The eBook User Bill of Rights

Not surprisingly, the text boils down to “I want ebooks to be just like print books… but better.” That’s fine as an ideal, but there are things about ebooks that are different than print media, and they need to be treated differently.

For one thing, the “first sale doctrine” applies effectively to physical products… not so much to digital media. Unless digital media can be rendered difficult to replicate, first sale will never be practical… it will only result in hordes of copies being resold out of thin air, and money being exchanged for products which did not cost anything to get.

Also: Sharing is also presented as an absolute right that I would take issue with. If the idea of sharing is to present new content to others… try “recommending.” Sharing, in this context, is simply a way to allow others to read books they didn’t pay for. I just don’t see sharing as something that will make or break ebooks. My personal opinion about sharing is that it should be limited to libraries only… but that’s me.

Finally, the idea that security (in the form of DRM or licensing) treats customers as potential criminals is simply wrong. Security protects property owners from real criminals. Yes, others have to accept those security measures… but until they can remove the real criminals from society, it’s a fair price to pay to make sure content creators are not taken advantage of.

And this is my final point: Content creators have rights, too. In the same way a consumer doesn’t want to be treated like a criminal (and using the same charged language), a creator doesn’t want to be treated like a slave, expected to do all the work for nothing.

“…the right of the first-sale doctrine extended to digital content, allowing the eBook owner the right to retain, archive, share, and re-sell purchased eBooks”

You forgot to ask for world peace.

If wishes were horses
Beggars would ride:
If turnips were watches
I would wear one by my side.
And if ifs and ans were pots and pans,
The tinker would never work!

Mr Woodworth has an excellent idea in developing this Bill of Rights. His first attempt is a bit loose and fluffy but I think this is an excellent idea for a campaign against the abhorrent way readers are being treated when they ‘believe’ they are buying an eBook product.

It is astonishingly naive of anyone who tries to persuade us that DRM has the slightest affect whatsoever on ‘criminals’. Removing DRM is a task any 7 year old can do before breakfast.

I never said today’s DRM worked. That’s why I don’t use it. I just stated security’s intent. So go back and show me where I said “DRM has an affect on ‘criminals’.”

Steven you take things too personally. I wasn’t referring to you in particular. Chill.

Oh… sorry. Having not seen anyone else in this thread mention anything about DRM or security, I quite naturally guessed that you were referring to my post.

A good premise, this buyer’s bill. My only issue is with buyer re-selling. Unlike paper books (which one can indeed find being sold by buyers at yard sales), eBooks can be replicated with various free software and mass-produced. (See many articles on book piracy)

If buyers are allowed to re-sell purchased eBooks then I fear that the rather ‘slim’ income that the majority of eBook writers make would diminish to nothing and the fledgling golden goose would be slain before ever reaching maturity. As fun as the idea of lending and sharing ebooks may be, the writer loses more often than not. Just go take a gander at 4shared to see the inevitable outcome of treating eBooks like paperbacks; our tiny little company lost hundreds of sales last year thanks to the users of that website, who were “just sharing”. Authors like Grisham and King lost hundreds of times more sales than we did due to that one site, but their respective communities were hit as well by the loss of the respective sales and income tax revenue.

As eBooks publishers we know that customers have to be happy with the product; in the past our customers have been happy sharing sample chapters or free stories with their friends and compatriots, which we gladly supply. We’ve never received a complaint regarding “why can’t I lend this book” or “Why won’t you let me sell it.” Instead, most folks simply direct interested parties to our website, to buy their own copy.

@Steven. One of the primary differences between ebooks and paper books is that a copy is no longer a control point. The fact that we are still respecting copyright is by social convention and the laws interpreting “copies” equivalent to physical copies. In my view there is no logical reason that consumers have to lose their equivalent paper equivalent rights while content producers retain their own paper equivalent rights.

So far we’ve had publishers asserting what they believe the new rights be as if it’s a fact. I see this “eBook User Bill of Rights” as an alternate view point.

@Bob W: The practical fact that digital is not paper is a reason to make changes to rights on both sides… providing those changes still support the “social agreement” of fair buying and selling.

If allowing customers to share freely, for example, means that customers make X copies and give them away to others, the social agreement of fair buying and selling breaks down. If copyright is changed, for example, so that the buyer has the right to somehow yank a book you’ve bought without warning, reason or compensation, the social agreement of fair buying and selling breaks down. The business collapses in either case.

Changes may be popular, unpopular or debatable; but they must support fair treatment for ALL parties, or they are worthless. This bill largely ignores the fair rights of content creators; though it uses the words “within the spirit of fair use,” it provides no means of safeguarding fair use, taking our ability to protect our creations away from us.