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

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

I'm really getting tired of the old "theft and copyright infringement are not the same" crutch. They may have different legal definitions and even different penalties but, ethically, they are the same; you are taking something that isn't yours. Availability does not infer nor confer ownership.

This has been around and around, but they are not the same ethically, I think. It is copyright infringement to rip your own CDs into mp3 format in order to listen to them yourself. If this is theft, most people are thieves - it loses its usefulness as distinction that means that you've taken something away from someone else.

Clearly, there are cases where someone obtains an illegal copy of something that is for sale at a reasonable price, which while technically copyright infringement, might seem to be ethically like stealing.

At the other extreme, there are cases where someone has purchased a CD and wants to listen to is, and needs to format shift to do so. To me at least, that feels totally different, but in the UK at least, it's a copyright infringement.

What I'm saying is that copyright infringement is a broad church.

[HarryT]

I suspect, Ben, that many of us would feel that there is an ethical difference between ripping your own CD to your iPod for personal listening, and giving copies of that CD to a third party. Both are (in the UK) copyright infringement but, certainly to my mind, the first is not unethical, but the second is.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I suspect, Ben, that many of us would feel that there is an ethical difference between ripping your own CD to your iPod for personal listening, and giving copies of that CD to a third party. Both are (in the UK) copyright infringement but, certainly to my mind, the first is not unethical, but the second is.

And I would agree with you, but I've been surprised by the number of people who wouldn't. I've found the article in the Guardian - last paragraph. Shameless, or what?

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

...It is copyright infringement to rip your own CDs into mp3 format in order to listen to them yourself...

You do bring up valid points. In the USA, it is legal to rip your CDs for your own use, such as on portable devices, media shifting, or for back up purposes.

The point I was referring to was people using legal definitions as a crutch to rationalize unethical behavior.

[Rich_D]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Where the ethics get decidedly more dicey is in the following situation. Someone downloads the books they already have, and then sell or give away the physical copies of the books they downloaded. It seems to me that this dramatically increases the chance of the rights holder being deprived of an original sale. Obviously the person who downloaded the books downloaded them because they wanted continued access to them; if they couldn't download them, they probably would not have given them away. On the flip side, now that the books have been given away (or sold), there are used copies available that will end up in the hands of someone who may well have paid money for a new copy had this used copy not been available.

--
Bill

This is where we start getting into the what ifs. An equally persuasive argument could be made that providing a used copy of a book may peak a reader's interest in an author that they wouldn't ordinarily read and generate additional sales from different titles in that author's body of work.

My reasons were much simpler. I wanted to clear up the space the books were occupying and even though I have the capability to produce my own ebook from hard copy, it results in destroying the book. I'm not comfortable with that. I think it is a waste. I replaced my purchased copies (some bought multiple times in multiple formats) with ebooks and was able to pass on my favorites to someone else. I hope they get as much enjoyment from them as I did.

I didn't profit monetarily from the exercise but the publishers and authors may be out a few bucks from the 80 or so titles I downloaded. If they choose to pursue legal action, I'll pay the penalty.

Do I think I was wrong in this course of action? No.

Do some anonymous entities on this message board think I'm a thief? Probably.

Do I care? Not one bit.

[Rich_D]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

You do bring up valid points. In the USA, it is legal to rip your CDs for your own use, such as on portable devices, media shifting, or for back up purposes.

The point I was referring to was people using legal definitions as a crutch to rationalize unethical behavior.

Speaking only for myself, I wasn't using the definition to rationalize anything. I just think we should call things what they are. Downloading an illegally copy of a book is copyright infringement. Shoplifting a physical copy of a book is theft.

Infringement hurts the author and publisher and possibly an unknown bookseller.

Theft hurts the legal owner of the book.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

And I would agree with you, but I've been surprised by the number of people who wouldn't. I've found the article in the Guardian - last paragraph. Shameless, or what?

That's pretty low.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

And I would agree with you, but I've been surprised by the number of people who wouldn't. I've found the article in the Guardian - last paragraph. Shameless, or what?

