What do you think about circumventing geographic restrictions?

[itisbomb]

Originally Posted by Ghitulescu

Their content is the same (the text). But the medium is different. Ebooks are immaterial, they reside on various media (USB stick, HDD, SD card, internal flash memory, CD, DVD etc.), while a paperbook is unseparable from its support. Until the invention of the copier one could not give a copy of a book to a friend - that book had to be transcribed (in ancient worlds, this was done by scribs and took ages; in middle age this was done by monks, again in decades; later on the printing machine did not change the transcription, only the other half). Today one can copy/paste an ebook to another medium in seconds.

Being inseparable from the paper, the books can only be lent/borrowed as a package, including the support, that means the original owner has no access to it until he gets it back.

Like with the metro ticket example earlier, in each millisecond since printing that paper book is read by a single person (except of course the "reading evenings").

I don't think your get eschwartz's or DiapDealer's point. What you are talking concerns "process/means". You are saying that if the "process/means" of lending is against the law, then that practice is unethical. But what eschwartz and DiapDealer are talking about is the "end result". They don't care about what the law dictates. They believe that, based upon a clear conscience, if in the end no harm is done to the author, you can do whatever you like with your digital book.

So you see you all are talking about totally different things. You can go on forever with your argument. But it will lead to nowhere unless you start addressing question proposed by eschwartz or DiapDealer.

Of course if you believe that an act of so-called "copyright infringement" (in whatever forms) will always result in author being harmed, you can just say so. I respect that. And I believe eschwartz or DiapDealer will too. And then we don't have to be bogged down by this endless and fruitless argument any longer.

[jscarbo]

I live most of the year in Costa Rica, Central America, although I maintain legal residence in the US as well. I buy the majority of my ebooks from Amazon using my US account and credit card. I've never had a problem buying from their US catalog and they've never asked my to verify my physical location. I'm not interested in their videos or other geo-restricted content but, if I were, I'd have no issue using a VPN or DNS service to bypass them. I'm willing to pay full retail price so no one is harmed, except perhaps the owner of the distribution rights for Central America. For the most part, my experience has been that the geo-restricted content isn't available for purchase in my location at any price, from any seller.

I do subscribe to Netflix. Their content availability in Latin America is much more limited than in the US. For the most part, I'm still able to find enough content on their Latin American site that it's worth the subscription price. However, if there's something I want to watch that's only available in the US, I have no hesitation to log into my account through my VPN and it takes me directly to the US Netflix site and allows me to stream US content. I don't see myself as violating anyone's copyright or doing anything illegal. I'm just working around a broken, archaic distribution system that still treats the world as being flat and hasn't made the adjustment to worldwide internet distribution and availability. I'm paying for the service and the copyright holder is receiving his royalties. Who's being hurt by this?

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I would make a clear distinction between removing DRM to allow me to read a book on a different device, and removing DRM to allow me to give a copy of a book to someone else. In my personal ethical system, the latter is dishonest; the former is not.

Harry - how would you regard removing DRM and giving a copy to a friend, if the original copy is deleted (so that only one copy exists)? If I then trust my friend to delete his copy when he gives it back there is still only one copy in existence at any one time. Would you regard this as ethically sound, and if not, why not?

/JB

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Ghitulescu

The point I was made (in that particular context) is that all the rights will cease EVENTUALLY after a certain period of time. After that the work (book, movie, song, invention) enters the so-called public domain (PD) where ANYONE can do whatever s/he wants.

The academic decency required that the paternity of a concept/idea be maintained by citations, even if this right elapsed for millennia (think Plato). A sort of gentlemen's agreement. Although even the academic world seems now to be fully infected with "alien strains".

I mean, one can use in the current daylife any quote he wants and try letting it pass as his own, with impunity. Only in select clubs, like universities, some rules, different from copyrights, should be observed.

That is exactly what we thought you meant and it is still wildly irrelevant.

As I pointed out in the first place -- do you want me to "cite the sources" when I DeDRM my ebooks, or what? What is your point?

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by jbjb

Harry - how would you regard removing DRM and giving a copy to a friend, if the original copy is deleted (so that only one copy exists)? If I then trust my friend to delete his copy when he gives it back there is still only one copy in existence at any one time. Would you regard this as ethically sound, and if not, why not?

Let me ask Harry another question--shifting the focus to music, since I'm currently in the process of digitizing my LP collection, creating multiple archival and listening copies. I plan to get rid of the LPs, donating and/or selling them. In your ethical system, is this acceptable or not?

