|
View Poll Results: Is the Darknet unethical when the book is out of print? | |||
Yes, using the darknet is unethical. | 41 | 19.71% | |
No, anything that is out of print is fair game. | 142 | 68.27% | |
Not sure. | 25 | 12.02% | |
Voters: 208. You may not vote on this poll |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
08-25-2010, 05:53 PM | #61 | |
Addict
Posts: 281
Karma: 52007
Join Date: Jun 2010
Device: nook
|
Quote:
|
|
08-25-2010, 06:02 PM | #62 |
Connoisseur
Posts: 98
Karma: 161
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Quebec, Canada
Device: PRS-600
|
I agree. Artistic/intellectual value of a text should prime over the financial aspect. It doesn't mean the authors shouldn't be fairly compensated. I just can't accept the publishers to remove any book because it doesn't make a return of (I just invent the percentage) 35% instead of 5-10% (what should be more than enough). In today's world (any activity), any profit that is less than 25-40% is considered as a loss. Helllooo!
|
Advert | |
|
08-25-2010, 06:02 PM | #63 |
Guru
Posts: 900
Karma: 779635
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: UK
Device: Kindle 3, iPad 2 (but not for e-books)
|
|
08-25-2010, 06:04 PM | #64 | |
Guru
Posts: 900
Karma: 779635
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: UK
Device: Kindle 3, iPad 2 (but not for e-books)
|
Quote:
|
|
08-25-2010, 06:06 PM | #65 |
Connoisseur
Posts: 98
Karma: 161
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Quebec, Canada
Device: PRS-600
|
|
Advert | |
|
08-25-2010, 06:12 PM | #66 | |
.
Posts: 3,408
Karma: 5647231
Join Date: Oct 2008
Device: never enough
|
Quote:
|
|
08-25-2010, 06:16 PM | #67 | |
Guru
Posts: 900
Karma: 779635
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: UK
Device: Kindle 3, iPad 2 (but not for e-books)
|
Quote:
I just googled some: Amazon.com: 3.83% Apple: 21.43% IBM: 14.39% |
|
08-25-2010, 06:19 PM | #68 |
.
Posts: 3,408
Karma: 5647231
Join Date: Oct 2008
Device: never enough
|
|
08-25-2010, 06:55 PM | #69 |
Zealot
Posts: 129
Karma: 11430
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: NC, USA
Device: my laptop
|
And I think the decision to not continue to publish is usually because the company feels they can't make any money or will lose money by printing more books. Anybody who's ever considering self-publishing physical books can relate to this. You have to sell a lot of books to break-even on even a small print run.
|
08-26-2010, 12:20 AM | #70 |
Evangelist
Posts: 435
Karma: 24326
Join Date: Jun 2010
Device: Kobo
|
I think what some people have being trying to say here is that a good guideline for "ethical" is to follow the Golden Rule. Basically, don't hurt others. If a book has gone out of print, then getting a copy off the Darknet doesn't hurt anyone. It's not a matter of entitlement, simply that you should be free to do what you want as long as you aren't hurting anyone.
|
08-26-2010, 12:43 AM | #71 |
DRM hater
Posts: 945
Karma: 2066176
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Michigan
Device: Nook ST glow, Kindle Voyage
|
The original intent of copyright law was as stated previously. Incentive for folks to create, to make a profit...then it was turned over to the public for the public good.
Then it was totally butchered to the current lifetime + 50...along with other changes to account for corporate "people" (you know...that have the same rights as people now apparently, except the bad parts). I can see extending it a bit beyond the 14+14 concept it started with...but 100+ years is ridiculous. As is the corporate loopholes. I don't have any ethical issues with downloading things not commercially available. With books I think I don't really have any ethical qualms about buying a physical copy at a used bookstore and downloading an ebook, either - IMO that's even better. Who am I depriving income of, then, really? Last edited by GreenMonkey; 08-26-2010 at 12:57 AM. |
08-26-2010, 12:52 AM | #72 | |
King of the Bongo Drums
Posts: 1,622
Karma: 5927225
Join Date: Feb 2009
Device: Excelsior! (Strange...)
|
Quote:
The purpose of the copyright law is to make more books available by increasing the likelihood that people who write books will make money doing so. A writer who does not offer his book for sale violates the intended functioning of the law, so he lacks any moral basis for asserting any rights granted by the law. |
|
08-26-2010, 03:39 AM | #73 |
Connoisseur
Posts: 83
Karma: 24
Join Date: Aug 2010
Device: Nook
|
|
08-26-2010, 09:39 PM | #74 |
Zealot
Posts: 104
Karma: 672100
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Device: Sony prs650, Boox M92, Samsung Slate 7
|
Reading pirated books is dangerous and will make you go blind. Don't do it!
Also, looking at photographs or videos of people enjoying copyright vio's is dangerous and should be banned. (Although it's not so bad if the people are seen to be frowning while "enjoying" the copyright violation.) |
08-26-2010, 09:42 PM | #75 |
Bookaholic
Posts: 14,391
Karma: 54969924
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Minnesota
Device: iPad Mini 4, AuraHD, iPhone XR +
|
Does a blind pirate wear two eye patches instead of one?
Last edited by AnemicOak; 08-26-2010 at 09:52 PM. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Unutterably Silly Is it unethical to be unethical? | Steven Lyle Jordan | Lounge | 47 | 09-12-2010 11:36 PM |