What are your views on illegal copying?

[amgoforth]

What is the difference between paying 25 cents for a book at a thrift shop or library sale or giving a friend books for free because I have finished reading them, or downloading it for free. Either way the author only gets paid ounce. I am worried though because if books can be copied that easy in digital form then maybe it will not be worthwhile to write them anymore.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by amgoforth

What is the difference between paying 25 cents for a book at a thrift shop or library sale or giving a friend books for free because I have finished reading them, or downloading it for free.

A download could be copied 1000s of times or more, whereas a physical books is likely to change hands only once every few years, perhaps.

A download can be found by searching on the web very easily, whereas a second-hand copy is more difficult (despite abe books).

A download doesn't deprive the original owner of their copy.

I'm sure that there are other differences.

[amgoforth]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

A download could be copied 1000s of times or more, whereas a physical books is likely to change hands only once every few years, perhaps.

A download can be found by searching on the web very easily, whereas a second-hand copy is more difficult (despite abe books).

A download doesn't deprive the original owner of their copy.

I'm sure that there are other differences.

Yes you are right about those things. For myself I have always felt OK about downloading if I already owned a physical copy of the book. Trouble is I used to have thousands of books, so very few I couldn't download. However very few of those books were bought new. I need peace of mind on the subject.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Scribd is the youtube of text. It has some of everything--legit ebooks, legal documents (pdfs of rulings of court cases), bootleg ebooks, random articles by bloggers (legitimately posted or not), and so on.

The SFWA, acting on behalf of a few of its members, served Scribd a DMCA takedown notice demanding it remove all content it claimed to be infringing on copyrights--over 1500 links. Scribd did so. However, the SFWA didn't have permission from many of the copyright owners to request removal of that content--including Doctorow's Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom, which is legally available pretty much everywhere online that has ebooks.

Several authors were disturbed to get notices that said, "this content has been removed from Scribd at the request of they copyright owner." Since they'd put the content on Scribd themselves, this was news to them. Boingboing had much to say about it. The SFWA has their own writeup
of what happened.

Accusations flew; apparently, SFWA had come up with a list based on keyword searches without bothering to check the specific contents at each link. Potential lawsuits for false DMCA reports bounced around, to which the SFWA reacted by saying basically, "oh, that wasn't a DMCA takedown notice" ('cos if it was, they were guilty of a serious felony by claiming to represent people they didn't), "it was just a polite please-remove-this request." To which Scribd said, umm, we don't remove stuff just because someone asks us.

AFAIK, no lawsuits were filed, but the SFWA's rep still hasn't recovered; part of the fallout was the then-current VP saying, "I'm also opposed to the increasing presence in our organization of webscabs, who post their creations on the net for free."
(April 23 has become Pixel-stained Technopeasant Wretch day.)

Yeah, it does seem that SFWA way overstepped its authority from its members. And it seems clear that it was the Mr. Jones of this incident. ("Because something is happening here, but you don't know what it is, do you, Mr. Jones?"- Ballad of a Thin Man, Bob Dylan)

To me, the very interesting thing is the stuff about the Berne Convention on Copyright, because it intersects with another issue that I'm interested in, namely, the relationship of treaties to the Constitution.

But the reason I posted that was to suggest that (1) we will never see a copyright term of "under life plus 50" and (2) copyright/DCMA are inextricably bound up with international treaties and no country is a free agent in making its own laws in the area.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by amgoforth

What is the difference between paying 25 cents for a book at a thrift shop or library sale or giving a friend books for free because I have finished reading them, or downloading it for free. Either way the author only gets paid ounce. I am worried though because if books can be copied that easy in digital form then maybe it will not be worthwhile to write them anymore.

See the many previous discussions of the "first sale doctrine" (the U.S. legal name for the concept) or "Exhaustion of Rights" (the E.U. name for the concept). A search either here or on wikipedia might be very instructive...

Xenophon

[seagull]

I download books that are in the public domain in another country if I believe it is right. For example I'm sure there is some countries that have no copyright laws so they don't count but I never chose to be born in this country, I am a citizen of the World more than I am a citizen of any country.
"By blood, I am Albanian. By citizenship, an Indian. By faith, I am a Catholic nun. As to my calling, I belong to the world."
- Mother Teresa

I also think it's right to download a book if I own it in print, I know that there's many arguments against this that probably stand up but my gut feeling is that it's right.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by amgoforth

Yes you are right about those things. For myself I have always felt OK about downloading if I already owned a physical copy of the book. Trouble is I used to have thousands of books, so very few I couldn't download. However very few of those books were bought new. I need peace of mind on the subject.

There are "very few" books you don't own? You are the British Library, and I claim my five pounds.

Anyway, it seems to me that you can only find peace of mind on the subject by asking yourself what you care about. Is what is right, for you, driven by what the law says, by whether the author has been paid, by whether anyone is harmed - or what?

A narrow majority, if this poll is to be believed, agree with you (and me, as it happens), that if you own a physical copy of the book, you have no moral obligation to pay for the content in a different format. Often we do, of course, because it's easier to do so.

A larger majority seem to believe (as I do) that if an ebook is made available, and you don't yet own a copy in any format, you should not obtain it illegally.

