Do you consider it to be unethical...

[nyrath]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

My rubbish summary was of Jonathan Haidt's work, which is more subtle than I suggested. And quite entertaining

Oh, a TED talk. That is guaranteed to be some quality work that is well worth watching.

[mikij]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I think preserving texts is more important than protecting copyright.

I agree. Artistic/intellectual value of a text should prime over the financial aspect. It doesn't mean the authors shouldn't be fairly compensated. I just can't accept the publishers to remove any book because it doesn't make a return of (I just invent the percentage) 35% instead of 5-10% (what should be more than enough). In today's world (any activity), any profit that is less than 25-40% is considered as a loss. Helllooo!

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by nyrath

Oh, a TED talk. That is guaranteed to be some quality work that is well worth watching.

Did you mean that it is or it isn't?

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by mikij

Agree. Artistic/intellectual value of a book should prime over the financial aspect. However, it doesn't mean the authors shouldn't be fairly compensated. I can't accept the publishers to cut any book because it doesn't bring (I just invent) 35% instead of 5-10% (what should be more than enough). In today's world (any area), any profit that is less than 25-40% is considered as a loss. Helllooo!

Really? A lot of businesses have much tighter margins than this.

[mikij]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

Really? A lot of businesses have much tighter margins than this.

They do, but it is still considered as a loss for the vast majority of, especially big, companies. And publishers are there, isn't it?.

[kjk]

Originally Posted by mikij

They do, but it is still considered as a loss for the vast majority of, especially big, companies. And publishers are there, isn't it?.

Not the vast majority: http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortu...tries/profits/

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by mikij

They do, but it is still considered as a loss for the vast majority of, especially big, companies. And publishers are there, isn't it?.

I'm still not convinced. Profit at 25% of turnover would be massive - never mind 40% - for a large company.

I just googled some:
Amazon.com: 3.83%
Apple: 21.43%
IBM: 14.39%

[kjk]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

I'm still not convinced. Profit at 25% of turnover would be massive - never mind 40% - for a large company.

I just googled some:
Amazon.com: 3.83%
Apple: 21.43%
IBM: 14.39%

And Apple is an outlier, for sure.

[meromana]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

I'm still not convinced. Profit at 25% of turnover would be massive - never mind 40% - for a large company.

I just googled some:
Amazon.com: 3.83%
Apple: 21.43%
IBM: 14.39%

And I think the decision to not continue to publish is usually because the company feels they can't make any money or will lose money by printing more books. Anybody who's ever considering self-publishing physical books can relate to this. You have to sell a lot of books to break-even on even a small print run.

[HamsterRage]

I think what some people have being trying to say here is that a good guideline for "ethical" is to follow the Golden Rule. Basically, don't hurt others. If a book has gone out of print, then getting a copy off the Darknet doesn't hurt anyone. It's not a matter of entitlement, simply that you should be free to do what you want as long as you aren't hurting anyone.

[GreenMonkey]

The original intent of copyright law was as stated previously. Incentive for folks to create, to make a profit...then it was turned over to the public for the public good.

Then it was totally butchered to the current lifetime + 50...along with other changes to account for corporate "people" (you know...that have the same rights as people now apparently, except the bad parts).

I can see extending it a bit beyond the 14+14 concept it started with...but 100+ years is ridiculous. As is the corporate loopholes.

I don't have any ethical issues with downloading things not commercially available. With books I think I don't really have any ethical qualms about buying a physical copy at a used bookstore and downloading an ebook, either - IMO that's even better. Who am I depriving income of, then, really?

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by HamsterRage

Personally, I think that grabbing books off the darknet is unethical if you're depriving the legitimate copyright holder of a sale. That's difficult to do if the book is out of print.

Bingo!

The purpose of the copyright law is to make more books available by increasing the likelihood that people who write books will make money doing so. A writer who does not offer his book for sale violates the intended functioning of the law, so he lacks any moral basis for asserting any rights granted by the law.

[MangaEbooker]

Originally Posted by HamsterRage

Personally, I think that grabbing books off the darknet is unethical if you're depriving the legitimate copyright holder of a sale. That's difficult to do if the book is out of print.

Ding Ding, We have a winner!

[forcheville]

Reading pirated books is dangerous and will make you go blind. Don't do it!

Also, looking at photographs or videos of people enjoying copyright vio's is dangerous and should be banned.
(Although it's not so bad if the people are seen to be frowning while "enjoying" the copyright violation.)

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by forcheville

Reading pirated books is dangerous and will make you go blind. Don't do it!

Does a blind pirate wear two eye patches instead of one?