Do you consider it to be unethical...

[forcheville]

A smart pirate always keeps his eye-patch over his good eye, the one he intends to use for reading kosher books. This is true even if he is a she.

[HistoryWes]

Originally Posted by tompe

Do you mean legal right?

The question was about ethical things. And copyright was intended to make it possible for aothors to earn money for a limited time period. It was not intended for being able to hide a book away. So it is pretty unethical to hide it away,

No, I didn't just mean legal right. And copyright is not just about making money, it is about giving the creator control over their creation.

[Fbone]

I didnt realize there were books out-of print and no used copies available at the library, listed on ebay, half.com, amazon and the estimated thousand other online booksellers.

I learned something new.

[darknessangel]

Un, un... ethi... unethical? I'm sorry you lost me there. 404 word not found

=P

[MangaEbooker]

Originally Posted by Fbone

I didnt realize there were books out-of print and no used copies available at the library, listed on ebay, half.com, amazon and the estimated thousand other online booksellers.

I learned something new.

Well how is the author profiting from this? Seems like you might as well download at this point.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HistoryWes

No, I didn't just mean legal right. And copyright is not just about making money, it is about giving the creator control over their creation.

Artistic control yes. But the ultimate purpose is not commercial control. Commercial control is one possible way to achieve the real goal of encouraging creation of for example good books.

[HamsterRage]

Originally Posted by Fbone

I didnt realize there were books out-of print and no used copies available at the library, listed on ebay, half.com, amazon and the estimated thousand other online booksellers.

I learned something new.

Feel better now?

[GA Russell]

Originally Posted by Fbone

I didnt realize there were books out-of print and no used copies available at the library, listed on ebay, half.com, amazon and the estimated thousand other online booksellers.

I learned something new.

A couple of points:

First, out-of-print does not mean no used copies. That's a concept my original question did not touch upon.

Second, this issue was raised in my mind a couple of weeks ago when I learned that very few of Erle Stanley Gardner's Perry Mason books are in print. I don't expect most of them to ever be in print again, or at least for many years to come.

I was shocked ten years ago when I learned that Ian Fleming's James Bond books were out of print. And it was about that time that I realized that Gregory Mcdonald's Fletch books were out of print as well. Both are now back in print.

I imagine that the likelihood of a book being back in print soon is another aspect of this issue, but I didn't want to make the original question too complicated.

[honico]

No.

Its an argument of ratio, in my eyes anyway. The argument of the author wishing to retain rights and not publish is valid--though not very representative of the works gleaned via a 'dark net.' I'm leaning into the circle which believes most of what we're downloading, and included in the 'can't find it anywhere' list, can and should be gotten _And Redistributed_. Very few works seem to be blacklisted on purpose.

For me, interesting works, where the author and his descendants are now historical references, should be redistributed freely; regardless of who lays claim to printing rights. If it means I'm spitting on the law as I wet my hands --to hoist the black flag, then, Ok. Give that a name an move along. But, if the author truly wishes to keep a book out of print, then, I guess I wouldn't feel right about moving on it. After all, perhaps he wrote a better or more accurate version, it sucked (compared with later works)...well then.

This is good food for thought and will work on this some more...

//

[Yottie]

I voted fair game.

However, if publishers actually got together, and came up with a sensible global model, they might actually find that both they and the authors they claim to represent could carry on getting some money for the e -version of books long after the paperback has gone out of print !

See those pigs flying past the window ?....

[Strolls]

Originally Posted by jgaiser

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?

This is very well established in law. It's called the doctrine of first sale.

When you buy a book from the publisher you are not "renting" or "licensing" the right to read it - you're buying the book which you can read in perpetuity for the rest of your life, so long as you continue to own the book. If you sell the book, you transfer that right. If you sell the book you deprive yourself of the right to read the book, and you must buy another copy if you wan to read it again.

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I'm just wondering if you'd think someone who brought a Van Gogh painting at auction would be entitled to destroy it if they wished?

