Using "alternative" sources to obtain books you already own?

[montsnmags]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

Would you then be so kind as to either answer the question or link to the answer until I am able to get new reading glasses?

I think yekim is just noting that jswolf said it was illegal, and you then asked him how it was legal.

Cheers,
Marc

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by montsnmags

I think yekim is just noting that jswolf said it was illegal, and you then asked him how it was legal.

Cheers,
Marc

You are right and I am blind. Sorry, folks.

[Rich_D]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

That is 100% illegal.

And yet I seem fine with it.

[mvdarend]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That depends where you live. You may have that legal right; I, in the UK, do not. "Fair Use" is specifically defined in the UK as making a copy of one chapter from a book, or one article from a magazine.

Did you make that up?

How much of a work can I use under fair dealing?

There is no simple formula or percentage that can be applied. You may have seen figures like ‘up to 10%’ or ‘no more than 400 words’ quoted in some publications, but such figures are at best a rough guide and can be misleading. What is acceptable will vary from one work to another.

In cases that have come to trial what is clear is that it is the perceived importance of the copied content rather than simply the quantity that counts. Judges hearing such cases often have to make an objective decision on whether the use is justified or excessive.

http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/co...work_of_others

[Bateman]

Originally Posted by Rich_D

And yet I seem fine with it.

Theft is a-okey? Give me your adress so I can steal your car.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mvdarend

Did you make that up?

No. It's the figure used by the library service as the maximum one is permitted to photocopy from a book or magazine. Where they got it from, I really wouldn't know.

[Ravensknight]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

That is 100% illegal.

and to up the rhetoric here:
So was freeing slaves.

We're talking about ethics here,not legality. At least, that's what I thought this was about...

[Rich_D]

Originally Posted by Bateman

Theft is a-okey? Give me your adress so I can steal your car.

It isn't theft, it's copyright infringement. If I am caught, i wouldn't be charged with theft I would be charged with copyright infringement.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ravensknight

We're talking about ethics here,not legality. At least, that's what I thought this was about...

We are, but I suspect that there aren't too many of us who would think that making or downloading an eBook copy and then giving someone else the paper book was ethically acceptable. That's a pretty blatant example of copyright infringement. It would be like buying a CD, ripping it onto your iPod, and then selling the CD on eBay.

[Rich_D]

Originally Posted by HarryT

We are, but I suspect that there are too many of us who would think that making or downloading an eBook copy and then giving someone else the paper book was ethically acceptable. That's a pretty blatant example of copyright infringement. It would be like buying a CD, ripping it onto your iPod, and then selling the CD on eBay.

I did this as well with my CD collection, except I didn't sell them, I donated some to my local library and some to Children's Hospital. The hospital is always looking for books, movies and cd's for their OR waiting rooms.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Rich_D

It isn't theft, it's copyright infringement. If I am caught, i wouldn't be charged with theft I would be charged with copyright infringement.

He was making an analogy. That illegal file sharing is like stealing. Indeed, I suspect that many people (and not just those directly involved in publishing) would agree with. That illegally appropriating intellectual property is the ethical equivalent of theft.

Now, can we please avoid silly legal hair splitting that really isn't relevant to the conversation?

--
Bill

[Rich_D]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

He was making an analogy. That illegal file sharing is like stealing. Indeed, I suspect that many people (and not just those directly involved in publishing) would agree with. That illegally appropriating intellectual property is the ethical equivalent of theft.

Now, can we please avoid silly legal hair splitting that really isn't relevant to the conversation?

--
Bill

Many people would, and many people wouldn't. More importantly the law differs between the two.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by Rich_D

It isn't theft, it's copyright infringement. If I am caught, i wouldn't be charged with theft I would be charged with copyright infringement.

I'm really getting tired of the old "theft and copyright infringement are not the same" crutch. They may have different legal definitions and even different penalties but, ethically, they are the same; you are taking something that isn't yours. Availability does not infer nor confer ownership.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by HarryT

We are, but I suspect that there aren't too many of us who would think that making or downloading an eBook copy and then giving someone else the paper book was ethically acceptable. That's a pretty blatant example of copyright infringement. It would be like buying a CD, ripping it onto your iPod, and then selling the CD on eBay.

Personally, with CDs, I treat the physical copy as a kind of license and hang onto it, even though I listen to everything digitally. However, I think that you might be wrong in thinking that this is the majority view. I read a journalist in the Grauniad the other day openly admitting (in a national newspaper - duh!) that she'd ripped all her CDs and sold them. I think this is quite common, and people don't think about it in terms of copyright at all.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Rich_D

Many people would, and many people wouldn't. More importantly the law differs between the two.

Actually in this case no, the difference in the law is not important. We are discussing whether it is ethical. We all agree that whether it legally constitutes stealing or not, it is probably illegal to download from the darknet (and definitely illegal to upload). As people have pointed out, however, what is illegal is not necessarily unethical or immoral, or if something is unethical, it may not be unethical for the same reason that it is illegal.

Now, I think it is safe to say that ethics does not contain a special narrow definition of intellectual property, in the same way that the law does. Indeed, ethics tends to work from general principles (of course, different groups differ on what those specific general principles are!).

I am going to start with one principle though which is any position that does not at least consider the potential harm an action does to another person cannot be defended as an ethical consideration.

Now, one can argue that most who download books would never have bought the works in the first place and therefore no harm is done to the author or other rights holders and therefore it is ethical. I think one can argue to the contrary to some extent, but I am willing to accept that position for the moment.

In addition, one can argue that it especially true in the case of those who own physical copies of the work. They have already bought a copy that at some point was legally purchased (presumably) and therefore the author received their royalty and that downloading a dark-net copy is only providing additional access to a work the downloader has already paid for. I am definitely more sympathetic to this ethical position.

Where the ethics get decidedly more dicey is in the following situation. Someone downloads the books they already have, and then sell or give away the physical copies of the books they downloaded. It seems to me that this dramatically increases the chance of the rights holder being deprived of an original sale. Obviously the person who downloaded the books downloaded them because they wanted continued access to them; if they couldn't download them, they probably would not have given them away. On the flip side, now that the books have been given away (or sold), there are used copies available that will end up in the hands of someone who may well have paid money for a new copy had this used copy not been available.

--
Bill