What are your views on illegal copying?

[kazbates]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

You can find discussion of 1st sale doctrine in about the middle of this post of mine. Or at wikipedia. My discussion is shorter; wikipedia's is much MUCH better.

Xenophon

Okay. I read it. . .and it still makes little sense to me in the context of the reselling of books (although, I do greatly appreciate your posting the links, Xenophon ). If the whole case against file sharing is that the publisher and the author are not compensated, how does that arguement NOT apply to the resale of a book? I get that you can make multiple copies of something and then resell them, that's a no brainer, but it seems to me they need to do a complete rehab of the system to work for all situations.

[Terisa de morgan]

I want to comment the situation in Spain, that I think is curious. When you buy a scanner, a printer, a DVD, a CD, a hard disk or a memory stick you pay a fee for the authors because in this country you can make a private copy. So, it's OK if I scan a book I own (I have the right and I've paid a fee). The other day I knew that we have sentences at the court against DRM in music because it breaks your right to a private copy. E-books are very new in Spain and they're beginning to study the case, but I think DRM in books could be in the same situation.

An only format is not the solution, the solution is no DRM. I can choose my options, I can choose my reader and I can change it without being worried about losing my e-books. And I always break the DRM because of some problems similar to the ones I have had with ADE (I couldn't authorize my computer, because I've had some problems and I have deauthorized and authorized different times). So, the software have a problem and I have no books? Sorry, no fair.

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by kazbates

What denotes thievery is the laws present in the society wherein the transaction took place and not public or personal opinion.

Quite so, I should've been more generous with the <irony></irony> tags there. I don't for a moment believe that unauthorized copying (or any other means by which one may enjoy a work without compensating the author) is theft. It may or may not be criminal or legal, and it may or may not be moral/ethical/justifiable (there are just way too many variables to come up with a sane one-size-fits-all answer to the question), but it isn't, at least in most jurisdictions, theft.

The truth is as long as it meets the laws of the land, selling the second hand book or purchasing it is legal (here in the US ~ I can't speak for other countries).

<sarcasm>But don't you understand it's WRONG! And STEALING! And THEFT! And PIRACY! Sure it's LEGAL, but that just means we need to PASS NEW LAWS to PUT THESE WRONGDOERS IN PRISON! Or PUBLIC BEHEADINGS. Public beheadings are good. Will NOBODY think of the CHILDREN?</sarcasm>

[kennyc]

.....and will no one think of the great-grandchildren of the author or the eternal corporation that bought all rights to the book? What of them???

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by kennyc

.....and will no one think of the great-grandchildren of the author or the eternal corporation that bought all rights to the book? What of them???

Maybe they'll throw me pennies from their sedan chairs, as they are carried by...

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Maybe they'll throw me pennies from their sedan chairs, as they are carried by...

[Ben Thornton]

What have I learned from this poll?

a. There is a sizeable minority which thinks that all copying is bad
(even if you have already paid for a copy and are effectively format shifting)

b. There is a sizeable minority which thinks that all copying is OK
(even if the work is available at a reasonable price)

c. Most people are in the middle, and think that getting an electronic copy is OK if:
1. You already own a copy in some form (~60%)
2. It's Public Domain somewhere else (~50%)
3. You cannot buy it electronically (~45%)
4. The author is dead (~30%)

d. Most people don't think it's OK to get an electronic copy otherwise
1. Less than 10% thought it OK not to pay because the author is rich
2. Less than 10% thought it OK not to pay because the publisher is mainstream

e. Threads about piracy create loads of replies

f. They say the same thing again and again

g. I know, it was my fault


Analysis

It looks to me that the majority support the idea that once you have paid for a work, it's reasonable not to be expected to (have to) pay again for a different format. As someone said earlier in the thread, if it's cheap enough, people will pay anyway to avoid the hassle of format shifting, but we're not there with ebook pricing today.

I was surprised at the level of support for the income of dead people. Two thirds didn't check this as a fair reason to take a copy. Perhaps we should make up some bumper stickers that say "Illegal copying of dead authors' works is a grave crime".

I was pleasantly surprised that so few people rose to the bait of not paying rich people or big publishers. There seems to be a clear majority that think that if a book is made available, and you don't already own it, you should pay for it.

