Reply
Distinguished Bibliophile
keriflur
Posts: 6,552
Registered: ‎01-05-2010
0 Kudos

Re: Hard/soft cover books you already own.


gstone wrote:

Byteguy wrote:

 

Copyright law is FAR more restrictive than people think.



And irrational and incoherent. It's a good example of lobyist writing law to specifically benifit their clients. 

 


So, you don't think artists should be compensated for their intellectual property?  For every copy of their intellectual property?

Distinguished Bibliophile
roustabout
Posts: 3,609
Registered: ‎03-31-2011

Re: Hard/soft cover books you already own.

[copyright law is ] "irrational and incoherent. It's a good example of lobyist writing law to specifically benifit their clients."

 

There's even more raisins in the pudding than that.  Copyright law varies across international borders, and in the case of books, varies even more dramatically. 

 

In the US, copyright is an amalgam of English common law, Constitutional law, statutes from before Disney overturned those parts of the Constitution they found disagreeable, statutes the pharm companies needed for their convenience and software law. 

 


"So, you don't think artists should be compensated for their intellectual property?  For every copy of their intellectual property?"

 

As it stands now, they're not - you buy a copy of a book from BN and you own the book just the once and can resell it. 

 

You license an ebook file from BN, and can give a copy to whoever you trust with your credit card number - that's actually an advertised feature of "social DRM."  Also, the file can be downloaded to many (six?  more?) devices tied to that account. 

 

The down side (for you) is that you don't currently actually own the file but rather the right to display it.  There is no market for secondhand files, and so there's no economic or useful legal disincentive to stripping DRM and posting the files on bittorrent. 

 

If each file were watermarked and DRM-free, you'd need to curate your library carefully, you'd be able to sell the file on through a clearinghouse, and there'd be both an economic and legal incentive to paying attention in addition to the ethical incentive. 

 

Plus, the author'd be getting money from each sale of a book and there'd be less confusion about why the DTB copy doesn't also confer the ebook rights - I think one piece of that confusion is that the ebook rights include a lot of copies. 

 

(Further muddying things - folks are free to make their own decisions today about ebook versus DTB rights - Baen Books is all DRM-free and either still does or used to include ebook rights explicitly with the DTB copy.  Authors of scientific papers often distribute PDFs of those papers for free from their own websites;  they retain the rights, as a rule, and the publishers' pricing on research literature is astronomical, if you will.  Paolo Coelho actually put his own work up on bittorrent until his publisher stepped in and pointed out that he'd signed away the electronic rights!)

"no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution.
Distinguished Bibliophile
keriflur
Posts: 6,552
Registered: ‎01-05-2010
0 Kudos

Re: Hard/soft cover books you already own.


roustabout wrote:

 

If each file were watermarked and DRM-free, you'd need to curate your library carefully, you'd be able to sell the file on through a clearinghouse, and there'd be both an economic and legal incentive to paying attention in addition to the ethical incentive.


This would be true only if it were impossible to remove watermarking.  It's about as easy to remove watermarks as it is to remove the more popular forms of DRM.

Inspired Wordsmith
petesnook
Posts: 404
Registered: ‎12-08-2010

Re: Hard/soft cover books you already own.

Keep in mind that a number of newspapers and magazines allow free e-editions if you have a paid print subscription, so I don't think the OP's question is entirely unfounded or a sense of unbounded entitlement.
Distinguished Correspondent
msmoonlite
Posts: 175
Registered: ‎10-03-2010
0 Kudos

Re: Hard/soft cover books you already own.

But


petesnook wrote:
Keep in mind that a number of newspapers and magazines allow free e-editions if you have a paid print subscription, so I don't think the OP's question is entirely unfounded or a sense of unbounded entitlement.

But you point out a PAID subscription to a periodical which by nature comes out more frequently with a different objective when it comes to readers.

 

Are you saying OP should pay extra to have unfettered access?

 

Its akin to saying if I bought this Eagles album in 1977 now that the technology has changed I should be able to get as many digital downloads as I want since I paid 6 dollars for it thirty plus ago.

Nallia
Posts: 4,758
Topics: 125
Kudos: 3,236
Solutions: 4
Registered: ‎02-15-2010

Re: Hard/soft cover books you already own.

