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

[speakingtohe]

If that is the case, then yes, I agree that that is a morally defensible position. What I wouldn't be comfortable with myself would the situation where a "legit" eBook was available, but I decided to illegally download it merely because I couldn't afford to buy the legit version.

Quote mistakenly attributed to Marie Antoinette "let the eat cake"
Not the same situation, but I have done many things in my time I am not proud of. Passing judgment on occasion even in this one is one of them is far from the worst and still I do it. Hitting myself in the head but does not stop typing with other hand.
Oh well

[FizzyWater]

Originally Posted by HarleyB

Just to repeat when I downloaded the darknet versions legal ebooks were NOT AVAILABLE in Australia. I think that many of you really don't understand how often others are frustrated by geographic restrictions.

I have to admit I've recently had my eyes opened on this one.

I'd read the threads about geographic restrictions and have a passing thought that it must be frustrating.

I was recently given a gift certificate to DirectEbooks, which is based in Ireland (absolutely great customer service, by the way). But it's taken me almost two months to find enough books to spend that gift certificate, because most of the books I was interested in were not allowed to be sold to residents of the US.

I think the most frustrating thing was that you can't limit the search criteria to those books you can buy (which I've read as a complaint for Sony's offerings as well).

It seems to me that if sites can't automatically limit what you view based on IP (which I can think of reasons to avoid - like travelling), they should give you an option to limit your searches to those you actually have the ability to purchase!

[Erinath]

Wow, what an interesting thread, am enjoying the discussions about legality vs ethics.

Originally Posted by tompe

For me it really does not feel ethically wrong to rip your CD collection and sell it. It seems equivalent with buying a book, reading it, and then selling it. The normal use of a CD is to listen to it many times. The normal use of a book is to read it once.

I have great difficulties with this point, probably because I do not see what is wrong with selling on a book you have read. I often buy second hand copies of books, sometimes online from sites such as eBay or Amazon but mainly from charity shops. When I've finished with a book I tend to give donate it to a charity shop, that way it isn't taking up space in my home and it is benefitting someone else. To me, it is no worse than borrowing a book from a library.

[Nathanael]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

This question was answered in the 1980s with VCRs.

People try to invoke Sony to justify all kinds of copyright violations. The Sony case was about time-shifting, not format-shifting, and was decided on two merits: first, it involved material the viewer had been invited to freely view (which is why it's legal to record Transformers off CBS, but not the DVD you rented); and second, the 100% copying was in this case deemed fair-use because it made little sense to record only a portion of a broadcast.

When one considers the nature of a televised copyrighted audiovisual work ... and that time-shifting merely enables a viewer to see such a work which he had been invited to witness in its entirety free of charge, the fact ... that the entire work is reproduced ... does not have its ordinary effect of militating against a finding of fair use. Wikipedia.

Attempts to analogize format-shifting in the copying of copyright materials to the time-shifting authorized in Sony haven't faired so well in court. Cf. A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc..

--Nathanael

[HarleyB]

Originally Posted by tompe

For me it really does not feel ethically wrong to rip your CD collection and sell it. It seems equivalent with buying a book, reading it, and then selling it. The normal use of a CD is to listen to it many times. The normal use of a book is to read it once.

Do very many people here really only read books once? I only ever read boring books once (sometimes twice because I like to most things the benefit of doubt!) but any book that I have enjoyed will be read many many times.

Surely the whole point of discussing the ethics and legalities of downloading darknet versions of books you already own assumes people are going to read the books again.

What's the point of downloading something if you aren't going to read it?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Erinath

I have great difficulties with this point, probably because I do not see what is wrong with selling on a book you have read.

There nothing wrong with selling a book that you've read. What is wrong is selling the book and keeping a copy of it yourself. That is a clear case of copyright infringement - you have made (and kept) an unauthorised copy of the book.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by HarleyB

Do very many people here really only read books once? I only ever read boring books once (sometimes twice because I like to most things the benefit of doubt!) but any book that I have enjoyed will be read many many times.

I would imagine so. I certainly read most books only once.

Surely the whole point of discussing the ethics and legalities of downloading darknet versions of books you already own assumes people are going to read the books again.

What's the point of downloading something if you aren't going to read it?

A lot of people collect books that they will never read - especially when they download huge collections from torrents. On the recent "how many ebooks" thread, some people had thousands. At 100 books per year, this would take decades to read.

There is a legitimate reason, I suppose, in having choice. I might, for example, download all of Dickens and then choose which to read next on the device, rather than download one at a time as I choose them. (In fact I intend to do this )

[darknessangel]

Why are this kind of threads sprouting up lately? You are aware that you are asking for "ethical guidance" on the internet, no? That has been and will always be a bad idea.

[GeoffC]

what has been aired once will always have a habit of echoing around and around ....

[ManosHandsOfFate]

Originally Posted by HarleyB

Do very many people here really only read books once? I only ever read boring books once (sometimes twice because I like to most things the benefit of doubt!) but any book that I have enjoyed will be read many many times.

There are too many great books that I haven't read. I don't want to spend my time re-reading books.

I also rarely rewatch movies.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by ManosHandsOfFate

There are too many great books that I haven't read.

True on that. But that doesn't mean I'll abandon the "known" books I love.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

There nothing wrong with selling a book that you've read. What is wrong is selling the book and keeping a copy of it yourself. That is a clear case of copyright infringement - you have made (and kept) an unauthorised copy of the book.

Yes, but the question was what was ethical, not what was illegal.

[jhempel24]

There are only a handful of things I've ever re-read.

Enders Game (top book on my list since grade school). I've read this about 6 times.
Lord of the Rings
Wheel of Time (only because it used to take 3 years between volumes)

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Erinath

I have great difficulties with this point, probably because I do not see what is wrong with selling on a book you have read. I often buy second hand copies of books, sometimes online from sites such as eBay or Amazon but mainly from charity shops. When I've finished with a book I tend to give donate it to a charity shop, that way it isn't taking up space in my home and it is benefitting someone else. To me, it is no worse than borrowing a book from a library.

I do not think it is wrong. But the author will not get anything from you selling the book. And the person getting a book you give away will not buy the book. And so on. So a lot of the arguments used for claiming that it is wrong to download a book can be used in this situation.

So if we accept it is OK ethically to sell a book or give it away after you have read it then we have an example were we do not think that the ethical arguments above are very strong. The arguments are much stronger if we give away many copies of the same book (electronically for example). And if these are the ethical arguments we use to decide if it is OK to copy (consume) a CD and than give it away then we ought to come to the same conclusion. The time shifting of the timepoint when you give the item away should not matter.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarleyB

What's the point of downloading something if you aren't going to read it?

To be able to look up things in the book or being able to lend the book to friends. These are the main reasons I keep my paper books. Some books I re-read but they are not so many.