Using "alternative" sources to obtain books you already own?

[Lady Fitzgerald]

And the rationalization goes on. Sigh.

[Kurt]

as to the OP
the "darknet" has it purpose

that being said i have made mad searches for DRM free "backlists" of authors works to purchase again or to purchase anew and have come up completely empty - i have discovered through this search that authors have to sell their soul to get published and don't own their own works

i have aquired exactly one "free" darknet book that i actually read - aldous huxleys brave new world - the formatting was atrocious which made the reading less than pleasurable

i did download several others but deleted them all after a quick look at the formatting
maybe i'm doing it wrong and checking out the wrong places but it seems a waste of time and effort - both for me and the uploader

my ultimate conclusion after all this was - E-Reading ain't ready for prime-time (yeah, the publishers are winning)

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by Kurt

as to the OP
the "darknet" has it purpose

that being said i have made mad searches for DRM free "backlists" of authors works to purchase again or to purchase anew and have come up completely empty - i have discovered through this search that authors have to sell their soul to get published and don't own their own works

i have aquired exactly one "free" darknet book that i actually read - aldous huxleys brave new world - the formatting was atrocious which made the reading less than pleasurable

i did download several others but deleted them all after a quick look at the formatting
maybe i'm doing it wrong and checking out the wrong places but it seems a waste of time and effort - both for me and the uploader

my ultimate conclusion after all this was - E-Reading ain't ready for prime-time (yeah, the publishers are winning)

Can you lay your hands on a ton of titles? Sure. Now you *may* have to pay for most of them, but they're out there and ready to be read. (Personally I *like* the idea I can buy the latest e-title. I've got the de-DRMing tools and I know how to use them. )

Derek

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by delphidb96

Can you lay your hands on a ton of titles? Sure. Now you *may* have to pay for most of them, but they're out there and ready to be read. (Personally I *like* the idea I can buy the latest e-title. I've got the de-DRMing tools and I know how to use them. )

Derek

Given my personal reading interest, which is primarily 19th century novels, it's actually easier to find them (quite legally) on-line than it is in paper form. Eg, one of my favourite authors is Sir Henry Rider Haggard. He wrote more than 60 novels, but you'll probably only find two of them in a typical bookstore today: "King Solomon's Mines" and "She". But all his books are easily and legally available on-line. That what makes e-reading "worthwhile" for me.

[jhempel24]

I don't find it un-ethical at all to acquire a book in a digital format when I've already bought the paper book. In fact, I bet if that was offered to people, getting a free e-book with their hardcover purchase, I bet book sales would rise.

It's like saying I can't put my Cd's on my iPod because I payed for a CD and not a digital copy.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

My point was that stealing a container, and obtaining an illegal copy of the content, are not the same. I don't think that either the law, or morality has caught up with the shift to digital media, but clearly there is
a difference between taking a container with content in it, and taking a copy of the content only.

Two thoughts with respect to this.

1. Morality (as opposed to ethics), is not something I accept as a changeable thing. Something is either moral or it isn't.

2. The distinction between container and content, with regards to books, is a false one. Ultimately, it is the contents, not the container, that make the book valuable.

I agree that the law has not caught up with the digital age, but I think anyone who is expecting copyright to be essentially waived with respect to the darknet is probably sadly mistaken.

--
Bill

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Two thoughts with respect to this.

1. Morality (as opposed to ethics), is not something I accept as a changeable thing. Something is either moral or it isn't.

2. The distinction between container and content, with regards to books, is a false one. Ultimately, it is the contents, not the container, that make the book valuable.

I agree that the law has not caught up with the digital age, but I think anyone who is expecting copyright to be essentially waived with respect to the darknet is probably sadly mistaken.

--
Bill

Although you may not accept morality as a changeable thing, the fact is that it has changed considerably over time, and continues to do so. Take slavery for example, or votes for women, or racial prejudice. Views on these issues have changed a great deal in, say, 200 years. Underlying moral principles often remain pretty constant, but their application to a changing world, and a better understanding of it, lead to changing views about what is good and bad.

