Could the Kindle spark book piracy?

[jasonkchapman]

Originally Posted by nekokami

I also don't believe that protecting the copyright of a work that has been allowed to fall out of print benefits any of these groups, or represents the most common moral position.

I was in complete agreement up until this one. There may be reasons for a book being out of print other than publisher neglect, like a limited edition chapbook, for instance. Also, the point at which a book goes out of print is generally when, in current contracts, the author can regain publishing rights to the work. That would be the exact wrong time to force an end of copyright protection.

I don't think society gains anything from an OOP cutoff that it doesn't already get from a fixed (shorter-than-now) span of time.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by ginolee

The bottom line here is: piracy is theft.

No. It isn't. It's a copyright violation.

Violating a copyright is not theft according to any law.

[Penforhire]

In your poll you still need to distinguish between people who take for free and versus those who already own the p-book version. American fair use law is likely to, if it does not already, support that difference just as it does for MP3's ripped from CD's.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Because I do not happen to agree that the scenario you described-

1. Author writes book
2. Reader makes a copy of book
3. Reader gives you (and possibly a hundred other "friends") a copy, author gets no compensation for copies

-is a "fair" or moral scenario. "Fair use" isn't really a law... it's an official dodge used for convenience (to give the authorities the excuse to not have to chase down every petty criminal it knows about).

Let me know if I understand this scenario incorrectly. For the record, it's not right even if only one copy is given without compensation to the author.

Also, for the record, laws are generally based on morals, they are not mutually exclusive of each other. These laws in particular are generally covered by the moral guideline that says: Thou shalt not steal.

I really do not get your resoning. Theft is problematic with electronic copies so it is bad to use these terms.

You seem to say that you consider people whose action is "fair use" to be criminals (morally) and that it is a pity that the authorities does not track them down.

The original scenario was that you owned the paper version of the content and then you got one copy from a friend and the friend only gave one electronic copy to you and to nobody else. The copy was obtained by scanning the book. Why do you not consider it theft if you scan your own book?

[Alisa]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

In your poll you still need to distinguish between people who take for free and versus those who already own the p-book version. American fair use law is likely to, if it does not already, support that difference just as it does for MP3's ripped from CD's.

I'm curious about this point being far from an expert on these laws myself. I'm wondering how much of a difference it makes if someone is exercising electronic rights and distributing an electronic copy. Do they make a distinction between the following scenarios (assuming that I already own a copy of the paper book):

1. I download a free copy someone scanned and posted. There is no other electronic copy available for purchase.

2. I download this scanned copy when there is a copy I could purchase. Someone has the electronic rights and I could compensate them but I haven't actually used the product of their labor. The holders of the electronic rights may include other parties than I originally compensated with my paper purchase I suppose.

3. I download a copy of the commercially-produced book without paying. It seems clear here that someone has done some value-added work to make that formatted copy and is expecting payment. I am taking that work without compensating them for their labor and resources.

Personally, I see my moral hazard differently in each case. I have no idea of my legal hazard.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Also, for the record, laws are generally based on morals, they are not mutually exclusive of each other. These laws in particular are generally covered by the moral guideline that says: Thou shalt not steal.

Unfortunately, in the UK, the tax authorities pay little heed to the 'thou shalt not steal' idea

Also, our government is hanging on to the Elgin Marbles (apologies to our Greek friends) - the notion of taking stuff that doesn't belong to them is something they're quite comfortable with.
Their laws are based on electoral popularity or political expediency; any similarity to a moral code is purely coincidental.
The lawmakers are hardly in a position to lecture the rest of the populace about 'right' and 'wrong' (whatever they are ).

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

In your poll you still need to distinguish between people who take for free and versus those who already own the p-book version. American fair use law is likely to, if it does not already, support that difference just as it does for MP3's ripped from CD's.

Okay, how's this:

• How many people believe that purchasing a hardback book gives them the right to take a paperback copy of the same book for free?
• How many people do not see a parallel relationship between hardback and paperback books, and paperback and e-books?
• Bonus: How many people believe iTunes will allow you to take an MP3 file for free because you already own the CD?

(Your MP3 example does not fit this situation: Ripping it yourself from the CD you own is not the same as getting it from someone else. If you want to argue that point, scan and OCR the book yourself. And don't send a copy of the e-book to anybody.)

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Alisa

I'm curious about this point being far from an expert on these laws myself. I'm wondering how much of a difference it makes if someone is exercising electronic rights and distributing an electronic copy. Do they make a distinction between the following scenarios (assuming that I already own a copy of the paper book):

1. I download a free copy someone scanned and posted. There is no other electronic copy available for purchase.

If the creator did not authorize your right to take a digital copy for free, you are in the wrong.

