Do you pirate books and why?

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by covingtoncat73

Is it considered piracy if I strip DRM and convert eBooks I have paid for, even if I don't share them with anyone else?

Only by real pirates who are trying to confuse the issue.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Do you have a link, or any names that I can use to search for one? Are you sure it wasn't another case of the media writing a story about "illegal downloading" when in reality the case is about something much different (which is what usually happens).

This wasn't the one I referred to but it appears to be a P2P case.
http://www.switched.com/2009/06/19/w...ding-24-songs/

The Boston case of 30 songs.
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-...75k-jury-award

OK, found the Texas case. SCOTUS declined to hear the cases.
http://www.legitreviews.com/news/9536/

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Fbone

This wasn't the one I referred to but it appears to be a P2P case.
http://www.switched.com/2009/06/19/w...ding-24-songs/

The Boston case of 30 songs.
http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-...75k-jury-award

OK, found the Texas case. SCOTUS declined to hear the cases.
http://www.legitreviews.com/news/9536/

The first is the famous Jammie Thomas-Rasset case; P2P. The second is Tenenbaum; also P2P. "Weiblinger said RIAA actually caught Tenenbaum uploading thousands of music files to millions of anonymous strangers..."

Third case: "Harper was between 14 and 16 when she began downloading and sharing popular music with her friends..."

All three are about the legal issues of *uploading*, not downloading. There has never been, AFAIK, any court case filed for downloading.

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by covingtoncat73

Is it considered piracy if I strip DRM and convert eBooks I have paid for, even if I don't share them with anyone else?

Some would consider you as evil as those who upload ebook multipacks

I suspect like many others, you buy an ebook in a format that you can obtain, liberate the book from DRM and convert to suit your ereader's format preference.

The most important part of that paragraph above is that you have paid for the ebook and thus the author.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by covingtoncat73

Is it considered piracy if I strip DRM and convert eBooks I have paid for, even if I don't share them with anyone else?

If it is, then I be a pirate with salt water running in my veins.

There's a huge difference in my opinion between protecting an investment and illegal file sharing.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

The first is the famous Jammie Thomas-Rasset case; P2P. The second is Tenenbaum; also P2P. "Weiblinger said RIAA actually caught Tenenbaum uploading thousands of music files to millions of anonymous strangers..."

Third case: "Harper was between 14 and 16 when she began downloading and sharing popular music with her friends..."

All three are about the legal issues of *uploading*, not downloading. There has never been, AFAIK, any court case filed for downloading.

In the last case she was only found guilty of downloading 37 songs from Kazaa. She was found innocent of uploading as the court said making songs available for others wasn't enough for "copyright infringement." She tried to use the "innocent infringement" defense but was rejected.

[MrKyle]

Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash

Good on you for making the right choice when your income changed.

Haha thanks. SOOO Happy that I finally was hired by a big greedy corporation so I can buy as many books as I can read and spend my money on the writing process.

Now I don't even think twice about buying a book off of the Kindle market.

[MikeOxlittle]

Interesting to see the amount of people who admit to pirating books is slowly climbing as the poll went to a private format.

I wonder how many of the early voters who picked the NO option did so because they did not want their names publicly displayed as pirating books ... even if they did/do.

[Quexos]

Sometimes freedom comes at the price of discretion.
Too bad that earlier voters can't vote again to make this poll more reflecting of reality.

Originally Posted by MikeOxlittle

Interesting to see the amount of people who admit to pirating books is slowly climbing as the poll went to a private format.

I wonder how many of the early voters who picked the NO option did so because they did not want their names publicly displayed as pirating books ... even if they did/do.

[bloodlover]

So if one wants to read a good original product in English the internet is (most of the times) the only way.

I still have a lot of books home and I moved some to my grandparents because I ran out of room.

[Quexos]

If copyright holders and the whole establishment behind them had their way, there is a lot of material out there which you simply would not be allowed to access. In other words, money can be more important than individual rights and freedom to access knowledge and culture. Interesting.

