The Stanza Desktop app is one-way. The only way to get a book off the device and onto you computer is to Jailbreak the device find the app folder and SSH the .epub file to your desktop computer. There is a way to download the epub using the internet, but I am not going to provide that information. As for legality of hosting/downloading. Who knows. I started this out because a few of us on a private forum had legally purchased .lit and .lrf files that we had collected over the years but due to DRM and the Iphone/Stanza's format-compatibility couldn't view these files on our devices. Contacting the ebook providers and publishers basically said "beat it", in so many words. So out came the DRM and up went the files. There is legal and there is right. Is it legal to have someone spend $12 on a book only to not allow them to read later on down the road in a manner they choose? It looks so. Is it right? After spending a couple hundered dollars on ebooks for my PDA, then suddenly they are obsolete, I would say it isn't right. So is what we are doing at drinkmalk legal. I don't honestly know the answer to that (though I am sure it definately frowned upon), but it's not done maliciously or for freebies (honor-system, everyone is responsible unto themselves).If you aren't comfortable with downloading (some have already said so) then don't, that's your choice. If you are comfy with it, then download (at own risk?). I am not trying to sound like Robin Hood or anything, or above-the-law. Just trying to provide an alternative to our fellow consumers to getting the proverbial shaft.
I agree with you on the DRM issue. Look at Apple, they're finally making the iTunes music store DRM-free. I know the age of digital downloads is young, but we shouldn't be forced to repurchase books, music, and movies for every device we may own in the future. It's not like CDs and DVDs, where you know the format is going to last for a long time. But I definitely think drinkmalk falls under the category of illegal. You're giving people who didn't originally purchase the ebooks free access to them. I don't think the honor-system excuse would cut it in a courtroom.
"But I definitely think drinkmalk falls under the category of illegal. You're giving people who didn't originally purchase the ebooks free access to them. I don't think the honor-system excuse would cut it in a courtroom. " What about youtube then? I mean, it is a widget that Apple won't even let you delete where people easily access copyrighted clips. And since no one is profiting from what drinkmalk is doing (unless he's getting ad revenue or something), then I don't understand the conflict. Christ, I may actually do a little research on this if I have time, though from what I remember from a trademarks class 2 years ago, it's virtually all gray area. Also, we could all potentially just go to a library and xerox every page of the same books that drinkmalk supplies. I don't think anyone would argue that's illegal, so basically all drinkmalk is doing is making it easier for us to read.
Not all of the content on YouTube is copyrighted. For the content that is, studios usually demand it be removed. And yes, xeroxing every page of a book is illegal. Take a book out of the library, go to Kinko's, and ask them to copy it. Don't be surprised if they tell you they can't because it's violating the copyright. Keep in mind that with a library, you're just borrowing the book. You're expected to return it, not keep it. In the end you don't own that book. If you download an ebook off a site offering it for free (and thus own it), without the publisher's permission, that's stealing. I'm not saying that someone1guy should stop offering the ebooks, or that none of you should download them. I don't care what you do. I just find it interesting that people on this thread are trying to convince themselves that what they're doing isn't considered stealing.
Not all of the content on YouTube is copyrighted. For the content that is, studios usually demand it be removed. And yes, xeroxing every page of a book is illegal. Take a book out of the library, go to Kinko's, and ask them to copy it. Don't be surprised if they tell you they can't because it's violating the copyright. Keep in mind that with a library, you're just borrowing the book. You're expected to return it, not keep it. In the end you don't own that book. If you download an ebook off a site offering it for free (and thus own it), without the publisher's permission, that's stealing. I'm not saying that someone1guy should stop offering the ebooks, or that none of you should download them. I don't care what you do. I just find it interesting that people on this thread are trying to convince themselves that what they're doing isn't considered stealing. I take umbrage with the term 'stealing' because this is not a black or white issue. If a friend of mine has a paid account for Time Magazine's online website and he copies/pastes/sends me an article he finds interesting, does that mean both he and I have stolen that article? If I watch bloopers from Men in Black 2 DVD on youtube, does that mean that youtube, the individual uploader, and I have all stolen from MIB II's production company? Is it stealing if the copyright owner doesn't care? Is it stealing if I memorize a passage from a poem and tell it to someone without giving any credit to the original owner? Am I stealing from my employer since I'm on this site typing this response instead of actually reading the assigned legal brief? What someone1guy has done is a HUGE service for the iphone community and to call it stealing creates a very strong and unfair inference with him/her and the site.
