EU Piracy Report

[Apache]

I only buy from other markets if I can not get it in the US.
Apache

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by issybird

Both aspects have been raised and "economic gain" has been invoked. But I don't care; I'm willing to rephrase the comment with that restriction.

The stakeholders in the book, including the author, have the legal right to exploit copyright of digital books however they choose, even if it's withholding it from certain markets. Perhaps it's even with a view to maximizing revenue from the book at that; different markets may have calendar-related sweet spots, but the reason doesn't matter. At what point does this right, based on copyright, cease to exist? When someone wants to read it?

It's a slippery slope, indeed. Like DiapDealer and as I've said upthread, I'm not the internet morality police, but I don't like it when people present their chicanery as the moral option. There's the easy option: don't do it. Respect the legal rights of the author and other stakeholders and move on.

I find the parsing of the moral options quite odd, at times. "Traveling" to Canada or the US from a Life + 70 country to obtain for free the work of an author who's been dead for 69 years? "Oh, no, I couldn't do that!" "Traveling" to another country when it's trampling on the legal rights to his work of an living author who's trying to maximize his earnings now, whether you're saving money or just because you wanna? "Where's my credit card?" Does paying anything, even a few cents, make that moral? What about books that are free in one market and not another? And there's the conundrum where a book that's public domain in Canada, say, and it's for sale at Kobo, so someone "travels" there to buy it, when they could get it at Faded Page for free?

It's like the convolutions they had to go through to justify the sun traveling around the earth. There's an easier solution - if you're talking morality.

But, again, I'm not the morality police. But you're not convincing me, either.

It's really not as clean cut or moral as you seem to think. First off, geo restriction in this sense is purely a contract affair between the author and the publisher. I fail to see how that contract places a moral obligation on someone who is two levels removed (customer buys from Amazon, who buys from publisher who has a contract with an author) from that contract. The other thing is that buying an ebook is no different than buying a paper book. My parents can and have walked into a bookshop in London and bought me books that were not available in the US. No one jumps up and down and shouts geo-restriction. Instead the book seller, was more that happy to recommend and sell them books that I might like.

The region flag on DVD players was an attempt to enforce geo-restrictions on DVD's. It's still there, but pretty much every DVD player out there has a method for allowing the owner to watch DVD's from any region. I simply don't see why I have a moral obligation to enforce someone else's business model. Do you object to people buying merchandise from Costco rather than from a more expensive shop? If not, how is that different?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

The other thing is that buying an ebook is no different than buying a paper book. My parents can and have walked into a bookshop in London and bought me books that were not available in the US. No one jumps up and down and shouts geo-restriction. Instead the book seller, was more that happy to recommend and sell them books that I might like.

What you've described is a perfect example of why buying an ebook absolutely IS different from buying a paper book. People pretending, or wanting it to be "no different" doesn't actually make it so. Loaning, copying, buying vs licensing, resale, used-market -- MOST concepts (with the exception of the simple act of reading) do not translate smoothly from the pbook world to the e-. Differences between buying an ebook and buying a paper book literally abound.

And of course no-one screams about geo-restrictions when tourists walk into a London bookshop and buy books that are unavailable in the US. Your parents were actually there ... in the geographic location where the books were licensed to be sold. Why would anyone scream?

[issybird]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

The other thing is that buying an ebook is no different than buying a paper book.

Yes, it is. Just because you say it's not different, doesn't make it so.

[spindlegirl]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer;3619801

And of [I

course[/I] no-one screams about geo-restrictions when tourists walk into a London bookshop and buy books that are unavailable in the US. Your parents were actually there ... in the geographic location where the books were licensed to be sold. Why would anyone scream?

The point is, the parents were able to buy the book from London, even saying directly to the bookseller, "I'm sending this to my son in the USA", so clearly they did not mind if the book was bought in London and then given to someone outside the restricted area.

