I have found numerous pirated ebooks for free online. Please tell me the benefits of

[fjtorres]

I thought the rules were clear:
1- Don't encourage copyright violations
2- Don't discuss how-to

Discussing possible mindsets/justifications should be fine as long as it doesn't endorse /validate it. Staying neutral is safest.

That sound about right?

[issybird]

Originally Posted by Thasaidon

I also think that moderators could step in and advise if the discussion is getting to close to the line.

Exactly the point of my post.

The problem with the current situation is that people are self censoring, which is the worst form of censorship.

Or the best.

To all: Please take any further comments along these lines to the Feedback Forum.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

I thought the rules were clear:
1- Don't encourage copyright violations
2- Don't discuss how-to

Discussing possible mindsets/justifications should be fine as long as it doesn't endorse /validate it. Staying neutral is safest.

That sound about right?

Sounds good to me.

[issybird]

Two posts have been deleted. When a moderator says, "Take it to the Feedback Forum" it does not imply "if you feel like it, but otherwise continue posting here at will." Any more posts in this thread about MR policies or moderation in regard to piracy issues will be deleted without comment.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Format shifting by itself does not automatically fall into the piracy category. To turn format shifting (a copyright infringement) into piracy requires distribution or intent to distribute (e.g. make available for download) with or without monetary gain. Format shifting may or may not even be copyright infringement depending on jurisdiction and use case.

@DiapDealer: There is no countless shades of gray, they counted them as exactly fifty.

Technically, in the US, format shifting is not a copyright violation, as the Supreme Court decided in the Betamax case. Of course, the court could change their mind, but the most part format shifting and making backups is not a copyright violation as long as it's for personal use.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Well I'm sufficiently satisfied that the assertion that requires mind-reading is slightly less factual than the ones that don't.

lol, by definition, as it's hard to assign factual value to mind-reading.

Nonetheless, my experiences--even here on MR--are like yours. Endless rationalization as to "why" it's okay to pirate books. My least-fave is the "it's not theft, because it's copyright infringement" argument, (the legal speciousness argument) and that there's no "stealing," because the money (by the author) was never earned. Lovely bit of rationalizing.

Hitch

[gmw]

Originally Posted by Thasaidon

The use of the term rationalisations could be a little perjorative [...]

From the movie: The Big Chill (1983)

Michael: I don't know anyone who could get through the day without two or three juicy rationalizations. They're more important than sex.

Sam: Ah, come on. Nothing's more important than sex.

Michael: Oh yeah? Ever gone a week without a rationalization?

[Pizza_Cant_Read]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Technically, in the US, format shifting is not a copyright violation, as the Supreme Court decided in the Betamax case. Of course, the court could change their mind, but the most part format shifting and making backups is not a copyright violation as long as it's for personal use.

That sounds about right for people manually scanning a book they own around the house (and hopefully keeping for evidence of ownership), but don't you think it would be another fight if one purchased an ebook book on Amazon and moved it to MOBI or PDF? The difference as I perceive it is physical books and media have a less restrictive license. Format shifting an ebook purchased from Amazon or a movie from iTunes would be really risky.

Assuming it is all the same though, this guy on Quora argues your hypothesis really well. I hope someone with the money one day takes it to court. Sooner rather than later as we know content licensing and the court system isn't getting any more liberal...

Quora link because the button is causing my page to freeze: https://www.quora.com/Is-it-legal-to...n-personal-use

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Pizza_Cant_Read

That sounds about right for people manually scanning a book they own around the house (and hopefully keeping for evidence of ownership), but don't you think it would be another fight if one purchased an ebook book on Amazon and moved it to MOBI or PDF? The difference as I perceive it is physical books and media have a less restrictive license. Format shifting an ebook purchased from Amazon or a movie from iTunes would be really risky.

Assuming it is all the same though, this guy on Quora argues your hypothesis really well. I hope someone with the money one day takes it to court. Sooner rather than later as we know content licensing and the court system isn't getting any more liberal...

Quora link because the button is causing my page to freeze: https://www.quora.com/Is-it-legal-to...n-personal-use

In general, the idea that you are licensing rather than purchasing something is a legal fiction to get around the first sale doctrine in the US. You can put anything you want into a click through license. The question is will it stand up in court. Sometimes it does, sometimes it doesn't. It really seems to depend on the judge and how well that judge understands technology. (i.e. judges who don't understand technology seem to be more likely to uphold such licenses)

Scanning books for your own use is one of legal questions that hasn't been really answered in the US. The courts have ruled that scanning a book does not by itself violate copyright law. They determined that in the Google case. The next step is can you do it to format shift. It seems fairly straight forward to me that you can as long as it's purely personal use, but you never know what some judge is going to rule.

