Ebook Piracy

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by nekokami

I know you don't agree with me. You know I don't agree with you. Why post as if we haven't had this discussion before? I start to feel as though there's no point saying anything to you at all. I don't expect you to agree with me, but it would be nice if you'd at least acknowledge that you're aware of my point of view.

I am aware of your viewpoint, but I think that it's both morally and legally wrong. I can always hope to persuade you of the error of your ways in time .

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I am aware of your viewpoint, but I think that it's both morally and legally wrong. I can always hope to persuade you of the error of your ways in time .

I'm quite capable of changing my mind, but pretending you haven't heard what I've already said isn't going to do it. Persistently repeating the same arguments isn't going to do it, either. (Suggesting that I think I'm entitled to a hardcover book because I own an ebook does both.)

If you'd really like to change my mind, come up with a new way of explaining your point of view. There's not much point in debating the legal issues, as we live in different countries with quite different legal perspectives on this issue. But if you want to discuss morality, I'm still listening. You might, for example, start by considering whether there are any circumstances whatsoever in which it would be acceptable to receive a book from someone else without paying for it. Perhaps if we can define both ends of the moral spectrum it will be possible to find some common middle ground.

If, on the other hand, you're not interested in finding common middle ground or seeing if perhaps in some ways you might be overstating your position, just as I might be, then there's no point in further discussion on this subject, and it might be better if we each simply ignore each other's posts in this area.

[Jadon]

Originally Posted by nekokami

If, on the other hand, you're not interested in finding common middle ground or seeing if perhaps in some ways you might be overstating your position, just as I might be, then there's no point in further discussion on this subject, and it might be better if we each simply ignore each other's posts in this area.

Is there any point at all to copyright violation threads? The same things are said, over and over and over, and people don't change their minds. The worldviews don't overlap enough to permit significant conversation. Even when conversation stays polite, it's pretty much mired at the "I don't understand how anyone can think that" level.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by nekokami

If you'd really like to change my mind, come up with a new way of explaining your point of view. There's not much point in debating the legal issues, as we live in different countries with quite different legal perspectives on this issue. But if you want to discuss morality, I'm still listening. You might, for example, start by considering whether there are any circumstances whatsoever in which it would be acceptable to receive a book from someone else without paying for it. Perhaps if we can define both ends of the moral spectrum it will be possible to find some common middle ground.

OK, let me have one more go at it.

I have no problem whatsoever with you personally scanning a paperback book which you own, since you tell me that this is perfectly legal where you live.

HOWEVER, this is NOT the same as downloading an illegal copy of that book from the internet, from either a legal or a moral perspective, because that uploaded book is illegal. It can never be legal to download illegal material. This is true even if the end result is identical.

To use an example I've used before; I could buy two identical bottles of Bell's Whisky; one of which comes from my local supermarket, and the other of which has been smuggled from France without the payment of UK duty. Although the two are identical, I am breaking the law in buying the smuggled bottle, but not the one from my supermarket. It is the source of the product which makes it illegal, not whether or not I am "entitled" to own that product.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

HOWEVER, this is NOT the same as downloading an illegal copy of that book from the internet, from either a legal or a moral perspective, because that uploaded book is illegal. It can never be legal to download illegal material. This is true even if the end result is identical.

That is wrong or maybe the corrext objection is that the material is not illegal. It is making the material available that is an illegal act but the material in itself is not illegal.

As i have said before. A couple of years ago in Sweden it was legal to download whatever you wanted but it could be illegal to upload the same material. As i understand it the laws are still that way in Switzerland.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by HarryT

HOWEVER, this is NOT the same as downloading an illegal copy of that book from the internet, from either a legal or a moral perspective, because that uploaded book is illegal. It can never be legal to download illegal material. This is true even if the end result is identical.

Ok, I see your point about not supporting a system which broadcasts works illegally.

Suppose I get a scan from a friend who has the book and has verified that I also have the book?

Suppose I form a club with a bunch of Heinlein completists-- we all have all of Heinlein's books, only 3 of which are available as legal ebooks-- and we each scan one and then we share the results with one another? (We'll leave out for the moment that Robert Heinlein is dead, as Virginia Heinlein is still alive and well liked by the fans-- we're happy to support her.)

I'm not trying to use this to justify the darknet as it exists currently, I'm just trying to understand where you think the bounds of fairness lie.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by nekokami

I'm not trying to use this to justify the darknet as it exists currently, I'm just trying to understand where you think the bounds of fairness lie.

The unfairness lies in the act of posting the book to the internet where it can be downloaded by people who have no legitimate claim to it.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The unfairness lies in the act of posting the book to the internet where it can be downloaded by people who have no legitimate claim to it.

So if I only share a scan with people that I have verified own the paper book? Or if I request a copy of a scan from someone who asks for verification that I own the paper book?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by nekokami

So if I only share a scan with people that I have verified own the paper book? Or if I request a copy of a scan from someone who asks for verification that I own the paper book?

I would have no particular MORAL issue with that. Whether or not it's LEGAL in your country I wouldn't know.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I would have no particular MORAL issue with that. Whether or not it's LEGAL in your country I wouldn't know.

I don't think anyone knows whether it's legal here, but I'd have a hard time imagining a jury convicting anyone for doing it. Unfortunately, forming a club to exchange books this way would very likely attract a legal challenge, and even if the court decided in favor of the defendants, the costs of the defense would be prohibitive.

Thanks, that helps me to understand your point of view. I am less concerned about filesharing of books on the darknet than you are, because I really do think most books being shared are either out of print or manual scans of content not available as ebooks, and because I think most people who download them are either hoarding without reading or do pay for their content by buying paper books or commercial ebooks, but I see your point that the system makes no attempt to verify this, and is inherently unfair to content creators because of this, and that using such a system is participating in this unfairness.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by Jadon

Is there any point at all to copyright violation threads? The same things are said, over and over and over, and people don't change their minds. The worldviews don't overlap enough to permit significant conversation. Even when conversation stays polite, it's pretty much mired at the "I don't understand how anyone can think that" level.

I think HarryT and I are trying to show that it is possible to find overlap in our worldviews, and that it can be possible for this conversation to be constructive. I certainly appreciate his continued efforts in this regard.

Unfortunately, I find I have to ignore most of the other posts in threads on this topic, because most people do just keep repeating the same arguments, louder and louder, talking past each other as it were. That gets us nowhere.