[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Okay, I'm going to just try to hit everything relevant here, then leave for the night. I have other things to do. So:

Originally Posted by tompe

I really do not get your resoning. Theft is problematic with electronic copies so it is bad to use these terms.

There's nothing problematic about an illegally obtained (that is to say, not authorized by the copyright owner) copy of a copywritten work, whether it is in print or electronic form.

Originally Posted by tompe

You seem to say that you consider people whose action is "fair use" to be criminals (morally) and that it is a pity that the authorities does not track them down.

By the letter of the law, yes. However, I believe in "fair use," which means for your own use. Not to share.

Originally Posted by tompe

The original scenario was that you owned the paper version of the content and then you got one copy from a friend and the friend only gave one electronic copy to you and to nobody else. The copy was obtained by scanning the book. Why do you not consider it theft if you scan your own book?

You didn't say YOU scanned YOUR book... you said HE scanned HIS book. And gave a COPY to you. That violates "fair use."

Originally Posted by Alisa

Firstly, I would appreciate if you would make some attempt at being civil.

You have no idea.

Originally Posted by Alisa

Secondly, I am not compensating the original person who scanned the book because they're not asking me to. They have a right to set the price of their labor. If they choose to set that at $0, then that's fine by me.

However, they do not have the right to scan a book copywritten in someone else's name, and give you a copy, if they weren't specifically authorized to do so by the copyright holder. It's immaterial what they charge... they didn't have the right to do it in the first place.

Originally Posted by Alisa

Thirdly, yes I actually would pay for the ebook if it became available. Please don't accuse me of being a liar. It's incredibly offensive.

So is insulting my intelligence (not that that's stopped anyone else around here...)

Originally Posted by bingle

Whoa. Hold on there. You're correct in stating that "Fair Use" isn't a law. It's a principle that allows exception to normal copyright law. It is NOT, however, an "excuse". The classic fair use exemptions relate to reviewers quoting a work, excerpting a work for educational purposes, critiquing a work, and parodying a work.

Yes, I am aware of that. We were discussing "fair use" as it is applied to making full copies of a copywritten work, for personal use. I did not mean to imply that "fair use" as it applies to the areas you mentioned, is an "excuse." I did mean to imply that it was applied to media copying later, and that was as an excuse to avoid prosecuting everyone who owned a tape recorder or VCR.

Originally Posted by tompe

What does "shouldn't be giving it to you" mean? I refuse to accept that if it is legal to give it to me that they shouldn't be doing it in the meaning that I do something morally wrong if I accept it.

I have stated more times than I care to recount, that the point here is that anyone who makes a copy of a copywritten work, to do anything with other than "fair use," has to have the express permission of the copyright holder first. It is not right for someone else to scan and OCR a copy of a JKR book to give (or sell) to you, morally or legally. Nor is it right for you to create a JKR e-book and do anything with it except read it yourself. That is "fair use."

If they have JKR's permission to resell her books as e-books, fine... buy one. If she says it's okay for people to create e-books of her books and give them away, fine... take one. If they do not have permission, they are violating her copyright, and if you take one of those e-books, you are morally and legally wrong.

Originally Posted by Penforhire

Steve, why use the example of downloading from iTunes, a commercial entity? Try any P2P network. They host a server, while not strictly legal in itself, that provides me a MP3 for a CD I own. Guess what? I'm clean-and-legal. Goes back to how bits have no memory. It does not matter that some scum-of-the-Earth posted it. If I have legal use of it then the transaction is clean and even ethical on my end.

Not even close. To use your own words:

"They host a server, while not strictly legal in itself"

That's because they have violated copyright laws in obtaining those files... they are illegal. If you download them, you are downloading illegally-obtained files. If you know that in advance, that means you're in the wrong. You are NOT clean-and-legal, you are an accomplice in theft.

One last thing: I'd like to draw everyone's attention to the poll of this thread. It might interest you to know that the voters for the first choice are outnumbered by 4-1 by the voters of the other 2 choices. Even in this thread, honesty wins the day.

Well... this has been fun! I'm going to dinner. Hasta luego!