A Question on ethics

[JSWolf]

Threads merged since they are on the same topic.

[slayda]

Leaving DMCA aside for a moment, if format shifting is illegal then commercial TV & radio are violating the law. The format that TV starts with might be a live action, which is format shifted to electronic signals, beamed through a cable or the air, formated shifted again to electronic signals, format shifted again to photons & sound waves for me to see & hear it.

I admit this is a little far fetched, but from a literal view, format shifting does take place. (Apologies to those better educated in electronics & video broadcasting/receiving for any inaccuracies I've committed.) So where is the line appropriately drawn for the legality of "format shifting"?

I'm sure many of you can think of several other equally ridiculous ways that we accept, both legally and ethically, format shifting without even thinking about it.

[bingle]

Originally Posted by slayda

I'm sure many of you can think of several other equally ridiculous ways that we accept, both legally and ethically, format shifting without even thinking about it.

Well, true. Except that the companies that do all this "format shifting" have licenses to do so, even if they were "format shifting". (Although, while I don't think format shifting has been referred to in a legal sense, the term is meant to draw an analogy to the time-shifting referenced in the landmark Sony vs. Universal "Betamax" case. So I don't think it's a technical definition of changing formats, more just a general term for the ripping of CDs to MP3s, DVDs to AVIs, and BOOKs to TXTs ;-))

[mogui]

Here is how this topic evolved. See further for links.

Originally Posted by mogui

Thanks for the book tip. I enjoy Hogan.

Reminds me of a book I read long ago, title obscured by the mists of time, where the inhabitants (nonhuman I think) had an economy of "obs" (obligations). They would do something for you very freely and generously and thereby accumulate "obs", a system of credit. It was very interesting how beings in this economy resisted having anything done for them and made every effort to do for others.

Anyone remember the book?

Originally Posted by Nate the great

I am thinking it is a short story with human inhabitants. Do "Anti-Gand" and "MYOB" ring a bell? I don't know where I saw it.

Originally Posted by mogui

from here.

The story is here. And the novel is described here and the novel is here. I think it is legal as it is linked by Wikipedia. Guess what I'm reading next!

OK. I read it (again).

I read the 12 chapter novel found at the link above. A Terran space vessel is traversing a sector of the galaxy with the purpose of establishing alliances with old human colonies when the come upon the world of the Gands.

This is a novel of ideas that seeks to challenge some of our social values. The Gands are followers of Gandhi who practice passive resistance, otherwise known as civil disobedience. The Terrans are hoping to rope them into an alliance but their coercive methods gain them no result. Meanwhile the crew of the starship are melting into the population because the Gand's social system is so attractive.

The novel explores the nature of freedom. What, I wonder, pops into your head when you want to offer a simple definition of freedom? Russell's ideas are inspirational. The memory of this book, however vague, remained with me over many years as a sense of excitement. Now I know why!

[wgrimm]

[QUOTE=HarryT;80024]That is for you to decide. It's certainly illegal. Whether or not it's unethical is a question that only you can answer. My personal view - and I'm certainly not condoning piracy - is that where an eBook is available commercially, one should purchase it. In cases where no commercial eBook is available, but one has purchased a paper copy of the book, it's down to the moral values of the individual to decide whether any "harm" is done to anyone by downloading that eBook, but don't kid yourself that it's legal - it ain't. "


Transforming a book one owns into an e-book for personal use is not "certainly illegal," according to the research that I have done regarding Fair Use. It looks like it is indeed legal to make an electronic copy of a book you own for Personal Use only. Here is what the SFWA''s elctronic piracy faq (at www.sfwa.org/epiracy/faq.htm) says about the subject:

"If you own a legitimate copy of the book (paperback, hardback, other electronic format), you could scan the book and make your own electronic copy for your personal use only. Arguably you don't get a free paperback copy when you buy a hardback of a book, so an electronic copy isn't a freebie, but if you make an e-copy for yourself of a book you own, the author is probably not going to have a conniption. But you can't give that e-copy to another person who doesn't own it (unless you give them all your copies, both that physical one plus all electronic ones, so you no longer have any (unless you, for example, had bought another copy -- there are of course convoluted circumstances, but it's common sense at the core: You can't go creating copies for new people)). "

What the SFWA says agrees with what I have read regarding Fair Use. I can't believe you would suggest that a person should go out and BUY an electronic copy of a book they already own- that would be extremely moronic.

