"eBook versions of owned paper books" Popular Front

[dmikov]

Originally Posted by kennyc

And just to be clear if you make copies of an copyrighted material for anyone other than yourself of if you give away copies of copyrighted material you are a thief,

In your highly vocal opinion, not in mine, not in a law definition of theft.

Originally Posted by kennyc

you have broken the law

True, copyright law. Which is amended and changed too often to my liking (hopefully one day it will change to my liking).
I don't think criminal law defining theft has been changed or likely to change soon.

Originally Posted by kennyc

and deprived a creator of their rights to a livelihood from their creations (e.g. their property).

Depriving from livelihood is not a theft btw, if I write and article saying that author A sucks, and 10000 people doesn't buy his work, I am effectively denying his "right to a livelihood", am I a thief now?

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by braver

I don't see a problem with gifting Dan Brown (composting would work too in that specific case) and getting a Kindle version for $1. Publisher just made $.50 or so.

Instead of the $4 or $5 from two sales of the book.

[Hellmark]

Originally Posted by braver

The contents is the same, and the fact that you don't think you're entitled to it in all possible shapes means you're still in the 20th century, or are a perfect customer for RIAA and the like, or both.

The 21st century model should be, you buy content at a certain a level of quality, and then are entitled to it in all media forms.

For one thing, being able to prove you own a copy is difficult often, especially when it isn't a brick and mortar. Even if you had some place to go, the same book could be used as "proof" among 15 people. All Amazon has to go on is sales records, which who is to say you still own the book? If you sold it, why should you get another copy, as if you still owned it?

And as said before, why should you be entitled to another form, that may be more expensive to produce (note that you said ALL media forms)?

[edembowski]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Do we have to go through all this again with everybody? Okay, once again:

Probably much more than once.

Sharing a digital copy is not theft. It is not theft under the law. It is not theft by definition. It is not even theft morally and ethically.

Let me be very clear about this. If you download a copy of a book that you did not have the legal right to (such as though purchase, library check out, or through expired copyright) then you are stealing. There is no middle ground here. It is not a moral issue, it is fact.

Now, when you can actually tell the difference between one action and another, maybe, just maybe there'll be some discussion about intellectual copyright and 'supporting artists'.

I think I can, and have, told you the difference. This is not an ambiguous topic.

And if you think purchasing an ebook or pbook by an author is supporting them, you've got another thing coming, matey, boy.

Authors are compensated according to the terms of their contract. Trying to present an argument that stealing is acceptable since they wouldn't be compensated anyway is a specious argument. You are not privy to their contracts and can at best make gross generalizations that do not justify theft.

The next ignorant idiot who accuses me of theft won't get such a polite response.

Yours
A creator.

At no time have I accused you of theft; I have no specific knowledge of any of your actions. I have made direct responses to your public assertion that theft is a viable alternative.

- Ed

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by edembowski

...



At no time have I accused you of theft; I have no specific knowledge of any of your actions. I have made direct responses to your public assertion that theft is a viable alternative.

- Ed

and by encouraging it that person becomes an accessory to the crime.

(and the breakdown of society as we know it. )

[kennyc]

and btw I'm getting sick of MoeJoe derailing every thread that has even the most remote connection with digital media, copyright and authors rights.

Let's please try to stick to the topic at hand and report off-topic posts.

[braver]

The verb "entitled" was used by a previous replier.

I'm quite amazed by the pessimism and negativism of most of the responders. They'd rather spend hours digitizing their paper, or come up with incorrect counterexamples, hoard than think of technosocial ways to converge the two -- and most importantly, exert the pressure on the publishers to deliver the content in ways convenient to consumers. A surprising and sad pastiche!

Paperback vs hardback is not the same as an ebook for paperback of any sort.

Gifting is surely an option, but the option can be restricted to the previuosly owned *unreturnable* books! Then gifting indeed is an option -- and an attractive inducer to buy the ebook for the extra $5!

While the ebook and paper book publishers may differ, there's still a way to negotiate the rights. And so forth.

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by edembowski

Probably much more than once.


Let me be very clear about this. If you download a copy of a book that you did not have the legal right to (such as though purchase, library check out, or through expired copyright) then you are stealing. There is no middle ground here. It is not a moral issue, it is fact.

