Is it ethically wrong to pirate books that you own?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

Didn't you have to pay for photocopying anyways...?

---

There are certain universities that include library resource usage in tuition or dorming fees, and allow a limited amount of "free" photocopying in a set time frame, or leave it at the discretion of the library staff. Or they just have a monthly paper limit, and photocopies are part of it (for instance if you wanted to send your term paper to a university printer, the amount of pages you print will be deducted from that month's paper allowance).

The government actually tried to forbid us teachers from making digital copies from school books and other materials in order to display them on our electronic whiteboards.

While at the same time demanding that we use the expensive whiteboards more which they bought for us.

When asked how we were supposed to use them without at least sometimes copying pictures and materials: "Well, of course you'll have to buy them!"

Yeah, thanks, we teachers are already buying enough stuff for school on our own, thank you very much.

Another reason to be in research; in four years, I think the total I've spent of my own money towards science supplies is under 50 € :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro

The government actually tried to forbid us teachers from making digital copies from school books and other materials in order to display them on our electronic whiteboards.

---

More German govt. Neo-Luddism :mad: :down:

Over here, the MPAA tried to fight against the last DMCA revision by saying it was perfectly normal and fine for teachers to use a VHS recorder to record a DVD movie (while playing) if they wanted to make a copy of that DVD for an educational reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

I think the main difference between Dread and me is that he considers something unethical if it benefits you without paying, while I consider it unethical if it harms the seller without paying. For example, I think downloading a cd you don't already have, or stealing a car you already have, is unethical because in the first case you did not buy the album from the seller, so you deprive him of income he should have for his IP, and in the second case because you deprive him of a physical product which has intrinsic value.

If you already have the book, you have already paid for the IP, the only thing you would pay for is the service of conversion. Dread thinks it is wrong because you get a service for free, I think it's not wrong because you don't cost the seller anything - it is already converted so it doesn't cost him extra if you download it, you don't deprive him of anything with intrinsic value (like the car, which is why it's a horrible analogy), you don't even cost him bandwidth. So: nobody loses, and you win.

I'd like to point out that at least Dutch law allows this. And I did not feel like I was doing anything wrong when I downloaded films I had on DVD because my DVD player was broken.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

Sorry I've been away. I'll try to address this once, but I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree (BTW, for the record I'm very opposed to piracy in general; I just don't think this counts).

I think you're looking at this from the perspective of the consumer - it would be very hard for the consumer to turn a paper book into a ebook. But from the perspective of the publisher, it's extremely easy - in fact, it's free. The book starts as an ebook, and is converted to a paper book (there is no 'translating a book into digital format'; that service doesn't exist except for classics, in which case I would agree with you that an ebook is substantially different from some txt file downloaded from Gutenberg). By going back to get it from ebook format, you're just stripping out the conversion costs (essentially, printing and binding). You've already paid for the IP involved, so what is the value added by the ebook distributor? It's not IP (you've already paid for that). It's not conversion (that doesn't happen; it already starts out in ebook-friendly format). It's distribution and delivery. If you can obtain an ebook without causing distribution and delivery costs to the ebook seller, I don't see an ethical issue.

Look at it from the author's perspective - is it ethical for them to demand payment for the same IP twice? If you buy a paper book followed by buying an ebook, a significant chunk of that is going to paying for the same services twice (in this case, the author's and publisher's services). I don't think it's reasonable for them to expect that, and if you can manage to acquire the ebook without stealing any other services (e.g. distribution and delivery), you haven't stolen anything.

In fact, the Gutenberg parallel is very cogent. Gutenberg makes files available in the ePub and Kindle formats, so would you have a problem downloading them instead of buying the classic from Amazon? There's no IP issues here because it's out of copyright, there's no distribution issue because Gutenberg does it for free, so the only question is an issue of using the format. Is that a problem?


I recognize there's a fine ethical point being made here, and it's tough to fully assess this without having a better understanding of the ebook production process. For one, Amazon et al have put a decent amount of effort into making their formats widely compliant with easy-to-access standards and easy-to-convert. So to some extent they are amortizing the cost of this development over all of their ebook sales, and by depriving them of some revenue you're freeloading a bit on their front-end development. But there are several worthwhile responses: First, the cost of this development is negligible - amortized over their book sales, I would be very comfortable assuming it's well under a penny, which is a non-transferable amount of value. Second, you buy into this infrastructure when you buy their device. Third, this works as a bit of a loss leader for them - they make conversion as a service freely available to people, so I don't think they view that as a separate cost per book sold. Anyone who buys into their 'ecosystem' - by using ebooks, buying a Kindle, whatever - will buy books from them in the long run.

