What are your views on illegal copying?

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I don't call it illegal copying, I call it theft because we have to look at things differently in the Digital age.

I don't like the choices very much either. I think the same concepts should apply to digital as to print. If you make a copy for your own uses without giving it away or sharing with others, then all it's fine. If you "distribute" it to someone else, then it's not. It's boils down to an author's (creator's) rights to me.

NOT if I already own a dead-tree copy and the publisher refuses to release an electronic version. Sorry, but it is my right to make an electronic copy for my personal use. Note that I did NOT say that I have the right to make a copy and distribute it to others.

I, and I think this is true for many e-reader owners, *want* to be able to buy legal e-books that put money in the authors' pockets. And if the publisher fails to make this possible, then it is the publishers who've failed their authors, not me. Making an electronic copy in such situations is not theft, it's merely allowing me to re-read, and enjoy again, an author's work - in a format that I find preferable.

Derek

[jamesbeat]

I think that if the attitudes of consumers is to change, then the attitudes of publishers must change.
The publishers seem to think that ebooks are some kind of gold mine. The amount they charge for them is insulting, given the fact that they don't have the printing and distribution costs associated with paper books.
I think that the publishers are behaving the way they are because before long, their business model will no longer work.
A new technology has come along that will render conventional publishing obsolete, and publishers are attempting to buck the trend.

Before digital media existed, authors had no choice but to use a publisher simply because authors generally don't have printing presses and distribution networks.
We, as owners of ereading devices, are very much the early adopters of a technology that will one day become ubiquitous. In the not too distant future, printing presses will be relegated to a role similar to that of vinyl record presses, ie. an obsolete technology that still has some specialized use.

Publishers know all of this and are desperately trying to resist the change, just like the music industry did. High prices do not work for digital books, and DRM is an insult to consumers that have paid those high prices.

There is nothing whatsoever that publishers can do to prevent piracy. Nobody feels sorry for them.
Many of us feel sorry for the authors who's works are being pirated, but I doubt there is much sympathy for the publishers.

Ebook technology has given both readers and authors a means to sidestep the greedy middle man and deal with each other directly. In the end, the only people who will lose out are the publishers.

If they want to save their business, they should stop trying to drag their heels and reinvent themselves. They need to realize that the printing side of their businesses will soon be obsolete and that their role is more that of an agent to the author.

With that in mind, I see the current arguments about copyright and the futile attempts to force consumers to 'be good' (DRM) as last ditch attempts to delay the inevitable.

If ebooks cost $0.01, nobody would pirate them, and if they cost $1000 nobody would pay for them. I think charging the same for an ebook as a print version actively encourages piracy. Why not sell them for $2 each, but with a minimum order of five books?

In a nutshell, I think what I'm trying to say is that the way publishers are behaving is practically begging people to pirate their books.
You can't stop people from pirating digital works, no matter what the law says or how well you try to copy- protect them.
The music industry has learned that if you make it easy and cheap for people, they will be more likely to spend money.

That doesn't necessarily mean that I think piracy is right, but I do think it is inevitable, and that the publishing industry is not doing itself any favors.

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

Interesting poll questions.

One option I don't see is "It's OK to copy a book so that I can use my already paid-for electronic version on a different (or incompatible) device." (For example stripping DRM so I can put a Kindle book on my Sony). I think that's an important omission because very few people will be opposed to that and so it helps show that there really is a continuum and that very few people are going to be always on one side or the other.

I also used to pirate books that I already owned when there was no legally available electronic copy. Though in many cases I later bought electronic editions when they became available.

Exactly what I tend to do! Just try and find any of the earlier "Shadowrun" books in ebook format. I *own* all of them in paperback, but they're getting worn out and I prefer e-books these days. Same is true for L. Neil Smith's "The Probability Broach" (which is so strange because they've e-booked "The Venus Belt" and "The American Zone" which come after that one) and "The Crystal Empire" - although TCE is coming out soon.

Plus, while I prefer my Kindles, I keep the Bookeen Cybook Gen3 around for those times when I'm out and about and there's a chance my e-reader will get ripped off. So, naturally, I strip the DRM from my Kindle purchases to read them on the Cybook.

