What do you think about circumventing geographic restrictions?

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Have you ever bought a used LP or CD? If so, have you required proof that the seller has not made a copy of it?

Very much a different question. I fully agree with Harry on your first question: it's unethical (& probably illegal) to resell CDs/LPs after making and retaining a digital copy.

However, it's not illegal or unethical to buy a second-hand LP or CD. The owner of the object has the implicit license to the content. If the original owner retained a copy, that makes the original owner the copyright infringer, not the purchaser or the item.

[doctorow]

While various industry protagonists are lamenting the piracy effect of digital goods, I wonder, how is that any different from the good old analog days when everyone was happily making analog copies left and right? Remember how you could buy blank cassette tapes in bundles of 20, 50, or 100 for very little money? What other purchase did these serve for the normal consumer than to rip lots audio? Heck, I was sharing music with my teachers, and nobody thought anything wrong about it or considered it to be piracy. Nor was there anyone complaining.

Perhaps it's time to reconsider existing copyright laws that were developed in the old age of the physical hard-copy world, and question the purpose and alleged benefit of criminalizing normal people like you and me.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by doctorow

and nobody thought anything wrong about it or considered it to be piracy. Nor was there anyone complaining.

You don't remember all the anti-piracy ads, or that the Music industry campaigned against dual cassette players/recorders? Home Taping is Killing Music!

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'd regard it as absolutely fine. The problem is that it's completely impractical.

OK - so given that you'd be happy with lending the ebook provided I delete all my copies, how about the scenario where I don't *actually* delete my copies, but really, really promise not to look at them.

Are you happy with that? It makes no difference to the author whether I delete them or don't delete them but don't use them, so I'd assume you'd consider that ethically sound.

(You've previously justified actions which technically violate license terms where there is no harm to the author, for example in post 92).

/JB

[doctorow]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

You don't remember all the anti-piracy ads, or that the Music industry campaigned against dual cassette players/recorders? Home Taping is Killing Music!

I don't. I am also not British. When I was a teenager, there was no such thing such as pirates, there wasn't any sense of wrongdoing, not among peers nor among adults.

Interesting tidbit though... did home taping kill music as predicted? Perhaps one should have a more critical look at the dreary predictions of the entertainment industry.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by darryl

It seems to me that many if not most people are prepared to act according to their own moral code in preference to the law to at least some extent. It is probably fair to say that even the most virtuous amongst us approve of removing DRM for purposes of backing-up and enabling reading on different devices, irrespective of what the law says.

Legislatures persist in making laws which are bad or effectively unenforceable. They also have a very bad track record when technology renders existing laws obsolete, and when they do ultimately respond it tends to be along the lines sought by interest groups seeking to preserve the status quo, often with legislation which is draconian and effectively unenforceable. Bad and unenforceable legislation tends to create contempt for the law, which seems to be what had happened here. People are behaving in accordance with their own moral codes irrespective of the law.

However, what is enlightening is that most people seem to be willing to pay a reasonable amount for their books (or music or movies) even though pirating is trivial and the risk negligible. And it is because of this that the relevant industries not only survive but continue to thrive. This willingness to pay has been cultivated by the sheer ease and convenience of purchasing online, and by the far more reasonable pricing of many items.

Intellectual property laws in general are long overdue for a review of their very basis as well as their basic principle. Starting from scratch would be very desirable, though of course most unlikely to ever happen.

Very good points.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by doctorow

While various industry protagonists are lamenting the piracy effect of digital goods, I wonder, how is that any different from the good old analog days when everyone was happily making analog copies left and right? Remember how you could buy blank cassette tapes in bundles of 20, 50, or 100 for very little money? What other purchase did these serve for the normal consumer than to rip lots audio?

They were sold to allow you to make cassette copies of your own records, in the days when cassette players were the only portable form of music, as exemplified by devices like the Sony Walkman, and the cassette players that people had in their cars. I'm sure you're absolutely right in saying that they were also extensively used for music piracy, but (as Paul has said) there were mass-market advertising campaigns run in the UK to educate people that this wasn't legal.