This isn't as clear-cut as arguments about the right of first sale or fair use copyright law (e.g. can you resell a CD to someone else and transfer the rights to the IP? Can you rip a CD to MP3? Yes to both.). But I don't think it's a particularly large moral quandry. I think it may be technically challenging to get a copy of an ebook without incurring distribution and delivery costs, but from a theoretical perspective, I don't have an issue with it. Contrary to what you think, you are not using any service or product that you haven't paid for.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

I would like to question the assumption that buying a book, a physical book, that you are "buying a license" to use that IP. That is really a conceit invented for software where it is actually necessary to copy the software (hence the IP involved) to make it work. If you told that to anyone from before the time when people put software on a disk, put the disk in a box, put the box on the shelf and sold it for money then people would look at you like you were deficient. IP law was never intended to govern the relationship between buyer and seller, this is something that has only come about because we invented computers which can't do shit without making copies of stuff all over the place, which makes a bit of a mockery of conventional copyright law.

If you buy a book, I don't think you buy anything other than the physical item. It happens to have characters printed on it which embody IP, but so what?

I mean, I don't think it's an ethical problem because you've basically already brought the damn book but if you're gonna take this pseudo-legalistic approach, I don't think you can necessarily get away with treating a book as if it were code without at least justifying that approach.

---

Been a few days while I was off on a bender, but I wanted to know that I did see people saying things to me. :)

But in particular, I think Steely highlighted the idea that I find most difficult. I think Flixy got it backwards a bit -- I'm not particularly concerned with the idea that it's unethical if someone gets something for free. My concern isn't even really about the book publishers/distributors. My concern is mostly about the owners of the book's IP.

In my mind, I don't think buying a print book ethically entitles you to owning your own IP in any circumstance. To me, a digital book is enough of a different product from the print book that it's akin to a different edition. People pay for different editions of books, and authors may choose to issue new editions to suck-up money. They wrote the book, and I think it's their right to do that.

I don't think it's a different edition if all of the words are the same. That's just me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

In my mind, I don't think buying a print book ethically entitles you to owning your own IP in any circumstance. To me, a digital book is enough of a different product from the print book that it's akin to a different edition. People pay for different editions of books, and authors may choose to issue new editions to suck-up money. They wrote the book, and I think it's their right to do that.

---

Txt and rtf.... Mp3 and lossless.. EPub and doc...
These are not different editions. These are the same product in converted into different viewing or listening formats

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

I don't think it's a different edition if all of the words are the same. That's just me.

---

I don't think so either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

The idea that IP law involves a buyer of a copy of a work of art being granted a license to make other copies of it for their own purposes is what came with the advent of software.

And even then, only grudgingly. For example, I own a copy of Windows 7, I rather, I own a license to make a copy of Windows 7 on my computer: one copy. I'm not allowed to put it on any other computers I own. There are software mechanisms in place to stop me doing that, and they're not a violation of my rights as a consumer. So why exactly should that principle apply to a bunch of bits, but for a physical book it's "sure, knock yourself out, copy it as many times as you like"?

---

I think a major difference is that Windows 7 changes the way your pc works, it improves your pc. The whole 'service' of windows is to run a pc. The product you buy is running the OS on a system. Installing it on another pc, you basically expand their product without paying for it. With a book, basically the product you buy is the story to entertain you. Whether it's digital or physical, as long as only you read it, the product isn't expanded.

Sorry for using probably all the wrong terms, I hope it is possible to understand what I tried to say :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

I don't think so either.


I think a major difference is that Windows 7 changes the way your pc works, it improves your pc. The whole 'service' of windows is to run a pc. The product you buy is running the OS on a system. Installing it on another pc, you basically expand their product without paying for it. With a book, basically the product you buy is the story to entertain you. Whether it's digital or physical, as long as only you read it, the product isn't expanded.

