[axel77]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Anyone who downloads a copyrighted book is breaking the law. The question is how do you define the law. Here the idea is to define the law so that it can be enforced. The argument essentially is that since the 90% who already owns copies of the work receive minimal harm from not downloading said work, then it is more important to protect the copyright holders so that authors will continue to have incentive to produce works.

Simply, no, its not that simple.

Imagine following story. I and a friend of my own a legally bought paper copy of the hitchhikers guide to the galaxy, we both own an eReader device, I have a scanner he not. He tells me, he is going on a trip, and he wants to minimize his luggage, so he'd rather read the hitchhikers with his eReader. I scan it for him, and send him the pdf file per eMail.

Now where is the illegal part of that story? I consider thats pretty fair use all the way through from my feeling of morality. We both gave our tribute to Douglas Adams or his heirs and his publishers by buying the paper book, the paper is heavy we want to read it electronically, I use my scanner for a friend, because he has none.

Why shouldn't the law work that way? I know it is absolutely illegal to knowingly purchase and/or possess stolen property. Why should it not also be illegal to knowingly download that which you know was illegally uploaded?

Say somebody steals *my* 1000$ bike, I see him with my bike at the street, trying to sell it for 5 dollars. I'm sure he is gone when I call the police, so I just decide to let it be, and give him the 5 dollars to get my bike. I know it is stolen, and he still is a criminal, but its my right not to accuse if I don't have the muse to do so (its not idealistic to get people away with such, but its no necissity).

Now was it illegal to buy a stolen bike? If I owned it actually already?

I hope you get what this analogy wants to tell.