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

[Yottie]

Originally Posted by Erinath

To me, it is no worse than borrowing a book from a library.

Not so - in the UK at least, the author will benefit, even if only to a small extent, from library borrowings. They won't benefit from secondhand sales - and you could argue that people who buy secondhand might have bought the book at full price, had the secondhand version not been available, so giving books away to charity shops is actually depriving the author and publisher, even though we are getting a nice warm feeling over those kids in Africa, elderly people, etc, who have benefitted from our generous donation !

Whichever way you look at it, the model doesn't cope with the 21st century - what bugs me about it is that publishers had plenty of time to prepare for ebooks.

I know it's not (always) legal, but I don't lose any sleep over picking up free downloads of books I've already bought at full price - for me, that's the legacy situation.

For most fiction books, my preference now is to read as eBook. I'm perfectly happy to pay for this, but don't see why I should pay over the odds. So it should be possible to buy the eBook version at no more than whatever the going rate is for the most recently published edition - so a "new launch" premium, in line with the hardback edition, followed by a paperback-equivalent price, including matching "two for three" promos.

If the eBook isn't available at the same time as the printed version, to my mind it's no surprise that it ends up being pirated. Publishers need to realise that most of us are just as keen to read the latest books, but we want to read them in electronic format !

I'd also like to see eBooks available in libraries (subscription or public).

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

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.

I really can't understand your argument. Don't you accept that there's a fundamental difference between giving something away, and giving it away while retaining a copy of it yourself? In the first case, you're simply transferring ownership to somebody else; in the second, you're illegally duplicating it. There's a significant difference between the two activities.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I really can't understand your argument. Don't you accept that there's a fundamental difference between giving something away, and giving it away while retaining a copy of it yourself? In the first case, you're simply transferring ownership to somebody else; in the second, you're illegally duplicating it. There's a significant difference between the two activities.

Well, what is the relevant difference here? Suppose I spend 10 hours reading a book. Suppose I usually spend 50 hours over an extended time period listening to a CD (if that extended time period is death than the copy is thrown away automatically when the time period is over). What does it matter ethically that I timeshift the timepoint were I can get rid of the CD by making a copy?

Why did you mention "illegally duplicating it"? It is not illegal to duplicate a CD. And also we are talking about what is ethically OK. Not what happens to be illegal.

Also, if you cannot give away things you have made a copy of do we then have to destroy the item? Do you have to burn a book to make sure it does not end up with somebody else?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

Well, what is the relevant difference here? Suppose I spend 10 hours reading a book. Suppose I usually spend 50 hours over an extended time period listening to a CD (if that extended time period is death than the copy is thrown away automatically when the time period is over). What does it matter ethically that I timeshift the timepoint were I can get rid of the CD by making a copy?

Because 10 people owning a copy of a book simultaneously is not at all the same thing as those same 10 people owning it one after the other. It's not simply "timeshifting"; it's a completely different thing.

Also, if you cannot give away things you have made a copy of do we then have to destroy the item? Do you have to burn a book to make sure it does not end up with somebody else?

I think you should destroy your copies, yes. Not the original, but the copies you've made. That's rather implied (to my mind) by the idea of transferring ownership to someone else. Once you've done so, you don't have it any more.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Because 10 people owning a copy of a book simultaneously is not at all the same thing as those same 10 people owning it one after the other. It's not simply "timeshifting"; it's a completely different thing.

The timeshifting was for the CD. When you buy a CD you buy a certain amount of listening time (the time you usually spend with a CD). So I do not get your argument here.

I think you should destroy your copies, yes. Not the original, but the copies you've made. That's rather implied (to my mind) by the idea of transferring ownership to someone else. Once you've done so, you don't have it any more.

But, I do not want to keep the original since they take too much space. So you think I should destroy the original book and the original CD? Or how should I get rid of the book and CD according to you? If i throw it in the garbage somebody might find it and take it.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

The timeshifting was for the CD. When you buy a CD you buy a certain amount of listening time (the time you usually spend with a CD). So I do not get your argument here.

No you don't. I don't mean to be impolite, but that's a silly thing to say. You're not buying "listening time", you're buying the CD. Most people would probably say that it's OK to put the music on your iPod, or make copies of the CD for your car CD-player, but when you start giving it away to other people you're going beyond the realm of what's reasonable, to my mind.

But, I do not want to keep the original since they take too much space. So you think I should destroy the original book and the original CD?

If you don't want to keep the original, I can only answer "yes, you should".

[happy_terd]

My wife has hundreds of nursing books she does not want to get rid of. I would love to get a digital copy and clear up the garage space.

LOL

Can I just keep the cover to prove I owned the book?

[guyanonymous]

Well, bookstores return the cover to prove the book was destroyed...

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No you don't. I don't mean to be impolite, but that's a silly thing to say. You're not buying "listening time", you're buying the CD. Most people would probably say that it's OK to put the music on your iPod, or make copies of the CD for your car CD-player, but when you start giving it away to other people you're going beyond the realm of what's reasonable, to my mind.