And what about purchasing used books where the original publishing company and authors get no cut? Am I thus stealing when I go to Half Price Books to sell some of my old stuff? How come Amazon and Ebay and half.com are allowed to exist then? And a trillion other examples....
When you purchase a used book, CD, DVD, Videogame, etc., only one person owns the item at a time. If I buy a book and then sell it to you, I no longer own that book. We're both not in possession at the same time. Now, if I buy an ebook, and then let five people copy it, five people now own an item meant for a single owner. It's like with software. Two people can't be using a program with the same serial number at the same time, unless it's a multi-user license. It's meant for a single user. So if you sell a book to me, I now own the book. You're no longer the owner. Only a single copy is exchanging hands. That's why sites like Ebay exist.
"When you purchase a used book, CD, DVD, Videogame, etc., only one person owns the item at a time. If I buy a book and then sell it to you, I no longer own that book. We're both not in possession at the same time. Now, if I buy an ebook, and then let five people copy it, five people now own an item meant for a single owner. It's like with software. Two people can't be using a program with the same serial number at the same time, unless it's a multi-user license. It's meant for a single user. So if you sell a book to me, I now own the book. You're no longer the owner. Only a single copy is exchanging hands. That's why sites like Ebay exist. But with your logic, doesn't that mean that it would be okay for someone1guy to sell, for example, an already purchased ebook of Harry Potter 3 to one person as opposed to freely giving it away to five people? That reselling an item to one person is not stealing but giving it away to five people is? On merely an intuitive level, you can't believe that's right. And even if that is true - that reselling isn't stealing but giving away to multiple people is - then wouldn't a way around it be just for people to keep passing Harry Potter 3 for one person to the next i.e. A buys the ebook for 1 penny and then resells it to B for 1 penny who resells it to C for penny then D then E then F and so on and so forth. And for efficiency purposes, wouldn't it make more sense for B,C,D,E, and F to just give their pennies to A in the first place? And instead of giving pennies, they instead go to the website which has equal value to some1guy........ Okay, what I just wrote is sounding like a goofy 9th grade math problem.
Understand that when you buy a book, you are not buying the unique work itself, but merely the book that holds said work. The difference between reselling a physical copy of a book you have bought and uploading the contents of a particular work is vast in that the former does not violate copyright and is actually protected under the first sale doctrine, while the latter directly violates copyright because one of the very protections of copyright law is that the holder of the copyright has the right to copy and distribute/redistribute said copies (hence the term "copyright"). That point in italics cannot be stressed enough. It isn't the act of downloading something that miffs copyright holders so much as uploading so a mass audience can potentially get their hands on the work; it lowers the power of the copyright, which some feel is a good thing...unless, of course, you are a writer. Understand that with the literary publishing industry it is VERY different from the music industry (and the film and television industry). Usually in the literary publishing industry it is the author (the creator) of the work who holds copyright. The writer of the work actually has the most power in the structure. When books are published the publisher merely has the exclusive rights to publish the work for a given period of time. And the related rights, such as movie rights, etc. are also held by the author and licensed or sold for a period of time to 3rd parties. This is one reason why authors are VERY protective of their copyright. Recall the hullabaloo over the various Harry Potter leaks on the 'net, and how site after site was shutdown. Recall the issue with the writer of the Twilight books when a rough draft of one of the books she was writing was leaked. With writers the majority of money they receive from their (often very lengthy and very costly) investment of time in writing a book, story, poem etc. hinges entirely on their holding of copyright. Uploading and mass distribution can be said to devalue the copyright, and that indeed has a bottom line impact on the pocketbooks of writers. And before anyone brings up Creative Commons and copyleft and all that, remember that the holder of copyright expressly waives copyright in such instances, and this is usually one of the first things stated in the the license.
