Fair Use?

[HamsterRage]

OK, so I'm new to eReaders and I have to say that I'm done with hardcopy books (at least stuff like novels) for good. eBooks are just much easier to deal with than paper.

Here's the thing though. I've got a couple of books that I bought in paperback but hadn't gotten to before I bought my eReader. Also, my wife is still reading books on paper so if we're both going to read a particular book, then we'll have to buy it in paper for her.

So the question is: What does everyone think the ethics are of downloading ebook copies of books you already own on paper from P2P networks like BitTorrent?

[Iphinome]

Ethically people are split, I consider is fine personally since you can legally scan the book and put it on your reader what's the difference in the end if you save time by downloading instead. The publishers and the law tend to disagree though.

[GeoffC]

ethics are one thing - be it on your own conscience - ; the quality of the books you download via BTorrent might be another thing entirely. from what comments I've read these are often scanned and then poorly OCR'd.

[mr ploppy]

It depends how popular the book is. Most of the books that are downloaded from such places never get read, but the ones that are read get proofed, fixed and re-uploaded. Which is more than you can say for the commercial ebooks.

[sunnysmiles]

I have thought long and deep about this issue . I still have not made up my mind. I think the price of ebooks have to come down, publishers cannot justify their prices . I also find it very annoying that their are books I want to buy but cannot due to restrictions . If I buy a physical book that book actually belongs to me; Whereas If I buy an ebook im only getting an licence That is wrong .

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

ethics are one thing - be it on your own conscience - ; the quality of the books you download via BTorrent might be another thing entirely. from what comments I've read these are often scanned and then poorly OCR'd.

Depends. I know someone who's big into file sharing and I've seen some pretty bad stuff, but on the other hand some have been better quality than books I've purchased.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HamsterRage

So the question is: What does everyone think the ethics are of downloading ebook copies of books you already own on paper from P2P networks like BitTorrent?

This has been discussed on here quite a few times.

Here's a couple things to think about. In some countries, you can legally scan your paper books and make your own digital copies. There's really no difference between doing that and downloading ones that somebody else scanned. It's the same result.

Technically, whether or not you legally own a paper copy of the book, the person you are downloading the eBook from probably does not have permission to distribute it to anybody. That's where the copyright infringement comes into play. The uploader is not authorized.

One last thing, as long as you are not further distributing copies of this to other people, and anything you download is just for your own use... why would anyone care, and how would anyone ever find out?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

I've read these are often scanned and then poorly OCR'd.

So are many commercial eBooks.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by sunnysmiles

If I buy a physical book that book actually belongs to me; Whereas If I buy an ebook im only getting an licence That is wrong .

Depends on what country you're in. In some of them, if the sale did not clearly state it was only a license (which few, if any, of them do), then you own that ebook just as you would own the pbook.

[Sydney's Mom]

Another thing you might want to think about is the hassle factor. Lawsuits have been filed seeking recompense for downloading a single movie. I would not want to be caught in the middle of a crackdown by downloading books from filesharing sites. BTorrent might be the first place hungry plaintiffs lawyers look. Since you can find most ebooks either for sale or at your public library, you might think twice before you go to BTorrent.
JMHO

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Sydney's Mom

Another thing you might want to think about is the hassle factor. Lawsuits have been filed seeking recompense for downloading a single movie.

I have never seen a filesharing lawsuit for downloading, only for uploading.

[Sydney's Mom]

I have heard of a lawfirm that sends out a notice to people who have downloaded from a certain site. They will drop the suit if you pay $2500, cash, check or credit card. I will see if I can find the source again - I read a lot of legal publications, and it was in one of them.

[Sydney's Mom]

Here 'tis:

New litigation campaign quietly targets tens of thousands of movie downloaders
Tue Mar 30, 2010 @ 10:29AM PST
By Eriq Gardner

EXCLUSIVE: In what may be a sign of things to come, more than 20,000 individual movie torrent downloaders have been sued in the past few weeks in Washington D.C. federal court for copyright infringement. A handful of cases have already settled, and those that haven't are creating some havoc for major ISPs.

The lawsuits were filed by an enterprising D.C.-based venture, the US Copyright Group, on behalf of an ad hoc coalition of independent film producers. So far, five lawsuits have been filed against tens of thousands of alleged infringers of the films "Steam Experiment," "Far Cry," "Uncross the Stars," "Gray Man" and "Call of the Wild 3D." Here's an example of one of the lawsuits -- over Uwe Boll's "Far Cry."

Another lawsuit targeting 30,000 more torrent downloaders on five more films is forthcoming, we're told, and all this could be a test run that opens up the floodgates to massive litigation against the millions of individuals who use BitTorrent to download movies.


