Do you consider it to be unethical...

[Ravensknight]

Bring on the shadows!

[patrickt]

It is probably illegal but not unethical. In my opinion, if the book is unavailable through legitimate channels but available on Darknet, it's quite ethical to get the book.

[Solicitous]

It certainly is illegal, copyright infringement I believe it falls under. Ethical? Well it really comes down to your way of thought. Does a book being out of print make it ok to acquire it through other means? Part of me feels that if something is not made available to you then it is NOT ok to 'steal' it just to satisfy your own needs, then the other part of me feels that if it is not available due to out of print (and not reasons such as out of stock) then there is no loss for anyone by you acquiring it through the darknet.

I guess I'm more inclined with the second aspect of my argument. If no one loses and no one is hurt by your actions, and only you gain from it, then ethically it is ok.

Now using the darknet to acquire books that are in print but not released as ebooks is wrong. You use the darknet for that and the author loses out on a sale, so that is wrong.

[meromana]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

There was some interesting research on morality which suggested that across cultures there were two broad types of view. One, that we might call "conservatives" emphasised the need to follow social rules in defining what was good/bad. The other, which one might call "liberal" (less common and more recent historically) emphasised whether individuals suffered in defining what was good/bad.

Well, this is an interesting way to look at moral questions, but my perspective was really a blending of the two. The copyright law was intended to protect the financial interests of the copyright holder (author, publisher), and my thinking in saying it is wrong to take books from the darknet, was that the copyright holder might at some point in the future choose to exercise his right by re-releasing the title. Thus, taking the book from the darknet would be stealing from him. I understand that the vast majority who use the darknet would never actually buy the book from the publisher, so it's not an issue practically speaking, but morally, yes, it's still wrong from both the perspective of a "breaking the rules" outlook or a "harm to others" outlook.

--Maria

[delphidb96]

If it is OOP, then it is fair game. Really, if you buy a 'used' OOP book, the author gets nothing and how many of us buy, read, trade in and buy another without giving one rat's ass about the author? So somehow we're supposed to 'care' because it is an e-book?

Yeah... RIIIIIiiiiigggghhhht.

Sure, the 'e-book' version can spawn hundreds or even thousands of copies, but we don't really have a way to trade in - nor can, unlike that 'one used copy' be sold and resold to make a profit for some used bookstore. It all evens out.

Derek

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by meromana

Well, this is an interesting way to look at moral questions, but my perspective was really a blending of the two. The copyright law was intended to protect the financial interests of the copyright holder (author, publisher), and my thinking in saying it is wrong to take books from the darknet, was that the copyright holder might at some point in the future choose to exercise his right by re-releasing the title. Thus, taking the book from the darknet would be stealing from him. I understand that the vast majority who use the darknet would never actually buy the book from the publisher, so it's not an issue practically speaking, but morally, yes, it's still wrong from both the perspective of a "breaking the rules" outlook or a "harm to others" outlook.

--Maria

It is *okay*, morally, for the publisher to deprive the customers of the ebook title - potentially for years - but it's *not* okay for the customers to find another source??? Right.

NOT!

If the title is withheld for no practical reason, then the copyright holder has only him/herself to blame for lost sales. "I can't be bothered" isn't a valid moral excuse for taking a book off the market and waiting to re-release.

Now if the copyright holder doesn't have clean copy and must take the time to re-input, copycheck and e-format from dead-tree, that is a valid reason for delays. And having to wait for a while to buy is expected on backlist titles. But when a publisher takes more than a year? Especially when it's the case of one title missing in the middle of a series that has been released? Nope. There's NOTHING immoral in finding an alternative source.

Derek

[ManosHandsOfFate]

Originally Posted by delphidb96

Really, if you buy a 'used' OOP book, the author gets nothing and how many of us buy, read, trade in and buy another without giving one rat's ass about the author?

B-B-But then you're depriving the used bookstores of a sale!

[kjk]

Originally Posted by delphidb96

It is *okay*, morally, for the publisher to deprive the customers of the ebook title - potentially for years - but it's *not* okay for the customers to find another source??? Right.

NOT!

If the title is withheld for no practical reason, then the copyright holder has only him/herself to blame for lost sales. "I can't be bothered" isn't a valid moral excuse for taking a book off the market and waiting to re-release.

"Deprive"? I just don't understand the whole sense of entitlement expressed here..."I deserve to have access to those books unless 'x or y' occurs". I just don't get it.