[ Edited ]
How many print books are legally posted, in their entirety, on publisher web sites for the public to read at their leisure? Periodicals and books are not comparable with each other. Besides that, you cannot just call or show up at Conde Nast, show them a print version of Vogue, and demand the e-copy for free. The OP isn't talking about bundles. S/he is talking about getting free ebook versions of hard copies currently on his/her bookshelf. Why should any publisher allow this? There is no proof that a book was purchased by this person just because it sits in a shelf in his/her home. Again, I have never been able to get the paperback or hardcover for free because I owned a different version. The different versions of books are different products and are sold as such.
Distinguished Bibliophile
roustabout
Posts: 3,609
Registered: ‎03-31-2011
0 Kudos

Re: Hard/soft cover books you already own.

[ Edited ]

"This would be true only if it were impossible to remove watermarking. "

 

There may be a different way to skin this cat.  Movies are very hard, and music somewhat hard, to watermark in part because the data are very complex and very large.  They have to be abstracted to generate file signatures to compare to a database.  Each of those formats can be compressed in lots of different ways, altering the file signatures dramatically. 

 

When virus writers change the contents of their viruses a bit to avoid detection by a/v tools the variants are often described as having been fuzzed.  Movies compressed from blue-ray or dvd rips using different bit rates or different codecs are naturally fuzzed.  There are tools for "listening" to music files and compressing them to a common format, then comparing those data to databases of songs to see what song is playing or being shared - a smaller file that has a narrower rnage of usable outputs lends itself to doing that. 

 

Books are much more resistant to being fuzzed, because at the core they're big text strings.  If a book is going to be legible, the text can't be fuzzed that much.  This is the basis of, for instance, the software some colleges are using to detect plagiarism - not just of papers in their entirety but passages within papers.  Computers are really, really good at comparing text strings and readers are really, really picky about fuzzed text strings - the complaints about typos in ebooks go to this point. 

 

So if the watermark's deleted the file is still very identifiable.  And less valuable, in a model where you're able to resell a used ebook. 

 

The risk, from the secondary market's point of view, is of folks successfully creating bogus watermarks and selling counterfeit used books. 

 

My thinking is that the best and only way to do a used ebook market is to use a clearinghouse that is aware of which of its customers own which titles from which vendors and is able to tell BN, Amazon, Kobo "this customer's device no longer ought to be displaying this title in your software."  The watermarks are used more to guarantee a file's integrity and creation date for purposes of inventory transfer. 

 

Libraries are doing a variant on this already. 

 

The folks who want to pirate books will continue pirating books, and that's a given.  But folks who want to participate in the used ebook market will have incentives not to try tearing open the wrapping. 

 

I actually don't think there's a vast amount of ebook piracy happening.  I have some inkling of how many folks are using Calibre (on these discussion fora, quite a few but probably not the majority by any means) and my blog explains in detail how to manage DRM independently of your vendor.  I don't get email or comments advocating going from that to piracy, and my impression is that relatively few Calibre users make use of all of the built-in goodies, let alone go hunt down and set up the tools needed to manage DRM. I also think that it's a minority of Nook users who use third-party ebook readers. 

 

I do wonder, in the larger tablet market, how many folks are using standalone readers that don't tie to shops. 

 

On the idevices, I'd say very few.  On the Samsungs, probably some but not that many since the Nook, Kindle and Amazon apps all work well and are convenient.  On the BN and Amazon bespoke hardware, I'd say very few. 

 

Give folks a positive incentive to use those apps and to let those apps scan their sideload content like a used ebook market, and I think you'd see people using them for simplicity's sake. 

 

Incentives for letting the Nook library see your sideloaded content (and confirm that you owned it) would be

 

- you can then sell it used

- you can then use your Nook device to track your reading position in sideloaded content. 

 

As of now, there's no penalty for breaking the seal, and considerable benefit to doing so (fbsync and aldikosync let you treat your entire library, BN, Amazon and other sources on an equal footing.) 

 

I'm surprised more people aren't doing it, given that the current situation penalizes you for not doing so. 

