Quote:
Originally Posted by jgaiser
Something has bothered me for a long time. Why is it ethical to buy a used book which provides neither the author or the publisher with a penny, but it's unethical to pull a book off the darknet?
Yes, I know there is an actual physical object that changes hands as used and the former owner no longer has it in his/her hand, but either way the publisher/author loses. I purchase the physical object, but the Intellectual Property is the same as what is obtained on the darknet.
I'm not advocating pirating. I'm just trying to understand why one is alright and one is unethical. Shouldn't we be not purchasing used books as we are depriving folks out of income?
|
This is very well established in law. It's called the
doctrine of first sale.
When you buy a book from the publisher you are not "renting" or "licensing" the right to read it - you're buying the book which you can read in perpetuity for the rest of your life, so long as you continue to own the book. If you sell the book, you transfer that right. If you sell the book you deprive yourself of the right to read the book, and you must buy another copy if you wan to read it again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparrow
I'm just wondering if you'd think someone who brought a Van Gogh painting at auction would be entitled to destroy it if they wished?
I think maybe you'd say they were, but perhaps I've misunderstood.
|
I'm not sure if I'm following your argument correctly, but even if you were to destroy the Van Gough, this is not analogous to the publisher taking the book off the market or allowing it to go out of print.
If the publisher takes the book off the market or allows it to go out of print, they only do so for the duration of copyright - they're not destroying every copy of the book. Once the copyright expires anyone can make copies of the book, and the work of art is returned to the public.