From a practical stand point, no one is going to charge you with copyright violation if you do so. Also from a practical stand point, very few people actual do this. There is a fair amount of work involved in doing so and it's not something most people would do. The issue is if you make the results of that scan available to others. That is a copyright violation.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Hitch

My least-fave is the "it's not theft, because it's copyright infringement" argument, (the legal speciousness argument) and that there's no "stealing," because the money (by the author) was never earned. Lovely bit of rationalizing.

My least favorite is 'copying isn't theft because the original file still exists, "copying" allows more than one thing to exist (1+1=2).'

In the end the customer keeps his money and the author isn't paid (1-1 = 0). Rationalize all you want, an author writing books that keep getting given away for free isn't going to continue writing.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

My least favorite is 'copying isn't theft because the original file still exists, "copying" allows more than one thing to exist (1+1=2).'

In the end the customer keeps his money and the author isn't paid (1-1 = 0). Rationalize all you want, an author writing books that keep getting given away for free isn't going to continue writing.

This is my feeling about it, too. Obviously, I have a vested interest in authors making money; if they didn't, or even have a prayer in hell of so doing, my business would cease to exist, which, to me, would=bad.

But even without that, I feel that it's simply wrong to think that it's okay to steal the results of someone else's work, sans payment. I don't think that anyone else would like it, even if the analogy would be stealing an irreplaceable check, before they got to the bank to cash it, or stealing something that they'd bought with that money. Anyone who's ever been robbed knows that feeling of violation.

Why people believe it's okay to do it to a writer, I simply do not understand. Every argument I've ever seen seems to fall into the category, when distilled, of, "I want it and don't want to pay for it," no matter how well dressed-up or disguised.


Hitch

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Hitch

...Every argument I've ever seen seems to fall into the category, when distilled, of, "I want it and don't want to pay for it," no matter how well dressed-up or disguised.

I agree. But then I'm the one that's been saying that I believe most people don't bother justifying it at all. They just do it and don't worry about the philosophical points.

That's been my experience when talking to: my father-in-law who has a vast collection of tapes copied from movies rented from blockbuster, my coworker who uses Kodi to stream movies and other coworkers who use other services. When I ask about the morality of it , I tend to get a shrug or a smirk or a dismissive "whatever..."

The only times I've encountered the twisted justifications discussed here has been in online forums.

[darryl]

@Zod @Hitch. You both make very good points. My experience, like Zod's, is that most people don't bother with justifications at all.
However, it is a fact that copyright infringement is a very different legal concept to larceny. Copyright Infringement is quite literally not theft so far as the law is concerned. The question is whether the two are ethically equivalent or close to it.

I must confess that one of my pet hates is "rights holders" and publishers and the like continually hiding behind authors and other creators. Authors are of course entitled to be paid and should be paid. However, the fact is that it is almost invariably the case that the author is losing only a tiny amount from each lost sale compared to the other parties to the transaction. And, of course, time and time again we hear of publishers who have taken steps to cheat their authors even of these tiny payments. This does not of course in any way justify customers not paying the author. However, it is a dishonest and annoying tactic.

I want authors to be paid. If I were to download pirate copies of ebooks and read them without paying the author, I would be doing the wrong thing, full stop. Further, I believe that we should have intellectual property laws, though I think our current ones in many cases are working against the public interests they are meant to serve. When this happens these laws lose the respect of the public and I believe lead to more people regarding them as irrelevant.

The Free Dictionary defines the term rationalisation in this sense as follows:

rationalisation - the cognitive process of making something seem consistent with or based on reason

https://www.thefreedictionary.com/rationalisation

I don't think it follows that every copyright infringement is universally and without exception inconsistent with reason so that any justification whatsoever amounts to a rationalisation. Even more so if the question of whether something is consistent with reason is a subjective one and not an objective one.

Interestingly enough as far as I am aware Elsevier has made no claim that the authors of its articles are being deprived of payment by piracy. Perhaps this is because it does not in fact pay its authors? Though it does, of course, leverage the benefits of public research expenditure for its own enrichment.

[Thasaidon]

Nice Post Darryl.

Our viewpoints on this topic appear to be the identical.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

I agree. But then I'm the one that's been saying that I believe most people don't bother justifying it at all. They just do it and don't worry about the philosophical points.

That's been my experience when talking to: my father-in-law who has a vast collection of tapes copied from movies rented from blockbuster, my coworker who uses Kodi to stream movies and other coworkers who use other services. When I ask about the morality of it , I tend to get a shrug or a smirk or a dismissive "whatever..."

The only times I've encountered the twisted justifications discussed here has been in online forums.

I think that there are people who have the philosophy that "information just wants to be free" or some such thing and honestly believe it. I tend more to the "you want to pay so your favorite author/singer/actor" will continue to write books, make music and make movies" view myself.

I also think there is a generation of people who have grown up downloading/streaming content. That is their preferred method of getting content and they will get it that way. I do think that with the success of the various music streaming services (success as in number of paying customers), people will pay for content, but many are just as happy streaming a movie that someone else uploaded on you tube if that's the only say to get it.