 

"no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution.
Distinguished Bibliophile
keriflur
Posts: 6,552
Registered: ‎01-05-2010

Re: Hard/soft cover books you already own.


roustabout wrote:

my blog explains in detail how to manage DRM independently of your vendor.

 


Are you Alf or the Dark Reverser?  :smileywink:

 


roustabout wrote:

 

I actually don't think there's a vast amount of ebook piracy happening.

 


I wish I could agree with you, but I've heard too many stories from too many authors to believe this.  Authors (and agents and pubs) that use Google Alerts to track their books have seen crazy download numbers on illegal filesharing sites.  This is part of the reason for the pull-back on ARCs and why some books aren't available in digital ARC form  - because the books are going up on torrent sites weeks and sometimes months before release, which means that respected bloggers and business insiders are behaving badly, not just readers.  The stories about illegal download numbers that exceed actual sales are not uncommon.

 

A large part of the reading population does not respect writers.  It's sad, really sad.  I think a lot of it comes from the idea that it's easy to write a good book (trust me, it's not), but a lot of it also comes from the sense of entitlement that is at the heart of the discussion of this thread - people believe that the publishing industry, and authors, owe them something.

Distinguished Bibliophile
roustabout
Posts: 3,609
Registered: ‎03-31-2011
0 Kudos

Re: Hard/soft cover books you already own.

[ Edited ]

"the books are going up on torrent sites weeks and sometimes months before release, which means that respected bloggers and business insiders are behaving badly, not just readers."

 

That's really interesting.  

 

And it would probably be pretty easy - for a while - to address the problem of pre-release leaks.  There are ways of making files unique without obviously watermarking them or making them illegible.  Stuff that would be hard for people to screen for - using an alternate spelling of gray a few select times in the course of the book, but differently in each copy distributed.  using [] in place of () a few times - but again, in a distinctive way - using '' and "" inconsistently - in an identifiable pattern.  I'll bet for the first 6 months you could just embed the recipients' name in the stylesheet in the file, or better yet in a bar code or QR code on the cover art, and 95% of the business insiders and bloggers doing this wouldn't look to see it.  

 

Very analogous to how different map vendors enforce copyright by hiding things in plain sight.  I don't think it would scale out to mass releases, but for early review releases of 100 copies, ti would definitely work.  

 

But the other point I was making is - give me a reason to permit BN access to everything I've sideloaded, and you've given me a reason to let a rights clearinghouse have visiblity into what's going on.  I can decline, but it may be more valuable not to.  

 

If you read a dog training book written recently, you'll find that lots of dog trainers are pointing out that positive reinforcement works better.   

"no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution.
Inspired Wordsmith
gstone
Posts: 1,317
Registered: ‎09-05-2010
0 Kudos

Re: Hard/soft cover books you already own.


keriflur wrote:

gstone wrote:

Byteguy wrote:

 

Copyright law is FAR more restrictive than people think.



And irrational and incoherent. It's a good example of lobyist writing law to specifically benifit their clients. 

 


So, you don't think artists should be compensated for their intellectual property?  For every copy of their intellectual property?


DCMA does not protect copyright holders it protects copyright protection technology.


DCMA provides a civil remedy for a minimum of $200 per act for removing DRM regardless of actual damages. Criminal charges can be brought for distributing DRM circumvention technology.


This encourages situations where digital media can be used on one brand and not another. i.e. Kindle vs. Nook vs. iBooks.


In the case of computer software it can require you to be connected to the internet (for the purpose of data collection) whether an internet connection is otherwise required or not. This happened to me with a software package I ultimately wrote off because the computer I was using it on was not routinely connected to the internet. The copyright protection kept unauthorizing its use. And no this was not labeled on the box or anywhere in their license agreement on the disc.


In computer games it is not uncommon to find that a copyright protection technology prevents some consumers from using the software they have purchased.


There is little to no provisions in DCMA to protect consumers from copyright technology.

Inspired Scribe
kamas716
Posts: 1,467
Registered: ‎09-28-2011
0 Kudos

Re: Hard/soft cover books you already own.

Well, we've gotten a little off topic.DRM doesn't prevent piracy, it only makes it harder (possilby illegal) for readers to read their "software licenses" (eBooks) on whatever device they want. 

