A Question on ethics

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by volwrath

Interesting that you don't feel buying the paperback gives you rights to the ebook format if its available for sell. What about if you ripped the paperback up, scanned the documents, and OCRed it yourself? Would that make a difference?

Yes, I'd be OK with that.

And if that is acceptable, what the difference between you doing it and someone else doing it.

The difference is clear. The person who uploads that book for me to download has not ensured that it's only downloaded by someone who's bought the book. It could be downloaded by 10,000 people who haven't. That is a very wrong thing to do, IMHO.

[volwrath]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes, I'd be OK with that.

The difference is clear. The person who uploads that book for me to download has not ensured that it's only downloaded by someone who's bought the book. It could be downloaded by 10,000 people who haven't. That is a very wrong thing to do, IMHO.

That a good point.

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by MacBeezle

I'll keep my thoughts about that to myself

Certainly your choice to make MacBeezle.

I feel I should apologize, however, for the tone of that question.

I just realized that it came across as a bit hostile, and I didn't mean it that way at all.

I was trying to re-engage with the thread's original question, and because I was in a bit of a hurry I wasn't as careful to make sure that what I said sounded the way I meant it.

I really wasn't trying to be as obnoxious as that quote sounded, and I'm sorry it came out that way.

[astra]

If I owe a paper book, I have no problem with dowloading ebook version of it. Moreover, since I have already paid for the paper book, I will not pay anymore for a different edition. On the other hand, 95% I buy hardback editions and this is the best contribution to an author, because their real money come only from the first edition hardback books (I loath to feed middleman, they usually are very greedy and are making easy money on someone's talent). So, I don't feel guilty when I download ebook version of a hardback edition I owe.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

There could be a site with book choices, click on titles and the sales are redirected to the author's site; he pays back the distributor. Everything could be automated and most of the funds generated by this type of coop would support its infrastructure and promotion of the works.

I've been considering creating such a site, by using the Amazon (and other similar) affiliate systems. It would work like this: the author would create an account at the coop site. (I haven't figured out yet how to validate the author's identity, though.) The author would then list their book, and the site would create links to purchase that book, new or used, via the affiliate programs. The author would then get their cut as the referring party. I'm not sure how much of a paperback's list price authors normally get, but this might amount to about the same amount for many used books, especially hardcovers. Then, with some decent marketing, we could try to make this the preferred way of buying used books. It wouldn't raise the costs to the purchasers at all, so I think it would have a decent chance of working.

Thoughts?

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by DeusExMe

Does anyone know where I can purchase C.S. Lewis e-books which are naturally compatible with the PRS 500? (I realize this is slightly off topic). I've hardly been able to locate them at all...with the exception of a single book of poetry which is in the Public Domain.

As far as I have been able to tell, these are not available in a legal ebook edition, though there are copies of Narnia and some of his other books readily available on the darknet.

How do you folks feel the ethics of the situation changes after the author is dead?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by volwrath

A similiar dillema is Do you support Sony and the PRS 500 and buy BBeb DRM'ed books, or do you buy another popular DRMed ebook format that is susceptible to being unlocked?

I follow the CD rule of thumb. I'm legally allowed to rip any CD I have purchased for use on my computer and on my Rio Carma. I have taken the CD and converted the format to a different format able to be used in other situations other then a CD player. I don't have to find some online music store to purchase the music I have already paid for in order to take it with me.

That said, I do the same thing with my ebooks. I know this may possibly not be legal, but ethical I think yes. I paid for the ebook. I want the ability to read it on my Sony Reader. If I was to get a different device that no longer supported BBeB (LRF) format, then I might still have the ability to take my books with me.

What makes ebooks any different then CDs in terms of format conversion for one's own personal use?

[JSWolf]

The other issue is what if you cannot get a copy of the ebook you want in the format you need for your reader? If I want a book on my reader and I cannot get it in a format that my reader supports but I can get it in a format that I can convert, would I just not buy the book or do I buy it and convert it? If I don't buy it, the author gets nothing. If I buy it, the author gets a cut.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by DeusExMe

Does anyone know where I can purchase C.S. Lewis e-books which are naturally compatible with the PRS 500? (I realize this is slightly off topic). I've hardly been able to locate them at all...with the exception of a single book of poetry which is in the Public Domain.

Thank you all so much for helping me think through these issues and begin to gain a bit more clarity.

I'vejust taken a look and I cannot find any copies available legally. So what I an guessing is none of the Narnia books are available as ebooks. Sorry.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by nekokami

I'm not sure how much of a paperback's list price authors normally get, but this might amount to about the same amount for many used books, especially hardcovers.

10% of cover price is a typical PB royalty.

[mogui]

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

Many people buy books and records used. I do most of mine and not out of greed. When one buys used, nothing goes to the author. Should we outlaw used media outlets? I would like to see funds reach the authors in more ways, what they get is often ridiculous.

Authors get nothing from library loans in most countries. They get nothing from used book sales.

The concepts underpinning the copyright laws are plainly unworkable. For example, some libraries "loan" ebooks. If my friend owns "Ender's Game" and I ask him if he would be willing to loan it to me to read if I asked him to. He replies in the affirmative. The author won't benefit in any way, so I might as well download it from a warez site rather than driving across town to pick up the book.