The bookseller did not forbid his parents from buying it, even knowing full well that it was not going to live in London for longer than five minutes.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by issybird

I figure one of the points of copyright is that the author, who probably has a very small window, can exploit his works to the extent provided by law, which includes negotiating the best terms possible geographically. Not buying in the US for $10 but picking up a copy in India for a few cents is not exactly the stuff that makes for a clear conscience.

My comment is regarding the bolded words. It seems many people travel to use Kobo's promo codes on Agency titles. If so, the publisher and author are paid full retail price. Lately, however, functioning non-specific codes are rare so it's possible that fewer are traveling.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by spindlegirl

The bookseller did not forbid his parents from buying it, even knowing full well that it was not going to live in London for longer than five minutes.

That doesn't matter at all. Geo-restrictions have nothing to do with where a book ultimately "lives." There's no geo-restrictions in the world that could affect the post-sale gifting/reselling of a physical book. The books were licensed to be sold in the UK, and were bought, and paid for in UK. Where they end up after that doesn't matter. The bookseller would have no valid reason or legal standing to forbid them from buying them.

[spindlegirl]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

That doesn't matter at all. Geo-restrictions have nothing to do with where a book ultimately "lives." There's no geo-restrictions in the world that could affect the post-sale gifting/reselling of a physical book. The books were licensed to be sold in the UK, and were bought, and paid for in UK. Where they end up after that doesn't matter. The bookseller would have no valid reason or legal standing to forbid them from buying them.

So the only legal way around geo-restrictions: make a friend in the location of choice, give them a "gift" via paypal, have them send it to you.

I've never had a need to try to pretend to live somewhere else, but I have been disappointed by geo-restriction in the past, but not enough to go to great lengths.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by issybird

Yes, it is. Just because you say it's not different, doesn't make it so.

And simply asserting that it is different, doesn't make it so, either.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

What you've described is a perfect example of why buying an ebook absolutely IS different from buying a paper book. People pretending, or wanting it to be "no different" doesn't actually make it so. Loaning, copying, buying vs licensing, resale, used-market -- MOST concepts (with the exception of the simple act of reading) do not translate smoothly from the pbook world to the e-. Differences between buying an ebook and buying a paper book literally abound.

And of course no-one screams about geo-restrictions when tourists walk into a London bookshop and buy books that are unavailable in the US. Your parents were actually there ... in the geographic location where the books were licensed to be sold. Why would anyone scream?

So what is the difference? That someone claims to sell a restricted license rather than the book itself? That particular theory was settled in the US over a hundred years ago with the first sale doctrine. The only actual difference between a paper book and an electronic book is the impossibility of guaranteeing that there is one and only one copy of the book at any one time. Of course, now it's impossible to guarantee that the original buyer didn't make a copy of the paper book either. People scan paper books all the time, so I guess it's not really a difference after all.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by spindlegirl

So the only legal way around geo-restrictions: make a friend in the location of choice, give them a "gift" via paypal, have them send it to you.

I've never had a need to try to pretend to live somewhere else, but I have been disappointed by geo-restriction in the past, but not enough to go to great lengths.

There is no legal geo-restriction for a consumer, at least not in the US. It's purely a matter of contract law. The objection appears to be a perceived moral objection rather than a legal issue.

[Thasaidon]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

It's really not as clean cut or moral as you seem to think. First off, geo restriction in this sense is purely a contract affair between the author and the publisher. I fail to see how that contract places a moral obligation on someone who is two levels removed (customer buys from Amazon, who buys from publisher who has a contract with an author) from that contract.

I think this is a key point. A contract between two people has no control over people not privy to the contract . It also cannot impose any moral obligation on people not privy to the contract, so morality foes not come into it.

[darryl]

The law and morality are of course often if not mostly two different things. And of course the morality that is relevant here is people's individual moral codes. On top of this is the fact that we are all only human, and so we sometimes break even our own moral codes. More often than not, we tend to rationalise such breaches though there is a refreshing trend in this thread for some to say I don't care, I'm doing it even though I think it's morally wrong. Though none of us are totally immune to rationalisation.