[HarryT]

You are, I would guess, talking about American law. I'm talking about British law. Under UK copyright law, it is illegal to scan a book, even if you've bought a paper version of it.

I have bought numerous books in multiple formats - I guess I must be a moron .

[wgrimm]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You are, I would guess, talking about American law. I'm talking about British law. Under UK copyright law, it is illegal to scan a book, even if you've bought a paper version of it.

I have bought numerous books in multiple formats - I guess I must be a moron .

Stuff like this is why the Americans revolted <G>. Didn't mean to imply you were a moron- British copyright law (which America cheerfully ignored for many years) sounds repressive.

[HarryT]

I'm afraid I just don't understand why you consider that owning a paper copy of a book gives you a "right" to an electronic copy free of charge.

If I buy a hardback version of a book, which I want to keep safely at home, and decide that I want a paperback version to take away with me which I won't worry about getting bashed around, I have to go out and buy that paperback - I'm not entitled to get one "free" just because I've bought the hardback. I've done exactly that with my favourite books on several occasions.

Why do you think that an eBook is any different? Why should the fact that I've bought a hardback or paperback version of a book entitle me to an electronic version of that book free of charge? Just like I have to buy a paperback although I already own a hardback, surely I should pay for an eBook if I want that, shouldn't I? It's an identical situation.

Your comment that:

I can't believe you would suggest that a person should go out and BUY an electronic copy of a book they already own- that would be extremely moronic.

is exactly this situation. Could you explain why you believe that owning a hardware or a paperback gives you a right to a "free" eBook?

[nekokami]

HarryT, it may be cultural. A few years back, we had the same discussion in the US about whether one needed to purchase a cassette tape of an album one already owned in another format (vinyl, at the time), e.g. for listening in the car. The courts ruled, I believe, that we were entitled to make a "listening copy" for personal use only, to protect the original. Extending this custom to ebooks for paper books seems only natural based on our customs. I can appreciate that this doesn't seem natural to you-- as you commented in another thread, what seems natural or normal in one culture can seem quite out of place in another.

I make a point of paying for the books I read, either by buying copies or by supporting my local library through taxes (in the case of books I borrow from the library). But I would be willing to pay for an ebook version of a book I already owned in paper, only if it came with additional content of some kind, e.g. interviews with the author, interesting reviews or analyses, chapters of other books I might be interested in, etc. Otherwise, yes, if I have paid for a paper copy, I don't believe I should have to pay for a digital copy of the same book. (Realizing that publishers do incur a cost in generating digital copies, I don't think they are obligated to provide me with a digital copy just because I purchased a paper copy, but I don't believe they are entitled to prevent me from acquiring my own, either.) I think my attitude is fairly typical of those in my culture, and is supported by legal precedent in my country. But I can appreciate that your viewpoint is different.

Note that by this reasoning, audio renditions of books count as "extra content," as they involve a performance by one or more voice artists. Similarly, translations of books involve the effort of a translator. I would not assume that owning a paper book automatically entitled me to the audio book or a translation of a book, any more than I would expect to be entitled to a free copy of a movie based on a book I own. I would expect to pay for those.

[andym]

(Speaking as a Brit)I agree with you, nekokami. UK copyright law is out of step with the US and with the rest of Europe on the question of 'fair use'. See this article here.