So much for the "pirates being the evil guys and the copyright holders being the good guys" philosophy ...

Originally Posted by bloodlover

So if one wants to read a good original product in English the internet is (most of the times) the only way.

[plib]

Originally Posted by Quexos

If copyright holders and the whole establishment behind them had their way, there is a lot of material out there which you simply would not be allowed to access. In other words, money can be more important than individual rights and freedom to access knowledge and culture. Interesting.

So much for the "pirates being the evil guys and the copyright holders being the good guys" philosophy ...

But it can come back and bite them sometimes. The relative importance put on the march of the Big Eared Mouse towards copyright immortality as against individual rights and freedoms is a big part of why ACTA got booted in the EU.

[ficbot]

I think that for me, there is a distinction between the legal issue and the moral one. I don't commit 'moral' piracy but I find the legal distinctions a little silly. For example, I have two people in my life who have ebook readers but prefer for me to get the books for them. In the first case, it is my mother. She has a Kobo reader, which I purchased, which was registered to my Kobo account, and continues to be. When she wants a book, she calls me up, I get it for her, take the Kobo back to my own computer and load it on for her. Yet at the same time, I have a Kobo app on my iPad. So simultaneous with her reading the book, I could read it too. But technically, legally, and morally, I have done nothing wrong. The Kobo is still registered to my account so it's all okay.

Now, contrast this to my boyfriend, with whom I live. He also asks me to get books for him. I usually get my books from Amazon. From a technical, legal standpoint, it would be 'piracy' for me to buy the book from Amazon, strip the DRM and load it onto his Kobo. But the net effect is the same. So why is one 'piracy' and the other not? It's purely semantics. I suppose that if I wanted to be 100% pure about it, I could register his Kobo to my account as well, or I could just take his physical Kobo and borrow it when I want to. But really, what is the practical difference? And is anyone really going to tale me to court because I bought a book at Amazon and shared it with my Kobo-using partner with whom I live? I just don't see a moral difference between the two scenarios I outline above.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by ficbot

I think that for me, there is a distinction between the legal issue and the moral one. I don't commit 'moral' piracy but I find the legal distinctions a little silly. For example, I have two people in my life who have ebook readers but prefer for me to get the books for them. In the first case, it is my mother. She has a Kobo reader, which I purchased, which was registered to my Kobo account, and continues to be. When she wants a book, she calls me up, I get it for her, take the Kobo back to my own computer and load it on for her. Yet at the same time, I have a Kobo app on my iPad. So simultaneous with her reading the book, I could read it too. But technically, legally, and morally, I have done nothing wrong. The Kobo is still registered to my account so it's all okay.

Now, contrast this to my boyfriend, with whom I live. He also asks me to get books for him. I usually get my books from Amazon. From a technical, legal standpoint, it would be 'piracy' for me to buy the book from Amazon, strip the DRM and load it onto his Kobo. But the net effect is the same. So why is one 'piracy' and the other not? It's purely semantics. I suppose that if I wanted to be 100% pure about it, I could register his Kobo to my account as well, or I could just take his physical Kobo and borrow it when I want to. But really, what is the practical difference? And is anyone really going to tale me to court because I bought a book at Amazon and shared it with my Kobo-using partner with whom I live? I just don't see a moral difference between the two scenarios I outline above.

I can't imagine anyone objecting to the scenario that you describe.

[wgrimm]

I have a novel suggestion- if a writer publishes a very bad book, he should be required to pay the reader.....

At least in the states, if you own a book you are entitled to a digital copy, I do not see why it would matter if you digitized or if you downloaded it. Publishers are treating their best customers like crooks. Prices still need to come down.

Wanted to re-read Stanislaw Lem's The Invincible. Still have my paperback, but no ebook available. Much easier for me to read ebooks these days, so yes I will be obtaining or creating my own copy of this book.

I do not see the publishers getting it together. What I see happening is an initiative from google. They are digitizing alot of books, and could make out of print titles available in ebook format.