worth much. Therefore, lack of resale on the ebooks doesn't feel much more punishing than the practical lack of resale of the physical books.

grahamburger 11y ago

Whenever I hear again of that Stallman essay I run this thought experiment - what if e-books came first? Would Stallman have then written an essay about the inherent problems of paper books when compared to e-books? (They are more difficult to transport, they can be lost, stolen or burned, they can't be encrypted or transmitted instantaneously across the planet, negative environmental impact, etc.)

Spivak 11y ago
Probably not as none of those points impact the freedoms of the user. If DRM encumbered e-books came first I don't think he would find physical books an acceptable solution because of the points you mentioned but no doubt he would maintain that physical books were superior for freedom.
- grahamburger 11y ago
  I don't know about that - I mean book burnings and censorship definitely impact the freedom of the user. Arguably more than the ability to lend/resell the book.