[HarryT]

Hi Andy,

One may well argue that making your own copy of a book or a CD that you own, for strictly personal use, is a legitimate definition of "fair use". Surely, though, you wouldn't accept that uploading such a copy to the internet, where it could be downloaded by anybody, regardless of whether or not they owned it, is either "morally" or legally acceptable, would you?

It is the uploaders who are the true criminals, not the downloaders. Let people rip their own CDs or scan their own books - that would be a perfectly reasonable extension of the UK's "Fair Use" laws, IMHO - but I believe that uploaders should be legally persued and prosecuted with the full severity of the law.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It is the uploaders who are the true criminals, not the downloaders. Let people rip their own CDs or scan their own books - that would be a perfectly reasonable extension of the UK's "Fair Use" laws, IMHO - but I believe that uploaders should be legally persued and prosecuted with the full severity of the law.

As it happens, I believe the US legal system agrees with you. Certainly the RIAA does. They've been going after uploaders, not downloaders.

It would be interesting if there were a way to operate a system that could somehow verify ownership of a paper copy before allowing a download of the matching digital title. I suppose one could scan or type in the ISBN and click a check box affirming that one owns a copy of the work in question. It wouldn't be "proof" of ownership, but uploading to such a system might have a different legal status than uploading a torrent to a typical torrent tracking site, etc., because one could claim that one assumed that only those who were entitled to "fair use" copies would be able to legitimately download the files.

The point at which I do feel the legal system and ethics diverge is regarding out of print titles. I strongly feel that if a copyright owner refuses to exercise their copyright, they should lose the protection that copyright provides. Disney and the rest of the content cartel disagree with me on that one, though, and they have the funds to lobby to make sure the laws go their way.

[mogui]

Many peer-to-peer networks are designed so that a downloader is automatically an uploader. One is encouraged to keep the downloaded material in the system until the download/upload ratio is 1.0 or better. "Good netizens" do this.

Many netizens cast national laws aside when on the internet. One might argue that participation confers a sort of citizenship that transcends national boundaries. It is that ethos that has created an outlaw culture on the internet. Right or wrong, it is probably here to stay. We can adapt or become dodos.

[RWood]

I have purchased an electronic copy of a book that I already owned in hardback form. Not that I couldn't scan it, OCR the scan, correct the errors, format it, convert it to LRF in BookDesigner, load it on my Sony Reader, and read it without the additional $12.95 expense. By my calculations that might make my salary less than $1.00 per hour for the book in question. I think I'm worth more.

CDs and even the old Lps are easier and quicker to convert.

Had the book not been a current issue but rather a classic that was out of copyright, not available on PG, not available anywhere, and could be shared; I would have gladly scanned it and performed the rest of the operations to offer it to the community.

When you consider the hours of labor it takes to convert even a simple book to electronic form, the cost of a download seems very reasonable.

So Harry, I guess we are both morons.

[wgrimm]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm afraid I just don't understand why you consider that owning a paper copy of a book gives you a "right" to an electronic copy free of charge....."

Ummm...Actually, this is what US Copyright law says. Kind of like- if you own a performer's music cd, you can legally rip it to your ipod.


HARRYt SAID: "If I buy a hardback version of a book, which I want to keep safely at home, and decide that I want a paperback version to take away with me which I won't worry about getting bashed around, I have to go out and buy that paperback - I'm not entitled to get one "free" just because I've bought the hardback. I've done exactly that with my favourite books on several occasions."

Yeah, maybe- but you could also LEGALLY photocopy that hardcover to carry about with you.


hARRYt SAID: "Why do you think that an eBook is any different? Why should the fact that I've bought a hardback or paperback version of a book entitle me to an electronic version of that book free of charge? Just like I have to buy a paperback although I already own a hardback, surely I should pay for an eBook if I want that, shouldn't I? It's an identical situation."

Again, this is not my "personal feeling," but the LAW. The fact that I buy a hardback or paperback DOES give me the right to make an electronic version.