Getting books on the reader?

[dhbailey]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes, absolutely. Buying a book in one format doesn't entitle you to get free copies in any other format. It is illegal to scan or photocopy a book even if you do own a paper copy, and downloading a copy that somebody else has scanned is equally illegal.

It is illegal, but personally I don't regard it as unethical, especially if that book cannot be bought as a commercial e-book. I must stress that this is just a personal opinion - I'm certainly not encouraging you to break the law!

On the other hand, case-law in the U.S. has shown that it IS legal to copy legally-owned content so that it can be enjoyed on a different device, such as buying a CD and then recording it to a cassette so you can listen in your car, or buying single songs online and then burning your own mix-cds or ripping your legally purchased CDs into MP3 format to put on an MP3 player.

Additionally, case-law has shown that it is legal to videotape or otherwise record TV shows so that you can watch them at a different time.

I see no difference between the legal ability to record CDs onto cassettes and put legally purchased paper books on your Reader.

The legality (or illegality) comes from the source where you procure your copies of the paper books you do own. The people who have posted copies of your legally purchased books do NOT have the legal right to make those copies available, so they are breaking the law in posting them, and you are conspiring to break the law when you download those files.

Like HarryT I certainly think what you're doing is ethical since you've bought the paper copies of the books.

However, I'm not a lawyer and what I am posting is not valid legal advice but only what I (in my non-lawyerly way) have learned from what I've read both in books as well as from various legal sites on the web, and if you're caught and prosecuted, it's your neck on the chopping block, not ours.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by dhbailey

Additionally, case-law has shown that it is legal to videotape or otherwise record TV shows so that you can watch them at a different time.

But only, I believe I'm correct in saying, for the purpose of "time shifting". ie, it's legal to record a program, watch it, and then delete it. It's not legal to keep it indefinitely after you've watched it.

[Moonraker]

Format shifting is just that -- be it converting your cds to mp3s to play on your mp3 player, or scanning a paper book that you own to read on your ebook reader. If the laws say differently in some countries -- then that law's an ass.

I thought the Human Rights laws made it illegal to discriminate against the disabled but publishers of ebooks are still not allowing a "text to speech" facility.
Nor do they allow printing of ebooks - printing in a large font would enable many people with impaired eyesight to read them.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Moonraker

Format shifting is just that -- be it converting your cds to mp3s to play on your mp3 player, or scanning a paper book that you own to read on your ebook reader. If the laws say differently in some countries -- then that law's an ass.

I agree with you, but the question was not "is it legal for me to scan my own paper book and convert it into an e-book", but "is it legal for me to download somebody else's version of an e-book if I own a paper version of that book". One might have a case to argue that that first action is legal (although I rather doubt it), but the second is unquestionable illegal because the person who's uploaded the book does not have the right to do so legitimately.

However, I stand by my purely personal opinion that, whilst it is illegal, I don't personally consider it to be unethical.

I do have qualms about the ethics of the person who's uploaded the book in the first place, however, because without doubt a lot of people will download it who do not own the paper version, and that's wrong without a doubt.

[Bierius]

This post has just reminded me of a thought I had the other day whilst travelling to the local library to return some books. Would it be unethical (yes I know it would not be legal) to download electronic versions of books (not freely available classics) you have borrowed from the library, and then delete them from your system, the same time you return the paper version back to the library?

[NatCh]

I think that's something that each of us has to decide for himself, Bierus. To me, the overriding ethical consideration is to make sure that the author, and yes, the publisher too, get compensated for their various investments plus a reasonable profit.

I've considered doing exactly what you've mentioned, checking a book out from the library, and then reading an ... unofficial e-version of it. I don't have an ethical problem with it, personally.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Moonraker

Format shifting is just that -- be it converting your cds to mp3s to play on your mp3 player, or scanning a paper book that you own to read on your ebook reader. If the laws say differently in some countries -- then that law's an ass.

I thought the Human Rights laws made it illegal to discriminate against the disabled but publishers of ebooks are still not allowing a "text to speech" facility.
Nor do they allow printing of ebooks - printing in a large font would enable many people with impaired eyesight to read them.

According to the law it's ok to break the DRM if the DRM prevents the speech option from functioning. So CLIT is legal to use to break the DRM of LIT files because the DRM prevents speech.

[Elltrain]

Don't the author/publishers of books get a little bit of money when a library book is rented? If so, I don't see the harm in renting a book from the library and downloading an electronic version of it.

When it comes right down to it, I don't think that we should be paying any more or less to authors for the luxury of reading the book in electronic format.

However, all these zany legal complications are frustrating. Clearly it is no problem to give a book away, but what about deleting an ebook after you email it to a friend? Yikes..

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Elltrain

Don't the author/publishers of books get a little bit of money when a library book is rented?

They do in the UK. I don't know if the same applies to other countries.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

According to the law it's ok to break the DRM if the DRM prevents the speech option from functioning. So CLIT is legal to use to break the DRM of LIT files because the DRM prevents speech.

Sorry, are you saying that the speech function of Microsoft Reader doesn't work for DRM-protected books? That seems somewhat odd. Any idea why it doesn't? I'm not particularly keen on "Reader" as a book reading application, but its speech function does work surprisingly well.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Sorry, are you saying that the speech function of Microsoft Reader doesn't work for DRM-protected books? That seems somewhat odd. Any idea why it doesn't? I'm not particularly keen on "Reader" as a book reading application, but its speech function does work surprisingly well.

Yes, the speech function does not work. But the US Government has made it legal to break the DRM in order for that to work. So as long as you purchase LIT format books, it's 100% legal in the USA to remove the DRM.

[astra]

Then why don't they stop selling DRM lits if almost everyone removes DRM and it is legal?

[NatCh]

Inertia, most likely.

[HarryT]

Presumably, though, it's only legal if you have a disability, such as blindness, which means that you require speech output?

[NatCh]

That, my friend, would depend a good deal on the exact wording of the law (which I don't know) ... if it doesn't specifically limit the exception to those with a disability, then it's not limited. :shug: