Could the Kindle spark book piracy?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

By the letter of the law, yes. However, I believe in "fair use," which means for your own use. Not to share.

As I wrote before "fair use" or similar concepts have different meaning in different countries. And "fair use" can be allowed by the laws. And in Sweden it is allowed to copy something and give it to a friend. You can copy a music CD to tape and give to a friend and it is allowed according to the laws.

You didn't say YOU scanned YOUR book... you said HE scanned HIS book. And gave a COPY to you. That violates "fair use."

I meant that the friend scanned his (or my) book and gave it to me. And I wondered how you morally motivate that if you scan it yourself it is OK but if you get the scan from a friend it is not OK. It seems that your motivation is not that something is illegal since your opinion seems to be that it is morally wrong to get the copy from a friend independent of if it is legal or not. Is your argument a property right argument or is it a utilitarian argument?

However, they do not have the right to scan a book copywritten in someone else's name, and give you a copy, if they weren't specifically authorized to do so by the copyright holder. It's immaterial what they charge... they didn't have the right to do it in the first place.

And if they have the right according to the laws is it OK then?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

My hypothetical scenario involves a visually impaired person who can't read any commercially available printed versions.
They buy an eVersion, and use it to print off an illegal copy in a huge font that they can read.

The problem is, I can't decide if they should get five years or ten.

According to U.S. Federal law, a visually impaired person is within their right to alter a document in a format they cannot use, into a document they can use, with perfectly legal equipment. Besides, since they bought the original, that constitutes fair use. No jail time for them.

Luckily for you, no judge will throw you in jail for sarcasm.

Okay, here's one for you: J.K. Rowling's dog manages to get in its mouth a copy of HP7 on CD. He trots out of her house, over to mine, and buries the CD in my flower garden.

Do I euthanize the dog for not understanding property boundaries, arrest the dog catcher for not stopping him, or just shoot J.K. Rowling for not having enough sense to own a cat?

(Multiple choice is permissible.)

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by tompe

As I wrote before "fair use" or similar concepts have different meaning in different countries. And "fair use" can be allowed by the laws. And in Sweden it is allowed to copy something and give it to a friend. You can copy a music CD to tape and give to a friend and it is allowed according to the laws.

Not being Swedish, I'm not going to address or judge Swedish laws or morals (which is only right... morally speaking).

Originally Posted by tompe

I meant that the friend scanned his (or my) book and gave it to me. And I wondered how you morally motivate that if you scan it yourself it is OK but if you get the scan from a friend it is not OK. It seems that your motivation is not that something is illegal since your opinion seems to be that it is morally wrong to get the copy from a friend independent of if it is legal or not. Is your argument a property right argument or is it a utilitarian argument?

Sorry, but that's not what you said. At any rate, what "fair use" specifies (in the U.S.) is that YOU make a copy of YOUR legally-purchased material for YOURSELF, HE makes a copy of HIS legally-purchased material for HIMSELF, and never the twain shall meet. It's really that simple. Obviously, if Sweden disagrees with this morally and legally, end of discussion.

Originally Posted by tompe

And if they have the right according to the laws is it OK then?

Of course. If it's authorized by the copyright holder (or your government), go for it.

[wgrimm]

Originally Posted by HarryT

And do you believe this to be the case? I don't, any more than I believe that anyone who downloads an illegal eBook would have bought it. My objection to the latter is not primarily lost sales, but the principle of committing a crime.

No, of course I don't believe that to be the case. <G> I also do not believe that e-book piracy is responsible for huge losses to publishers. And you don't believe so, either. So, EVEN THOUGH a crime- copyright infringement- is being committed when someone downloads a pirated e-book, it seems both of us are in agreement that a large amount of sales are not being lost by the publisher.

Right now, I am having a hard time understanding the heated passion exhibited in this thread. Okay, copyright infringement is a crime, it's bad, bad, bad, BUT- it is not resulting in lost sales (or at least both of us agree on this). By not resulting in loss of sales to the publisher, who is this crime actually hurting?

I guess "ethical piracy" would involve hardback purchase of a work by a library that then converts to e-format and uploads to the "DarkNet." <G>

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by HarryT

And do you believe this to be the case? I don't, any more than I believe that anyone who downloads an illegal eBook would have bought it. My objection to the latter is not primarily lost sales, but the principle of committing a crime.