(not passing any judgements about piracy, or the ethics therein..I just don't get the whole "I deserve to have it because xxx" thing people bring up.."They didn't release it in English here" "She wouldn't release it in eBook form" etc. etc. )

[jgaiser]

Ok.. I marked "Not Sure"

I understand the need for copyright. I understand that authors need to be protected and earn *some* income from their sweat and tears.

I also think that the original purpose of copyrights has been corrupted by corporate interests that have nothing to do with original intent.

Have I got books that are out of print and I've obtained from the darknet? Yes... But, i'm still bothered by the fact that *some* of the authors are still alive.

Have I got books that are still under copyright in the United States, even though the authors have been dead for many years passed the original intent of copyright? Yes.. And I feel no guilt.

So there..

[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.

[meromana]

Originally Posted by kjk

"Deprive"? I just don't understand the whole sense of entitlement expressed here..."I deserve to have access to those books unless 'x or y' occurs". I just don't get it.

(not passing any judgements about piracy, or the ethics therein..I just don't get the whole "I deserve to have it because xxx" thing people bring up.."They didn't release it in English here" "She wouldn't release it in eBook form" etc. etc. )

Yes, I had the same reaction. Just because somebody wrote a book doesn't entitle the world to read it. Most authors/publishers would like their works to be available to as many readers as possible, but they own the rights to the work, and they don't have to share it, any more than you have to share your vacation property with a homeless person. Maybe your Swiss chalet is sitting there empty and unused while some guy is freezing on the street, but that doesn't entitle him to move in.

--Maria

[jgaiser]

As long as we're talking about ethics....

Something has bothered me for a long time. Why is it ethical to buy a used book which provides neither the author or the publisher with a penny, but it's unethical to pull a book off the darknet?

Yes, I know there is an actual physical object that changes hands as used and the former owner no longer has it in his/her hand, but either way the publisher/author loses. I purchase the physical object, but the Intellectual Property is the same as what is obtained on the darknet.

I'm not advocating pirating. I'm just trying to understand why one is alright and one is unethical. Shouldn't we be not purchasing used books as we are depriving folks out of income?

[capidamonte]

Originally Posted by meromana

The copyright law was intended to protect the financial interests of the copyright holder (author, publisher)

No, the copyright law was intended to encourage the recurring production of art, science and culture for the benefit of larger society by protecting the producer from competition (granting monopoly) for a limited time -- and ending that monopoly so that such work would enter the public domain and such a producer would be financially encouraged to produce more such works. It's a complicated, nuanced and well-balanced idea.

Large corporations, and the sociopaths that run them, have twisted the intent of copyright, turning it into a supposed (and functional) 'property right'. A dead man cannot be encouraged to create more work, no matter how long after his death you extend the copyright. But an immortal corporation can continue to profit from it eternally if it is seen as 'property'. It's a reductive idea that is easy to repeat, and appeals to those with a conservative, simplistic view of the world.

Immortal and powerful corporations can also propagandize in such a way that the average joe(sephine) thinks (s)he's doing the right thing when (s)he supports their interests over his/her own. Copyright is the only place in the law where monopoly is tolerated, thus attracting eternal corporate power and its corrupting effect.

Copyright is not a property right; the commons is robbed whenever it is treated as such. Those who don't believe in the commons in culture are of a kind with those who dump oil in the oceans, or sell tobacco: the benefits accrue to them and the costs are dispersed to the rest of us.

[meromana]

Originally Posted by capidamonte

No, the copyright law was intended to encourage the recurring production of art, science and culture for the benefit of larger society by protecting the producer from competition (granting monopoly) for a limited time -- and ending that monopoly so that such work would enter the public domain and such a producer would be financially encouraged to produce more such works. It's a complicated, nuanced and well-balanced idea.

Our statements are not in conflict. Copyright would not encourage the production of art if it did not protect the financial interest of the artist. (Talking about works that have not passed into the public domain yet.)

The idea that art inherently belongs to the masses is about as socialistic as it gets. I'm just not seeing this entitlement thing. Why is the public entitled to read books or view art or hear music without the artist's or owner's agreement? No one expects my former employers to turn over statistical programs I wrote for them years ago, just because they're not using them anymore. They paid for that stuff; they own it. Why is art so inherently different?

I'm open...maybe someone can come up with an analogy that will make me see it another way.

--Maria

[Row]

I think the price of ebooks are forcing people to the darkside. Books should be like songs - make a good book cheap to download and nobody would go to the darkside. You don't mind paying if it's not over the top.
I will always pay a reasonable price if it's available - if it's not available in an electronic version from a shop then maybe I'll look at other options.