I would agree that the content of the book is what is valuable about it, but my point was that stealing a physical copy and making an illegal digital copy are different - which they are. The former removes a copy and leaves one less, while the latter creates an extra copy while leaving the original intact. I'm not arguing that illegal copying is OK, just that it's different to stealing a physical copy.

Back to the OT, my own preference would be for a system where one could license content, and then access that via any medium. That's what strikes me as fair, in a moral sense. So, I would say that illegal copying doesn't seem wrong to me if it is done in order to access content that you have already paid for. It does seem wrong to me if it's done in order to avoid paying for something which is available to purchase.

The challenge is how to manage such a licensing scheme in a way that is fair to both producers and consumers.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Two thoughts with respect to this.

1. Morality (as opposed to ethics), is not something I accept as a changeable thing. Something is either moral or it isn't.

In a consequence ethical system what is moral changes depending on circumstances.

2. The distinction between container and content, with regards to books, is a false one. Ultimately, it is the contents, not the container, that make the book valuable.

Valuable in what sense? It is easy to think about scenarios were only the container is what people are willing to pay for. Or did you mean valuable in some philosophical sense?

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Rich_D

There are two differences. First, I didn't obtain illegal copies so I could give my legal copies away. The reasons for obtaining the illegal copies were for personal use. I gave the copies away because I didn't want to waste them.

The order of your choices hardly matter. Whether you decided to give them away and then obtained illegal copies, or obtained illegal copies and then decided to give them away, you broke the social contract with the authors and other rights holders of those works by using illegal copies to allow you to give away other copies of the work.

Second, most everyone on board is assuming that everyone should follow the same ethics. Ethics vary by culture, religion, economic standing and education.

Ethics are not up for an individual choice. At the very least, the ethics of a situation must be agreed upon by all parties involved. Your decision to download books from the darknet and to then give away your legal copies impacts at least two groups whom you have ignored. The first group is the authors and other rights holders, many of whom have stated an express desire not to have their works distributed this way. The second group is other book lovers who may be indirectly hurt through your actions (Through higher book prices, fewer books since illegal file sharing might reduce the financial incentive of some authors to write more books, etc.).

Ultimately lets put it this way, when the scope involved is global or nearly so (as it is with copyrighted works), then everyone has to play by the same ethical standards or there are essentially no ethics at all.

I'm not rationalizing my decision, I have no need to. I find my solution perfectly acceptable and ethical. If you don't... well... tough. I'm not telling you to follow my beliefs and I sure as heck don't want you telling me that I have to follow yours.

Somehow, I think you might have a different opinion if you were the one who perceived yourself the victim. Or are you saying that I can't tell a murderer not to kill me or a thief not to steal from me either?

Let me ask this. Is it still unethical had I gone through the steps of cutting the binding, scanning, editing, etc... resulting in a format shift and the destruction of the original format?

What if I paid someone to do that for me?

As I noted before (in this or another thread), format shifting is, in the United States, is perfectly legal. As such, it is implicitly accepted by the rights holders when they choose to make a book available to the public.

Indeed, I even noted that I had no particular problems with people who download copies of books they already own, provided they are planning on keeping or destroying the physical copies they own (Because the person has paid the rights holder once already, and is not increasing the supply of the book while doing so, it is essentially a zero sum transaction, having no practical impact on value of the works in question).

What if, instead of downloading, I retyped the book, or was able to scan it without destroying the book still resulting in 2 viable copies? Would your ethics require me to destroy one copy?

No, making copies for personal use is considered fair use (in the United States) and therefore considered as being part of the social contract that is involved in copyright. In addition no harm is done to the rights holder. To my mind, the line is crossed when copies are distributed.