Sorry for using probably all the wrong terms, I hope it is possible to understand what I tried to say :p

---

I assumed he was talking about only having one copy running at a time; MS still doesn't like it if you install your copy of Win7 on another machine (after uninstalling from a previous machine). They have all sorts of limits on this because they want you to buy a copy of Windows for every computer you buy, even if you trashed your old computer. I don't have a problem with installing Windows on a new machine if it is no longer installed elsewhere. Obviously, as you point out, running two instances of Windows at once is a different story.

I've been trying to imagine what a future digital library would look like, or how it would be similar....yet vastly different....from today's "book depositories". My guess is that publishers, editors, and marketers would become obsolete, at least as they're known today. Instead, it would mean using more computer coding stuff that degrades the text the more it's shared/copied/duplicated. Its text visibility could be regenerated for every advertising "hit" others make, but would have to recognize bots or those clicking on ads repeatedly.....

Maybe future authors will have the option to choose their formats, or devices, and somehow freeze others out. Excerpts or critiques of books on "e-magazines" or social web sites could have links for buying/transferring the whole transcript to a computer file, an e-reader, smart phone, smart TV, or a paid membership to an Amazon-type digital reader service.

then my head starts to hurt.

:(

Worst:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...tal-textbooks/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

Didn't you have to pay for photocopying anyways...?

---

Indeed, the university made a profit from it which was guaranteed to be reinvested back in the library.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

I've been trying to imagine what a future digital library would look like, or how it would be similar....yet vastly different....from today's "book depositories". My guess is that publishers, editors, and marketers would become obsolete, at least as they're known today. Instead, it would mean using more computer coding stuff that degrades the text the more it's shared/copied/duplicated. Its text visibility could be regenerated for every advertising "hit" others make, but would have to recognize bots or those clicking on ads repeatedly.....

---

We already have publishers that are attempting this model. They revoke a library's license to lend out the digital material after a set number of checkouts.

College etextbooks also expire once the semester is over, no need to release a new edition every year with only the cover changed in order to fight against the 2nd hand market.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

I don't think so; it's pretty common to suggest that it's fine to make photocopies of a book or article for your own personal use (or teaching, criticism, etc.).

---

Fine as in "technically illegal, but we don't bother enforcing" or actually fine? I know video taping TV programs has always been in (technical) violation of copyright law, but this was ignored because it's unenforcible and did little to harm the interests of copyright holders.

Quote:

---

What about a reproduction of a piece of art for public (and insecure) display?

---

Are there any examples where this has been done, and what the reaction was?

Quote:

---

Many people suggest that the kind of controls you're talking about are violations of the dictum of 'fair use'.

---

Who are these "many people", though? Are we talking scruffy open source enthusiasts or, like, actual lawyers?

Quote:

---

In fact, I think you have it backwards - the idea of fair use predated software, but it became a real issue with the advent of software/data because software can be duplicated at near-zero marginal cost.

---

I thought fair use basically said that you could cite or quote extracts of a work for purposes of criticism or analysis, and nothing about copying a work wholesale and that, in fact, copying a work wholesale was and the distinguishing between doing that and selectively reproducing from the work was in fact one of the main purposes of the fair use doctrine.

Quote:

---

edit: I want to emphasize that fair use is not the only issue at hand here. The US (and other countries) have implemented a variety of laws that sharply limit the rights of copyright holders and expands the rights of consumers of a work. In general, purchasing some IP - particularly in the form of art/books - grants the consumers far more rights than merely a license to view/read that particular representation of the IP.

---

Again, as a response to software and computers, which copy stuff everywhere to do their thing, for example you make three copies of a CD in order to put it on your mp3 player.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

Fine as in "technically illegal, but we don't bother enforcing" or actually fine? I know video taping TV programs has always been in (technical) violation of copyright law, but this was ignored because it's unenforcible and did little to harm the interests of copyright holders.

---

In the US, it is legal. See Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios from the 80s (dealing with Betamax, but the rule applies to DVR as well). Time-shifting is fair use. Also, that's actually a more stringent case since you never paid for that TV (but it was broadcast for free). If you paid for the book, it definitely falls under fair use.

I can't speak to the UK, but I assume the same basic ruling applies.

Quote:

---

Are there any examples where this has been done, and what the reaction was?

---

This happens all the time, but they're almost always out of copyright so it doesn't matter much.

Quote:

---

Who are these "many people", though? Are we talking scruffy open source enthusiasts or, like, actual lawyers?

