What do you think about circumventing geographic restrictions?

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by HarryT

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).

If I want to share to a different family member, I have to wait 6 months before connecting my Family Library to them.
Or else I can lend it to them. Once. Ever. And never to anyone else again.

Or else I have to have one account that we both share, which can be considered awkward by many.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Catlady

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?

When you download a torrent, do you gain the original copy? The distinction Ghitulescu made was that as long as you know your own copy is legal, you are not required to care, even if you know for sure, that the seller has an illegal copy.

Personally, I call that aiding and abetting -- but you are arguing against a point that was never made.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Catlady

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.

Yes, it is a matter of scale -- like I said before, it is the difference between robbing one bank and robbing two banks.

Would you rob one bank because it is not "as bad" as robbing two banks? If so, feel free to steal one copy of an LP since it is not "as bad" as stealing a whole internet's worth of them.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's the difference between lending your friend a DVD, and giving that same friend a copy of the DVD. Nobody would consider lending the DVD to be wrong; many would regard giving the copy as piracy.

I would not consider that piracy, I would consider that lending my friend-who-I-trust a more versatile format -- the same reason I would prefer to watch it myself as a digital file, he would rather use a digital file over a format bound to the physical medium.

Either way, with DVDs and ebooks, I trust my friend to delete it when he is done with it.

[darryl]

Originally Posted by barryem

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

I do think you are stretching things a bit, Barry. The problem with your argument as I see it is that you are trying to defend an absolute, that is, that sharing something with your friends is always ethical. To do so in the case of the example I gave, you seek to separate the theft from the sharing, when the two are related in at least the fact that you are the perpetrator of both. One scenario is that the theft was committed with the specific intention of not only obtaining the goods for yourself but of sharing them with your friends, which even futrther connects the actions whieh you seek to separate. Or what about sharing your gun with your hitman friend so he can use it on his next job?

Your initial premise, that sharing with your friends is always ethical, simply does not hold water. This undermines the foundation of your further reasoning. In fact, I suspect you may be putting this position tongue in cheek, so to speak, as it has proved to be a catalyst for further discussion.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

What does Manybooks have to do with anything? The original case (linked again) was a case of a copyrighted book being sold for a $0.00 price point -- the famed freebie. In that case the vendor under discussion was Smashwords. Either way, if you thought the vendor didn't allow freebies, you should've responded as such, rather than to the presumed nonexistent case of a commercial freebie... by saying you have redistribution rights???

Well the case was "a site like Smashwords" and available for free. And I would say that Manybooks cover that definition. It was not required that the book be sold for 0 price.

[barryem]

Originally Posted by darryl

I do think you are stretching things a bit, Barry. The problem with your argument as I see it is that you are trying to defend an absolute, that is, that sharing something with your friends is always ethical. To do so in the case of the example I gave, you seek to separate the theft from the sharing, when the two are related in at least the fact that you are the perpetrator of both. One scenario is that the theft was committed with the specific intention of not only obtaining the goods for yourself but of sharing them with your friends, which even futrther connects the actions whieh you seek to separate. Or what about sharing your gun with your hitman friend so he can use it on his next job?

Your initial premise, that sharing with your friends is always ethical, simply does not hold water. This undermines the foundation of your further reasoning. In fact, I suspect you may be putting this position tongue in cheek, so to speak, as it has proved to be a catalyst for further discussion.

I think you're stretching what I'm saying way out of proportion and turning it into things I'm not saying at all.

First, underlying everything I've been saying is that there are no absolutes in this sort of thing. We should follow our conscience. If you think it's wrong to lend a book you shouldn't lend it. In most cases I don't think it's wrong so I should lend it. There are lots of exceptions and I've stated a few. I wouldn't lend a book to someone I thought was going to distribute it to pirate sites. I might lend a book to someone who also might lend it to a friend but the people I share books with don't have that ability so that isn't something I've had to deal with.

Second, you're equating my lending of a book that I purchased legally to breaking into someone's house and stealing their goods. They're not the same thing. I buy nearly all my books from Amazon. I pay for them with real money. I feel entitled to lend them.

Notice that I didn't say I'm legally entitled to lend them. Of course I'm not. But lending a book I paid for feels right to me. That's true even if the seller says I only paid for the right to read that book. He's simply mistaken.

Barry

[darryl]

@barryem. My intent was to take issue with only one statement in your initial post. That is:

A good person shares with friends. That's ethical behavior. It isn't always legal behavior.

Apparently what you meant to convey was, as per your latest post, that "in most cases I don't think it's wrong so I should lend it".

My apologies if I took your statement too literally. It seems that we agree that what is moral and/or ethical depends very heavily on the context, and of course on our own individual standards.

I was definitely not attempting to equate sharing a book with larceny. Only "rights-holders" seem to be keen on doing this. Copyright Infringement is not larceny, whatever the advertising would have us believe. It may or may not be ethical, depending of course on the circumstances. My example is meant simply as an illustration that sharing with friends is not always ethical.

By the way, I like your Elmer Fudd avatar.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by darryl

By the way, I like your Elmer Fudd avatar.

Blatant copyright infringement!

[Ghitulescu]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Blatant copyright infringement!

Fair use
- non-commercial
- different purpose
- very small part

[darryl]

Originally Posted by Ghitulescu

Fair use
- non-commercial
- different purpose
- very small part

To use the words of another immortal cartoon character from the same stable, "That's a joke, Son!"

[barryem]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Blatant copyright infringement!

The right to use this avatar was granted to me by the ghost of Mr Disney in a dream.

Barry

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by barryem

The right to use this avatar was granted to me by the ghost of Mr Disney in a dream.

Barry

But Elmer Fudd is a Looney Tunes character; I don't think the ghost of Mr. Disney has any say over it.

[DiapDealer]

He may in Dreamland.

[barryem]

Originally Posted by Catlady

But Elmer Fudd is a Looney Tunes character; I don't think the ghost of Mr. Disney has any say over it.

Omigod! At age 74 I finally made my first mistake. I knew it had to happen someday!

Barry