Quote:
Originally Posted by bill_mchale
Here is a couple of thoughts on the original issue.
1. I think most of us agree (Except for those who ascribe to the information must be free philosophy) that downloading a copy of a book that you never paid for is illegal (except from a legitimate public library).
2. Most of us also agree that there would be no ethical issue with making a digital copy of said work from your own purchased physical copy via scanning (or if you are a masochist manually typing it yourself).
3. The original question converges on whether it is illegal to download a copy of a book that you own a physical copy of. In other words is it unethical to take that short cut since the copy is being distributed illegally?
I think there is another aspect to consider that might shed some light on the discussion. Lets say you bought a book in paperback and decided to make a copy of it? You determined that it was difficult to scan the paperback without damaging it so you go to the public library and find a hardback copy. Would it be unethical to use that edition to make your copy? I see it as something of a halfway point between what is surely ethical and what may not be ethical.
BTW, one last point... earlier the argument was made that downloading from the site in question encouraged the owner of the site. That might be so, but downloading without actually paying him will actually increase his costs.... In a weird way, to many people using him for free could actually force him to shut down... Kind of ironic huh? 
--
Bill |
I suspect the "morality" involved with self-scanning is not morality, but throwing roadblocks in the path. To do a good scan/OCR/copyproof of a book takes 24-40 hours of labor. Most people won't go to that level of work, and if a few misguided people do, well, as long as they don't make that labor available for free (i.e. by uploading it), the moralists can live with it. They can't do too many books anyways....