 

As for the number of hits a bit torrent site gets, that doesn't necessarily mean it's a lost sale.  Certainly some are lost sales, but there are others who are downloading it only because it's free and wouldn't ever purchase a copy, even at half the price.  Also, just because a bit torrent file was downloaded doesn't mean it was actually read.  There are lots of people who are collectors, getting stuff and never using it.

 

As for the original question, I think it's a little presumptuous for someone to think they should get a free eBook just because they have a DTB sitting on a shelf.  I do think it would be in the publisher's best interest to start bundling DTB and eBooks.

http://www.goodreads.com/kamas716
Distinguished Bibliophile
keriflur
Posts: 6,552
Registered: ‎01-05-2010
0 Kudos

Re: Hard/soft cover books you already own.


kamas716 wrote:

As for the number of hits a bit torrent site gets, that doesn't necessarily mean it's a lost sale.  Certainly some are lost sales, but there are others who are downloading it only because it's free and wouldn't ever purchase a copy, even at half the price.  Also, just because a bit torrent file was downloaded doesn't mean it was actually read.  There are lots of people who are collectors, getting stuff and never using it.


Theft is still theft regardless of whether the book is read.  That's like saying if I steal a painting and keep it in my closet, it's not really a theft because I'm not hanging it on my wall.

 

And whether they would have bought it irrelevant also.  Again, same painting.  Does it really matter if I would have bought it?  I'm still a thief if I steal it.

 

IMO people who steal things they don't use, especally things they can afford to buy, aren't collectors, they're kleptos.

 

Distinguished Bibliophile
roustabout
Posts: 3,609
Registered: ‎03-31-2011
0 Kudos

Re: Hard/soft cover books you already own.

[ Edited ]

excellent point about leaks to bittorrent not necessarily cannibalizing sales.  Some in the music industry have been quietly observing this as well.  

 

I do think that the tradition of publishing and reading - letting 'trusted' reviewers have pre-press galleys for review purposes - being undermined like this obviously is disappointing.  

 

And yes, DMCA and its provisions are entirely different from the original question, about links to ebook rights via DTB purchases.

 

That last is a decision that the rightsholder makes.  

 

Baen used to link them explicitly, but I don't know of other publishers who did.   Authors rarely are able to make that decision if they're working with a large publisher, though there are exceptions.   

"no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution.
Distinguished Scribe
Sun_Cat
Posts: 788
Registered: ‎12-03-2011
0 Kudos

Re: Hard/soft cover books you already own.


keriflur wrote:

kamas716 wrote:

As for the number of hits a bit torrent site gets, that doesn't necessarily mean it's a lost sale.  Certainly some are lost sales, but there are others who are downloading it only because it's free and wouldn't ever purchase a copy, even at half the price.  Also, just because a bit torrent file was downloaded doesn't mean it was actually read.  There are lots of people who are collectors, getting stuff and never using it.


Theft is still theft regardless of whether the book is read.  That's like saying if I steal a painting and keep it in my closet, it's not really a theft because I'm not hanging it on my wall.

 

And whether they would have bought it irrelevant also.  Again, same painting.  Does it really matter if I would have bought it?  I'm still a thief if I steal it.

 

IMO people who steal things they don't use, especally things they can afford to buy, aren't collectors, they're kleptos.

 


I'm not condoning ebook piracy, but I have to say that your analogy is flawed. In the case of a stolen painting, the rightful owner has lost the enjoyment and use of asset, including the right to sell it. In the case of an ebook theft that does not represent a lost sale, the rightful owner has lost nothing. It's still theft, but it's hard to see where anyone is harmed in this individual case. Of course, that leaves out considerations about condoning and encouraging piracy in general and acts of theft that would represent a lost sale.

Please visit me on Goodreads. Currently reading:
Journey Into Now by Leonard Jacobson
Distinguished Bibliophile
keriflur
Posts: 6,552
Registered: ‎01-05-2010
0 Kudos

Re: Hard/soft cover books you already own.