One difference, though, between taping music and copying digital products is that taped music was very much an inferior product in terms of quality - I can't imagine anyone preferring to listen to music on cassette rather than the LP original; hence there was still a great incentive for people to continue to buy LPs. A copy of a digital product is identical to the original - it's not degraded in any way, so if you have a copy of digital music or a book, you have no reason to go out and buy the original.

[doctorow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm sure you're absolutely right in saying that they were also extensively used for music piracy, but (as Paul has said) there were mass-market advertising campaigns run in the UK to educate people that this wasn't legal.

You misunderstood what I said. It wasn't used for music piracy. It was used to make copies to share music among friends and families. Nobody sang the pirate song and nobody was there to label anyone a pirate. What some British music industry trade group might have tried was of zero consequence anywhere, and it certainly didn't reach a mass-market appeal as you suggested.

In the late 70s, when the latest must-have was a cassette deck, and blank tapes started to come down in price, the music industry freaked out at the thought of people recording songs from the radio or - heaven forbid - each other's vinyl albums. Their brutally direct Home Taping Is Killing Music campaign was launched but no one really took any notice, and the Home Taping Is Skill In Music backlash meant that more bedroom tapes were made than ever before and new talent flourished.

This social aspect always was the essence of taping music. Only the most anally retentive collectors do it for themselves. Everyone else does it to spread the word about what they like, or to try and make a statement about themselves to others.

http://www.theguardian.com/music/2008/jun/17/popandrock

[meeera]

As far as I can recall, at least for a while, we were paying levies on blank tapes, with the proceeds then distributed to the music industry. Understandable then that people would figure they'd paid their dues and go ahead and copy things.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Decide for yourself. You asked me if I thought it was ethical and I've answered your question.

Do you really think it is ethical to destroy them instead of giving them away to somebody which would be happy to get them?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by murg

There is no argument.

If you give a copy, you are violating copyright, unless the ebook itself was released under a licence that allows distributing it.

Send the link is ok, as your friend gets their own legitimate copy.

But the license is for the text not the instance. So if there is a general permission to distribute the text it does not matter that you have a copy that says something else. So I think you are wrong.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Very much a different question. I fully agree with Harry on your first question: it's unethical (& probably illegal) to resell CDs/LPs after making and retaining a digital copy.

It is allowed ethically and legally to give copies (e.g. tape copies of LP) to your friends (in most countries). I really do not see that having given copied to your friends you would not be allowed or that it would be an ethical problem to later sell the LP (keeping no copies yourself).

And I do not really see how the situation with keeping copies yourself can be different ethically.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

They were sold to allow you to make cassette copies of your own records,

And copies to family and friends which in most countries are or was perfectly legal and ethical. These countries then usually have an extra tax on blank media that goes to producers of content.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

It is allowed ethically and legally to give copies (e.g. tape copies of LP) to your friends (in most countries).

I very seriously doubt that. Regardless of the ethical considerations, it's certainly a copyright violation (in the UK and US, anyway).

[darryl]

Originally Posted by tompe

It is allowed ethically and legally to give copies (e.g. tape copies of LP) to your friends (in most countries). I really do not see that having given copied to your friends you would not be allowed or that it would be an ethical problem to later sell the LP (keeping no copies yourself).

And I do not really see how the situation with keeping copies yourself can be different ethically.

I am not aware of any jurisdiction where it is legal to give copies to friends. I express no opinion on the ethics of doing so. But one worthwhile observation is]that taking this to an extreme would likely result in the sale of exactly one single copy of any given work. Even dealing with the real world, there is the likelihood of a not insignificant impact on sales if this was the case.

I doubt that giving copies wholesale to family and friends could be allowed even in a redesigned "sane" system of copyright. However, it is arguable that such a system could include a more limited right to share within households or families. Or perhaps licences covering use on a reasonable number of devices within a household or family. Certainly it is a fiction to think that families are going to purchase multiple copies of the same books, software or music if they can avoid it. Some of the more realistic vendors already recognise this.