3 ms·

The problem with ebooks (as with software and other files) is, that they are simpy not physical goods. From the viewpoint of a consumer, a nice advantage of fil

by yk 14y ago

The problem with ebooks (as with software and other files) is, that they are simpy not physical goods. From the viewpoint of a consumer, a nice advantage of files is the essentially zero costs of replacement, so that I can resonably expect a vendor to replace a copy lost due to an accident. (Unlike with a physical book, where replacement costs actual money.) On the other hand, I have the means of production for an ebook. ( A computer, production of files means copying, just as producing a car means copying a prototype.) This means, I can actually compete with the vendor of an ebook, by pirating it. ( A car does not need DRM, because I would need a factory before I can start to pirate it.) So I believe, that analogies like "glue the pages of a book shut" and "selling" are misleading. The much more interesting question is, what is a reasonable default licence for digital goods? Or to pose the question slightly differently, what can each side of a default licence agreement reasonable expect of each other?

pseingatl 14y ago
Are you suggesting that digital goods cannot be sold and can only be licensed? What is your basis for this? It seems to me that this was a sale of goods. The fact that the goods are in digital format is irrelevant. It is unlikely that the courts will treat the sale of a book the same as a software license. Ultimately sales of goods are governed by law, and one party is not permitted to breach their contracts.
- yk 14y ago
  This depends on the exact meaning of sale. It is certainly possible to implement a license agreement, that looks very much like a sale of a physical object. However I think that such a license agreement would be unenforceable, essentially because a physical good has a certain uniqueness. It makes sense to talk about 'my car' which is distinct from 'your car.' ( And if someone steals 'my car', I am able to identify this specific car.) By contrast, I can not really talk about 'my mp3 file' because there is simply no difference between my file and any of its copies. This applies also to watermarked files, since given a copy of a watermarked file you can not determine if this specific representation of the file was created by the original licensee or from an intermediate copy. So the important point of me buying a book, is that a unique physical object becomes mine, by contrast there is no such thing as a unique digital object. [ IANAL, it is entirely possible, that there is some case law which defines a sale of software. But my point is, that this would be kind of a default license.] See also http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/04/why-content-is-a-public-good.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/04/why-cont... which had a huge influence on my thinking about digital goods. (Or economics in general.)
pfortuny 14y ago
OK, BUT bear in mind that UNTIL such a complicated new kind of relationship between two persons is set up, whenever some interaction looks like a purchase-sale agreement, IT IS SO. Even more if you read "BUY" this ebook everywhere.

by yk 14y ago

pseingatl 14y ago

Are you suggesting that digital goods cannot be sold and can only be licensed? What is your basis for this? It seems to me that this was a sale of goods. The fact that the goods are in digital format is irrelevant. It is unlikely that the courts will treat the sale of a book the same as a software license. Ultimately sales of goods are governed by law, and one party is not permitted to breach their contracts.

yk 14y ago
This depends on the exact meaning of sale. It is certainly possible to implement a license agreement, that looks very much like a sale of a physical object. However I think that such a license agreement would be unenforceable, essentially because a physical good has a certain uniqueness. It makes sense to talk about 'my car' which is distinct from 'your car.' ( And if someone steals 'my car', I am able to identify this specific car.) By contrast, I can not really talk about 'my mp3 file' because there is simply no difference between my file and any of its copies. This applies also to watermarked files, since given a copy of a watermarked file you can not determine if this specific representation of the file was created by the original licensee or from an intermediate copy. So the important point of me buying a book, is that a unique physical object becomes mine, by contrast there is no such thing as a unique digital object. [ IANAL, it is entirely possible, that there is some case law which defines a sale of software. But my point is, that this would be kind of a default license.] See also http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/04/why-content-is-a-public-good.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2010/04/why-cont... which had a huge influence on my thinking about digital goods. (Or economics in general.)

pfortuny 14y ago

OK, BUT bear in mind that UNTIL such a complicated new kind of relationship between two persons is set up, whenever some interaction looks like a purchase-sale agreement, IT IS SO. Even more if you read "BUY" this ebook everywhere.