What are your views on illegal copying?

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

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.

Only if they're a British author!

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Only if they're a British author!

Not entirely true. To quote from the PLR web site:

Can I apply if I live outside of the UK?

At the time of application you must have your only home or principal home in the UK or in any of the other countries within the European Economic Area (i.e. EC member states plus Iceland, Norway and Liechtenstein). The UK does not include the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. If you have more than one home, your principal home is the one where you spent most time during the 24 months before your application.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Only if they're a British author!

I didn't know that; looking up the rules for Public Lending Right at plr.uk.com, they seem to pay European authors (in the EEA). There are similar schemes elsewhere, I think. [Edit: Snap!]

It will be interesting to see whether there is a marked increase in library usage once ebook lending takes off. I tend to only go to the library for books that I can't practically get otherwise, but if there were ebooks, I'd borrow them all the time.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Not entirely true. To quote from the PLR web site:

Ah my bad, I wasn't aware they'd actually expanded to the EU, thought that was later this year.

It does only to be to be the same, well, political unit's authors who benefit from a PLR, though. One does wonder if some sort of reciprocal agreements around the world would be possible. As far as I know only Germany pays out worldwide, while I believe the Netherlands will pay for any Dutch-language books.

Wish I saw this sooner but currently only near an internet connection every few days. (bah!)

Still, I do wish the poll had one added option: When the book is no longer in print.

My personal rationalization I suppose. (Blast it! Am I ever going to recollect all the Wild Cards series?) A good citizen would just shrug their shoulders and go on with their lives when they find out the book they so fondly remembered was no longer in print. Guess I'm a baaaad boy, (Abbott).

Second thought, maybe it's best that it isn't on there. It would just be more philosophical fuel for the pyres to discuss the morality/legality of getting something that isn't for sale in any format in the first place.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by stxopher

Still, I do wish the poll had one added option: When the book is no longer in print.

Isn't that nearly the same as "It's OK to copy a book that is not published electronically (I can't buy it)"?

[Billjr13]

Uh, illegal copying is umm - ILLEGAL. If it were legal it wouldn't be Illegal copying. Some people are happy and willing to ignore rules/laws in society and some are not. It is just how some people are willing to justify doing something that has been deemed wrong by sociatal rules that bugs me. I'm not taking something that doesn't belong to me.
Just because you don't like a rule/law doesn't mean you can ignore it, and if you do and you get caught/punished you are getting what you deserve.

[Robert Minneman]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

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.

Well you got me there... I have plenty of books I own hard copies of that I've since downloaded electronic copies of.

The distribution of those copies is illegal. Technically my downloading those copies was probably illegal too. Morally wrong? Hmm... My gut says no.

Hell, one of my favorite books, Battlefield Earth (damn good SciFi book, but the worse f'ing sci movie of all time, if Dianetics has a hell, you be damn well sure that's where Travolta is going for that travesty), I've purchased at least 3 physical copies and retain at least two of them. I was even attempting to find it electronically for purchase on my PRS-505, but it wasn't available so I bit-torrented a copy.

I think the Hubbard estate and the Dianetics cultists have made enough money off of me and in fact OWE ME money for having paid to see that F'd up, horribly crappy cinematic version.

[Alisa]

Originally Posted by stxopher

Still, I do wish the poll had one added option: When the book is no longer in print.

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

Isn't that nearly the same as "It's OK to copy a book that is not published electronically (I can't buy it)"?

Nearly, but some might have a moral problem with downloading an unauthorized copy of a book if they could still buy it in print. If it's not available for purchase in any format, then it might not be so objectionable to them.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Billjr13

Uh, illegal copying is umm - ILLEGAL. If it were legal it wouldn't be Illegal copying. Some people are happy and willing to ignore rules/laws in society and some are not. It is just how some people are willing to justify doing something that has been deemed wrong by sociatal rules that bugs me. I'm not taking something that doesn't belong to me.
Just because you don't like a rule/law doesn't mean you can ignore it, and if you do and you get caught/punished you are getting what you deserve.

You are not the first person to say that. But the problem is, you haven't really said anything, because nobody really agrees on what is meant when someone makes a comment about "illegal copying," other than that it means "copying that is illegal." The reason is that a lot of people think that any copying at all is illegal, while others know that some copying is actually legal, but disagree about exactly what copying that might be.

Even the survey starting this thread builds this ambiguity into it. For example:

"It's OK to copy a book if I own it in print (I own a paid-up copy)"

Well yeah, it is okay, mainly because it is not illegal to make such a copy. And yet, the question is prefaced by a framing phrase that assumes that this kind of copying actually IS illegal. Nope. It ain't, so long as you, the owner of the book, are copying it for your own use.

I'm not entirely sure whether the survey was trying to find out how much tolerance there is for truly illegal copying, or trying to find out how well the law "fits" the community reality about what or what not ought to be illegal copying. Or something else.

I suppose what might be helpful, in any event, for any survey thread like this one is to require each person who posts any comment to include his or her own personal response to the survey. Here's mine (all references to "legal" or "illegal" are to US law, and I assume that the book is still in copyright in the US):

It's OK to copy a book if I bought it new in print (I've paid the author)
It's OK to copy a book if I own it in print (I own a paid-up copy)
It's OK to copy a book that is not published electronically (I can't buy it)
It's OK to copy a book that is not published in my country (I can't buy it here)

The first two are easy - they are legal copying. And if I've paid an author once for the book, I don't think that there's any moral right he has to require me to pay again.