Why is it not reasonable from an ethical point of view? What is the ethical argument you are using here?

If you don't want to keep the original, I can only answer "yes, you should".

But that is a silly answer and shows that your argument is broken. If your ethical system do not allow for me to throw away a CD that I have made a digital copy of then it is broken.

[nyrath]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

...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... Or are you saying that I can't tell a murderer not to kill me or a thief not to steal from me either?

If at the very least the ethics of a situation must be agreed upon by all parties, then you are at an impasse. You are telling the psychopathic killer not to murder you, and they are telling you that they have to kill you. So the ethics of the situation are not agreed upon by all parties.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

Why is it not reasonable from an ethical point of view? What is the ethical argument you are using here?

That passing it on to a third party while retaining a copy yourself is not part of the "deal" under which you bought the CD. You bought the right to listen to it yourself, not to carry on listening to it after you've passed on the original to someone else.

But that is a silly answer and shows that your argument is broken. If your ethical system do not allow for me to throw away a CD that I have made a digital copy of then it is broken.

I didn't say that you couldn't thow it away - of course you can. However, if I were to throw it away, I'd break it in two first to ensure that it couldn't be used by anyone else.

[nyrath]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I really can't understand your argument. Don't you accept that there's a fundamental difference between giving something away, and giving it away while retaining a copy of it yourself? In the first case, you're simply transferring ownership to somebody else; in the second, you're illegally duplicating it. There's a significant difference between the two activities.

Heh, this is a difference that escapes the Pentagon. They have demanded that Wikileaks return all the Pentagon documents they have.

Some comedian quipped "why can't the Pentagon just download the documents?"

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by tompe

...Why is it not reasonable from an ethical point of view? What is the ethical argument you are using here?...

...But that is a silly answer and shows that your argument is broken. If your ethical system do not allow for me to throw away a CD that I have made a digital copy of then it is broken.

Your answer is broken because you are saying HarryT's "ethical system" does not allow you to throw away a CD you have made a copy of when, in fact, that is exactly what he is espousing. You continue to grasp at straws after HarryT has nailed your arguments to the wall.

When you buy a book or a CD, if copyrighted, you have the right to personally use that book or CD for as long as you wish. You may choose to read or listen to the book or CD as many times as you wish while you own it. Some countries allow you to legally make a copy of the copyrighted book or CD to use for your own personal use as long as you still own the original book or CD. Examples of this are making a backup copy to ensure you do not lose the content if the original becomes damaged to the point of being unusable and making a copy to use on a device the original is incompatable with, such as copying a book for use on an electronic device or ripping a CD to use on a music player. The spirit and letter of the laws governing this is you are the only person who possesses and has access to those copies.

In countries where copying copyrighted work for any reason is illegal, there are two ethical considerations. It is ethical for you to make multiple copies for your own use but breaking the law is unethical. For purposes of this discussion, I'll ignore the second ethic. Ethically speaking, legality aside, there is nothing wrong with having multiple copies of a book or CD as long as you are the only one who has the ability to use any of those copies at any one time. It is ethical to loan a copy to someone, such as loaning the original book or CD to someone as long as you do not access any of the copies while the book or CD are loaned out. If you decide you do not want to keep the original book or CD, your only ethical options are to destroy the originals or give away or sell the originals and either destroy the copies or turn them over to the recipient of the original book or CD. If someone else has ownership of the original book or CD, you no longer may ethically have the copy/copies of the book or CD. If you don't like it, either build a bridge and get over it or get a backbone, quit rationalizing, and admit you care only for yourself and not the rights of others.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That passing it on to a third party while retaining a copy yourself is not part of the "deal" under which you bought the CD. You bought the right to listen to it yourself, not to carry on listening to it after you've passed on the original to someone else.

Well, but what defines the "deal"? If it is the law we are back with laws and not what is ethical.

I didn't say that you couldn't thow it away - of course you can. However, if I were to throw it away, I'd break it in two first to ensure that it couldn't be used by anyone else.

Then I misunderstood your comment. But you said that "you should" keep the original and that is a moral/ethical statement. So I really think you said that it is ethical wrong to throw away the original.

And how do you take into considerations the ethical problem with destroying resources? I think is is pretty immoral to throw something away which you could have given away to somebody poor that could not afford to buy it.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by tompe

Well, but what defines the "deal"? If it is the law we are back with laws and not what is ethical.



Then I misunderstood your comment. But you said that "you should" keep the original and that is a moral/ethical statement. So I really think you said that it is ethical wrong to throw away the original.

And how do you take into considerations the ethical problem with destroying resources? I think is is pretty immoral to throw something away which you could have given away to somebody poor that could not afford to buy it.

Legal and ethical aspects are often intertwined. You cannot evade that so deal with it. What makes giving away originals of copyrighted materials while retaining copies of those originals has to do with copyright law restricting that.

re: your argument explaining why you feel HarryT really said what you think he said.

Your last argument is the old Robin Hood defense, which ranks right up there with the Twinkie defense. Both are lame rationalizations. If you didn't get what I said in my post then either you aren't going to get it or you just don't want to get it.