The murkiest area is in the middle, where you can't get a legal copy - what then? I'd suggest that the way to think clearly about this for you (you'll never get a straight answer on a forum), is to ask yourself what makes an action right or wrong, and take it from there.

[SallySyrup]

It depends. I read a lot of manga. Which is the main reason I wanted to buy a reader in the first place. I have purchased many volumes form the book store, but I ran out of shelf space for them, and I don’t want to get rid of them to make room for new ones. It’s nice to be able to have a ton of manga in one spot and not filling up my shelves. Also I can’t find it in ebook format. Some series like Naruto have about 50+ volumes and they are sold at 10 bucks a volume. Realistically I can't be spending that much. I wish they would sell lit in a format like shonen jump magazine, but it would only be a single series. It would be cheaper and there would be more chapters in one place. I think that would cut back on people just reading scans. But I do prefer the way the scans are translated, they are also more up to date. I still give support by buying merch. I have a ton of naruto shirts and other stuff.
If I was the author and fan was supporting me in other ways I wouldn’t mind if they pirated my work.

For the non manga books on my reader, I own them in paper version. I don’t see the point in rebuying them just because I rather read them on my reader.

[Robert Minneman]

I read the information and it appears that from the First Sale doctrine it is legal to make a personal copy of a copy righted work.

If you give away that copy though, you're breaking the law. You have to give away the original and destroy the copy or vice versa.

I'm ok with that.

I was suprised to learn how much the First Sale doctrine also appliles to software. The software industry has done a fairly good job at convincing us we have very little in the form of rights when it comes to the software we purchase, but it seems the courts have been using the First Sale doctrine to pretty much tell them all to stick it up their ears.

This also explains to me how the video rental industry and used book store business is able to function without being litigated into non-existance.

Thanks for the suggestion!

[Daithi]

I'm not a big fan of the Intellectual Property right concept. I prefer to not have a government entity prevent stop me from copying something, but I also understand that there is less insentive for someone to create and share something if anyone could easily copy their creation. So I'm willing to have the government place limits on my right to copy something. However, I believe this limit imposed upon my ability to copy should be limited to a time period long enough for the author to get compensated -- but no more. These perpetual copyrights, and 50 years after an authors death copyrights, are way too long.

Give an author/creator 10 years to make a profit. Then allow the author to extend the copyright for another 10 years, but make them pay a fee for copyright extension. Every 10 years they can pay an extension fee, but the fee should go up dramatically for each 10 year period. So the first extension might cost $1,000 but the 10th would cost $1,000,000. This protects Disney but allows "Ice Cream the Old-Fashioned Way" to go into the public domain.

My view on the subject is this. When I buy an ebook I am buying a copy of the content, not some licensee to view it on one particular device only for as along as I own that device. That is why I will never purchase an ebook if I do not have the ability to convert it into a format, including removing DRM if necessary, that will let me read it as long as I retain the essential hardware--my eyes--and software—my brain to view it. If I can't do that I will not buy the ebook. I will go the traditional route of checking a paper copy out of the public library it it is a book I think I will only want to read once. Or I will buy a paper copy for I book I will want to read and reread.

Distributing copies to others is a whole other matter. I thought it was theft for music files in the days of Napster. I think it is theft for DVDs on bit torrent sites to day. It would be theft to “share” (after DRM removal) copies of the ebook file I purchased.

That is why I think the policy of this site (the book uploads portion) is correct in that it assumes a book is in copyright unless established otherwise; i.e. present on the Project Gutenberg site.

[bobcdy]

I'm not sure that I see any difference in morality between downloading/reading an illegal ebook of a currently published ebook/paper book and borrowing a library's or friend's paper book because both are infringing on the publisher/author's or used book seller's profit from a sale. And if the ebook/paper book is not currently available for purchase from a publisher then there is absolutely no infringement on sale rights except for those of used book sellers who are not paying anything to the publisher or the author.

[Robert Minneman]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

I have a paper book.
If I scan that, use OCR, get an electronic copy for my own use - stealing?

No.

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

What if a friend did that and I use their e-copy - stealing?
What if someone on-line has done that, and I use their e-copy - stealing?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

In all cases, the author has been paid when I bought my paper copy.

Not quite, the "First Purchase" allows you to do whatever you will to the 'package' for your own personal use that doesn't involve any form of distribution of the package or its content.

Once distribution of a copy occurs, you're in violation of copy right law.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by Robert Minneman

Once distribution of a copy occurs, you're in violation of copy right law.

Quite so, but this poll was asking for what people felt was right or wrong. When I said that the author had been paid in all these cases, they were referring to various different ways of getting an electronic copy when you already have a paper one (for which the author was paid).

So, although it may be illegal to download an electronic copy of a book which you own on paper - do you think it's wrong? Obviously, there's no right answer, I was canvassing opinion.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by bobcdy

I'm not sure that I see any difference in morality between downloading/reading an illegal ebook of a currently published ebook/paper book and borrowing a library's or friend's paper book because both are infringing on the publisher/author's or used book seller's profit from a sale. And if the ebook/paper book is not currently available for purchase from a publisher then there is absolutely no infringement on sale rights except for those of used book sellers who are not paying anything to the publisher or the author.

Certainly in the UK, borrowing from a library does earn the author (a small amount of) money - which may or may not make a moral difference in your view.