What do you think about circumventing geographic restrictions?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by barryem

Now something new comes along; ebooks. Publishers and sellers tell us we don't have the right to share with our neighbors anymore. I feel for them. I'm sure they have their reasons, but I'm not buying into their ethics. Yes, to buy their books I have to say I agree to abide by their rules but that's just another of their rules. Agree or don't buy. So agreeing is part of the price I pay.

Once paid, the book is mine. I know, they say it's not mine. I'm just paying for the right to read it. But nah! It's mine.

Sure, it's yours. But that doesn't mean that you can make a copy of it and give that copy to your neighbour, any more than you could with a paper book. Because now both you and your neighbour have it.

[doctorow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Sure, it's yours. But that doesn't mean that you can make a copy of it and give that copy to your neighbour, any more than you could with a paper book. Because now both you and your neighbour have it.

Why not? I frequently share household items with my neighbours and friends; only one household has to buy the same item. We are robbing other people of their income, aren't we? Does it make us morally broken?

[barryem]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Sure, it's yours. But that doesn't mean that you can make a copy of it and give that copy to your neighbour, any more than you could with a paper book. Because now both you and your neighbour have it.

Sometimes that's somewhat true and sometimes it's not the case at all. I have a spare Kindle I use for loaning books to neighbors who don't have one of their own. Of course they have to give it back to me when they've read it. So for a short time we both have a copy but I don't see how that's very important. As a practical matter since I usually don't suggest books till I've read them we'd rarely be reading it at the same time.

A few neighbors do have a Kindle so I can put a copy on it for them but they don't have a computer to save it on and wouldn't know how to make a copy even if they did have one. I'm in a retirement home in rural Arkansas. So when they're done with it the most they can do is leave it on the Kindle in case they want to read it again. I suspect they just delete them, though.

However, none of this really alters my thinking. I wouldn't lend a book to someone who I think might deliver it to a pirate site. But other than that if they're good neighbors I'll lend them books if they ask for them. I have no moral or ethical issues with doing that.

Then there's the general question: is it ethical to lend someone an ebook? I guess I just don't think that is a general question. It's something we all have to decide for ourselves.

Barry

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by doctorow

Why not? I frequently share household items with my neighbours and friends; only one household has to buy the same item. We are robbing other people of their income, aren't we? Does it make us morally broken?

It's the difference between lending your friend a DVD, and giving that same friend a copy of the DVD. Nobody would consider lending the DVD to be wrong; many would regard giving the copy as piracy.

[Ghitulescu]

Originally Posted by Catlady

But since we know ignorance is not a defense, shouldn't the potential buyer at, say, a garage sale, require the seller to prove or swear that the bin of LPs and VHS tapes have not been digitized and no copies live on the seller's computer? How come that garage sale buyer can blithely assume the seller hasn't infringed copyright by keeping a copy? But if a person downloads something from the Web, he or she is supposed to inquire as to copyright status, rights holders, etc.?

Ethically, why shouldn't the buyer have the same responsibility in both instances? Why should a buyer assume a greater responsibility when the format is digital?

Have you read my message?
If the buyer has the originals, he shouldn't care what the seller does.

[doctorow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's the difference between lending your friend a DVD, and giving that same friend a copy of the DVD. Nobody would consider lending the DVD to be wrong; many would regard giving the copy as piracy.

How is this different if the end result is the same? Both cases describe a situation where one person makes the purchase with two persons benefiting from it.

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's the difference between lending your friend a DVD, and giving that same friend a copy of the DVD. Nobody would consider lending the DVD to be wrong; many would regard giving the copy as piracy.

What about if that friend rips the loaned DVD and uploads it to pirate sites?

I don't see much difference between trusting your friend not do do that, and trusting your friend not to make more copies of an ebook you've lent, nor any difference in the level of culpability you should feel if that friend does so.

What difference am I missing?

/JB

[HomeInMyShoes]

^The difference is only one person can enjoy the physical DVD at one time. With a copy, you both can watch it at the same time. There is a difference. It seems that many people ignore this difference to support the argument of what they are doing.

The two loans are not equal. Whether anything brutally dishonest happens with the copy is another story and not so much on the shoulders of the lender, but the concept of lending is certainly different. Is it a meaningful difference? I'm not so sure, that depends on the parties involved. I believe companies and laws are erring on the side of distrust with the parties. That is their choice. It is our choice to lobby the policy makers and companies to what we see as reasonable.

[latepaul]

Originally Posted by barryem

Most of us learned when we were growing up that sharing with our friends was a good thing. Most of us who grew up in families that read learned to share books. We learned that it's a good and friendly thing to do and that not sharing is a stingy and not very nice thing to do. I'm not sure that adds up to ethical behavior but it's close enough for me in this situation.

If I read a good book and tell my neighbor and he asks to read my copy I have no problem with lending it to him. If I refused I'd feel like I was being selfish and so would my neighbor. Neighborliness has it's own ethics.

When I was younger (20s) my best friend was really into music. Most of my CD collection at the time came from stuff he'd gotten me into. He had a good friend who was in a band. A fairly successful band but not a widely known one. Anyway, once my friend let it slip that his friend had shared with him a demo tape. It contained different versions of songs from their album, which I had, plus a few new songs.

After a little pleading and puppy-dog eyes - he made me copy. Some of the alternative versions were better than the final versions (though that might have been perception). I was told in no uncertain terms not to share it because he wasn't supposed to have shared it with me.

Some time later, I'm in a conversation with another friend and fan of the same band - he's somehow heard of this demo tape and is dropping hints about it because he thinks I might have a copy and of course wants one.

I remained silent on the topic, certainly no new copy was made, though I felt bad. But I also felt I'd done the right thing.

