Textbook Torrents says final goodbye

[Danny Fekete]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

None of this justifies violating the copyright. It is the same as xeroxing a book in the library. You can't do it because it is a copyright violation. You don't have the RIGHT or permissions to copyright it.

I'm not sure if you are saying that the above is ok, or just playing devils advocate, but I would say I wholeheartedly disagree with you.

Indeed, this is a violation. And, for the sake of saying so in a fun way, the thing dividing what can be done and what's against the law isn't a line. And whatever it is, unless you believe that the law is the absolute decider of your morality, whatever that dividing element is, it's not the same as what should be done and what's against the law.

I'd suggest that a reëvaluation of copyright would be beneficial as the nature of copyrightable data is changing with new technology. If we agree that "rights" are fundamentally arbitrary things, then "wrongs" are, as well. I would extend, also, that in a democratic society, these things are necessarily open to debate and re-design. Creative Commons is taking that up in an exciting way.

Originally Posted by pilotbob

What if while you were on vacation I came into your house and stayed there for the two weeks you were gone. I slept in your bed... watched your cable, used your phone, your toilet, your shower, etc? Since it didn't cost you anything... no money was taken from your bank account because you still had to pay your mortgage, phone bill, water bill, etc even if I wasn't then there is nothing wrong with this, right?

BOb

If you left no trace and inconvenienced me not at all (you had no impact on my mortgage and bills, house layout, etc.), then why on earth would I take it out on you if I was paying those bills but you weren't? It might motivate me to find ways to get around paying those bills (perhaps by magically using someone else's house the way you did with mine), but my argument wouldn't be with you.

- Danny

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by Danny Fekete

If you left no trace and inconvenienced me not at all (you had no impact on my mortgage and bills, house layout, etc.), then why on earth would I take it out on you if I was paying those bills but you weren't? It might motivate me to find ways to get around paying those bills (perhaps by magically using someone else's house the way you did with mine), but my argument wouldn't be with you.

Wow, you are nice. Perhaps I didn't inconvenience you but I benefited from your property without making any contribution to you/it at all. Do you feel that I should contribute something to you in exchange for the benefit that I derive?

Please let me know the next time you go on holiday. Do you live in a nice place to visit?

EDIT: Yes, I've only been to Toronto once. I wouldn't mind visting again since it was a work trip an the only site seeing I did was a trip to Niagara Falls.

BOb

[daffy4u]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

You choose what university to attend, what courses to take. I assume during this research you checked the price of credits hours, room and board. By comitting to attend the university you are agreeing to certain things. By registering a course you are basically agreeing to getting the materials. Actually, you have a choice to not get the book. You might have trouble in the course if you do this though... but you certainly don't have a choice. Violating the text books copyright is still wrong.

BOb

I have not said violating textbook copyright is okay, I merely presented the other side of the coin. I even suggested a way publishers can help the student not lean toward pirated books (and a way they can continue to bring money in).

You choose what university to attend

If you're lucky. Some attend what they can afford.

what courses to take.

Outside of those that are required, that is true.

By registering a course you are basically agreeing to getting the materials.

Yes.

Actually, you have a choice to not get the book. You might have trouble in the course if you do this though... but you certainly don't have a choice.

That's part of what I was saying... there is no choice. There has to be some middle ground that can make a win-win for all involved. I don't know what it is, as I said I'm not in school and haven't been for many years but I can sympathize with both sides (my best friend is an author).

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by daffy4u

That's part of what I was saying... there is no choice.

Actually, that was a typo. I meant to say you certainly DO have a choice whether to buy the book or not. Of course, buying the book generally will make passing the course much easier and more convenient.

BOb

[Danny Fekete]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Wow, you are nice. Perhaps I didn't inconvenience you but I benefited from your property without making any contribution to you/it at all. Do you feel that I should contribute something to you in exchange for the benefit that I derive?

Please let me know the next time you go on holiday. Do you live in a nice place to visit?

EDIT: Yes, I've only been to Toronto once. I wouldn't mind visting again since it was a work trip an the only site seeing I did was a trip to Niagara Falls.

BOb

Can you convince me that your impact on my home and bills would be as non-existent as the impact on the physical stock of textbooks when a digital duplicate is made? If so, you are totally staying over (I've just moved into a south-facing 20th-storey apartment. If you can stand the smell of drying paint, and you're as squeaky-clean as ones and zeroes, you're totally welcome; you'll love the view).

If you derive benefit from something of mine and it costs me nothing that you did, then yes, yes absolutely, enjoy! Why should I stop you? I don't hate you.

[daffy4u]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Actually, that was a typo. I meant to say you certainly DO have a choice whether to buy the book or not. Of course, buying the book generally will make passing the course much easier and more convenient.

