I have found numerous pirated ebooks for free online. Please tell me the benefits of

[Greg Anos]

Is it immoral to buy a used book?

[GlennD]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Is it immoral to buy a used book?

No. A physical copy of a book is effectively a license tied to possession of the book. A digital book actually has an explicit license that you agree to when purchasing it. They're different.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Is it immoral to buy a used book?

A used paper book? No, the author, publisher, etc. have already been paid for that copy. See First Sale Doctrine for more information.

A used ebook? Depends on the licensing. For the most part, I see boilerplate such as: "By payment of the required fees, you have been granted the nonexclusive, nontransferable right to access and read the text of this e-book on-screen.. The nontransferable would prevent you from reselling or even gifting the ebook to someone else. It would be interesting to see how well this stands up in court.

I admit to finding the real humour in the "No part of this text may be reproduced, transmitted, downloaded, decompiled, reverse-engineered, or stored in or introduced into any information storage and retrieval system, in any form or by any means, whether electronic or mechanical, now known or hereafter invented, without express written permission" portion of the usual boilerplate. At one time a few years back, I wrote to 6 publishers requesting permission to download an ebook to my computer, to store it on my mass storage device and to transfer it from the computer to my ereader. Evidently, no-one is supposed to read that text and actually request "express written permission". Admittedly, I've been told on several occasions, that my sense is humour is thoroughly warped.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by GlennD

No. A physical copy of a book is effectively a license tied to possession of the book. A digital book actually has an explicit license that you agree to when purchasing it. They're different.

So. . . Whit if I buy a used paper bokk and scan it for my own use, and then pulp the paper book.

Did I pirate the book?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

So. . . Whit if I buy a used paper bokk and scan it for my own use, and then pulp the paper book.

Did I pirate the book?

We can play "What if..." games until the cows come home, but I think that most of us are perfectly well aware of what constitutes dishonesty.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by HarryT

We can play "What if..." games until the cows come home, but I think that most of us are perfectly well aware of what constitutes dishonesty.

...I think that if we all really were "perfectly well aware", the "What if..." games wouldn't be necessary.

Shari

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by shalym

...I think that if we all really were "perfectly well aware", the "What if..." games wouldn't be necessary.

Shari

That's why I said "most of us", rather than "all of us".

[Rbneader]

Originally Posted by Apache

Morally though they are the same thing.
Apache

That is a matter of significant debate.

Causing property damage and trespassing is not the same thing as downloading a file shared by the person who has that file, legally or morally, under any of the moral frameworks I'm familiar with.

Whether ideas can be stolen is very controversial philosophically and legally. The legal end often seems to be decided by practical considerations, especially if we include who can pay the most effective lawyers and lobbyists as one of the practical aspects those decisions are influenced by. Philosophically different systems of though have radically different takes.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

So. . . Whit if I buy a used paper bokk and scan it for my own use, and then pulp the paper book.

Did I pirate the book?

Obviously not, Ralph. You purchased a copy, and the author and publisher were paid for that copy. You "format shifted" the work, to a format that you prefer, and in fact then pulped your other copy. One copy exists, effectively, for your use. That was the intent under which you bought the paper book; the situation hasn't changed. As long as you don't hand out copies of the now-digital book, I don't think a jurisdiction int he world would consider that "piracy," as piracy is pretty clearly meant to be the acquisition of a copy of a book/work of art/whatever without paying for it, or distributing same to others, without them paying for it. Neither of those scenarios is accurate, in your hypothetical circumstance.

You're hair-splitting, for whatever reason, and the reality of law, laws and enforcement is that you've not breached the intent of the law. You didn't scan the book for some nefarious purpose; the author and publisher were paid, and you still only have one copy. Sure, you format-shifted, and arguably, that's an infraction of some kind, (not quite sure what that is yet, but if someone wanted to hair-split, they could say that you violated the prohibition against scanning or copying it, that's set out on every copyright page) but it's hardly the type that would be enforced, even were it possible to do so. (I guess some dimbulb could argue that you breached the contract you entered into, with the publisher/author, by copying the work sans permission, so...a civil case that would cost more for the author to consult with her lawyer than the damages would pay out, thus exceedingly unlikely to be enforced/pursued.)

Despite all the horror stories we see in popular entertainment, "intent" truly matters in the enforcement of law, generally. I don't think anyone would argue, or even try to argue, that your hypothetical breaches the intent of copyright law. Of course, there's always some asshat...

Hitch

[Rbneader]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Obviously not, Ralph. You purchased a copy, and the author and publisher were paid for that copy. You "format shifted" the work, to a format that you prefer, and in fact then pulped your other copy. One copy exists, effectively, for your use. That was the intent under which you bought the paper book; the situation hasn't changed. As long as you don't hand out copies of the now-digital book, I don't think a jurisdiction int he world would consider that "piracy," as piracy is pretty clearly meant to be the acquisition of a copy of a book/work of art/whatever without paying for it, or distributing same to others, without them paying for it. Neither of those scenarios is accurate, in your hypothetical circumstance.

