Do you pirate books and why?

[raac]

If I have already bought the paper version then I have no qualms about acquiring the e-book without paying for it. I only buy books from which I can strip the DRM. I do not share those books on-line. I just don't trust that my books will remain accessible in the long term unless they are DRM free. Books with excessive numbers of typos that are present only in the e-book version will get returned for a refund (even if I end up fixing them myself). I won't condone the shoddy editing by paying them for it.

[maxiart]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Not really. I understand sharing something that is hard to find or unavailable legitimately, but not large-scale sharing of an e-book that is readily available for purchase.

Funny how, looking at it from that angle, mostly people share 'easy-to-find, legitimately available' things, uh? Really, with that mentality, I would not be surprised if you wondered why people even share at all!

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by maxiart

Funny how, looking at it from that angle, mostly people share 'easy-to-find, legitimately available' things, uh? Really, with that mentality, I would not be surprised if you wondered why people even share at all!

I'm not following you at all.

Let's say Person A has a bootleg of a movie that he loves. It's out of print, it's never on TV; he thinks it's great and wishes all his friends and relations in cyberspace could all see it and enjoy it as much as he does, but since there's no commercial copy available, they have no way to do that. So he decides to upload his movie and share it.

On the other hand, Person B has this great DVD that can be bought in any store for $10 or so. If his friends want it, they can easily buy it anywhere. What's his incentive to upload it and provide it free of charge, depriving the creators of income and clearly breaking the law?

In the first case, Person A can rationalize that he is nobly providing something to the public that they would otherwise be deprived of. I can understand that. In the second case, if Person B uploads the readily available DVD, does he have any way to rationalize his bad behavior?

[Red Falcon]

maxiart

As it stands now I do not own any content I buy digitally, I license the right to use.If I do not have the same rights for digital content as I do with physical content I would much rather pay a subscription then play this game of "ownership" of the content if i pay them a sum of money for it.

[MikeOxlittle]

Yes.

I'm morally corrupt and the temptation is too strong.

[JSWolf]

Can the vote please be changed to not show voter's nicks?

[maxiart]

Originally Posted by Catlady

if Person B uploads the readily available DVD, does he have any way to rationalize his bad behavior?

If its a matter of rationalizing, then there are plenty available. He could rationalize it as doing it for the people who don't have the money to expend in that, or for the people who want to read/see the product themselves before commiting themselves to a buy.

So yeah, rationalizing is still possibe. But more than that, there is no real difference between person B uploading the DVD, and simply letting his friends watch it in his house, or lending it to them.

[Belfaborac]

Of course there is. There is a vast difference in scale.

[Piper_]

Originally Posted by drypen

I've pirated ebooks. But only the ones that I had already bought (paperback or hardcover) And I never buy new. A couple of times I pirated an ebook based on someones recommendation and became a loyal fan, purchasing any and all new books as they became available. But again never new. I just can't afford them.

Originally Posted by RHWright

Sorry, "I just can't afford them" is not an excuse.

It might be if books were essential to survival, like, say, food. (E.g. My children were starving, I had no money, so I had to take that loaf of bread.)

What you are describing is more like being a used car owner. "I've always bought used; it's all I can afford. Usually Fords. My friend told me how awesome driving a Lexus is. So I stole one. I loved it. Now, the next time I need a new car (which I never do and still can't afford), I'll buy a Lexus."

This may seem like an absurd analogy, but it's really what the "I can't afford them" argument amounts to.

...

I think he meant he can only afford to buy used, instead of new.

[dizaster]

Okay I had to say yes because I have done it in the past
and only if I have , what I consider, a valued reason for doing so.

I only download books from undisclosed sources if and only if
they are no longer available in print or ebook format.

I probably have as many as 15 'pirated' books in my library and these ar books I have owned in the past but can no longer find.
LoL They may be in one of the dozens on boxes of books I/we have stored
round the house :-)

[Jaden]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I'm surprised to see the "No" vote so high. (Just over 48% as I write this.)

Really? Never? Not even for books you love (& own in paper) that aren't yet available in ebook formats?

Well, the poll asks "do you...", not "did you ever...".

Some people might have downloaded book illegaly in the past, but won't do it now and therefore voted "no".

Others might not want to admit in public that they pirate books...

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

Of course there is. There is a vast difference in scale.

But is that a good or bad thing? Whether or not a work of art is not available in your preferred format should have no bearing on whether or not you believe it is allright to copy the work. Indeed, to copy a text, it is inherent that the work is already available. The digital allows for all texts to be equally available. That is the assumption we must begin from.

When you discuss scale, referring to the number of minds that have access to a work, you are locked to the physical. The digital allows for all minds to access all works at once.

[maxiart]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I'm surprised to see the "No" vote so high. (Just over 48% as I write this.)

Really? Never? Not even for books you love (& own in paper) that aren't yet available in ebook formats?

Hehehe, I am more surprised about the people who actually voted yes, given the ruling climate in the forum

[applesauce]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

But is that a good or bad thing? Whether or not a work of art is not available in your preferred format should have no bearing on whether or not you believe it is allright to copy the work. Indeed, to copy a text, it is inherent that the work is already available. The digital allows for all texts to be equally available. That is the assumption we must begin from.

You presume it is a preference not a necessity. There are those of us out there that reading must be in ebook formate in order to read it due to disabilities.

I support those who write the books. If faced with a book not out there in retail land in ebook formate I would consider downloading the illegal copy. I am not talking an instant fix here either. As in I am prepared to wait out an ebook release if I know one will be coming eventually. I do tho have problem with Kings latest stand and am in two minds over that. My leaning at the moment is to not read the book at all. I resent putting money in his pocket when he doesnt stop to think about his loyal customers who need ebooks in order to read his books.

applesauce

[Belfaborac]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

But is that a good or bad thing? [....]

When you discuss scale, referring to the number of minds that have access to a work, you are locked to the physical. The digital allows for all minds to access all works at once.

My reply was only in response to "there is no real difference...", which there patently is.