I think the attempt to distinguish between circumventing geo-blocking and drm removal on the basis that only one involved an actual lie has failed, at least so far as Amazon's terms are concerned. Ironically enough, it seems that Amazon does not ask for an actual residential address. If this is in fact the case, there need be no lying involved to get around geo-blocking, save perhaps arguably giving a totally false address with which you have no connection. On the other hand, removing drm will always involve a lie unless you actually do not intend such removal when you purchase the ebook. In my view this simply shows that whether a lie is involved is not especially helpful in determining the morality of either practice. Of course, if not lying is in your personal moral code an absolute, then you must either avoid either practice if a lie is involved, or simply ignore your moral code and go ahead, hopefully without attempting to rationalise. Ironically, for those who don't choose to lie, this will prohibit them from removing drm but usually not from circumventing geo-blocking.

Other moral distinctions have been put forward. Whether the author gets paid seems to me to make far more sense than whether or not a lie is involved. However, it does have the arguable complications of ignoring the quantum of the authors payment and ignoring the rights of other "stakeholders in the book", including of course any exclusive agent for another territory. To me none of these are of terrible concern morally, but others of course feel differently. Likewise the distinction between whether a book is available in a particular territory at all or for a different price.

Morally, there is an elephant in the room that is little discussed. The concept often expressed as "two wrongs don't make a right" does have implications to personal morality. Some people do not totally accept this, choosing to look at the morality of particular actions on a more holistic basis. A weighing up exercise with individual moral rights or wrongs weighing towards the morality of a particular act.

Finally, I will quote from one of issybird's prior posts in this thread:

The stakeholders in the book, including the author, have the legal right to exploit copyright of digital books however they choose, even if it's withholding it from certain markets. Perhaps it's even with a view to maximizing revenue from the book at that; different markets may have calendar-related sweet spots, but the reason doesn't matter. At what point does this right, based on copyright, cease to exist? When someone wants to read it?

Arguably one or more of these stakeholders may have the legal right to do so. But the moral right? Copyright, in the United States at least, exists only for the public benefit, making more books available, at first under a statutory monopoly for a limited time and then as part of the public domain. Private rights granted are ancillary to this, and should be interpreted accordingly, at least morally. Morally I do not believe that any "stakeholders" from the author on down have a right to withhold a book once they have taken advantage of copyright. Is it not hypocritical and itself immoral to withhold a book whilst relying on legislation which is fundamentally aimed at making more books available? That allows a short term public detriment, a monopoly, in return for a longer term public benefit?

The view that copyright holders can do anything they like stems from the view that a copyright is the same as physical property. Morally, at least in my view, copyrights are subject to the overriding purpose for which they are granted. When this is essentially making more books available I find it hard to construe as moral the withholding of such books.

[Thasaidon]

Originally Posted by darryl

The law and morality are of course often if not mostly two different things. And of course the morality that is relevant here is people's individual moral codes. On top of this is the fact that we are all only human, and so we sometimes break even our own moral codes. More often than not, we tend to rationalise such breaches though there is a refreshing trend in this thread for some to say I don't care, I'm doing it even though I think it's morally wrong. Though none of us are totally immune to rationalisation........

.......
The view that copyright holders can do anything they like stems from the view that a copyright is the same as physical property. Morally, at least in my view, copyrights are subject to the overriding purpose for which they are granted. When this is essentially making more books available I find it hard to construe as moral the withholding of such books.

Very well put. It would have taken me a lot longer to gome up with something half as good.

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

If they don't have to present a fake residential address, then I agree. Amazon requires more than a vpn though, no?

Not sure to be honest, B&N were always happy to sell to me from the US store and I used my UK address, I stopped when I could no longer download ebooks from them.

Originally Posted by spindlegirl

The bookseller did not forbid his parents from buying it, even knowing full well that it was not going to live in London for longer than five minutes.

That would make buying books to read on holiday somewhat... problamatic
The geo-restriction is the contract between the publisher and seller, limiting where it can be sold by the seller.
After it's been purchased you can take it where you like as there are no location restrictions in your contract with the seller

Basically I'm going with Groucho on this
Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.