A Question on ethics - Page 11

nekokami · 08-06-2007, 11:12 AM

Wgrimm, that's US law. HarryT lives in the UK, and apparently doesn't have the legal right to copy or scan more than a chapter of a book.

HarryT · 08-06-2007, 11:15 AM

[QUOTE=wgrimm;85966]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

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

No, I couldn't. You could, but I couldn't.

Quote:

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.

But making your OWN electronic copy is NOT the same as downloading one from the Internet.

nekokami · 08-06-2007, 11:21 AM

Now, ethically, what happens if the uploader prefixes all files with something like the following:

"This file is intended for use by those who own a legal copy of the work in another form, or in countries in which the copyright on this work has expired. If you do not meet these requirements, please do not use this file."

How would that change the ethics, or even the legality, of uploading?

(I would also be inclined to add "or in cases where the work is out of print and cannot be obtained through legal commercial means", but that muddies the waters from a legal point of view.)

andym · 08-06-2007, 03:08 PM

Quote:

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".

Agreed, and that was all I was saying.

Quote:

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?

No, and I didn't say that.

guguy · 08-06-2007, 04:32 PM

Quote:

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.

Editors already own electronic version of all their books.
Sure they have some conversion work but it doesn't worth the
+-8$ they ask for an ebook. If I already own a paper version I'm not
willing to pay more than 1$ for the ebook version.

ricdiogo · 08-06-2007, 05:31 PM

[QUOTE=HarryT;85981]

Quote:

Originally Posted by wgrimm

No, I couldn't. You could, but I couldn't.

HarryT in the UK can't you make a copy of a CD to listen in the car?

mogui · 08-06-2007, 05:46 PM

There is no consensus about the annual earnings of a writier though there are statements here, here, here, here and here.

Writing is difficult to do for most, and the rewards are largely intrinsic. As avid readers is behooves us to encourage writing. Copying a book doesn't really hurt the writer too much because she is starving already. In fact it may help her by creating a following for her work. The publishers have already squeezed the author until it is necessary for her to have a day job to survive.

We might want to recognize that lawmakers are not fully in touch with the issues. The laws are not the best, and they work often to the disadvantage of the writer who does most of the work. Laws are disregarded by many. The law is slow to accommodate changing conditions. The law tends to favor the folks who can afford expensive lawyers and lobbyists. The law is inconsistent between nations participating in this world culture. Law is not the answer.

-- Some Generally Good Things --

1/ A writer ought to have a mechanism for selling directly to the reader.
2/ A writer ought to be able to control a mechanism whereby she can collect money for her efforts.
3/ A writer ought to be able to publish anything without the editorial filter of the publisher judging and interfering -- let the market decide.

nekokami · 08-06-2007, 07:37 PM

mogui, we have all that with the internet now, but I actually like having editors on whom I can rely to sanity-check an author's writing, and to select and present works that have a more consistent style and level of quality. The internet slush pile is huge and I don't have the time or inclination to wade through all of it.

But I don't think the good editors are getting rich, either. I suspect there's a bunch of overhead that could be excised from the process with no loss to the reader (or the writer), but that would take a complete overhaul of the publishing system.

HarryT · 08-07-2007, 02:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ricdiogo

HarryT in the UK can't you make a copy of a CD to listen in the car?

Technically, no, to do so is in violation of the copyright law. In reality, of course, it's one of those areas of the law which is impossible to enforce. Just as, for example, the only "legitimate" use for a DVD recorder is to temporarily store a programme so that it can be watched "time shifted"; to store that recording permanently after you've watched it is again technically illegal.

HarryT · 08-07-2007, 02:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nekokami

Now, ethically, what happens if the uploader prefixes all files with something like the following:

"This file is intended for use by those who own a legal copy of the work in another form, or in countries in which the copyright on this work has expired. If you do not meet these requirements, please do not use this file."

How would that change the ethics, or even the legality, of uploading?

Not in the slightest, IMHO. Remember, book downloaders are criminals. Appealing to the "honour" of such people to only download books if they own a paper copy would be an exercise in futility. Rather like a heroin dealer saying "you should only buy heroin from me if you have a prescription for it from your doctor"

.

Moonraker · 08-07-2007, 03:40 AM

Quote:

Not in the slightest, IMHO. Remember, book downloaders are criminals. Appealing to the "honour" of such people to only download books if they own a paper copy would be an exercise in futility. Rather like a heroin dealer saying "you should only buy heroin from me if you have a prescription for it from your doctor"

Downloading copyrighted works is NOT a criminal offence. It is not even a civil offense. Uploading of copyrighted material is a civil offense. To be a criminal offense the works have to be offered for financial gain. Such people are hardly in the same league as heroin dealers!

Studies show that file sharers, on average, spend more on media than non file sharers.

HarryT · 08-07-2007, 04:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moonraker

Downloading copyrighted works is NOT a criminal offence.

It is in many EU countries.

ricdiogo · 08-07-2007, 08:46 AM

I strongly suggest people to always clarify which country they're referring to when they say "it is not illegal" "it is illegal" "i can legitimately download" etc etc.
To all American posters: please please always add the phrase in the USA when talking about legal matters. "Downloading copyrighted works is NOT a criminal offence in the USA".
We are being read by people from all around the world, following all sorts of legislation, and one must always make clear which country we are talking about or we may be misleading people. Actually this should become a Mobileread policy.