---

Actual lawyers and judges. The first sale doctrine is well established in copyright law, and implies that you should be able to port your copy of Windows to another computer (or sell it to a third party for their own use) without penalty. This is distinct from making a copy of Windows and running it on two computers at once, though. (Also, I'm not suggesting it's necessarily legal - you might have to break encryption which would run afoul of the circumvention rules of the DMCA, or you might need to violate the separate EULA you signed when you bought it. But these are external to the question of whether the underlying copyright is being violated.)

The realities of how it has been interpreted as law for software is largely irrelevant to this question - the legal principles underpinning my argument are sound.

Quote:

---

I thought fair use basically said that you could cite or quote extracts of a work for purposes of criticism or analysis, and nothing about copying a work wholesale and that, in fact, copying a work wholesale was and the distinguishing between doing that and selectively reproducing from the work was in fact one of the main purposes of the fair use doctrine.

---

To some extent you're right. If you look at the evolution of fair use copyright law in the US, though (can't speak to other countries) there is an explicit and overarching consideration of, "the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." If the effect on the market is zero (you've already bought it and aren't keeping anyone else from buying it), I don't think there's an issue here for noncommercial purposes (the burden of proof lies on the copyright holder, then).

To be completely technically accurate, the issues I'm discussing brush but do not completely fall under the category of 'fair use' as defined by law. There are other limitations on copyright holders in US jurisprudence that are related. (Some countries have things like back-up clauses where you're allowed to keep copies of something in an alternative format, which would seem to apply in this case. I'm not sure, though, since it mostly seems to apply to software. It may apply to music CDs/MP3s, though, which would seem very extensible to paper books/ebooks.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

Actual lawyers and judges. The first sale doctrine is well established in copyright law, and implies that you should be able to port your copy of Windows to another computer (or sell it to a third party for their own use) without penalty. This is distinct from making a copy of Windows and running it on two computers at once, though. (Also, I'm not suggesting it's necessarily legal - you might have to break encryption which would run afoul of the circumvention rules of the DMCA, or you might need to violate the separate EULA you signed when you bought it. But these are external to the question of whether the underlying copyright is being violated.)

---

I know you saved yourself with the remark about the EULA, but Microsoft does not permit you swap your copy of Windows 7 between machines. I'm been shot down over that before. Doesn't matter what happened to the previous machine, whatever copy of Windows 7 was on that machine is not going to get authroized on a different or upgraded machine. They even have an automated message on their phone support to inform their customers of this.


I know with Windows XP there was a time frame that previous activations would "fall off" of a Windows XP key, but that doesn't appear to be the case with 7.

OG, I'm well aware of that, but there's three things at issue here. The first is whether an action is illegal. In the case of Windows, the answer is yes because of two reasons: (1) You are circumventing protections which is illegal under the DMCA, and (2) you are violating a specific agreement you make with Microsoft. Notably it does NOT include (3) you are violating the MS copyright on Windows.

The second issue is whether an action violates copyright law, a very narrow definition (and our basic rubric for determining whether intellectual property has been stolen). In this case, the answer is no as noted above.

The third issue is whether an action is ethical. Subject to my aforementioned concerns about marginal costs and whether anyone is providing a service but not being compensated, I would argue that if the IP owners have been compensated and there is no loss to them, it is ethical.

I think there is a difference between identifying the letter of the law, and whether we should be worrying morally about our actions.

I would ask myself two question:

1. ) First of all, If it were illegal to convert my physical book into a text file on my computer (which i'm not convinced of), would I buy the digital copy, or would I live with the hassle of lugging around the physical book? If you're going to do the second, which can be hard to determine, but if you were going to then they are not losing any money on you having a digital copy because you wouldn't have boughten one anyway. That's what they really care about, so they're not losing any money and you're having an easier time carrying books around. However, If saving you the hassle of carrying the physical book around would result in you buying a digital copy (given you already have the book) then we must go to question 2.

2.) Is it illegal for me to convert on my own accord a physical book I own into a text file (for personal use) (And from there it's not hard to convert it into e-book format, there is free software that will let you). I don't know of any hidden agreement in buying book, that says you can't copy it word from word, on another piece of paper, or on a word file. As long as you keep it for yourself (don't let out multiple copies of it) then I find no issue with converting it, or in a less hassle free way downloading it for personal use. (given you own a legit physical copy).

As an aside question does anyone know the legality on printing an e-book you own?