I believe that some1guy's site is illegal in the same way that Kazaa was illegal. One person buys--and therefore owns--the song (or book) and freely permits others to download it, disregarding the copyright laws. Is it wrong? Yeah. How wrong is it? On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being stealing a pencil from work, and 10 being the holocaust, I'd rate it about 1.5. If some1guy wants to offer his ebooks for download I am sure he understands the risk he is taking. Nobody is forced to visit his site. Everyone can decide for themselves whether they believe it is OK to download from his site. Some1guy: do you have any Ken Follett books?
It is right. Again, someone1guy would be able to resell due to the fact that it might be protected under first sale, while the latter is a violation of copyright as it violates the copyright holders sole right to distribute/redistribute or license that right. When you buy a book, again, you are buying that unique copy of the book, not the unique work itself. You can resell your one copy, but you can't redistribute the work itself. That devalues the right of which the copyright holder is in sole possession. That sort of thing is legally protected. Giving away more copies than one bought originally, however, is not. You simply cannot do that as distribution/redistribution of more than one copy is what copyright protects. If he only bought one copy, he only has resell rights to that one copy. If he attempts to make copies of that copy and resell them, he is in direct violation of what copyright law expressly protects. Again, it's in the term itself: "copy right", the right to copy and distribute/redistribute said copies is wholly that of the holder of copyright unless expressly waived. [/QUOTE] Clearly you don't understand how violating someone's rights is not a very nice thing to do.
I would rate it higher than a 1.5. I mean...you steal a pencil from work, no one at work actually created that pencil, no one at work has sole exclusive rights to that pencil, no one at work can license those rights for profit, and no one at work has their entire livelihood hinging on protection of any of those rights. If you were a writer you'd understand. Copyright is their leverage. It ain't the Holocaust, but it sure as hell ain't a 1.5.
I'm not trying to rain on the parade, here. I just don't want to see the milk guy get into legal problems due to this sort of thing. I'm sure he thinks it's a service to the community, and others feel the same, but the copyright holders probably won't and in the courts they'll probably win out. Be careful.
this is just as bad as the iwebkit sites that stream family guy and south park. yes they're illegal but so has mp3's that have been around for freakign ever. this site may get shut down but a new one pops up. the thing repeats itself until they multiply like a b!tch and the industry would not be able to do anythign about it.
Hey, Someone1guy, would you add Barack Obama's books, mainly just The Audacity of Hope. I don't mind getting them, I only get books that I own, either in ebook format of a hard copy. 99.9% of the time, I disagree with this, but I like this. I have about 50% or so of the books on this site, and thus may download the ones that I own, no more. I know that this logic may be corrupt, but it think that it is sensible. Ohh, and Micheal Crichton's "The Andromeda Strain" would be nice, too. But I'll wait for you all to catch up with the demand.
Again, the book publishing industry is WAAAAAY different from the music publishing industry in that the copyright holders for books are far more aggressive in protecting their copyright than most of the other creative industries.
I may sound absurd but think about it, sound is easier to give out once we approached the digital stage. now books are getting easier now with portability and pdf's, torrents etc. like i said, no matter how tough this industry looks like now. a new one will pop up. that's just how it is. i am not patronizing schemers but i guess if you call downloading these books without actually owning them is called as such, then count me in.
Authors hold all rights to their work. As long as an author retains the electronic rights, he/she has the power to not allow an ebook of their work to be released. If ebook piracy becomes widespread, to the point where authors are losing money, they'll stop releasing ebooks. Problem solved. But of course, now they've lost an additional form of revenue. You have to understand, blockbuster authors like Stephen King and James Paterson are in the minority. Most writers never sell through their advance, which is usually as low as $5,000 for mid-list authors. Now subtract tax and that's hardly a livable wage, especially for the amount of time and effort that can go into writing a novel. It's all about royalties. If people are pirating their work, then they won't make money. Unlike musicians, authors don't have other forms of income, such as sales from merchandise and concert tickets. I think it's a common misconception that just because someone has published a novel, they're well off financially. Many writers whose books are on the shelves in Borders and Barnes & Noble are struggling to make ends meet just like the rest of us.