Derek

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by GhostHawk

Ohhh and before you look down your nose at me. Wait till you've been disabled, unable to work for 10 years with virtually zero income. Wait till you've had to subsist on under 20k a year for 2 people, 4 cats and 2 birds. Walk a mile in my shoes before you give me that holier than thou stare.

Yes I'm a pirate, but not always by choice.

Y'know... *I'm* disabled and living on a fixed income. And even I don't buy that argument. First off, unless one of those pets is a service or seeing-eye dog, you can always give them away. Pets cost MONEY! Second, you talk about 20K/year with two people in the household - why can't person two hold a job? (Yes, person two could be disabled - this situation applies in my home - that isn't reason enough.)

No, I refuse to stoop to the "I'm disabled" argument. I *do* believe that if publishers fail to provide reasonably-priced ebook versions of their backlist titles to be sufficient reason to consider making my own copies - or downloading them. But as soon as I am able to buy them legally, I do so. And I let them know I want ebook versions.

Derek

[GhostHawk]

Originally Posted by dsvick

This is a big difference from stealing though which is what is you are doing if you find a copy of book that is otherwise intended to be purchased and you download it without paying for it.

This is where it starts getting really interesting.

Such as a book being in public domain in Canada, but not in the US.
Wrong? Right? Moral? Immoral?

Fair use laws more or less say that anything you legally own a copy of you can legally copy. Why shouldn't that apply to ebooks as well as other media?
So using that as a guide, is it wrong for me to go to the darknet to get ebook copies of all the pbooks I have in my collection?
There is no black and white here. And everyone who is so desperately
trying to keep it black and white are afraid of something.

The other thing that so many of you like to forget. Ultimately it is we the people who end up making the laws, directly or indirectly. What is perceived by the people as not being legal, yet not wrong, is often practiced openly.

Look at the states that have somewhat open medical Marijuana laws.
They don't see it as a crime, so often it is not enforced at all.
Eventually it will probably be legalized. After all its better to have it grown here, inspected, packaged and taxed than to have it smuggled across the border.

So to get back on subject.

Ben, my answer, all the above except #1. Because things change, what you feel for one book may not hold true for another. Some things are worth paying for. Some, if you can get them no other way, and you want them bad enough, are worth going to the dark nets for.

I should feel bad because some author didn't get his 60 - 90 cents.
Hey, times are tough all over. Should for example Dick Francis's son have the right to take dollars out of my pocket? After all he didn't do the work, he was just born into that situation. So why should I support him? His dad did the work, his son I'm sure already inherited his retirement home in the Cayman Islands. What more does he need?

There is no real question about the legality of it all. Like it or not that has been made pretty clear.

Where the question is, and hence all the debate, is where the morality of it lies. That is why its a loaded issue. That is why all the debate.
That answer will indeed be different for each person. And often that answer will change as a person situation changes.

[calvin-c]

Ridiculous choices as it's not the copying that's the problem, it's what you do with the copy. There are probably more options than I can think of right off, but the main two that come to mind are 'copying to media-shift' and 'copying to distribute'. IMO the first is OK, the second isn't, unless you either have permission or the work is in the public domain (in your jurisdiction-and even then you should take some precautions, be it simply a notice or otherwise, to limit distribution to those jurisdictions in which it is in public domain, or for which you have permission).

Obtaining a copy from others is, IMO, an 'accessory infraction' as in 'accessory to a crime'. (Although not all cases of obtaining a copy should constitute an 'infraction' but I don't feel like developing the potential cases in that much detail. But, at worst, I think that obtaining a copy isn't as serious as distributing a copy.)

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Not if one's viewpoint is simply that it's wrong to break the law.

I don't hold that view, I should add, but I know that it is a not uncommon viewpoint.

Yes, some people still hold to the view that "if it's written down that something is 'illegal/legal', everybody 'must/must not' do it". Yeah, right. So when Mayor Gavin Newsom of San Francisco makes it mandatory to throw demonstrably 'straight' babies off Golden Gate Bridge, we should all do so right? I don't *think* so!