HarryT · 08-07-2007, 08:49 AM

Trouble is, very few of us are lawyers, and it's very easy to assume that what's true (or what we think is true - not always the same thing!) in our own country applies everywhere. We have to use our common sense and realise that all posts on this board are personal opinions and may or may not be accurate.

wgrimm · 08-07-2007, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HarryT

Not in the slightest, IMHO. Remember, book downloaders are criminals. .

Maybe, maybe not. Here in the US, if you have bought the content in hardback form, you're allowed to have it in electronic form as well. So, if a person downloads that hardbook in an e-book format, well, that wouldn't appear to be iillegal. Because, he possesses the hardback book, and is allowed to possess the e-format book.

IMHO, publishers had better get on the ball in regards to e-books. A very small portion of the population buys books (the "average" person in the US reads 2 books per year according to statistics I have seen); if the publishers try to stick it to the people that BUY books, they are cutting their own potential profits. If they try to lock e-books to a particular format, like DRMd PDF's, all they are doing is encouraging piracy.

There will be indeed be innovation in regards to e-books, but it probably will come from the Far East. The publishers here are too greedy to make bold and innovative steps into areas like electronic textbooks, but they are not in China, where there is a big initiative to provide e-texts to students.

08-06-2007, 05:46 PM	#157
mogui eNigma Posts: 503 Karma: 1335 Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: The Philippines Device: HTC G1 Android FBReader	There is no consensus about the annual earnings of a writier though there are statements here, here, here, here and here. Writing is difficult to do for most, and the rewards are largely intrinsic. As avid readers is behooves us to encourage writing. Copying a book doesn't really hurt the writer too much because she is starving already. In fact it may help her by creating a following for her work. The publishers have already squeezed the author until it is necessary for her to have a day job to survive. We might want to recognize that lawmakers are not fully in touch with the issues. The laws are not the best, and they work often to the disadvantage of the writer who does most of the work. Laws are disregarded by many. The law is slow to accommodate changing conditions. The law tends to favor the folks who can afford expensive lawyers and lobbyists. The law is inconsistent between nations participating in this world culture. Law is not the answer. -- Some Generally Good Things -- 1/ A writer ought to have a mechanism for selling directly to the reader. 2/ A writer ought to be able to control a mechanism whereby she can collect money for her efforts. 3/ A writer ought to be able to publish anything without the editorial filter of the publisher judging and interfering -- let the market decide. Last edited by mogui; 08-06-2007 at 05:48 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Philosophy Aristotle: The Nicomachean Ethics, v.1, 20 March 2008.	Patricia	Kindle Books (offline)	2	06-13-2013 03:04 AM
Philosophy Spinoza, Benedict de: Ethics, v.1, 29 August 2008	=X=	Other Books	0	08-29-2008 04:10 PM
Philosophy Spinoza, Benedict de: Ethics, v.1, 29 August 2008	=X=	IMP Books	0	08-29-2008 04:08 PM
Philosophy Spinoza, Benedict de: Ethics, v.1, 29 August 2008	=X=	BBeB/LRF Books	0	08-29-2008 04:03 PM
Philosophy Aristotle: The Nicomachean Ethics, v.1, 20 March 2008.	Patricia	IMP Books (offline)	0	03-19-2008 09:51 PM

08-06-2007, 11:12 AM	#151
nekokami fruminous edugeek Posts: 6,745 Karma: 551260 Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Northeast US Device: iPad, eBw 1150	Wgrimm, that's US law. HarryT lives in the UK, and apparently doesn't have the legal right to copy or scan more than a chapter of a book.

08-06-2007, 11:21 AM	#153
nekokami fruminous edugeek Posts: 6,745 Karma: 551260 Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Northeast US Device: iPad, eBw 1150	Now, ethically, what happens if the uploader prefixes all files with something like the following: "This file is intended for use by those who own a legal copy of the work in another form, or in countries in which the copyright on this work has expired. If you do not meet these requirements, please do not use this file." How would that change the ethics, or even the legality, of uploading? (I would also be inclined to add "or in cases where the work is out of print and cannot be obtained through legal commercial means", but that muddies the waters from a legal point of view.)

08-06-2007, 07:37 PM	#158
nekokami fruminous edugeek Posts: 6,745 Karma: 551260 Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Northeast US Device: iPad, eBw 1150	mogui, we have all that with the internet now, but I actually like having editors on whom I can rely to sanity-check an author's writing, and to select and present works that have a more consistent style and level of quality. The internet slush pile is huge and I don't have the time or inclination to wade through all of it. But I don't think the good editors are getting rich, either. I suspect there's a bunch of overhead that could be excised from the process with no loss to the reader (or the writer), but that would take a complete overhaul of the publishing system.

08-07-2007, 08:46 AM	#163
ricdiogo Gutenberger Posts: 142 Karma: 700 Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Lisbon, Portugal Device: Cybook Gen 3	I strongly suggest people to always clarify which country they're referring to when they say "it is not illegal" "it is illegal" "i can legitimately download" etc etc. To all American posters: please please always add the phrase in the USA when talking about legal matters. "Downloading copyrighted works is NOT a criminal offence in the USA". We are being read by people from all around the world, following all sorts of legislation, and one must always make clear which country we are talking about or we may be misleading people. Actually this should become a Mobileread policy.

08-07-2007, 08:49 AM	#164
HarryT eBook Enthusiast Posts: 85,560 Karma: 93980341 Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: UK Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6	Trouble is, very few of us are lawyers, and it's very easy to assume that what's true (or what we think is true - not always the same thing!) in our own country applies everywhere. We have to use our common sense and realise that all posts on this board are personal opinions and may or may not be accurate.