[deleted], is it safe?

[ucfgrad93]

This stinks like a week old fish. No way would I trust that website.

[VydorScope]

Originally Posted by J. Strnad

You have to ask yourself, "Why would someone put time and money into creating a website and stealing content just to give me free books?" What a saint that person must be...well, except for the stealing content part.

There are some people who have a religious like belief that all information of any kind (including books) should be free to anyone. There are other people that just want to stick it to big companies (like book publishers) that they believe are destroying the free market. And so on, so in short there are people out there who will still steal stuff and give it away for free because they believe that is the right thing to do.

[Joseph R]

VydorScope

The argument is that it is not thievery because the bookstores and publishers are not physically "deprived" of a book, unlike what shoplifting would cause to a bookstore; you are, therefore, not stealing because you are not taking private property from someone or a business. Legally, thievery is depraving someone of a property or use of, without consent:

322.(1) Every one commits theft who fraudulently and without colour of right takes, or fraudulently and without colour of right converts to his use or to the use of another person, anything, whether animate or inanimate, with intent

(a) to deprive, temporarily or absolutely, the owner of it, or a person who has a special property or interest in it, of the thing or of his property or interest in it;

(b) to pledge it or deposit it as security;

(c) to part with it under a condition with respect to its return that the person who parts with it may be unable to perform; or

(d) to deal with it in such a manner that it cannot be restored in the condition in which it was at the time it was taken or converted.

Canadian Criminal Code (CCC)

Legally, they have an argument. They are not stealing, but committing "Copyright Infringement"; which part of Constitutional law, and not criminal law.

A search through the CCC give this tidbit:

Unauthorized recording of a movie

432. (1) A person who, without the consent of the theatre manager, records in a movie theatre a performance of a cinematographic work within the meaning of section 2 of the Copyright Act or its soundtrack

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than two years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Unauthorized recording for purpose of sale, etc.

(2) A person who, without the consent of the theatre manager, records in a movie theatre a performance of a cinematographic work within the meaning of section 2 of the Copyright Act or its soundtrack for the purpose of the sale, rental or other commercial distribution of a copy of the cinematographic work

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than five years; or

(b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The law only applies to movies, not music recordings nor books. Shows you which lobbies have more power in the Halls of Parliament.

[Joseph R]

Granted, that is not to say it is "right" to commit online piracy but the arguments used by trial lawyers from the big agencies, movie industry and music industry, (RIAA and MPAA in the USA) suing 12 year-old girls for millions of dollars certainly did not give theses lobbies a good light in the eyes on the public and the Magistrate.

I DO NOT condone piracy and I do pay for my books, music and movies, but yes, the actions of these lobbies made me DISGUSTED with big publishers and Hollywood and made me the explore more local artists encourage personally, either by meeting them face to face or buying theirs works at a local art gallery festival.

So yes, I admit it, I do not like Big Publishers and have a sense of pride in helping out an underdog; perhaps it is not rational for me to do so but like a member of the proletariat myself, I like to see that my money helps an artist personally and not a guy in suits and shows up with limos, gold watches and rented women.

[VydorScope]

Joseph

(see I can put your name in big an bold too! )

I posted the reality of what some people think, not my postion on it. It was asked "why would someone steal something and offer it for free" and I was aswering that question. I do not support stealing of any kind, and I really dont care what some lawyer calls stealing, the common man can answer that just fine.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by VydorScope

There are some people who have a religious like belief that all information of any kind (including books) should be free to anyone. There are other people that just want to stick it to big companies (like book publishers) that they believe are destroying the free market. And so on, so in short there are people out there who will still steal stuff and give it away for free because they believe that is the right thing to do.

Yes, but unlike the website mentioned at the top of this thread, those people do NOT ask for your credit card number.

The mindset exists; it's not at work here.

[VydorScope]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

Yes, but unlike the website mentioned at the top of this thread, those people do NOT ask for your credit card number.

The mindset exists; it's not at work here.

True, THIS site has different motives obviously.

[MissKittiness]

My impression was that MobileRead doesn't condone book piracy. How come the URL of this website is still visible, then? In similar threads that I've found, moderators edit the URL / site name away as soon as piracy is confirmed - which it has been.

[HarryT]

Moderator Notice
Thank you for pointing out this omission. Now suitably edited.