Sun_Cat wrote:

keriflur wrote:

kamas716 wrote:

As for the number of hits a bit torrent site gets, that doesn't necessarily mean it's a lost sale.  Certainly some are lost sales, but there are others who are downloading it only because it's free and wouldn't ever purchase a copy, even at half the price.  Also, just because a bit torrent file was downloaded doesn't mean it was actually read.  There are lots of people who are collectors, getting stuff and never using it.


Theft is still theft regardless of whether the book is read.  That's like saying if I steal a painting and keep it in my closet, it's not really a theft because I'm not hanging it on my wall.

 

And whether they would have bought it irrelevant also.  Again, same painting.  Does it really matter if I would have bought it?  I'm still a thief if I steal it.

 

IMO people who steal things they don't use, especally things they can afford to buy, aren't collectors, they're kleptos.

 


I'm not condoning ebook piracy, but I have to say that your analogy is flawed. In the case of a stolen painting, the rightful owner has lost the enjoyment and use of asset, including the right to sell it. In the case of an ebook theft that does not represent a lost sale, the rightful owner has lost nothing. It's still theft, but it's hard to see where anyone is harmed in this individual case. Of course, that leaves out considerations about condoning and encouraging piracy in general and acts of theft that would represent a lost sale.


The rightful owner has lost the meaning of their rights.

Distinguished Scribe
Sun_Cat
Posts: 788
Registered: ‎12-03-2011
0 Kudos

Re: Hard/soft cover books you already own.


keriflur wrote:

Sun_Cat wrote:

keriflur wrote:

kamas716 wrote:

As for the number of hits a bit torrent site gets, that doesn't necessarily mean it's a lost sale.  Certainly some are lost sales, but there are others who are downloading it only because it's free and wouldn't ever purchase a copy, even at half the price.  Also, just because a bit torrent file was downloaded doesn't mean it was actually read.  There are lots of people who are collectors, getting stuff and never using it.


Theft is still theft regardless of whether the book is read.  That's like saying if I steal a painting and keep it in my closet, it's not really a theft because I'm not hanging it on my wall.

 

And whether they would have bought it irrelevant also.  Again, same painting.  Does it really matter if I would have bought it?  I'm still a thief if I steal it.

 

IMO people who steal things they don't use, especally things they can afford to buy, aren't collectors, they're kleptos.

 


I'm not condoning ebook piracy, but I have to say that your analogy is flawed. In the case of a stolen painting, the rightful owner has lost the enjoyment and use of asset, including the right to sell it. In the case of an ebook theft that does not represent a lost sale, the rightful owner has lost nothing. It's still theft, but it's hard to see where anyone is harmed in this individual case. Of course, that leaves out considerations about condoning and encouraging piracy in general and acts of theft that would represent a lost sale.


The rightful owner has lost the meaning of their rights.


Yes, but it's the pirate who stripped the DRM and uploaded the torrent who robbed the owner of those rights. The individual thief who downloads the torrent and leaves the ebook languishing unread on their hard drive has stolen nothing of value.

 

Please visit me on Goodreads. Currently reading:
Journey Into Now by Leonard Jacobson
Distinguished Bibliophile
keriflur
Posts: 6,552
Registered: ‎01-05-2010

Re: Hard/soft cover books you already own.


Sun_Cat wrote:

keriflur wrote:

Sun_Cat wrote:

keriflur wrote:

kamas716 wrote:

As for the number of hits a bit torrent site gets, that doesn't necessarily mean it's a lost sale.  Certainly some are lost sales, but there are others who are downloading it only because it's free and wouldn't ever purchase a copy, even at half the price.  Also, just because a bit torrent file was downloaded doesn't mean it was actually read.  There are lots of people who are collectors, getting stuff and never using it.


Theft is still theft regardless of whether the book is read.  That's like saying if I steal a painting and keep it in my closet, it's not really a theft because I'm not hanging it on my wall.

 

And whether they would have bought it irrelevant also.  Again, same painting.  Does it really matter if I would have bought it?  I'm still a thief if I steal it.

 

IMO people who steal things they don't use, especally things they can afford to buy, aren't collectors, they're kleptos.

 


I'm not condoning ebook piracy, but I have to say that your analogy is flawed. In the case of a stolen painting, the rightful owner has lost the enjoyment and use of asset, including the right to sell it. In the case of an ebook theft that does not represent a lost sale, the rightful owner has lost nothing. It's still theft, but it's hard to see where anyone is harmed in this individual case. Of course, that leaves out considerations about condoning and encouraging piracy in general and acts of theft that would represent a lost sale.


