Is this a pirate site?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

I'd have to disagree, morality is completely subjective, what you hold to be moral cannot be changed by laws it can only be changed by you, freedom of conscience is a human right http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml

There is no morality in the absence of society.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Of course there is. Legal copies are limited to the ones the rights holder issues and thus are rare. You can make a copy, but you cannot make a legal copy.

But you can't sell an ebook, so it has no value.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

But you can't sell an ebook, so it has no value.

If you have to spend money to get a legal copy, then it does have a monetary value. Besides, everybody has many things nobody would ever want to buy, still they are worth something to you because you like them. And even if you say an ebook has no value for you, it does for the sellers.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

And your point is? Do I take it that if the industry allows format shifting and personal backup then you will fully support strong action against any use of the darknet?

My point was, that the darknet and the attitudes you are presenting here have caused the industry to be overly restrictive because they are losing money to the darknet and (stupidly) are trying to squeeze more money out of honest users.

My point is these people are about control and money and the things you thought they'd be okay with they've proven time and again to be against, they are against anything that doesn't involve giving them money as often as possible.

My attitude that copyrights are too long, yes it'll cause them to make less profit? Good! Laws shouldn't be passed to protect anyone's profit margin they should be passed when necessary to protect individual freedoms or to place a minimal restriction on said freedoms if needed keep society functioning, an example being speed limits on public roads limiting your natural right to move as fast as you'd like in the interest of public safety.

Or is it my attitude that if they claim what I'm paying for is a license to content I should be able to make it perpetual by format shifting as needed, that reduces profits too, not i said reduces profits not costs them money, when i format shift they don't lose they simply don't gain and that's the problem, the RIAA, the mpaa the publishing industry want you to pay again when your copy wears out, reasonable to ask you to pay to replace media but they want to force their replacement media on you just like the first sale. If I rip a cd and keep backups I pay once for the content and then only have the cost of whatever media I choose to use be it SD cards, cds or stone tablets.

Perhaps it's that I see no difference in the end result if I do the format shifting myself or outsource it?

Could it be that I refuse to call copyright infringement theft? Get over it Sticking your fingers in your ears and crying lalalalalalalalalala theives lalalalalala doesn't make it so. I also don't call undocumented workers illegal aliens, I don't approve of what they're doing, I'm all for deporting them but i don't like calling a person illegal for some reason I hope being a person will always be legal and only actions will be illegal. Let's hope skynet doesn't come along and change that I'm afraid the ebook supply would be too limited in post apocalyptic terminator world.

There's a darknet, life is hard sometimes, partly its a result of people who won't buy without trying and the local library doesn't keep every book, , some is people who won't pay any price and just want something free or just want to buck the system, part is a reaction to an outdated buisness model with content providers not offering what people want at a price they consider reasonable, look at everything the music indutrsy went thorugh before itunes came around and before it went drm free, the RIAA didn't want to offer what people wanted at a price they'd pay how much more would they have made if they had just gone to an itunes like model when it became clear people liked mp3s?

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

So I can decide that (for me) breaking into people's houses is moral? And then it is ok, even though some corrupt politicians made laws to forbid it? Sorry, hurting others cannot be justified as "moral" under any philosophy.

You can decide that it's moral if you really feel that way, won't change that it's illegal.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by kennyc

There is no morality in the absence of society.

You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

Au contraire it is clear to me you do not understand. Maybe you don't understand the word "theft" either.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But that's a big "if". Is it fair use to make a complete copy of a book? It's difficult to think of any reasonable justification for wishing to do so. In UK copyright law, for example, fair use for a book is specifically defined - you are permitted to copy one chapter or 10% of a book, whichever is the lesser amount, or one article from a magazine.

The question that was asked, though, was not that one. The question assumed that you can make a full copy, for your own use, of a book you have bought and own. Given that assumption, you can use the library volume to make a copy of the volume you own.

The answer to your question, in the US, is that making a full copy, for your own use, of a book you have bought and paid for is "fair use."

It's really not debatable, even though it is constantly brought up for debate on this forum. But the simple fact is that any US lawyer who reads the section of the copyright law that I quoted will conclude that it is not a violation of copyright for you to make a copy of a book which you already own, so long as you are not reselling it or giving it to someone else. It is obvious - to a lawyer - from the structure of the statute, plus from the legal history of copyright.

It comes down to this: before there was any copyright law, you could legally make a copy, for your own use, of any book you own. There is nothing in the copyright law (in the US) that changes that. Something in addition to full copying is needed, something that damages the copyright holder's right to sell another copy of the book to someone else.

The copyright holder simply does not have the right to demand that you buy two copies of the same book for your own personal use.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

If you have to spend money to get a legal copy, then it does have a monetary value. Besides, everybody has many things nobody would ever want to buy, still they are worth something to you because you like them. And even if you say an ebook has no value for you, it does for the sellers.

It would only have any value to the sellers if it was for sale. Since there is no second hand market for ebooks, if it is available for sale anywhere it can't be considered "rare".

The argument was that by making an extra copy of something rare, you are somehow devaluing the original item. My point is there is no such thing as a rare ebook, since they are either available or they are not available. And since you cannot sell an ebook second hand, they have no financial value. Therefore you cannot reduce the value of an ebook by copying it.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by kennyc

All criminals believe they are right in what they do, or they would not do it.

Lmao. Okay, putting you on ignore now because you really ARE that dogmatically fixated on your own righteousness.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

My point was, that the darknet and the attitudes you are presenting here have caused the industry to be overly restrictive because they are losing money to the darknet and (stupidly) are trying to squeeze more money out of honest users.

Prove the highlighted contention. Darknet users have been shown to be in studies some of, for example, the music industry's best customers and studies have also shown a minority of darknet usage is in place of paying...

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Lmao. Okay, putting you on ignore now because you really ARE that dogmatically fixated on your own righteousness.

Darn and I just took you off of ignore cause....

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But that's a big "if". Is it fair use to make a complete copy of a book? It's difficult to think of any reasonable justification for wishing to do so.

A student or researcher might want a letter/A4-sized complete copy for markup purposes. Copying an entire book to single-sided paper in a binder would allow for extensive notes on the backs, and the ability to replace to replace pages with new marked-up versions as more research gets done.

This also connects to a wish to digitize a book for research--the first book I purchased for the purpose of cutting the spine off, scanning & converting was in order to find out how many instances of a particular word were used in it. That was 8 years ago; it's still not available as a purchasable ebook.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But that's a big "if". Is it fair use to make a complete copy of a book?

It certainly is in the US.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Lmao. Okay, putting you on ignore now because you really ARE that dogmatically fixated on your own righteousness.

You just noticed?