This book is licensed for your personal enjoyment only. This book may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to share this book with another person, please purchase an additional copy for each recipient. If you’re reading this book and did not purchase it, or if it was not purchased for your use only, please purchase your own copy.
I found this notice on the copyright page of something I bought at a recent used book sale. I can’t recall seeing a warning so overtly hostile to book borrowers and hope I never do again. I know about the first sale doctrine, and that this is completely unenforceable, but it still offends me. Should I contact the author for instructions on returning it unread?
reminds me of the good ol, fuck you license license
FUCK YOUR LICENSE
You may not reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works from this work.
You may not view, access, or use this work in any way.
You may not download, install, or execute the software described or contained in this work.
You are not allowed.
The author of this software denies ever creating it. This software doesn’t exist, and is a figment of your imagination. You are insane.
If you are seeing this notice, you are doing so without permission.
Just seeing these words means you’re a pirate. Arrrrrrrr.
If you attempt to reproduce, distribute, create derivative works from, view, access, modify, download, install, or execute this software in any way, you are in violation of this license and are probably in violation of some bullshit laws that some officious prick of a lawmaker decided on without your consent or knowledge.
Fuck you and fuck your license.
Pretty sure the only solution to this is to rip out the page, band it to a brick, and throw said brick through the publisher’s window
Sonic the Hedgehog tried to tell me that too
Just ignore it. It is not enforceable.
It’s a violation of the first sale doctrine. They can ask, but cannot legally prevent the resale.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine
The first-sale doctrine creates a basic exception to the copyright holder’s distribution right. Once the work is lawfully sold or even transferred gratuitously, the copyright owner’s interest in the material object in which the copyrighted work is embodied is exhausted. The owner of the material object can then dispose of it as they see fit. Thus, one who buys a copy of a book is entitled to resell it, rent it, give it away, or destroy it.
Decline the license. Now you are limited to just the basic rights that copyright law gives, which includes the ability to resell or lend the book.
I would just remove that page physically from the book.
Once the copyright holder sells or gifts the book they no longer can control it. The only right they still hold is copyright. Their distribution right is exhausted.
This book may not be re-read. If you plan to read it more than once, please purchase an additional copy for each read-through.
You joke but I bet Amazon would love to do this with Audible.
Considering there were limited play DVDs for a while it doesn’t seem unlikely someone tries this.
Flexplay is a trademark for a discontinued DVD-compatible optical video disc format with a time-limited (usually 48-hour) playback. They are often described as "self-destructing”, although the disc merely turns black or dark red and does not physically disintegrate.
Wow, TIL. I can’t imagine if this ever made its way to audio CDs.
The evil xvid variant.
If you would like to reread any number of books you already own, consider subscribing to our Rereadr Plus service. For only $3.99 per month (with ads) or $12.99 per month (no ads), you can reread any of your books an unlimited number of times (subject to our Fair Reading Policy).
the future capitalists dream of
I once visited the web site of an author whose series I was enjoying and was surprised by her angry insistence that selling used books is theft because the author doesn’t get a cut. Never bought the rest of the series. It just felt weird.
When I decide I can’t support an author, I specifically buy the books used. Maybe that’s an option for you, here.
I got my kid the whole Harry potter series second hand from thrift stores, cost me maybe 15$ total, didn’t finance Rowling at all. Took me a bit, they only show up once in a while.
That or straight up piracy. Author gets the same 0$ either way.
I could probably find the rest of the series on Z-lib, if I wanted to, but reading them would feel like engaging with the author as a person more than I now want. There’s plenty of authors who don’t speak negatively of readers who get their books used. I’d rather give them my time and attention.
That’s very fair. Plenty of books out there.
I’ve had the same problem. Like books I genuinely enjoy. Then I find the authors twitter or bluesky, the author is upper middle class, yet they demonise piracy and get super mad people would dare pirate their 25$ book.
That just icks me.
Like their book was anticapitalist, but here they are blind to the fact some people can’t afford books and we shouldn’t be gatekeeping knowledge. Ewww.
Book prices have gotten ridiculous. Independently published ebooks aren’t bad, but that fact that the cheapest physical books you can find new are around $10, and $20-40 is common, puts them way out of reach of what I would buy regularly.
Pirating an anticapitalist book sounds so morally correct
but it also kinda implies it’s not a great anticapitalist book, as a truly anticapitalist author would outright make the book public domain.
YUP.
I get it if the author is in poverty. But in the case I’m referring to they were upper middle class, maybe even liberal eliteish.
While I agree an anticapitalist author would lean that way, I don’t agree with the implication that you need an anticapitalist author to write a good book.
It just means they know the truth, and decided to be capitalist, anyway. Ignorant people can be educated, but this author understood the cause and sold us out for money, instead of joining.
Naturally, I won’t be supporting them.
Send the author a set of photos of different people reading it, with a tally mark for every one of them.
Probably the author is unaware no?
Probably the publishing company.
I knit and crochet, and sometimes pattern writers will try to forbid people from selling the items made with their patterns, which is nonsense. The pattern itself is copyrighted, but not the item made with the pattern. I always find it vaguely annoying, and hope people don’t buy into it.
You can’t even copyright the pattern in the same way you can’t copyright recipes.
The web page or printed page the pattern is on can be copyrighted. Photos or drawings accompanying the pattern can be copyrighted. But, patterns cannot be copyrighted.
I don’t think that’s true, at least in the US. Patterns can be copyrighted, but since there are so many iterations of similar styles and patterns, it’s probably tough to enforce (not that I’ve ever tried.)
In the USA they definitely cannot be copyrighted. They can try to add on a license agreement but those have not been tested in court.
https://library.osu.edu/site/copyright/2014/07/14/patterns-and-copyright-protections/
The same thing happens with a lot of models for 3D printing.
This sounds straight out of early 'oughts Napster panic. Did Metallica write a book?
I hope Napster Bad never dies.
For what it’s worth the author may not know that warning is there OR if it was self-published it was maybe a default notice automatically added by their publishing tool/software.
It does appear to be self-published, by a local author. He should have known of and approved what boilerplate he was attaching to his text.
He should have known of and approved what boilerplate he was attaching to his text.
Agreed. Sometimes it’s better to give people the benefit of the doubt and assume honest mistake until they demonstrate otherwise though.
The terms have no legal standing in the United States. The first-sale doctrine limits right holders ability to restrict resales of their work.
Ranks up there with the copyright warning I once found that was: you may not quote or reference from this work for any reason unless it exactly aligns with the authors theological conclusions.
Lol. I should start using that in arguments!
If someone who previously purchased the book, no longer wants it…does that mean they should throw it away? That’s a heinous act of violence, in my opinion. Books should be cared for. If you are no longer in a position to preserve that copy, you have an obligation to pass it along to someone who can.
I might sound like a dunce, but does this have any legal standing? A library could not stock this book? In the USA, I suppose?
According to their online catalog, there in fact is a copy in my local public library. According to the statewide database, there’s another library copy next county over (in the author’s hometown).
👍