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

Just to be clear, I wouldn't go to the darknets for a book that was on sale as an ebook for which I didn't own a dead tree copy ...

... but this is still not theft. It's making an unauthorised copy. In my view, it's wrong in this case, because the book has been made available and the author has not yet been paid. But it still isn't theft - that's simply the wrong word for what is going on.

Authors write novels for various reasons, but they *submit* to publishers (dead-tree or electronic) specifically to receive money. The publishers print the books or create e-books in order to *sell* the novels to readers. This is a commercial transaction. Taking the e-book without paying for it after it is made available on a retail site for the specific purpose of reading it is NOT just making an unauthorized copy, it's theft.

Making an unauthorized copy is photocopying or scanning it to keeping it around after the original is returned - say after borrowing the copy from a friend or a library.

There *is* a difference.

Derek

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

What have I learned from this poll?
.....
Analysis
.....

Hey You forgot that one (or maybe two) wacko(s) that thinks copying is theft!

[Solicitous]

Originally Posted by sabredog

Geo restrictions prevent readers from buying books they want to pay for. In the end they will consider getting a free copy.

Well me personally I don't feel "acquiring" a free copy is unethical, though it certainly is illegal. It doesn't represent a lost sale as the publisher refused to sell it to you in the first place, so whether you download a copy or not the publisher (and author) has taken it upon themselves to miss out on a sale by means of geographic restrictions.

What I don't understand is why can't ebooks be sold globally, and at the end of the month when the book seller hands the money to the publishers they provide a list of which countries bought the ebooks and the publisher distributes appropriate monies to the local book distributor who has rights to the book in that country.

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by Kevin2960

Ben, define Darknet in your orignal post, internet, subversive, underground, wrong, illegal,

admit it or not, thats what you meant !

You meant Stolen !!!!

"subversive"? "internet"? So now the Internet is subversive??? Interesting world view there.

Derek

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

Analysis

It looks to me that the majority support the idea that once you have paid for a work, it's reasonable not to be expected to (have to) pay again for a different format. As someone said earlier in the thread, if it's cheap enough, people will pay anyway to avoid the hassle of format shifting, but we're not there with ebook pricing today.

Yep. We're not there yet on ebook pricing. But we will be.

I was surprised at the level of support for the income of dead people. Two thirds didn't check this as a fair reason to take a copy. Perhaps we should make up some bumper stickers that say "Illegal copying of dead authors' works is a grave crime".

O! M! G! I have *GOT* to go to CafePress and make me one of them.

I was pleasantly surprised that so few people rose to the bait of not paying rich people or big publishers. There seems to be a clear majority that think that if a book is made available, and you don't already own it, you should pay for it.

You bet. Now I have a problem with price-gouging as MacM wants to do, but yes, I'd rather pay for a commercially available ebook than dark-net it.

Derek

[Kevin2960]

Originally Posted by delphidb96

"subversive"? "internet"? So now the Internet is subversive??? Interesting world view there.

Derek

Perhaps not worded well, I don't think the internet is subversive, but i was argueing that Ben by calling it the Darknet, was in fact defeating his own arguements and at least implying that MANY books found on the "Darknet" WERE Stolen!

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by Kevin2960

It upsets me that people who moan at publishers cheating them ?, are then so happy to take from an author, without paying even a token amount ???

In the end we have to do what we believe is right, and I know what I truly believe,

It upsets ME that I cannot purchase a book legally because a publishing company arbitrary decides that selling the physical copy of a book is ok in my country of origin but not the ebook.

I would be quite happy to pay an author directly if I could obtain the ebook from them or I "acquired" it elsewhere as the only alternative because of the above.

Remove geo restrictions and a substantial amount of piracy might well disappear.

[delphidb96]

Originally Posted by Kevin2960

Perhaps not worded well, I don't think the internet is subversive, but i was argueing that Ben by calling it the Darknet, was in fact defeating his own arguements and at least implying that MANY books found on the "Darknet" WERE Stolen!

But not 'subversive' I hope. And, if the ebooks found on the dark-net sites are *NOT* available for sale from publisher/retailer sites, then downloading them is not, IMO, theft. And I agree that many *are* commercially available in ebook format.

Derek