- Ed

Evidence please? How is it a fact that it is stealing? According to which definition of the words theft or stealing? As far as the ethical issues go, what are your credentials? Have you studied ethics? Which moral theories do you believe apply to this situation? Consequentialist ones? Deontological ones? Or maybe not downloading from the darknet is a virtue in an Aristotelian sense? Engaging in empty rhetorical flourishes about making things clear and then reasserting a conclusion is not sufficient to warrant that conclusion.

Luqman

[Lo Zeno]

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

Evidence please? How is it a fact that it is stealing? According to which definition of the words theft or stealing?

Oh for xxxx's sake!
Stealing: taking something which you are not allowed to take.
This, at least, is what stealing means at my home.

Now, no law in the world allow you to take for yourself a book unless the AUTHOR and the PUBLISHER say "ok, you can". There are 2 ways to be granted permission to TAKE a book: paying, or obeying to a licence that says "you can have this book if you do not claim authorship" (like some GPL licenses).

Now move on.

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Apparently so, because you refuse to understand reality and live in your fantasy world [...]

I don't know about Moejoe and the USA, but In reality, in every European country where I've lived, theft and copyright infringement are completely different kind of behaviour and they are prosecuted in different ways.

Nobody with a minimum understanding of the law can say it's the same.

It's like to say that spit in one's face is actually murder because it hurts the human being on many levels and who says it's not, he lives in a fantasy world....

[bavardage]

So looking at a copyrighted music video someone has uploaded illegally is theft? (You are copying the video to your computer to view it without the right to do so)

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by Lo Zeno

Oh for xxx's sake!
Stealing: taking something which you are not allowed to take.
This, at least, is what stealing means at my home.

Now, no law in the world allow you to take for yourself a book unless the AUTHOR and the PUBLISHER say "ok, you can". There are 2 ways to be granted permission to TAKE a book: paying, or obeying to a licence that says "you can have this book if you do not claim authorship" (like some GPL licenses).

Now move on.

When you share, you don't "take", you "give".

And I'm not sure that "stealing" it's what you mean even in your home...

[emellaich]

There are two different angles to consider the original request/comment. First, is through legal means, second it through the market.

In my opinion (and this is only my opinion, I'm not stating it as fact!) creators can and should retain full legal rights to their own work. If they choose to give it away - fine. If they choose to sell it for $10,000 per copy -- that's OK too. If they want to charge more for each edition that is also their right.

However, the market, and each of us through our buying habits, can support and encourage pricing that we find attractive. For years, I have been buying most of my books from Baen. In many cases, when you buy a Baen hardback you get a CD with the same book in e-form.

If you won't sell me a book in a form that is flexible in its use and reasonably priced, then I have the right to decide to buy books from someone else.

Here is where my logic is tested, however. Long before ebooks, I was 'hooked' on the Dorsai series by Gordon Dickson. Many of these are not in print, nor in e-book form. Since Dickson passed away a few years ago, I don't have great hopes for them being re-released. So, although its easy to 'stay away' from books I have never read; it is more difficult to do so when I am already 'hooked' on the product.

I'm not sure that Dickson's books are truly abandoned -- I imagine he has some heirs somewhere about. But it is this category that Google is trying to address. I can see both sides of this issue. I believe that what Google is doing is illegal. I also believe that their intent fits with their mantra of: 'doing no evil' and will both help society and help the original (deceased?) authors achieve their slice of immortality.

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by Lo Zeno

Oh for xxxx's sake!
Stealing: taking something which you are not allowed to take.
This, at least, is what stealing means at my home.

Now, no law in the world allow you to take for yourself a book unless the AUTHOR and the PUBLISHER say "ok, you can". There are 2 ways to be granted permission to TAKE a book: paying, or obeying to a licence that says "you can have this book if you do not claim authorship" (like some GPL licenses).

Now move on.

If download a copy of a file of an image of a book, how have I taken anything? And unless I you are an expert in the various legal codes of the world, I would not make such sweeping statements. In traditional interpretations of Islamic law, copyright as it is practiced in the west is for the most part not recognized. The property rights inhere in the physical book and not in the content. For example, if I have purchased a copy of the Davinci Code, according to this interpretation of Islamic law, I have the right to copy it in whole or in part and even to republish it. The main the right that the author possesses is the right to be identified as the as creator of the work. Intellectual Property is not a recognized concept in every law system.

Luqman

[Nate the great]

Wow. This thread went downhill in record time. I'm going to ask just once for everyone to step back and calm down. We can disagree without being rude.