Missing titles in bestsellers list

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by kezza

They come from very dedicated people with scanners and a lot of time.

aka "criminals"

[astra]

Originally Posted by HarryT

aka "criminals"

I would not call them criminals.
If not for their dedication, our eInk readers would have lost in value and many would not even consider buying them.

[kezza]

Originally Posted by astra_lestat

I would not call them criminals.
If not for their dedication, our eInk readers would have lost in value and many would not even consider buying them.

And as far as I'm concerned, owning an electronic copy of something you own in a physical form isn't illegal.
If the publishers and authors don't want their books to be sold electronically, they essentially consent to piracy.

[cmbs]

Originally Posted by kezza

If the publishers and authors don't want their books to be sold electronically, they essentially consent to piracy.

That is absolute nonsense designed to make you feel better about doing something illegal.

In my humble opinion, of course.

[astra]

Originally Posted by cmbs

That is absolute nonsense designed to make you feel better about doing something illegal.

In my humble opinion, of course.

Do you like to read fantasy?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

aka "criminals"

Is distributing a scanned book worse then distributing a code so people can steal $50 worth of eBooks?

[HarryT]

If Sony deliberately leaked that coupon code, then it's not "stealing", is it? If it was only intended for new purchasers then, as I commented in the original thread on the subject, I personally considering it little short of theft (and certainly fraud) to use it.

[kezza]

Originally Posted by cmbs

That is absolute nonsense designed to make you feel better about doing something illegal.

In my humble opinion, of course.

Like I said, I don't see having a digital copy of a book I own in paper form as illegal. Anything beyond that you're assuming I do, without even bothering to ask.

[cmbs]

Originally Posted by kezza

Like I said, I don't see having a digital copy of a book I own in paper form as illegal. Anything beyond that you're assuming I do, without even bothering to ask.

Well, having an illegal digital copy of a book you own in paper form is illegal, regardless of your opinion of it. Your opinion has nothing to do with the law. Perhaps you don't see it as illegal because you're busy telling yourself lies to comfort your guilty conscience?

If you don't have any illegal digital books, then you're right, I have the wrong impression, and I apologize.

And as far as I'm concerned, owning an electronic copy of something you own in a physical form isn't illegal.
If the publishers and authors don't want their books to be sold electronically, they essentially consent to piracy.

That is your comment I was responding to. Again, your opinion has nothing to do with the law. Your statement that publishers are consenting to piracy by not selling electronic versions is nonsense, and it sounds like the self-comforting, why-it's-ok-for-me-to-break-the-law type to me. If you're not doing anything illegal, you certainly seem to be defending or supportive of those who do.

They come from very dedicated people with scanners and a lot of time.

That comment strengthens the impression, it sounds an awful lot like praise of lawbreakers.

So are you saying you do, or do not, have digital books that the law would consider to be illegal?

[acemccloudxx]

I do not believe, cmbs, that the law is quite as cut and dried as you seem to believe that it is. Specifically, you seem to be ignoring the concept of "fair use" which gives buyers rights to make use of what they bought, and not necessarily in ways that the creator of that material would approve of.

I do not believe that it has been conclusively determined whether or not possession of a digital scan of a book that you own is or is not acceptable fair use. If you can provide a reference that shows otherwise, I would like to see it, otherwise, I believe that you are incorrect.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by acemccloudxx

I do not believe, cmbs, that the law is quite as cut and dried as you seem to believe that it is. Specifically, you seem to be ignoring the concept of "fair use" which gives buyers rights to make use of what they bought, and not necessarily in ways that the creator of that material would approve of.

I do not believe that it has been conclusively determined whether or not possession of a digital scan of a book that you own is or is not acceptable fair use. If you can provide a reference that shows otherwise, I would like to see it, otherwise, I believe that you are incorrect.

Scanning a book yourself may be "fair use", depending where you live (it is not permitted in the UK, for example). Downloading a copy of a book from the internet is, in most countries, not fair use, even though the end result might be the same - you end up with a scanned copy of the book.

You'll need to make up your own mind whether you consider it "immoral" to download a book that you've bought a paper version of, but for most of us it certainly isn't legal. I don't regard it as moral myself, but I know that many people (whom I completely respect) do.

[cmbs]

Originally Posted by acemccloudxx

I do not believe, cmbs, that the law is quite as cut and dried as you seem to believe that it is. Specifically, you seem to be ignoring the concept of "fair use" which gives buyers rights to make use of what they bought, and not necessarily in ways that the creator of that material would approve of.

I do not believe that it has been conclusively determined whether or not possession of a digital scan of a book that you own is or is not acceptable fair use. If you can provide a reference that shows otherwise, I would like to see it, otherwise, I believe that you are incorrect.

Ok. It's immediately obvious that you have never read any legal documents to learn about and understand what Fair Use is. I'd bet you've been getting your information from someone either ignorant or purposely misleading you to make their illegal activities seem ok. I have seen MANY websites with "Fair Use Disclaimers" and it's complete nonsense. Try getting on a legitimate website and learning what Fair Use really is. Because this type of response just proves your ignorance.

And I specifically called the digital versions illegal: if you have any illegal versions, that is illegal, regardless of your opinion. So really, not only are you ignorant of a law you're preaching about (and using to defend illegal activities) but you don't even read the post thoroughly.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by cmbs

And I specifically called the digital versions illegal: if you have any illegal versions, that is illegal, regardless of your opinion. So really, not only are you ignorant of a law you're preaching about (and using to defend illegal activities) but you don't even read the post thoroughly.

Could you please define what "illegal version" means and give pointers to the law that treats this? I am interested in reading these laws but find it hard to find exactly what people are referring to.

[astra]

Originally Posted by cmbs

So really, not only are you ignorant of a law you're preaching about (and using to defend illegal activities) but you don't even read the post thoroughly.

Why do you care?

Are you a policeman?
Working for government?
Are you a writer?
Are you a publisher?
Are you a lawer?

Just curious

[cmbs]

Originally Posted by tompe

Could you please define what "illegal version" means and give pointers to the law that treats this? I am interested in reading these laws but find it hard to find exactly what people are referring to.

This is the US Copyright Office website. You can learn about Fair Use and other copyright laws there. But of course you are not a US citizen, so your laws may be different.

http://www.copyright.gov/

I'll tell you this: Fair Use never allows the use of an entire work, and it never allows use for entertainment purposes. So all claims of Fair Use on all these sites with illegal music, etc, is absolute nonsense.

As far as creating a copy of something you own, for your own use, WITHOUT DISTRIBUTING, I think that's legal in the US, unless the copyright holder has applied different terms of use. Terms of Use are legally binding. So, for example, if an author specifically states that you are not to make digital copies, then it'd be illegal for you to do so.

I am of course talking about United States laws. I live in the US, I have never researched laws of other countries, I have no reason to.