Is this a pirate site?

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But that's the big "if", isn't it? Do you have a "right" to format-shift a book? You might like to do it, but is it a right? As you know, it certainly isn't here in the UK.

I would like to see them sue me for format shifting if I bought an ebook that cannot be read on my device. But copying an ebook from a library? How can that be right? I would accept De-DRMing it for format shifting purposes and deleting it after the lending period has expired as no problem.

But legally, yes, I probably have no such right. However, since I delete the book, what would the damages be? I would have followed the spirit, if not the letter of the law. And they would be extremely stupid to sue the good customers. In the end, why do we have all these restrictions? Because quite a number of people feel that there is nothing wrong with illegal copying. It won't stop them, but the rest of us are being saddled with DRM and such nonsense. Somebody always pays.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

I would like to see them sue me for format shifting if I bought an ebook that cannot be read on my device. But copying an ebook from a library? How can that be right?

I think that the original case mentioned was copying a pbook which the library had in hardback, as it would be easier to scan than the version you already had in paperback.

Just one of the many shades of grey!

[Solicitous]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You don't see any ethical difference between creating your own copy from a legitimately bought book, and accepting one from someone who's giving them out to all and sundry, regardless of whether or not they've bought the book?

Seems like a very different situation to me!

I personally don't have any ethical problems with accepting an electronic copy from someone to save me the hassle of format shifting the paperback version for my own personal use. Here in Australia we are legally allowed to format shift under the provision that we own the original works and we own the device being shifted to, it does not suggest nor indicate how we should format shift. Might sound a little simplistic but I am merely format shifting through accepting a digital copy from elsewhere.

I can see how you feel they are different situations, but let me ask this. Legally you are allowed to record a television show for the sole purpose of time shifting (ie watching at a later time), provided that you watch it only once and do not distribute it. Now if you forgot to record a TV show but your neighbour did infact record it, would you quite happily accept the offer of them lending you the tape so you can watch that TV show?

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Solicitous

I personally don't have any ethical problems with accepting an electronic copy from someone to save me the hassle of format shifting the paperback version for my own personal use. Here in Australia we are legally allowed to format shift under the provision that we own the original works and we own the device being shifted to, it does not suggest nor indicate how we should format shift. Might sound a little simplistic but I am merely format shifting through accepting a digital copy from elsewhere.

I can see how you feel they are different situations, but let me ask this. Legally you are allowed to record a television show for the sole purpose of time shifting (ie watching at a later time), provided that you watch it only once and do not distribute it. Now if you forgot to record a TV show but your neighbour did infact record it, would you quite happily accept the offer of them lending you the tape so you can watch that TV show?

I don't think anyone (including the industry) really intends to stop such innocent uses on a small scale. But one really should draw a line in not downloading anything from the darknet and (much worse) uploading anything. If the great majority really agreed on that, there would be no need for any DRM or restrictions that prohibit us from doing what we always did with pbooks. Anything that goes on between members of a family and a few really good friends, who cares? Sure, there would still be a darknet, but the people using it wouldn't matter for authors and others hurt by it now.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But that's the big "if", isn't it? Do you have a "right" to format-shift a book? You might like to do it, but is it a right? As you know, it certainly isn't here in the UK.

Depends on where you think 'rights' come from I guess.
I don't think our politicians or legal representatives have the moral authority to circumscribe what I consider to be my rights (because they have shown they are corrupt on too many occasions).

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Depends on where you think 'rights' come from I guess.
I don't think our politicians or legal representatives have the moral authority to circumscribe what I consider to be my rights (because they have shown they are corrupt on too many occasions).

That's not really valid logic Sparrow. Just cause someone does something you don't agree with doesn't give you new rights or change what is moral in the society.

You may believe it is your right, but society may think differently.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Depends on where you think 'rights' come from I guess.
I don't think our politicians or legal representatives have the moral authority to circumscribe what I consider to be my rights (because they have shown they are corrupt on too many occasions).

So every person decides what rights he or she has under the law for him or herself?

And as to the politicians' morals, why did you vote for them Or did you forever favor those that lost the last election?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

And lets assume for the moment that the car was an incredibly rare car whose rarity made it valuable. A copy that was identical in every respect could harm the owner by reducing the rarity of the car.

--
Bill

There's no such thing as a rare ebook.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

There's no such thing as a rare ebook.

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.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by kennyc

That's not really valid logic Sparrow. Just cause someone does something you don't agree with doesn't give you new rights or change what is moral in the society.

You may believe it is your right, but society may think differently.

But equally my rights, and what is moral in society, don't change because politicians and lawyers are willing to sell themselves.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

But equally my rights, and what is moral in society, don't change because politicians and lawyers are willing to sell themselves.

Morality is what society agrees it is and rights are derived from it via the politicians, lawyers and law - that by definition is what rights are. If society does not change it by removing/changing the politicians/lawyers/laws the your rights are not rights at all, regardless of what you believe.

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

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

I don't think anyone (including the industry) really intends to stop such innocent uses on a small scale. But one really should draw a line in not downloading anything from the darknet and (much worse) uploading anything. If the great majority really agreed on that, there would be no need for any DRM or restrictions that prohibit us from doing what we always did with pbooks. Anything that goes on between members of a family and a few really good friends, who cares? Sure, there would still be a darknet, but the people using it wouldn't matter for authors and others hurt by it now.

The industry who's abusive lawsuits created the need for the first sale doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobbs-M..._Co._v._Straus ? The industry who says making a backup is not fair use http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/02/6190.ars ? The industry that doesn't consider format shifting fair use http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2006/02...d-not-fair-use ?

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

The industry who's abusive lawsuits created the need for the first sale doctrine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobbs-M..._Co._v._Straus ? The industry who says making a backup is not fair use http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2006/02/6190.ars ? The industry that doesn't consider format shifting fair use http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2006/02...d-not-fair-use ?

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.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Morality is what society agrees it is and rights are derived from it via the politicians, lawyers and law - that by definition is what rights are. If society does not change it by removing/changing the politicians/lawyers/laws the your rights are not rights at all, regardless of what you believe.

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

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

[HansTWN]

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

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.