Messy isn't it? It gets worse! In the mid 80's I had a software company. I caught a vendor making and selling copies of my software. I requested the FBI to enforce the copyright laws. They promised to investigate. Three weeks later when I had heard nothing from them I called. They informed me they would do nothing (including, apparently, answer my complaint) because there wasn't enough money involved! But just watch them start hopping around if Microsoft calls! Is a citizen obligated to obey a law that fails to protect him and only supports the interests of the wealthy?

If a song is played on the radio, the artists get a royalty. How can we build a system so that when a book is read, the author gets a royalty? Obviously paper books will never accomplish this. But the right system of eBook eReaders could. I'm talking micropayments. A penny a page? Your reader sends an updated count in every time it is connected?
:
Some would still cheat on this system, but I bet more authors would make more money and more books would be written as a result. I am in favor of uploading all written works with an author's embedded signature. Anyone could upload. Hee hee -- no editors! More writers could break into "print". People would visit sites to read popularity ratings then freely download what they like. If and when they read the book, the author would get a couple of bucks.

[Azayzel]

Haha, good idea! Perhaps you should fire up such an enterprise and take it for a test-drive (may end up getting bought by M$ in the end, so watch out!). I think the initial problem would be to locate initial funds to start paying royalties and you might want to run a few test case algorythms to ensure you're not going to pay out too much too fast. It would be an intrested case-study in the very least.

[MacBeezle]

Originally Posted by NatCh

Certainly your choice to make MacBeezle.

I feel I should apologize, however, for the tone of that question.

I just realized that it came across as a bit hostile, and I didn't mean it that way at all.

I was trying to re-engage with the thread's original question, and because I was in a bit of a hurry I wasn't as careful to make sure that what I said sounded the way I meant it.

I really wasn't trying to be as obnoxious as that quote sounded, and I'm sorry it came out that way.

Absolutely no need to apologize!

[pruss]

In the U.S., it might be legally fair use (and morally acceptable) to convert a copyrighted book that one owns a copy of toThe har electronic format for one's personal use. Then again it might not be--it depends on what a court would say (I hate the idea of laws whose applicability depends on future court decisions). However, it is my feeling--and I am not a lawyer--that courts would be make a distinction between one's own converting a book one owns for personal use and one's downloading someone else's conversion of the said book. I suspect that the latter is illegal.

Is it moral? Well, in the case where a licensed electronic version of the book is readily available, one is not giving the author/publisher fair compensation for the item. So in that case it is not moral. It's a matter of not giving the worker his wages.

The harder case is where an electronic copy is not available. Then one is not depriving the author/publisher of anything by copying the item. Nonetheless, one is making use of the labor of another without compensating the worker. Moreover, it seems to be illegal, and we are generally morally bound to follow the law, whether because we have sworn to do so (e.g., when I became a Canadian citizen I swore to follow Her Majesty's laws) or simply because we live under their authority.

The "generally" is a difficult issue and people disagree on it. We are not bound to follow laws that require us to do something immoral (e.g., Nazi laws requiring one to turn Jews in to the Gestapo).

There may also be room for genuine civil disobedience in the case of immoral laws, even when these laws do not require us to do anything immoral (e.g., if a law commands me to sit in a particular part of a bus because of my race, it is not immoral for me to obey this law, but nonetheless the law is immoral and civil disobedience may be appropriate). However, copyright laws are not immoral (in some aspects they seem clearly misguided--for instance the copyright extensions were indeed misguided--but misguided and immoral are not the same), and anyway someone who downloads a copyrighted work is generally not engaging in civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is a peaceful, public act coupled with an acceptance of legal consequences, rather than a furtive, private act of downloading.

This leaves one last question. Is it morally required to obey laws that are not immoral but are merely unreasonable. The standard for "unreasonableness" had better be pretty strict. Otherwise, given the wide disagreement between citizens in a democratic society, chaos would result if people felt free to disobey laws they didn't see as reasonable. One way to make for such a standard is to talk of laws that no reasonable and moderately well-informed person could defend.

Reasonable and moderately well-informed people do defend copyright laws as they stand. So that standard wouldn't allow disobedience.

Another approach, however, would be to look at the purpose behind the law. Thus one might think that it is OK to disobey a law if in doing so one is not harming the purpose behind the law. The purpose behind a copyright law is the furthering of innovation and the fair compensation of producers of intellectual property. Downloading the materials does not harm the furthering of innovation, but does go against the fair compensation purpose, it seems. (Question: Suppose that I downloaded the materials, but then sent a check to the publisher and to the author with a fair price?)

All that said, it seems to me that if one disobeys a law, one's reason for doing so should be pretty serious (e.g., fighting racism)--mere convenience should not be enough.

[volwrath]

Originally Posted by pruss

Is it moral? Well, in the case where a licensed electronic version of the book is readily available, one is not giving the author/publisher fair compensation for the item. So in that case it is not moral. It's a matter of not giving the worker his wages.

100% disagree. If I own the book in hardcover (or paperback), I see no problem in downloading the ebook, as I have given the author fair compensation by buying the paper copy. Ther person who supplies the ebook is definitely doing it immorally as I believe HarryT stated earlier.