[murg]

Originally Posted by Ghitulescu

The point I was made (in that particular context) is that all the rights will cease EVENTUALLY after a certain period of time. After that the work (book, movie, song, invention) enters the so-called public domain (PD) where ANYONE can do whatever s/he wants.

The academic decency required that the paternity of a concept/idea be maintained by citations, even if this right elapsed for millennia (think Plato). A sort of gentlemen's agreement. Although even the academic world seems now to be fully infected with "alien strains".

I mean, one can use in the current daylife any quote he wants and try letting it pass as his own, with impunity. Only in select clubs, like universities, some rules, different from copyrights, should be observed.

There is no correlation between the copyright system and the cite system.

Absolutely none.

They perform mutually exclusive functions.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Let me ask Harry another question--shifting the focus to music, since I'm currently in the process of digitizing my LP collection, creating multiple archival and listening copies. I plan to get rid of the LPs, donating and/or selling them. In your ethical system, is this acceptable or not?

Great gods, no. I'm sure you don't need me or anyone else to tell you that selling something while keeping a copy of it yourself is just plain piracy. This is precisely the reason that so many people are against allowing the resale of digital goods: the belief that many people would simply buy an ebook then resell it while keeping a copy themselves.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Great gods, no. I'm sure you don't need me or anyone else to tell you that selling something while keeping a copy of it yourself is just plain piracy. This is precisely the reason that so many people are against allowing the resale of digital goods: the belief that many people would simply buy an ebook then resell it while keeping a copy themselves.

So ... I'm supposed to destroy them?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by jbjb

Harry - how would you regard removing DRM and giving a copy to a friend, if the original copy is deleted (so that only one copy exists)? If I then trust my friend to delete his copy when he gives it back there is still only one copy in existence at any one time. Would you regard this as ethically sound, and if not, why not?

/JB

I'd regard it as absolutely fine. The problem is that it's completely impractical. It's pretty much impossible for you to delete all your copies. It will still be in your account at the bookstore; it will (if you have any common sense!) be backed up multiple times on different physical drives in different locations, and so on. I don't know about you, but my goal in life, when it comes to ebooks, is to try my damnedest to ensure that I don't lose all my copies of my ebooks .

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Catlady

So ... I'm supposed to destroy them?

Decide for yourself. You asked me if I thought it was ethical and I've answered your question.

[crich70]

One point that occurs to me. If a book is available for free at a site like Smashwords is there any real difference between giving a friend a copy and just directing them to the link where they can download it themselves directly? I could see it being argued both ways on that one.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Decide for yourself. You asked me if I thought it was ethical and I've answered your question.

Have you ever bought a used LP or CD? If so, have you required proof that the seller has not made a copy of it?

[darryl]

It seems to me that many if not most people are prepared to act according to their own moral code in preference to the law to at least some extent. It is probably fair to say that even the most virtuous amongst us approve of removing DRM for purposes of backing-up and enabling reading on different devices, irrespective of what the law says.

Legislatures persist in making laws which are bad or effectively unenforceable. They also have a very bad track record when technology renders existing laws obsolete, and when they do ultimately respond it tends to be along the lines sought by interest groups seeking to preserve the status quo, often with legislation which is draconian and effectively unenforceable. Bad and unenforceable legislation tends to create contempt for the law, which seems to be what had happened here. People are behaving in accordance with their own moral codes irrespective of the law.

However, what is enlightening is that most people seem to be willing to pay a reasonable amount for their books (or music or movies) even though pirating is trivial and the risk negligible. And it is because of this that the relevant industries not only survive but continue to thrive. This willingness to pay has been cultivated by the sheer ease and convenience of purchasing online, and by the far more reasonable pricing of many items.

Intellectual property laws in general are long overdue for a review of their very basis as well as their basic principle. Starting from scratch would be very desirable, though of course most unlikely to ever happen.

[murg]

Originally Posted by crich70

One point that occurs to me. If a book is available for free at a site like Smashwords is there any real difference between giving a friend a copy and just directing them to the link where they can download it themselves directly? I could see it being argued both ways on that one.

There is no argument.

If you give a copy, you are violating copyright, unless the ebook itself was released under a licence that allows distributing it.

Send the link is ok, as your friend gets their own legitimate copy.

[murg]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Have you ever bought a used LP or CD? If so, have you required proof that the seller has not made a copy of it?

Nope.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if a large proportion of the sellers had some form of copy of the record.