Is this a pirate site?

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by Over

You can not exclude other repercussions of downloading an illegal file. By downloading it, you're encouraging file sharing. And if for you it's okay because you have the original, there will be other people who will download for illegal reasons.

Even if the file sharer is not making any profit, he is getting something for that: either personal gratification for sharing something or even site ad revenue or something.

In any case, it's illegal and unethical to download a pirated ebook. Even if for the right reasons. You can just acept that what you're doing is wrong but live fine with it.

How is downloading a book encouraging file sharing?

You have not demonstrated that it is unethical. You are simply claiming that it is. Where is your evidence, your argumentation? Or is your claim that you "know" it's unethical "in your heart?" I.e., is your argument "It feels wrong for me to download a book from a pirate site, therefore it is wrong to download a book from a pirate site?"

Luqman

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Of course there is a difference. It depends on the source. The file may or may not be identical, but it is certainly illegal if it is not obtained via legal means.

The act of distributing it is illegal, the file itself is not.

[Ilkyway]

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

How is downloading a book encouraging file sharing?

You have not demonstrated that it is unethical. You are simply claiming that it is. Where is your evidence, your argumentation? Or is your claim that you "know" it's unethical "in your heart?" I.e., is your argument "It feels wrong for me to download a book from a pirate site, therefore it is wrong to download a book from a pirate site?"

Luqman

I can totally follow Overs argumentation, but I can not find one argument in your statement. What are you saying? It is ethical to download files when you KNOW the source is not legal? It is ethical to let this person who does this pirat-site think, that he is doing a good job? It is ethical to violate the rights of authors just because he has a scanner and knows how to do it?
It would be ethical, if he would try to find a way to make cultural goods available to everybody for a reasonable price. It would be ethical if he wrote great books himselve and gave them away for free. But he is trying to make money with the work of other people.
And while I can understand Marcy, I can't understand how other people here are trying to make it sound like the right thing to do.

Ilkyway

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

The act of distributing it is illegal, the file itself is not.

Yes it is, it's an illegal (an unauthorized) copy.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Yes it is, it's an illegal (an unauthorized) copy.

Again, unauthorized copying is illegal, unauthorized distribution is illegal, those are acts. The file itself has nothing to do with the act. The file sitting in a directory on your PC is neither legal or illegal according to copyright. Copyright law does not address the file, only the act of what you do with it.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Again, unauthorized copying is illegal, unauthorized distribution is illegal, those are acts. The file itself has nothing to do with the act. The file sitting in a directory on your PC is neither legal or illegal according to copyright. Copyright law does not address the file, only the act of what you do with it.

There ya go again....confusing reality with law...

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Ilkyway

I can totally follow Overs argumentation, but I can not find one argument in your statement. What are you saying? It is ethical to download files when you KNOW the source is not legal? It is ethical to let this person who does this pirat-site think, that he is doing a good job? It is ethical to violate the rights of authors just because he has a scanner and knows how to do it?
It would be ethical, if he would try to find a way to make cultural goods available to everybody for a reasonable price. It would be ethical if he wrote great books himselve and gave them away for free. But he is trying to make money with the work of other people.
And while I can understand Marcy, I can't understand how other people here are trying to make it sound like the right thing to do.

I don't think anybody has said that what the uploader is doing is ethical.

What some of us are saying is that whether or not the uploader is ethical and whether or not the downloader is ethical are separate issues. Others don't believe there can be a separation, that's the discussion.

Discussions about ethics are mostly pointless anyway. Everybody has their own opinion, and most are unlikely to change it. There is no correct/incorrect answer.

[Krystian Galaj]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Yes it is, it's an illegal (an unauthorized) copy.

It sound similar to that idea about some chunks of meat having souls, and other chunks not having them.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

It sound similar to that idea about some chunks of meat having souls, and other chunks not having them.

If you believe that, you'll believe anything.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by kennyc

There ya go again....confusing reality with law...

I think what you're trying to do is equate the file with "stolen property". Is that your reasoning?

[Logseman]

If one downloads from the internet not knowing if the source is legal or not, than this download is not legal and can be punished.

I'm not very sharp in Law Studies, but wasn't there a Latin principle stating "in dubio pro reo"?

[Solicitous]

Originally Posted by Logseman

I'm not very sharp in Law Studies, but wasn't there a Latin principle stating "in dubio pro reo"?

You mean along the lines of "if the receiver was unaware that the goods received were stolen then they can not be held liable"? This is where people get confused. Up until recently most people looked upon piracy of digital media being the same as stealing physical goods. Well they are in fact completely different.

With the act of stealing a physical good, there will be someone who has lost something of value. So if you had a chair and I came in one night and took your chair you have lost something of value and it will cost you money to replace it.

With digital media it is different. If you publish an electronic book and I download a copy from a torrent site, I have not stolen goods from you, you do not need to spend money to replace it. What I have done is breach copyright legislation.

[Logseman]

I meant more in the way: if the user downloads a book whose source is not known to be legal or illegal, and he or she gets sued for downloading it, it's up to the prosecutor to prove that the user has downloaded from an illegal site. Here it's being stated that, in case of doubt, you're guilty, without needing to prove that you're effectively downloading from an illegal source.

Spoiler:

As for the copyright thing, I know something of it as a C4SS contributor, though of course those are my personal views and they don't belong in this topic.

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The end result may be the same, but for me, yes, the origin of the material does matter.

It's the same as asking if there's any ethical difference between buying a bottle of Scotch in a supermarket, on which all the appropriate taxes have been paid, and buying the same brand at half the price from "a man in a pub", which has been smuggled from France, and on which UK taxes have not been paid. The end result is the same - you have a bottle of whisky - but one has been obtained legitimately and the other from an illicit source.

Wrong analogy.
It's more like you pay taxes, you pay the distiller and all and you've got your bottle.
After that, they say it's been smudged and they make pay another time taxes, fees and all that for the same bottle.
And you've got to repay them entirely every time you smell whiskey somewhere.

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I agree. In the first case it really is format shifting for your own use. Whereas in the second it is obtaining what is clearly an illegal copy.

I agree, too.
And I can see the ethycal difference between making and downloading a copy of a book.

But I believe the flaw is in "illegal" and "copy" rather in "obtaining".
I believe that once you buy the right to access the content of the book (whether buying a paper copy, or just buing a sort of license), you've got right to own as many copies and format you like (provided you pay the copy-making process, of course, whether with money or with labour).

Sometimes it's the Law who's wrong.