Shameless yes. Selfish and inconsiderate are just two "or whats" that come to mind. People have become selfcentered and care only for themselves. I still remember a brief discussion with a young man (a customer who appeared to be about 20) at the store I used to work at. The little snot was carping that his parents had sent him a $20 store specific gift card for his birthday feeling he was entitled to much more than that since they were his parents. Never mind they were already paying for an out of state college education for him. I cut the discussion off early, partially because I had work to do but mostly because I wanted to reach over the counter and box the selfish ingrate's little ears off. So many people have become that way. Merely wanting something is enought reason to just take it. Many come up with elaborate ways to rationalize their behavior or beliefs, some quite clever, but in the end, it usually boils down to one common denominator, inconsiderate selfcenteredness.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

deleted

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's pretty low.

But the editor - assuming that any of this stuff is edited - didn't have the immediate reaction that I had, and think - you don't say that in a national newspaper, even if it is what you did. Which is the kind of thing that makes me wonder how much people do care at all about it. Are journalists and their editors so ill-educated that they don't understand what it means, or are they so blase about it that they don't think anyone will care?

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by Rich_D

This is where we start getting into the what ifs. An equally persuasive argument could be made that providing a used copy of a book may peak a reader's interest in an author that they wouldn't ordinarily read and generate additional sales from different titles in that author's body of work.

My reasons were much simpler. I wanted to clear up the space the books were occupying and even though I have the capability to produce my own ebook from hard copy, it results in destroying the book. I'm not comfortable with that. I think it is a waste. I replaced my purchased copies (some bought multiple times in multiple formats) with ebooks and was able to pass on my favorites to someone else. I hope they get as much enjoyment from them as I did.

I didn't profit monetarily from the exercise but the publishers and authors may be out a few bucks from the 80 or so titles I downloaded. If they choose to pursue legal action, I'll pay the penalty.

Do I think I was wrong in this course of action? No.

Do some anonymous entities on this message board think I'm a thief? Probably.

Do I care? Not one bit.

Why do you feel it's not wrong?

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

Why do you feel it's not wrong?

I'm not sure that it's wrong. If I understand the situation correctly, he had purchased copies of all the books electronically or on paper. The question is, once he no longer wanted the physical copies, was it better to destroy them, or to give them away?

Certainly, I would imagine that I would feel severe misgivings watching books being burnt, and I'd imagine feeling pleasure seeing people receive books that they would enjoy. I understand that giving the books away gives away the "license" for them under one view of what is right, but this doesn't strike me as the only reasonable interpretation of what is right here.

[Rich_D]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

Why do you feel it's not wrong?

First, I was going to agree with your deleted post, but you removed it before I could Quote it.

Second, I'm using wrong as in not unethical. I think more people benefited from my actions than were hurt by them.

The library profited from the books, so they can expand their resources and the people in hospital waiting rooms have a much needed distraction to occupy their time.

On the negative, 5 or 6 authors may have lost a couple sales each.

In the abstract, the library will be using funds to purchase more books, possibly from the same authors or publishers and the authors may gain fans that they might not have had before.

To me, the good outweighs the bad. Others may disagree, but I'm fine with my decision.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Rich_D

First, I was going to agree with your deleted post, but you removed it before I could Quote it.

Second, I'm using wrong as in not unethical. I think more people benefited from my actions than were hurt by them.

The library profited from the books, so they can expand their resources and the people in hospital waiting rooms have a much needed distraction to occupy their time.

On the negative, 5 or 6 authors may have lost a couple sales each.

So you are arguing that it is okay to harm others if there is a net benefit?

In the abstract, the library will be using funds to purchase more books, possibly from the same authors or publishers and the authors may gain fans that they might not have had before.

To me, the good outweighs the bad. Others may disagree, but I'm fine with my decision.

Ah, but can something be considered ethical behavior if it doesn't take into account all those involved? Does a Doctor have a right to treat a patient that doesn't want to be treated? Even if it is in the best interest of the patient?

--
Bill

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

So you are arguing that it is okay to harm others if there is a net benefit?



Ah, but can something be considered ethical behavior if it doesn't take into account all those involved? Does a Doctor have a right to treat a patient that doesn't want to be treated? Even if it is in the best interest of the patient?

--
Bill

Well said, Bill! Rich's response is a beautiful example of rationalization to justify unethical and illegal behavior.