BOb

Your statement falls in line with the statement I made about not being able to do the class work properly (with an older version of the book version instead of no book). We don't really disagree except that I don't feel that not buying the book is not a reasonable choice. Not buying the book is not putting money in the publishers pocket anymore than pirated textbooks are. Middle ground has to be found.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

You choose what university to attend, what courses to take. I assume during this research you checked the price of credits hours, room and board. By comitting to attend the university you are agreeing to certain things. By registering a course you are basically agreeing to getting the materials. Actually, you have a choice to not get the book. You might have trouble in the course if you do this though... but you certainly do have a choice. Violating the text books copyright is still wrong.

BOb

Why is not the making of an unneccessary new version just to sell more books and destroy the second hand market also morally wrong?

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by tompe

Why is not the making of an unneccessary new version just to sell more books and destroy the second hand market also morally wrong?

If making money and capatilism is morally wrong... I would say no its not. Although, I also think there should be some oversight at the university to make sure a professor is not just making token changes to reduce or limit the used market.

BOb

[UKHaiku]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Actually, that was a typo. I meant to say you certainly DO have a choice whether to buy the book or not. Of course, buying the book generally will make passing the course much easier and more convenient.

BOb

Just to stick my oar in, what we have here is, effectively, a monopoly situation - where authorities need to ensure fair business practice is being followed (IMO it isn't).

As a former student myself (if I can remember back that far) - most of the textbooks were fairly significant is size and scope - and regularly refreshed...

An acceptable compromise, to me, would be to make books more modular, so that only the parts which need to be updated are (or it's easier to issue erata). Also this would enable more of a 'pick and mix' approach for students on very tight budgets...

I definitely agree that copyright breach isn't an ideal solution, but equally we do need to keep publishers (and academics) accountable for their business practices...
Also, we could see more standardisation across textbooks internationally. I don't see why a biology textbook, for example, should be any different in the UK, Canada, Australia, NZ and US for example - which gives more economy of scale... (Of course, produced in English with a capital E )

[dsuden]

I'll acknowledge I know from first-hand experience the art of introducing clever circumvention mechanisms into my thought processes when I'm tempted to do what's clearly wrong. Over the years I've learned that I don't have to "travel" nearly as far in when I stick to doing what's right.

But on this issue, parsing by any means is difficult. It doesn't work to dilute or divert blame for stolen works. The word "copyright" speaks for itself. It refers to "copy rights." If we don't have "copy rights," we have no right to make and/or keep a copy of something we have not purchased. Nor do we have the right to duplicate copyrighted materials and distribute them to others without the consent of the person owning the copyright. To do so is, by law, theft.

None of this is to say I necessarily agree with the way the laws are currently applied. But I think it's more credible to work within the law, and if necessary, help change it, rather than performing my own "moral rewrite" of the law by doing whatever I please.

[UKHaiku]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

If making money and capatilism is morally wrong... I would say no its not. Although, I also think there should be some oversight at the university to make sure a professor is not just making token changes to reduce or limit the used market.

BOb

Hmm, that's debatable... Unrestrained capitalism and making money IS ethically wrong - the fallout of which we've seen demonstrated in the past few weeks...

While the area affected is different in this case, unmoderated greed is socially, and ethically unacceptable...
To use textbooks as an example - does society want to loose access to the next Einstein because he can't afford the Physics textbooks, so chooses to study, for example "English and American Film Studies" (apologies to anyone who's studying this - but I'm willing to argue that Physicists are of more use to society than Film Critics, at this stage of our evolution - though I am wholly in favour of a left+right brain education...).
The answer is - in my opinion - of course not - therefore society has a duty (and vested self-interest) to ensure that this doesn't happen - or at least to help ensure that the socio-economic framework hinders, rather than helps, overt profiteering at the possible expense of people's educations...

[UKHaiku]

Originally Posted by dsuden

I'll acknowledge I know from first-hand experience the art of introducing clever circumvention mechanisms into my thought processes when I'm tempted to do what's clearly wrong.

<snip>

To do so is, by law, theft.

I agree - but the world is a complex, ambiguous place and things are seldom clear - whether right or wrong...

Also, in terms of the law, I agree 100%, but not all theft is equal (and not all theft is ethically wrong - for example stealing medicine to save a life might be illegal, but I doubt many will argue it's "wrong").

[dsuden]

Thanks, that's a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Comparing stealing medicine to save a life with stealing a textbook to save a few bucks. Using convoluted logic will never justify doing what you know is wrong.

Here's a homework assignment for you. Every time you feel yourself tempted to invent a justification; every time you catch yourself concocting analogies to justify something, stop and think about what you're doing. And especially, be hesitant to post those sorts of arguments publicly, because they look like just what they are.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by dsuden

But on this issue, parsing by any means is difficult. It doesn't work to dilute or divert blame for stolen works. The word "copyright" speaks for itself. It refers to "copy rights." If we don't have "copy rights," we have no right to make and/or keep a copy of something we have not purchased. Nor do we have the right to duplicate copyrighted materials and distribute them to others without the consent of the person owning the copyright. To do so is, by law, theft.

No, it is not. Theft is a criminal act. Copyright infringement is a civil offense. The two are not the same.

[dsuden]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

No, it is not. Theft is a criminal act. Copyright infringement is a civil offense. The two are not the same.

More parsing.