The rightful owner has lost the meaning of their rights.


Yes, but it's the pirate who stripped the DRM and uploaded the torrent who robbed the owner of those rights. The individual thief who downloads the torrent and leaves the ebook languishing unread on their hard drive has stolen nothing of value.

 


They have stolen the author's intellectual property.  The idea that that is nothing of value is part of the problem.

Distinguished Scribe
Sun_Cat
Posts: 788
Registered: ‎12-03-2011

Re: Hard/soft cover books you already own.


keriflur wrote:

Sun_Cat wrote:

keriflur wrote:

Sun_Cat wrote:

keriflur wrote:

kamas716 wrote:

As for the number of hits a bit torrent site gets, that doesn't necessarily mean it's a lost sale.  Certainly some are lost sales, but there are others who are downloading it only because it's free and wouldn't ever purchase a copy, even at half the price.  Also, just because a bit torrent file was downloaded doesn't mean it was actually read.  There are lots of people who are collectors, getting stuff and never using it.


Theft is still theft regardless of whether the book is read.  That's like saying if I steal a painting and keep it in my closet, it's not really a theft because I'm not hanging it on my wall.

 

And whether they would have bought it irrelevant also.  Again, same painting.  Does it really matter if I would have bought it?  I'm still a thief if I steal it.

 

IMO people who steal things they don't use, especally things they can afford to buy, aren't collectors, they're kleptos.

 


I'm not condoning ebook piracy, but I have to say that your analogy is flawed. In the case of a stolen painting, the rightful owner has lost the enjoyment and use of asset, including the right to sell it. In the case of an ebook theft that does not represent a lost sale, the rightful owner has lost nothing. It's still theft, but it's hard to see where anyone is harmed in this individual case. Of course, that leaves out considerations about condoning and encouraging piracy in general and acts of theft that would represent a lost sale.


The rightful owner has lost the meaning of their rights.


Yes, but it's the pirate who stripped the DRM and uploaded the torrent who robbed the owner of those rights. The individual thief who downloads the torrent and leaves the ebook languishing unread on their hard drive has stolen nothing of value.

 


They have stolen the author's intellectual property.  The idea that that is nothing of value is part of the problem.


I'm just amplifying the original comment by kamas716 that not all torrent downloads represent lost sales. That's the only context in which I intend these remarks. I think it's clear that a torrent download that does not represent a lost sale hasn't cost the author anything concrete. I do still say, as I did before, that the whole act of stripping DRM, uploading and downloading does represent a theft of the author's intellectual property.

 

Isn't this the point in the discussion where I'm supposed to question your credentials? :catlol:

Please visit me on Goodreads. Currently reading:
Journey Into Now by Leonard Jacobson
Distinguished Bibliophile
keriflur
Posts: 6,552
Registered: ‎01-05-2010

Re: Hard/soft cover books you already own.


Sun_Cat wrote:
Isn't this the point in the discussion where I'm supposed to question your credentials? :catlol:

I must admit I am not a CEO.  *skulks off, embarrassed*  :smileywink:

Distinguished Bibliophile
roustabout
Posts: 3,609
Registered: ‎03-31-2011

Re: Hard/soft cover books you already own.

"I'm just amplifying the original comment by kamas716 that not all torrent downloads represent lost sales."

 

I think there is a valid point to be made - a different point - not about lost sales but about dilution of the idea of attaching intrinsic value to the effort involved in making a creative work.  

 

I think that's the point that Keri is making, that all artists lose a bit of the future value of all of their work when folks start valuing it less, squirreling it away to use or not use, and just not thinking about it.  

 

The counter from the music business is that in fact, some of the most pirated works are also some of the most profitable, and that there does seem to be a cause and effect relationship in some cases.   Not to loss of sales, but to better sales.  

 

Price points are very important, and one way to get away from where we are now on price points is to admit that the publishing industry imposes a huge amount of overhead unrelated to literary work, except as far as you consider advertising copy to be literary work.   

"no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution.