What do you think about circumventing geographic restrictions?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

But it is hurting the author because he is not buying a new copy for a device using a different format.

No, that's not the reason I remove DRM. I'm buying books from Amazon and reading them on a Kindle. The reason I remove DRM is:

1. To make it easier to transfer the book to a new Kindle when I upgrade. (I really don't want to have to download 4000+ books from Amazon again!)

2. To allow me to make changes to the book. Many books have inconsistent metadata and poor formatting, and I can't edit them while they have DRM.

I struggle to see how doing that is hurting anyone.

[doctorow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Precisely because, as I said in my previous post, on the few occasions that I've lent people paper books (which I keep in a pristine condition) I've got them back in a shocking state, with creased spines, bent covers, etc. It's not a matter of being "lonely and disconnected" - it's a matter of experience teaching me that, much as I enjoy the company of my friends, they don't have the same respect for books that I do.

You draw a conclusion based on an unrelated experience. How someone is treating a physical book has no relation to whether someone observes copyright laws. It's like saying, because my friend doesn't keep his car as clean as I do, I wouldn't trust lending my car to him because he is likely going to speed and kill a pedestrian on the way, and I would be morally responsible.

And if I'm pirating the book by giving it to them in the first place, it's a bit hypocritical to ask them not to do the same, isn't it? One rule for me and a different one for them?

Your argument is based on the assumption that by lending an eBook you're pirating the book, which is one topic of this discussion and I wager many people disagree with you. Maybe not apparent to you, but to many others there is a fundamental difference between acquiring copyright protected eBooks from a file sharing site, and lending a legitimately purchased eBook to a family member or close friend.

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I have no way of knowing what someone else is or isn't going to do, regardless of how well I think I know them.

That's why I made it clear that the scenario I'm considering is one where the book is lent to a friend whom I can trust.

/JB

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by doctorow

Maybe not apparent to you, but to many others there is a fundamental difference between acquiring copyright protected eBooks from a file sharing site, and lending a legitimately purchased eBook to a family member or close friend.

It's certainly apparent to me that many people think this, and, as I've noted elsewhere in the thread, Amazon provide a perfectly legitimate method for sharing books with family members (several different legitimate methods, in fact).

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, that's not the reason I remove DRM. I'm buying books from Amazon and reading them on a Kindle. The reason I remove DRM is:

1. To make it easier to transfer the book to a new Kindle when I upgrade. (I really don't want to have to download 4000+ books from Amazon again!)

2. To allow me to make changes to the book. Many books have inconsistent metadata and poor formatting, and I can't edit them while they have DRM.

I struggle to see how doing that is hurting anyone.

Just so long as you are not using the books on an epub reader. Or a non-kindle-reader.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Ghitulescu

You, as a buyer, don't need it. You are in the possession of the originals. It's the job of the seller to prove his copies are lawful.

Prove it to whom?

ETA: If the buyer has no responsibility, doesn't it logically follow that a person can download any and all torrented e-books, music, movies, etc., and claim ignorance of the provenance of such materials?

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

The copyright in sound recording expires after 50 years (now 70 years after publication in the EU), but the copyright in the music and/or lyrics may last longer. So you have to check all three before you're free to copy/distribute sound recordings.

There's a huge difference between deciding a work is in public domain and then sharing it on the Web, and making a copy of an LP and then donating or selling that single LP.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The difference, as I see it (and please feel free to disagree!) is that I see a significant difference between judging the ethics of my own actions and those of someone else. I know that I'm not going to upload a DRM-stripped book to a torrent site. I have no way of knowing what someone else is or isn't going to do, regardless of how well I think I know them. If I gave a copy of a book to someone, and they then in turn gave it to other people, uploaded it to the internet, etc, I'd feel morally responsible for that piracy, because it would be my actions which led to it. Because of this, I prefer not to take the chance. I should add that I also don't lend paper books to people because they don't look after them the way that I do. If I can't trust my friends to look after my paper books, I'm not going to trust them to look after my ebooks.

But you are judging the ethics of others, and finding them not up to your standards.

Taking on moral responsibility for the ripple effect of one's legitimate actions seems to give off a whiff of inflated self-importance. If you loan your car to a friend, and that friend has an accident and kills a pedestrian, are you responsible?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Taking on moral responsibility for the ripple effect of one's legitimate actions seems to give off a whiff of inflated self-importance. If you loan your car to a friend, and that friend has an accident and kills a pedestrian, are you responsible?

My point is that giving someone a copy of a book is not a "legitimate action"; it's copyright infringement (in the UK, at least). So if, as the result of my ILlegitimate action, a book gets more widely pirated, then yes, it is my fault, and that's why I choose not to do it.

[Ghitulescu]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Prove it to whom?

If asked

Originally Posted by Catlady

ETA: If the buyer has no responsibility, doesn't it logically follow that a person can download any and all torrented e-books, music, movies, etc., and claim ignorance of the provenance of such materials?

Ignorance does not help before the court. All laws are published (before they have been announced with a drummer ) and it's the duty of a citizen to know the laws, anyway.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by HarryT

My point is that giving someone a copy of a book is not a "legitimate action"; it's copyright infringement (in the UK, at least). So if, as the result of my ILlegitimate action, a book gets more widely pirated, then yes, it is my fault, and that's why I choose not to do it.

Isn't DRM stripping, which you admit you do, also then an illegitimate action?

How many e-books do you own that aren't already widely available on pirate sites? Do you really think that the single copy of an e-book you make for a friend is somehow THE copy that's going to end up on all the file-sharing sites? The book was probably already uploaded five minutes after it was published.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Ghitulescu

If asked

Ignorance does not help before the court. All laws are published (before they have been announced with a drummer ) and it's the duty of a citizen to know the laws, anyway.

But since we know ignorance is not a defense, shouldn't the potential buyer at, say, a garage sale, require the seller to prove or swear that the bin of LPs and VHS tapes have not been digitized and no copies live on the seller's computer? How come that garage sale buyer can blithely assume the seller hasn't infringed copyright by keeping a copy? But if a person downloads something from the Web, he or she is supposed to inquire as to copyright status, rights holders, etc.?

Ethically, why shouldn't the buyer have the same responsibility in both instances? Why should a buyer assume a greater responsibility when the format is digital?

[barryem]

Originally Posted by darryl

It is isn't always ethical behaviour to share with friends. It depends on what you are sharing and the circumstances. For instance, if you break in to your neighbours house and take their goods, it is most unlikely (but not impossible) that it would be ethical for you to share those goods with your friends.

I'm not sure how this applies to the discussion at hand but even if it somehow does, I don't think your logic quite works. Breaking into your neighbor's house to steal their goods is not ethical behavior. However, having done that unethical theft and now having their stolen goods, is it more ethical to keep them or share them with your friends?

Yes I do think I'm stretching things a bit here but one good stretch deserves another.

Barry

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Isn't DRM stripping, which you admit you do, also then an illegitimate action?

It is an action which does not harm the author. I choose not to give copies of my ebooks to other people because that is - IMHO - an action which has the potential to harm the author. I can control my own actions. No matter how well I may think I know someone else, I can't control their actions, so I don't give other people copies of my copyrighted ebooks.

[barryem]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's precisely why I question the claim made in this thread that it's "generous" to "share" your ebooks with your friends. Sure, your friend probably does think you're being generous, but the problem is that it's not your property that you're so generously giving away - it's the author's. Both the law and - IMHO - ethical considerations should, to my mind, dictate that it's the author who has the right to determine who to give copies of his or her books away to, and nobody else.

Ethics are a lot different than law in that with law there's a standard. If we disagree about what is legal we can look it up and see what the law says. If we don't think it gives a clear answer to our questions we can ask a judge. There's a way to decide what is legal and what is not.

With ethics that isn't the case. We have to figure it out for ourselves.

Most of us learned when we were growing up that sharing with our friends was a good thing. Most of us who grew up in families that read learned to share books. We learned that it's a good and friendly thing to do and that not sharing is a stingy and not very nice thing to do. I'm not sure that adds up to ethical behavior but it's close enough for me in this situation.

If I read a good book and tell my neighbor and he asks to read my copy I have no problem with lending it to him. If I refused I'd feel like I was being selfish and so would my neighbor. Neighborliness has it's own ethics.

Now something new comes along; ebooks. Publishers and sellers tell us we don't have the right to share with our neighbors anymore. I feel for them. I'm sure they have their reasons, but I'm not buying into their ethics. Yes, to buy their books I have to say I agree to abide by their rules but that's just another of their rules. Agree or don't buy. So agreeing is part of the price I pay.

Once paid, the book is mine. I know, they say it's not mine. I'm just paying for the right to read it. But nah! It's mine.

I am an honest person. I nearly always buy the books I read. My friends and neighbors are honest people. They nearly always buy theirs. But sometimes we share with each other. I don't send my books to pirate sites and I wouldn't lend one to someone I thought might do that. I'm happy to pay for books because I love to read and I want authors and publishers to make good livings so they can keep me supplied in books.

I guess to me ethical behavior means doing what I think is right, not what some lawyer working for some publisher thinks is right. It's also not doing what you think is right, just as you probably won't do what I think is right. That's the world we find ourselves in and I'm fine with it.

Barry