The genesis of this legal campaign occurred in Germany when lawyers from the US Copyright Group were introduced to a new proprietary technology by German-based Guardaley IT that allows for real-time monitoring of movie downloads on torrents. According to Thomas Dunlap, a lawyer at the firm, the program captures IP addresses based on the time stamp that a download has occurred and then checks against a spreadsheet to make sure the downloading content is the copyright protected film and not a misnamed film or trailer.

For the past couple of years, using the technology, content producers have been taking to German and UK courts to identify and sue pirates using torrents. Jeffrey Weaver, another lawyer at the firm, claims those efforts have been successful. One example cited is a limited-release German film whose producers recovered $800,000 through litigation. Gurdalay and its German lawyers agreed to let the US Copyright Group try out the system in the United States, where BitTorrent users have gotten a pass up until now.

Before doing so, however, Dunlap talked with the IFTA, which wouldn't explicitly endorse the litigation. Dunlap also talked with the MPAA and other big studios, which expressed interest but wanted to see proof that ISPs would be cooperative. And so, in the past few weeks on behalf of some low-key indie films, the first lawsuits were filed.

"We're creating a revenue stream and monetizing the equivalent of an alternative distribution channel," says Weaver.

Right now, there may be three big reasons why the movie industry hasn't been more aggressive against individual pirates.

First, there may still be lingering debates about the general wisdom of a strategy that targets individuals rather than the technology companies that make infringement possible. In December, 2008, after suing some 35,000 individuals, the RIAA announced it was abandoning mass litigation against individual song pirates. Many believed the campaign to be a PR disaster.

Second, there are tricky issues involving technology and liability. BitTorrent users only receive and host small packets of data at a single time. In addition, there are questions about IP addresses being an identifier of a pirate since users can steal or borrow another's IP address to commit file infringement.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, ISPs present a roadblock as they are less than enthusiastic about turning off customers by handing over sensitive information to copyright holders.

To get past ISPs, a copyright holder needs to file a "John Doe" case and get a court to issue a subpoena that orders the ISP to hand over information. This can be costly. According to Dunlap, ISPs are charging $32 to $60 for each IP address account requested. ISPs cite the cost of notifying the account holder and giving them opportunity to file a motion to quash the subpoena.

When the U.S. Copyright Group filed its recent lawsuits and approached AT&T and other ISPs for account information, the lawyers say they were stunned at the reaction. "Their subpoena compliance group said, 'We thought we had shut this (approach) down with the MPAA before,'" says Dunlap.

The difference between the MPAA's past approach and the new one being offered by the US Copyright Group could come down to numbers. Weaver says the MPAA took a less targeted approach going after a smaller sampling of infringers in a single suit for multiple films, to send a message that would hopefully resonate to a much larger crowd. In contrast, Dunlap and his partners are using the new monitoring technology to go after tens of thousands of infringers at a time on a contingency basis in hopes of coming up with the right cost-benefit incentive to pursue individual pirates. The firm is following in the footsteps of lawyers in the UK who have crafted a business out of being IP cops.

So far, the US Copyright Group says that one ISP has cooperated, handing over 71 names and addresses. These individuals will be sent settlement offers. Eight of those cases have already settled. The other less cooperative ISPs are in the midst of fighting in court or reaching out to their respective customers.

The US Copyright Group plans to issue a press release soon touting the success of this program. The lawyers are also traveling to the Festival de Cannes in May with hopes of convincing other producers -- and perhaps major studios -- to try their luck suing hundreds of thousands of pirates.

[Kali Yuga]

Well, think of it this way.

Assuming the book in question is still under copyright: Whoever put the file online did not have permission or the legal right to share it.

As such, it's a "fruit of the poisoned tree" situation. Even if you could construct a moral or legal right, you're still supporting an illegal use of a distribution system.

As to "do you have the right," it's equivalent to owning a vinyl record or a VHS tape; just because you bought the item in one format, when you purchased it no one granted or guaranteed you the right to a free copy in a future format.

And unlike records or tapes, with books you don't need an intermediary device -- i.e. your books are not rendered obsolete or useless. The only reason why you're even contemplating this is basically out of convenience, which IMO is not a particularly strong ethical position.

I wouldn't say this is a "huge" moral dilemma, and chances of you getting busted are extremely small. Still, I say just read the paperbacks you bought. It won't kill you to use paper a few more times, and morally you'll be 100% in the clear.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

I have never seen a filesharing lawsuit for downloading, only for uploading.

They wouldn't need to prove that you uploaded it, only that you made it available for downloading. You can't download from Bittorrent without doing that, as soon as you have a bit of it that bit will be uploaded to someone else.

In the UK there is big business in sending out letters demanding money for alleged copyright infringement after your IP has been "caught" downloading through BT.

http://beingthreatened.yolasite.com/

See also:

http://torrentfreak.com/piracy-will-...office-100530/

They already have 5,000 IP addresses ready to roll, and are planning at least another 5,000 after that. I don't know about you, but I have never seen anything on BT with 10,000 seeders.