All of the illicit ebooks I have downloaded I later purchased, with exception of those that aren't available as ebooks. I owned a paper copy of those already.

[wgrimm]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Okay, here's one for you: J.K. Rowling's dog manages to get in its mouth a copy of HP7 on CD. He trots out of her house, over to mine, and buries the CD in my flower garden.

Do I euthanize the dog for not understanding property boundaries, arrest the dog catcher for not stopping him, or just shoot J.K. Rowling for not having enough sense to own a cat?

(Multiple choice is permissible.)

If you're living in Texas it's probably legal to shoot the dog, the dog catcher, and JK Rowling too.....

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

If I have a CD and I want to rip it to put the music on my DAP, I can do that. Nobody is saying I cannot. Now, lets say my DVD drive is broken so that I cannot rip this CD, would it be an issue if I asked someone who also owns this same CD to rip it and send it to me via the net? IMHO, I think it would not be a problem. It would still come under fair use. I own the CD. I have the software to rip the CD. I just don't have the drive till my new one is here and installed.

SNIP

The laws need to be looked at in regards to digital content and changes makde to compensate for digital content. There are a lot of things with digital content that the laws do not take into account. like the situation above. We can make life so much easier if we fix the broken laws such that the user is happy and the content provider(s) get compensated.

Here in the U.S. the law is reasonably clear on your first question. The guy who also owns the same CD has gone beyond fair use if he sends you a copy of the bits. Even though you could rip your own copy if only your CD/DVD reader was working.

An odd twist on this is that it's arguably legal (1) for a friend to loan you a CD that he owns (but you don't) (2) for you to rip the CD while it is in your possession, and (3) for you to keep the bits after you return the CD. This one hasn't been tested in the courts, but has been argued by a number of highly competent lawyers & law-school profs as "highly likely to be legal under fair use." It seems morally wrong to me, though. You really ought to pay the artists and copyright holders for the content (IMHO).

The laws do seem rather out of date, except for the ever-increasing term of copyright.

Xenophon

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by wgrimm

Right now, I am having a hard time understanding the heated passion exhibited in this thread. Okay, copyright infringement is a crime, it's bad, bad, bad, BUT- it is not resulting in lost sales (or at least both of us agree on this). By not resulting in loss of sales to the publisher, who is this crime actually hurting?

In the U.S., speeding is illegal because it can kill someone. That doesn't mean it is okay to speed, just because you didn't happen to kill anyone when you were speeding. It's not up to you to make that distinction, it's a matter of law. (And it's a good parallel, since so many people in the U.S. speed, on the assumption that if they are wary about it, they won't get caught.)

Originally Posted by wgrimm

I guess "ethical piracy" would involve hardback purchase of a work by a library that then converts to e-format and uploads to the "DarkNet." <G>

Yeah, it would (in the U.S.). A library isn't allowed to do that, anymore than citizens are.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Alisa

I asked this same question yesterday and told that of course it was immoral and that I was a liar for saying that I would actually buy the legal book when available.

Edit to add: Also in my scenario I actually would own the paper copy, too.

I don't think you were called a liar. What I got frm the post was that we do tend to forget. Take the example of downloading an illegal ebook and then buying it once it is legal. How do you know it is even available for purchase as an ebook unless it happens to be on the front page of the book site you happen to be visiting or you see it in a search? We do tend to forget. I honestly don't see myself looking for that ebook on all the sites I visit. I sometimes go and have a browse. But most time I go looking for a specific book or author.

So what it comes down to is while you have all the best intentions in the world, we are human and we do make mistakes and we do forget. What if this book you downloaded, finished read and forgot out came out 2 years later as an ebook? I know for a fact that I would have forgotten all about it.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

Here in the U.S. the law is reasonably clear on your first question. The guy who also owns the same CD has gone beyond fair use if he sends you a copy of the bits. Even though you could rip your own copy if only your CD/DVD reader was working.

An odd twist on this is that it's arguably legal (1) for a friend to loan you a CD that he owns (but you don't) (2) for you to rip the CD while it is in your possession, and (3) for you to keep the bits after you return the CD. This one hasn't been tested in the courts, but has been argued by a number of highly competent lawyers & law-school profs as "highly likely to be legal under fair use." It seems morally wrong to me, though. You really ought to pay the artists and copyright holders for the content (IMHO).