--
Bill

[Rich_D]

The order of your choices hardly matter. Whether you decided to give them away and then obtained illegal copies, or obtained illegal copies and then decided to give them away, you broke the social contract with the authors and other rights holders of those works by using illegal copies to allow you to give away other copies of the work.

No, I broke the social contract to gain electronic copies for personal use without going through the tedium of making the copies myself. Giving the books away was an afterthought after getting tired of looking at the boxes.

Ethics are not up for an individual choice.

Ethics are most certainly up for individual choice. It is one of the most individualistic things there are! There is some influence by society, but we each chose our own code to live by driven by individual factors. Poaching is wrong, but what if a man is trying to feed his family? If you are alone on a street and find a $5 bill, do you turn it in to the police or take out an ad to find the rightful owner or do you pocket it? What if it were a $10 or a $50 or $100?

The first group is the authors and other rights holders, many of whom have stated an express desire not to have their works distributed this way.

I agree that this is the only group of people that might have a legitimate beef against my actions.

Somehow, I think you might have a different opinion if you were the one who perceived yourself the victim. Or are you saying that I can't tell a murderer not to kill me or a thief not to steal from me either?

You can certainly try to tell the murderer or thief that and for your sake, I hope it works!

Indeed, I even noted that I had no particular problems with people who download copies of books they already own, provided they are planning on keeping or destroying the physical copies they own (Because the person has paid the rights holder once already, and is not increasing the supply of the book while doing so, it is essentially a zero sum transaction, having no practical impact on value of the works in question).

Yes, this is where we really disagree. I can't throw away something that still has use. I can give it away or sell it if I don't need it anymore, but I can't destroy it.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by Rich_D

No, I broke the social contract to gain electronic copies for personal use without going through the tedium of making the copies myself. Giving the books away was an afterthought after getting tired of looking at the boxes.



Ethics are most certainly up for individual choice. It is one of the most individualistic things there are! There is some influence by society, but we each chose our own code to live by driven by individual factors. Poaching is wrong, but what if a man is trying to feed his family? If you are alone on a street and find a $5 bill, do you turn it in to the police or take out an ad to find the rightful owner or do you pocket it? What if it were a $10 or a $50 or $100?



I agree that this is the only group of people that might have a legitimate beef against my actions.



You can certainly try to tell the murderer or thief that and for your sake, I hope it works!



Yes, this is where we really disagree. I can't throw away something that still has use. I can give it away or sell it if I don't need it anymore, but I can't destroy it.

And still the rationalization continues.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

And still the rationalization continues.

And still the meaningless and thread destroying comments continues.

[ManosHandsOfFate]

I wonder if discussions like this ever change someone's mind.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by ManosHandsOfFate

I wonder if discussions like this ever change someone's mind.

Most likely not.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by tompe

And still the meaningless and thread destroying comments continues.

I can't destroy what is already broken. If you can't see the humor in Rich's feeble attempts to rationalize an illegal (where he lives) behavior, then I suppose it is meaningless to you. In the US (and, I'm pretty sure, anywhere else), it is illegal to make a copy of a book (be it paper or digital; the media is immaterial) for the purpose of distribution (it is a copyright violation). Trying to say it was alright for him to give away the original because he originally hadn't intended to when he first obtained the copy is lame; the purpose of the copy changed when he gave away the originals no matter his original intent. Then when called on it, he tried using various excuses, such as, "I can't throw away something that still has use. I can give it away or sell it if I don't need it anymore, but I can't destroy it." That changes the law how? At one time he said, "Do I care? Not one bit" yet he continues to rationalize. Frankly, it has been hillarious. I've tried to reserve making judgement and just tried to counter each argument, mostly by asking the person making the argument to explain themselves, but that has obviously not worked. Rich and his ilk are just selfish people who want to do what they want for their own childish, selfish reasons, the heck with anyone else's rights or what the laws are (no matter how wrong they may or may not be), and they need to grow up.