But what are the ethics? Was it ethical for the musician to give a copy to a friend but ask him not to share it? Was it ethical for him to share it with me anyway? Was it ethical of me to not share it?

And this all took place between a network of friends. My point is that "It's always better to share" is no more true than "it's always wrong to copy". In this case if I'd made a copy I'd've been kind to one friend and betrayed another.

BTW you may think I was hypocritical - I accept that charge. But look at it this way: my friend who gave me the tape and I both face the same situation - we have to choose one friend to help at the cost of letting down another. There's an ethical dilemma either way.

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by HomeInMyShoes

^The difference is only one person can enjoy the physical DVD at one time. With a copy, you both can watch it at the same time. There is a difference. It seems that many people ignore this difference to support the argument of what they are doing.

Perhaps I should have made the context of my post more explicit. I've been discussing a scenario where an ebook is lent and the lender either deletes his local copy for the duration of the loan, or promises not to read it for that period, leading to only one effective copy being available.

/JB

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It is an action which does not harm the author. I choose not to give copies of my ebooks to other people because that is - IMHO - an action which has the potential to harm the author. I can control my own actions. No matter how well I may think I know someone else, I can't control their actions, so I don't give other people copies of my copyrighted ebooks.

Your reader might be stolen and the material uploaded. You made that possible by removing the DRM.

[barryem]

Originally Posted by latepaul

BTW you may think I was hypocritical - I accept that charge. But look at it this way: my friend who gave me the tape and I both face the same situation - we have to choose one friend to help at the cost of letting down another. There's an ethical dilemma either way.

I don't think following your conscience is hypocritical. You did what you felt was the right thing in a tricky situation. You're right that there are no clear answers to any of this.

Barry

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I very much get the impression that people are talking here about giving away copies of their books, not merely lending them.

Lending seems fine to me, but only when done through a system, such as Amazon's, which enforces both a time limit and the inability of the lender to read the book while the borrower has it.

And that is the crux of the issue.

You believe in the honor system when it comes to DeDRMing your books and we should just take it on faith that you won't do anything unethical with them.
You deny the honor system when it comes to lending a friend a book and having him delete it when he is done with it.

Originally Posted by jbjb

I can see why enforcement is of interest to the copyright holder, and why it can be argued that it's required for a generally workable system, but when discussing an individual's ethical position when lending a book surely the thing that really matters is that the lender doesn't actually read the book during the loan, and that the borrower doesn't read it after its returned, not whether or not those restrictions were actually enforced by the system.

You are comfortable with stripping DRM from your books because you trust yourself not do do anything with the stripped books which damages the author. Is it not also ethically acceptable for me to trust myself not to read a book when lending it to a friend whom I trust to delete it when they've finished it?

/JB

Precisely.

Originally Posted by HarryT

The difference, as I see it (and please feel free to disagree!) is that I see a significant difference between judging the ethics of my own actions and those of someone else. I know that I'm not going to upload a DRM-stripped book to a torrent site. I have no way of knowing what someone else is or isn't going to do, regardless of how well I think I know them. If I gave a copy of a book to someone, and they then in turn gave it to other people, uploaded it to the internet, etc, I'd feel morally responsible for that piracy, because it would be my actions which led to it. Because of this, I prefer not to take the chance. I should add that I also don't lend paper books to people because they don't look after them the way that I do. If I can't trust my friends to look after my paper books, I'm not going to trust them to look after my ebooks.

Originally Posted by doctorow

Your mistrust of people's motives (motives of your friends no less) depicts a lonely and disconnected picture of this world. How can you still interact with them if you mistrust them with something trivial as respecting your wishes not to pirate the e-book you lent to them?

Originally Posted by HarryT

Precisely because, as I said in my previous post, on the few occasions that I've lent people paper books (which I keep in a pristine condition) I've got them back in a shocking state, with creased spines, bent covers, etc. It's not a matter of being "lonely and disconnected" - it's a matter of experience teaching me that, much as I enjoy the company of my friends, they don't have the same respect for books that I do. And if I'm pirating the book by giving it to them in the first place, it's a bit hypocritical to ask them not to do the same, isn't it? One rule for me and a different one for them?

Some people I cannot trust to take care of my pbooks, and that is because they are careless individuals. In such cases, I do not trust them to delete an ebook loan, because like I said, they are careless people.

That is fundamentally difficult from the people who I do trust to lend them pbooks, and ebooks as well.

Just because there is no one you trust does not mean everyone else is in the same boat.

I thought your issue with the alleged piracy of a loan is because they might not delete it, so how can you say "I'm pirating the book by giving it to them in the first place" separate from them pirating the book by keeping it?

I had thought your opinion was "I am responsible for making sure they don't pirate the book, by aiding and abetting them", not that you regard the loan itself -- even when verifiably carried out to an ethical and honorable end -- as intrinsically unethical.
Of course, according to a strictly legal definition, you are pirating the book when DeDRMing it, period.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by Ghitulescu

Torrents are not illegal per se, as a gun is not guilty for the murder its owner committed (...people kill people, right? ).

You can do whatever you want, as long as the text is PD and you didn't copy the work of another editor. For instance you take the original manuscripts of Mark Twain and retype them into the ePub. You can distribute it freely, on whatever means do you like.

I am well aware of that... as I am well aware of the fact that my ebook collection is NOT public domain (most peoples' aren't) -- I guess you can make the argument I should've specified, but I *thought* it was obvious.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by tompe

So Manybooks are distributing these kind of books. I did not know that.

What does Manybooks have to do with anything? The original case (linked again) was a case of a copyrighted book being sold for a $0.00 price point -- the famed freebie. In that case the vendor under discussion was Smashwords. Either way, if you thought the vendor didn't allow freebies, you should've responded as such, rather than to the presumed nonexistent case of a commercial freebie... by saying you have redistribution rights???