The laws do seem rather out of date, except for the ever-increasing term of copyright.

Xenophon

Your friend who loans you his CD also should make sure he has no other copies of it on his computer or DAP. if aid friend does, then it's not OK to loan the CD. While I have this CD in my possession, it is OK for me to rip it and put that rip on my DAP. But when I do go to give if back, that copy has to be deleted.

Now, is it fair use that since my DVD drive is busted, that I loan my CD to a friend who rips it for me and sends me the bits and then deletes the copy?

Also, could the same thing be done with a pbook? He has the book scanner and offers to scan my book for me, so I loan the book and get back the book and an electronic copy.

[Alisa]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I don't think you were called a liar. What I got frm the post was that we do tend to forget. Take the example of downloading an illegal ebook and then buying it once it is legal. How do you know it is even available for purchase as an ebook unless it happens to be on the front page of the book site you happen to be visiting or you see it in a search? We do tend to forget. I honestly don't see myself looking for that ebook on all the sites I visit. I sometimes go and have a browse. But most time I go looking for a specific book or author.

So what it comes down to is while you have all the best intentions in the world, we are human and we do make mistakes and we do forget. What if this book you downloaded, finished read and forgot out came out 2 years later as an ebook? I know for a fact that I would have forgotten all about it.

I'm a bit of a list maker. It would become a recurring calendar item on my PDA and I'd check from time to time. I've actually never downloaded an illegal copy of anything but, no, I would not forget. I take these things too seriously to leave it to chance.

Edit: I just went and checked his wording. He asked me if I'd "conveniently" forget. Not "it might be easy to forgot so are you sure you'd remember". Too close to accusing me of falsehood for my taste. Sorry. Still insulted.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Now, is it fair use that since my DVD drive is busted, that I loan my CD to a friend who rips it for me and sends me the bits and then deletes the copy?

Also, could the same thing be done with a pbook? He has the book scanner and offers to scan my book for me, so I loan the book and get back the book and an electronic copy.

Yes! Yes! Both of those scenarios are permissible! Congratulations! You've got your electronic copy, and no one's going to the pokey! You could even legally pay him for his trouble!

(Provided he gave the CD back to you. You did get it back, didn't you?... )

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Alisa

Edit: I just went and checked his wording. He asked me if I'd "conveniently" forget. Not "it might be easy to forgot so are you sure you'd remember". Too close to accusing me of falsehood for my taste. Sorry. Still insulted.

S'okay... you can take my name in vain if you want, we all know who's involved here.

And I'm sorry, but "I was gonna pay him later... I swear!" is no rationalization for taking something you didn't pay for. Whether you "intend" to pay them or not, the fact remains, you shouldn't have taken it.

[Alisa]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

S'okay... you can take my name in vain if you want, we all know who's involved here.

And I'm sorry, but "I was gonna pay him later... I swear!" is no rationalization for taking something you didn't pay for. Whether you "intend" to pay them or not, the fact remains, you shouldn't have taken it.

We have a differing opinion on what I have paid for and that's fine by me. I don't require people to agree with me. However, I prefer to keep my interactions civil.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Alisa

We have a differing opinion on what I have paid for and that's fine by me. I don't require people to agree with me. However, I prefer to keep my interactions civil.

Actually, I consider that I've been as civil as humanly possible, considering how out-of-hand this thread has gotten while various participants have given me inane rationalization after inane rationalization on how it's legally, morally and ethically okay for them to steal from me, because I sell "virtually nonexistent" e-books. Not to mention the barely-veiled "if you don't like it, get a real job!" comments.

Besides, civil or not, when you say something that's pretty much up there with "my dog ate my homework," you can't expect not to get some serious eye-rolling in your direction.

For the record, I don't "require" people to agree with me, either, and I have been in plenty of sane, objective, logical discussions in this forum, and not given people a lot of reasons to be upset with me. But this whole "okay, here's another scenario: there's this carrier pidgeon..." stuff has just gotten ridiculous, and beneath all of us to continue entertaining.

IMHO, I think it's time we stopped debating "what is piracy?" I think we all have a very good understanding of piracy, and didn't really need this thread to kick it around until it started bleeding.

Okay, end rant. ...say, weren't we talking about the Kindle here?