Originally Posted by Alisa

2. I download this scanned copy when there is a copy I could purchase. Someone has the electronic rights and I could compensate them but I haven't actually used the product of their labor. The holders of the electronic rights may include other parties than I originally compensated with my paper purchase I suppose.

See answer to scenario 1. If the free scanned copy was not authorized by the creator... in other words, you are expected to purchase an e-book... you are in the wrong.

Originally Posted by Alisa

3. I download a copy of the commercially-produced book without paying.

You didn't need to say anything more than that. Wrong.

Originally Posted by Alisa

Personally, I see my moral hazard differently in each case. I have no idea of my legal hazard.

I might suggest that, if you see a moral hazard in all of these scenarios, then maybe all of them are wrong.

[Alisa]

I don't feel a moral hazard if I download a copy that someone produced for free if there's no other copy available, provided I already own the book. If a commercial copy became available, I would feel compelled to pay for it at that point.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Alisa

I don't feel a moral hazard if I download a copy that someone produced for free if there's no other copy available, provided I already own the book. If a commercial copy became available, I would feel compelled to pay for it at that point.

Would you? Or would you just conveniently forget to go out of your way and send a check to someone who doesn't know you've downloaded anything?

Why didn't you send a check to the creator when you took the e-book file in the first place?

Guess what most people would do?

Fact is, if someone scanned that book and made it available, for free or at a charge, and that file was not authorized by the creator, it is not your right to have it. It is your right to make it for yourself. So make it yourself, but don't take it for free from someone who shouldn't be giving it to you. If that's not morally clear, I don't know what is.

[Alisa]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Would you? Or would you just conveniently forget to go out of your way and send a check to someone who doesn't know you've downloaded anything?

Why didn't you send a check to the creator when you took the e-book file in the first place?

Guess what most people would do?

Fact is, if someone scanned that book and made it available, for free or at a charge, and that file was not authorized by the creator, it is not your right to have it. It is your right to make it for yourself. So make it yourself, but don't take it for free from someone who shouldn't be giving it to you. If that's not morally clear, I don't know what is.

Firstly, I would appreciate if you would make some attempt at being civil.

Secondly, I am not compensating the original person who scanned the book because they're not asking me to. They have a right to set the price of their labor. If they choose to set that at $0, then that's fine by me.

Thirdly, yes I actually would pay for the ebook if it became available. Please don't accuse me of being a liar. It's incredibly offensive.

[kkingdon]

I agree that downloading an unauthorized copy is morally wrong. I also agree that creating a copy for your own use only is morally OK. Where I see is a little gray is using someone else's tools that automate the process of creating my own copy. In general, I believe that this is morally OK, but I would be interested in hearing others' opinions on this variation of the "make-your-own-copy" scenario.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by jackdavid

I strongly feel that the next wave will be free digital media that users "pay" what they feel it's worth. This is certainly an option. Instead of trying to protect digital media (which is akin to squeezing sand with your fingers), give it away and trust the consumer will donate something. I'm sure people will be perfectly happy to pay the author something.

Is that the way that you work in your profession as a lawyer? ie give away your professional expertise and trust that the client will donate something? No? That's odd. After all, won't people be perfectly happy to pay you something? Your "product" - advice - is an "intangible" as an eBook, and yet I'm guessing that you charge a fixed price for it. Why do you believe that authors should not be able to do likewise?

Don't you see the fundamental dichotomy between what you're saying and what you're doing? You are saying that "most people will be perfectly happy to pay the author something" and yet you yourself are not doing so. Does that "rule" apply only to other people and not to you?

[mdibella]

I've really given up on this thread because I clearly see that Mr Jordan and I will never agree.

For the record, Mr Jordan, I am scrupulously honest (despite your stated opinion). I spent 35 years of my life as a software developer, so I do understand the issues, and I would not dream of stealing someone else's work. Everyone deserves to be fairly compensated for their work.

We simply disagree on what is fair. Legality is, I think, on my side, at least in the US.

Oh, and Amazon appears to agree with me too, since any ebook purchased can be downloaded at any future time, for free, and put on up to 6 different Kindles (that one actually makes me frown a bit). You agreed to this as well when you offered your own material for sale in the Kindle Bookstore.

Purchase it once, own it forever, that seems to work for them as well as it does me.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by mdibella

Oh, and Amazon appears to agree with me too, since any ebook purchased can be downloaded at any future time, for free, and put on up to 6 different Kindles (that one actually makes me frown a bit). You agreed to this as well when you offered your own material for sale in the Kindle Bookstore.

Purchase it once, own it forever, that seems to work for them as well as it does me.

You'll change your story in a year or so when the Kindle fails in the marketplace and you are left with no way to download your eBooks. Remember what Amazon did to readers who paid for PDFs they sold? Do you remember what they did to the people who paid for downloadable videos?

Finally, go to this page which demonstrates that Amazon does NOT agree with you.