You're hair-splitting, for whatever reason, and the reality of law, laws and enforcement is that you've not breached the intent of the law. You didn't scan the book for some nefarious purpose; the author and publisher were paid, and you still only have one copy. Sure, you format-shifted, and arguably, that's an infraction of some kind, (not quite sure what that is yet, but if someone wanted to hair-split, they could say that you violated the prohibition against scanning or copying it, that's set out on every copyright page) but it's hardly the type that would be enforced, even were it possible to do so. (I guess some dimbulb could argue that you breached the contract you entered into, with the publisher/author, by copying the work sans permission, so...a civil case that would cost more for the author to consult with her lawyer than the damages would pay out, thus exceedingly unlikely to be enforced/pursued.)

Despite all the horror stories we see in popular entertainment, "intent" truly matters in the enforcement of law, generally. I don't think anyone would argue, or even try to argue, that your hypothetical breaches the intent of copyright law. Of course, there's always some asshat...

Hitch

Format shifting has been illegal before, and was legally considered piracy/copyright violation. It remains a grey area now, with exceptions granted for some formats and not others. Naturally, all of this depends on jurisdiction.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Rbneader

Whether ideas can be stolen is very controversial philosophically and legally. The legal end often seems to be decided by practical considerations, especially if we include who can pay the most effective lawyers and lobbyists as one of the practical aspects those decisions are influenced by. Philosophically different systems of though have radically different takes.

Ideas indeed cannot be protected, but a book is not an "idea" any more than a chair or a house are ideas. All are concrete expressions of ideas, and that process of physical instantiation grants them legal protection.

[Rbneader]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Ideas indeed cannot be protected, but a book is not an "idea" any more than a chair or a house are ideas. All are concrete expressions of ideas, and that process of physical instantiation grants them legal protection.

Right, but if someone is reading a physical book but not removing it from the store - one of the fairly ridiculous examples I was objecting to - what have they stolen? The only possible answers is the ideas and expression thereof in the book, which can not be stolen.

Apache is trying to equate actions that are simply not legally or morally equivalent.

[Apache]

Originally Posted by Rbneader

That is a matter of significant debate.

Causing property damage and trespassing is not the same thing as downloading a file shared by the person who has that file, legally or morally, under any of the moral frameworks I'm familiar with.

Whether ideas can be stolen is very controversial philosophically and legally. The legal end often seems to be decided by practical considerations, especially if we include who can pay the most effective lawyers and lobbyists as one of the practical aspects those decisions are influenced by. Philosophically different systems of though have radically different takes.

I could have phrased that better. I meant that morally they are both wrong. I did not mean to imply that they were the exact same thing. Murder and assault are both crimes. Of course they are not the same thing, but both are morally wrong.
Apache

[Rbneader]

Originally Posted by Apache

I could have phrased that better. I meant that morally they are both wrong. I did not mean to imply that they were the exact same thing. Murder and assault are both crimes. Of course they are not the same thing, but both are morally wrong.
Apache

And I'm saying that whether they are both considered morally wrong varies widely, depending on what moral framework you are using.

ETA: To be extremely clear, you were equating actions that are not morally or legally equivalent, and you were pretending that there is a universal answer to a question that is actually the subject of a lot of controversy. I am objecting to both.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Ideas indeed cannot be protected, but a book is not an "idea" any more than a chair or a house are ideas. All are concrete expressions of ideas, and that process of physical instantiation grants them legal protection.

Of course, one might point out that you can't steal what doesn't exist. If the copyright holder doesn't produce an ebook of the work, then you can't steal it. There is a reason that copyright violation is civil rather than criminal.

That's why I keep asking "what's the harm". From a moral point of view, the question is, have you harmed someone? People claim all sorts of outrageous things. The CEO of Disney once famously claimed that you were stealing from Disney is you didn't watch the commercials. Just because someone claims something, doesn't make it so.

I would argue that if you download an ebook from someone other than the copyright holder that is currently for sale, then you have harmed the copyright holder. I would also argue that if an ebook is not currently for sale, then you have harmed no one. I would argue that, much like the case with the Harry Potter ebooks, once it does become available, you would want to replace your "pirated" version with a "legit" version so the copyright holder is compensated. If someone did this, I would consider it moral behavior.

I would also point out that violation of copyright isn't stealing. Copyright isn't property. If it's not property, it can't be stolen. Downloading an ebook isn't the same as breaking into a store. It may not be moral in my eyes, but it isn't stealing.