Okay, going down the line:
Quote:
Originally Posted by llasram
What do you mean by “wasn’t intended for you”?
|
That's easy: It means a product which the author intended to be sold for money, but which you obtained for free. That's my definition of wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by llasram
At least in the US copyright is explicitly recognized by the Constitution as a utilitarian construct. It exists to compensate creators by embedding their information product in the market economy by via legally mandated artificial scarcity. Because it’s a construct there have always been edge cases – it’s just that now technology is creating new edge cases faster than the law or our common-sense can keep up.
|
Saying "It's not stealing because the law hasn't gotten round to calling it stealing" doesn't mean it's right. This is false justification for such actions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by llasram
- Producing an e-book for personal use from a previously purchased p-book.
- Receiving without paying for an e-book edition of a previously purchased p-book.
- Receiving without paying for an e-book edition of an out-of-print work when used copies are difficult to come by.
- Receiving without paying for an e-book edition of an out-of-print work when used copies are plentiful.
- Receiving without paying for an e-book edition of an in-print work.
|
I don't have an issue with (1), assuming the e-book is made by the owner of the p-book, and it stays in their hands.
With (2), if the author agreed that the owner of a P-book was entitled to a free copy of the e-book, okay. However, that's not always the case. If you're expected to pay for it, you have to pay for it. No one expects that if they buy a hardback, they'll get a free paperback. The exact same issues apply.
(3), (4) and (5) are simply false justifications of the taking of a book, scarce in print form or not, and not paying for it. Unless that book is in public domain, or the legal producer of the e-book is willingly giving it away, not paying for it is wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by llasram
I don’t get the last line of reasoning there. The fact that – bereft of any other means of reading the book – you received a pirated e-book edition would lead the publisher to conclude that only e-book pirates are interested in that particular book?
|
No... it leads publishers to believe that they cannot make a profit from that book, because it has been pirated, and they will subsequently not release it. (This is not necessarily true, in fact, but true or not, it is the perception on the publisher's part.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by llasram
But if my analysis is correct then legal e-book availability has no impact on pirated e-book availability. The pirates get their kudos from scanning and OCRing p-books. In fact, my conclusion would be that the publishers should reduce piracy by “printing” solely e-books.  |
If they made e-books available in preferred formats and selling models, then yes, they'd be better off... they would not be pirated, because the legit copies were out there. There would still be theft, I'm sure, but a great deal of the "kudos"-based piracy would be reduced or removed.