What do you think about circumventing geographic restrictions?

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But do people actually have the rights they think they have with physical books? I don't believe you have the right to give your friend a copy of a physical book while retaining the original yourself, for example, do you?

[snip]

The question wasn't directed to me but I'll answer.

Yes I do believe you have the right. I don't have a problem lending a DVD to a friend even if I have a backup copy of it at home or a ripped version on my iPad. I don't have a problem lending a CD to someone even if I have a copy of the music on my iPod. I don't have a problem lending a piece of sheet music to a friend even if I have a working copy of it. Just because people don't typically make backup copies of books doesn't change anything in my view.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by RobertDDL

But exactly this is what they do, as long as they come with DRM and in proprietary formats -- if I don't remove such an ebook's DRM and am able to convert it, it may degenerate much faster than a properly stored and handled printed book. I probably do not break any law by removing an ebook's DRM and thus securing its future, but in most cases I will thereby violate the vendor's licence terms, which I do with a clear conscience.

I don't think too many people would disagree with you. But I would make a clear distinction between actions which are beneficial to you (such as removing DRM), and actions which are harmful to the author (such as giving a copy of that DRM-stripped book to your friend).

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Barcey

Yes I do believe you have the right. I don't have a problem lending a DVD to a friend even if I have a backup copy of it at home or a ripped version on my iPad. I don't have a problem lending a CD to someone even if I have a copy of the music on my iPod. I don't have a problem lending a piece of sheet music to a friend even if I have a working copy of it.

Every one one of those actions is a clear case of copyright infringement.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Every one one of those actions is a clear case of copyright infringement.

Which the vast majority of people will never regard as such. Nor will ever be punished for.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Which the vast majority of people will never regard as such. Nor will ever be punished for.

I hope (but maybe I'm being naive in that hope) that most people are more honest than you suggest.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I hope (but maybe I'm being naive in that hope) that most people are more honest than you suggest.

So what you're saying is, if one has (entirely legally) ripped one's CDs to store on a computer/iPod, one may then never lend out those (legally purchased) CDs to a friend, even though one could if one had not ripped the CD? Even if one does not play the file while the CD is lent out?

This is what I mean about needing a discussion/commission to reach a societal consensus on what should be legal.

[mbovenka]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I hope (but maybe I'm being naive in that hope) that most people are more honest than you suggest.

Yes, Harry, you're being naive. DiapDealer is right: (almost) nobody sees these things as wrong, thus honesty doesn't come into it for them at all. Laws don't make things wrong, they make them illegal. Which isn't the same thing at all.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

So what you're saying is, if one has (entirely legally) ripped one's CDs to store on a computer/iPod, one may then never lend out those (legally purchased) CDs to a friend, even though one could if one had not ripped the CD? Even if one does not play the file while the CD is lent out?

Yes. Whether or not you play it is entirely irrelevant. What makes it copyright infringement is the fact that one person has bought the CD, but two people now simultaneously have a copy of it.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I hope (but maybe I'm being naive in that hope) that most people are more honest than you suggest.

And I don't think my suggestion implies that people are necessarily being dishonest.

Barcey's examples of "clear copyright infringement"--as described--take no more or less food off of a creator's table than the loaning of physical media (without a backup copy) would. Nor would the deletion of the backup before "legally" loaning the physical media make food magically appear on their table.

Copyright infringement RE digital media simply does not inherently imply the dishonesty and loss of income that you seem to want/need it to.

You break your country's DRM removal laws because you don't recognize the harm in doing so. You don't consider yourself "dishonest" because you trust yourself enough to uphold the "spirit" of the protection that DRM provides to rights-holders, if not the letter of it. Yet you deny the possibility that others could (and do) do the same RE copyright and digital media. That's hipocrisy.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

You break your country's DRM removal laws because you don't recognize the harm in doing so. You don't consider yourself "dishonest" because you trust yourself enough to uphold the "spirit" of the protection that DRM provides to rights-holders, if not the letter of it. Yet you deny the possibilty that others could (and do) do the same RE copyright and digital media. That's hipocrisy.

I would make a clear distinction between removing DRM to allow me to read a book on a different device, and removing DRM to allow me to give a copy of a book to someone else. In my personal ethical system, the latter is dishonest; the former is not. Your ethical standards may of course differ, and that's entirely your concern. I certainly don't consider it hypocritical to say that copyright infringement (giving someone a copy of something, or lending someone the original while retaining a copy yourself) is dishonest. To my way of thinking, it IS dishonest.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I hope (but maybe I'm being naive in that hope) that most people are more honest than you suggest.

Just because something is easy to do doesn't make it the right thing to do.

One would hope that most people can operate at a more thoughtful level than "me want, me take; I can, I do. F.U."

(There's already too many that do just that.)

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

And I don't think my suggestion implies that people are necessarily being dishonest.

Barcey's examples of "clear copyright infringement"--as described--take no more or less food off of a creator's table than the loaning of physical media (without a backup copy) would. Nor would the deletion of the backup before "legally" loaning the physical media make food magically appear on their table.

Copyright infringement RE digital media simply does not inherently imply the dishonesty and loss of income that you seem to want/need it to.

You break your country's DRM removal laws because you don't recognize the harm in doing so. You don't consider yourself "dishonest" because you trust yourself enough to uphold the "spirit" of the protection that DRM provides to rights-holders, if not the letter of it. Yet you deny the possibilty that others could (and do) do the same RE copyright and digital media. That's hipocrisy.

I think that sometimes people conflate honesty with their version of morality.

I agree with you in your overall argument that the technical legalities matter very little here. Consumers are going to do what they want to do with no regard to the technical legalities. For the most part, the real world matches your argument. While loaning ebooks to friends, even if you have a copy, may be a technical violation of copyright law, no one is going to be prosecuted until they make lots of copies or try to make a buck doing so. The worse that's going to happen to you if you buy an ebook out of market is that the vendor may shutdown your account if they catch you at it. (I believe that Amazon for the most part, simply resets your location to where they think you actually live rather than shutdown your account). The record companies tried going after minor copyright violators and got so much bad press that they gave it up over time.

Ultimately, I suspect that the rule of thumb will be, as long as you don't try to make a profit on someone else's copyright material, or do something major that devalues the work, then you will be able to do what you like. Obviously, there will be a lot of quibbling in the courts over the devalues part of that, but I suspect that's the way it will shake out.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I would make a clear distinction between removing DRM to allow me to read a book on a different device, and removing DRM to allow me to give a copy of a book to someone else. In my personal ethical system, the latter is dishonest; the former is not. Your ethical standards may of course differ, and that's entirely your concern. I certainly don't consider it hypocritical to say that copyright infringement (giving someone a copy of something, or lending someone the original while retaining a copy yourself) is dishonest. To my way of thinking, it IS dishonest.

We have very different viewpoints on dishonesty then. I tend to believe that if I feel I can break the law "responsibly" (based solely on my own personal ethics), I have an obligation to assume others are capable of the very same thing.

DRM removal and copyright infringement both have equal potential for harm or harmlessness to rights-holders.

[mr_nihilism]

Circumventing restrictions on my ability to read something or other does not fall into my category of moral trespasses and thus I can lay my head on my pillow and not lose a wink of sleep.

Yes, I realize it's technically wrong to do so. But technicalities aside, I just don't care.

That's just my sincere opinion.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, the law changed in the UK last year to allow format shifting. Remember that "fair use" (and "fair dealing") are defences against copyright infringement. If the law specifically allows it (as it does with format shifting), no defence is needed.

But how can format shifting be legal? When you are done format shifting, you do have another copy of the eBook. So if making a copy is not legal, then format shifting is not legal.