I think maybe you'd say they were, but perhaps I've misunderstood.

I'm not sure if I'm following your argument correctly, but even if you were to destroy the Van Gough, this is not analogous to the publisher taking the book off the market or allowing it to go out of print.

If the publisher takes the book off the market or allows it to go out of print, they only do so for the duration of copyright - they're not destroying every copy of the book. Once the copyright expires anyone can make copies of the book, and the work of art is returned to the public.

[Strolls]

First off: I don't really believe in copyright, not as it all stands and for personal use and stuff. I guess I don't believe in profiting from the hoarding of intellectual wealth.

Having said that, if you do believe in copyright, as it's currently practised, then I feel this is very clear cut: pirating a book is still pirating a book in just the same sense, even if it's out of print.

If you think it's wrong to pirate an ebook that you could buy from Amazon, then it's just as wrong to pirate an ebook of something that's out of print.

Why? Because that out-of-print book is still available on the second-hand market. You can buy a secondhand copy from Amazon's secondhand sellers or from AbeBooks or from eBay. And the law of supply and demand shows that when you do so you slightly raise the secondhand prices for that title. If the publisher sees the secondhand price rising, then they'll reprint it - if it rises enough this will be irresistible to the publisher.

I see lots of comments here about publishers being "too lazy" or "not being interested" in republishing their back-catalogues, but in pirating an out-of-print book you're depriving them of the financial incentive to reprint it, too. So if you just pirate the book, the publisher is deprived of you as a potential customer. Just buy the second-hand copy! What's so hard about that?

[nyrath]

Originally Posted by Strolls

This is very well established in law. It's called the doctrine of first sale.

When you buy a book from the publisher you are not "renting" or "licensing" the right to read it - you're buying the book which you can read in perpetuity for the rest of your life, so long as you continue to own the book. If you sell the book, you transfer that right. If you sell the book you deprive yourself of the right to read the book, and you must buy another copy if you wan to read it again.

And proponents of DRM maintain that The Doctrine of First Sale does not apply to ebooks with DRM. They say that ebooks are only licensed.

http://www.iposgoode.ca/2010/04/firs...gital-content/
http://boingboing.net/2008/03/23/in-...of-ebooks.html

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Strolls

I'm not sure if I'm following your argument correctly, but even if you were to destroy the Van Gough, this is not analogous to the publisher taking the book off the market or allowing it to go out of print.

If the publisher takes the book off the market or allows it to go out of print, they only do so for the duration of copyright - they're not destroying every copy of the book. Once the copyright expires anyone can make copies of the book, and the work of art is returned to the public.

Books, no... but there are 70-year-old movies turning to dust in their canisters, because the copyright owners won't allow them to be converted to digital without ridiculous fees and restrictions, and won't do it themselves.

And while very few books are being "destroyed" by not being reprinted, they are falling into such obscurity that they're effectively destroyed. Adventure novels set in the context of the Korean War are currently just barely relevant; in another 50 years, nobody alive will remember any of the events they refer to. Collections of letters written to soldiers in the Vietnam war, or newspaper editorials about the ERA movement, still connect to people who are alive today; by the time they fall into the public domain, nobody will be able to say, "see, child, your grandmother didn't always live alone in a house with three cats."

Copyright law is stripping away our cultural heritage, keeping it restricted so that every bit of history and art relating to living people is owned by someone--probably a corporation, because even heirs don't live as long as copyright lasts. The art & science & history of our grandparents doesn't belong to us yet.

When I'm feeling particularly rebellious, I consider lobbying for public schools in the US to restrict all student materials to public domain & creative commons/open source materials... because why should they have to learn from books they might not be able to get access to when they're adults? (I'm aware this is not a practical idea. Still, I like to think about it occasionally... why shouldn't public-for-all education be limited to public-owned content?)

[HarleyB]

Originally Posted by Strolls

Just buy the second-hand copy! What's so hard about that?

But what good is a second hand copy of a paper book if I want an ebook to read on my ereader?