Derek

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Does that mean you think gay sex was wrong for many years, and is now not-wrong? Is it wrong to be Christian in a country where it's forbidden? Was it wrong for the underground railroad to help slaves escape their legal owners?

Yes, it *IS* illegal to be Christian in those countries - subject of course to whether those 'filthy Christians' pay their dhimmi tax. (I've never understood why America is wrong for having once-in the past-been a slavery nation, but it's A-Okay for muslim countries to own slaves and impose dhimmi.)

And yes, it *was* a prosecutable crime ot help slaves to freedom. (Thank goodness slavery's no longer legal in the U.S.)

In many cases, laws are challenged by breaking them. If enough people don't have a problem with breaking a law, that shows that public opinion about "what is wrong" has shifted faster than the laws can change--or that the laws are controlled by people who have resources to promote their own interests, regardless of what the public believes.

I'm not saying "ebook sharing is okay;" just pointing out that "illegal = morally wrong" has some serious problems.

Black is White. Up is Down. Wrong is Right.

Derek

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by Kevin2960

Theft is theft, dress it up anyway you like, in the end we all have to live with how we act/behave,

Hunh??? So I take it you *always* buy a book, read it once and then throw it away? After carefully shredding it so no one else can read it, yes? Because once you've read it once, to read it again without re-purchasing it would be 'theft' yes?

Oh wait! But by purchasing the book you *own* it. Well, if you own it, then you have to right to enjoy it again - even in a different format, such as on tape or as an ebook. Let's say you have a favorite author whose books you read again and again. Let's say you discover you're going blind, so you have your spouse read the books, either onto a tape/CD or directly to you - you're now 'stealing' from the publisher and author because you didn't go out and buy those versions! And if you happen to learn braille, and you purchase a scanning system to translate from printed to braille, you're also 'stealing' from the author. How can you possibly justify that!

IOW, bullpuckey!

Sure, *if* a person has never purchased a dead-tree version and decides to download an ebook from the dark-net and refuses to buy the legal version, that *IS* theft. But to sweep every method of gaining an ebook version as 'theft' if it doesn't involve buying from the retailer is so stupifyingly simplistic as to boogle the mind!

It upsets me that people who moan at publishers cheating them ?, are then so happy to take from an author, without paying even a token amount ???

In the end we have to do what we believe is right, and I know what I truly believe,

[tompe]

Originally Posted by delphidb96

Sure, *if* a person has never purchased a dead-tree version and decides to download an ebook from the dark-net and refuses to buy the legal version, that *IS* theft.

No, it is copyright infringement.

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by tompe

No, it is copyright infringement.

Theft. Why? Because it's the exact same as going into a store and tucking a copy under one's jacket and walking out. The specific purpose is NOT to disseminate, but to avoid paying for it. Misdemeanor theft, but theft nonetheless.

Derek

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

I know you do, Kenny, but I was trying to canvas opinion using neutral language.

Then you'd of used the correct term, Unauthorised Copying.

Also, bluntly, anyone admitting such on a forum is being very very silly.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by Kevin2960

It is theft, someone loses out, it is wrong, but we still have to do what we believe is right

No, it is copyright infringement.

For example, if someone used a picture of a donkey which Disney owns the copyright to as their avatar, that's copyright infringement - it doesn't make them a thief.

Does it?

[Over]

Originally Posted by Katti's Cat

When is copying unlawful - if I finish a pBook I borrow it to a friend. That's ok, isn't it. When I finish an eBook and send it to friend it's not? Even though I paid the same amount for it? Hmm. Still confused.

That's how I thought, but we have to realize that we don't buy ebooks. We don't own ebooks. We buy a license to read them. We borrow ebooks.

And it's wrong to lend something you borrowed, right?

On the other hand, when someone "pirates" an ebook, he's not stealing an ebook. He's just reading without a licence. Diferent kind of illegality.

And because we don't own the ebooks, just licence them, we shouldn't have to pay for them as much (or more) as pbooks. A licence to read should be much cheaper than buying and owning a book.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by Over

That's how I thought, but we have to realize that we don't buy ebooks.

In the EU, you buy them. If it smells like a sale, looks like a sale and has a "purchase" button, it's a sale.