The third is kind of tough, because it assumes that I can buy the pbook. I guess that for me it comes down to simple economic force: publishers should make ebook versions of pbooks available. If they do, I'll buy them. If they don't, I won't be forced into buying the pbook, nor will I let the publisher bar me from reading an electronic version. I think that, given modern technology, the moral shoe is not on my foot - it is on the publisher's.

The fourth seems to assume that the book is not available for sale electronically. So see the third item. If it's available electronically, I buy it. If if's not "for sale" in my country, I buy it anyway - my country does not have the right to tell me what books I can own based on where they are published. Or based on too much else...

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Even the survey starting this thread builds this ambiguity into it.

You're right - the survery could be better worded. What I meant to poll was views on what people felt was morally justified, not what was illegal/legal. Perhaps in a few months, I'll try again and word the poll better.

Still, I think that the results are interesting. They have retained their shape - looking (to me) like a paragraph mark - from very early on.

I like the results because they re-inforce my prejudices - isn't that what polls are for? There are minorities at either extreme, but most people are in the middle and feel that they ought to pay for content, but not multiple times etc.

[pietvo]

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.

I don't know what you mean by `sale rights'. There certainly is not a right for an author or publisher to have a sale if you want to read a book. If I bought a book, my wife has a right to read it also and the author does not have a right to demand a sale to her. Same when I lend my book to anybody else. Or when I sell it second hand to somebody. Just as the car manufacturer doesn't have a right when I sell my car or lend it to somebody. It surely deprives (or infringes as you say) the manufacturer from his profit. So what. He doesn't have a right to get an income from every use of the car. He got the income when I bought the car, and that's it. When I make income from the car by using it as a taxi cab, or use it as a rent-a-car, the car manufacturer doesn't get any money from it. Why would that be different for books?

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I don't call it illegal copying, I call it theft because we have to look at things differently in the Digital age.

I don't like the choices very much either. I think the same concepts should apply to digital as to print. If you make a copy for your own uses without giving it away or sharing with others, then all it's fine. If you "distribute" it to someone else, then it's not. It's boils down to an author's (creator's) rights to me.

I personally believe that the same concepts do not apply. There still should be shown a difference.

If you steal something, you're taking something away from a person. If you copy, the owner isn't deprived of it, you just have it when you shouldn't. The most you could really argue is that for each instance, there was the loss of a single potential sale. Note that I said potential, since that changes things a bit. Most pirates I know fall into one of two groups, they use it to sample before purchasing, especially the stuff not available in their region, or they just are cheap bastards that likely wouldn't buy it even when piracy isn't an option.

One guy I know, lost his net connection for several months after he was caught pirating. In that time did he didn't buy any movies, or books, or music. You'd have figured since one of his primary sources of entertainment was no more, that he'd go after something else, but he just kept on being cheap and stuck to other free sources of entertainment.

That cheapskate, actually is representative of most of the pirates I've met over the years. If free isn't an option, they just do without. Is that really a loss to the content owner?

[Alisa]

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.

The moral difference to me is that I feel the authors and publishers are entitled to set terms for making their work available just as I set the terms for mine. Maybe it's because I make my living by producing unique content (software) that I feel a strong sympathy for the authors on this one. I would be pretty peeved if someone used my code without my permission so I'd feel hypocritical doing the same to an author.

Borrowing from the library or a friend is within the terms set by the authors and publishers. There is a trade off in sales but they also get some benefit for their contribution. They get exposure to potential customers who might not have paid for the book but may learn of a new author they like by borrowing it. They also get sales to the libraries themselves. Many of the people using the library are too poor or too frugal to have ever bought their books anyway. The libraries are a public good and help increase the number of people who read. Those people may be customers in the future. It's a good long term strategy to support them. All of this is ultimately to their good even if they lost some specific sales. Plus if you look at the system as a whole, the impact is contained by the scarcity of the book as an object. I won't always find the book I want available to borrow from a friend or at the library without a long wait. If I borrow the book, that makes it unavailable to someone else. Maybe they'll decide they don't want to wait and will go out and buy it. This scarcity doesn't exist with the digital media. It's easy to instantaneously get my own copy of the book with little disincentive aside from my own feeling of violating the social contract by doing so.

Granted, I would not feel so badly about downloading a book I couldn't purchase in any format but that hasn't come up for me yet. I've always been able to at least find a used paper copy.

[bobcdy]

[QUOTE=Alisa;806461]The moral difference to me is that I feel the authors and publishers are entitled to set terms for making their work available just as I set the terms for mine. Maybe it's because I make my living by producing unique content (software) that I feel a strong sympathy for the authors on this one. I would be pretty peeved if someone used my code without my permission so I'd feel hypocritical doing the same to an author.


I was not discussing legality, but rather morality. Someone who uses your code for personal use without ever selling the results of your code probably is not really hurting you, although it may well be illegal. I think that if the publishers could make it legal, they would greatly restrict library use of their books because undoubtedly they must lose a tremendous number of sales because so many of their books are easily available at libraries.

Personally I believe it is immoral to download commercially available ebooks but I don't see that this practice is any more damaging to authors and publishers than libraries reads - one who downloads an illegal ebook, just like the reader of a paper book from the library, might decide on the basis of their read to buy a paper copy - I probably would do that if I thought I had a real keeper that I would refer to often.

As far as copyrighted but out of print ebooks, I really don't understand how this is hurting the author in any way because there are no royalties from new or used book sales. In fact ebook popularity might lead a publisher to reissue the book and general new royalty sales; thus I've concluded that while illegal, this practice is not immoral in any way.