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

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Rich_D

This is where we start getting into the what ifs. An equally persuasive argument could be made that providing a used copy of a book may peak a reader's interest in an author that they wouldn't ordinarily read and generate additional sales from different titles in that author's body of work.

It may peak the reader's interest, but it is almost certainly going to prevent them from buying a copy of the book you gave them. Lets look at this way, is it ethical to use someone' money to gamble for them without their permission?

My reasons were much simpler. I wanted to clear up the space the books were occupying and even though I have the capability to produce my own ebook from hard copy, it results in destroying the book. I'm not comfortable with that. I think it is a waste. I replaced my purchased copies (some bought multiple times in multiple formats) with ebooks and was able to pass on my favorites to someone else. I hope they get as much enjoyment from them as I did.

I didn't profit monetarily from the exercise but the publishers and authors may be out a few bucks from the 80 or so titles I downloaded. If they choose to pursue legal action, I'll pay the penalty.

Do I think I was wrong in this course of action? No.

Do some anonymous entities on this message board think I'm a thief? Probably.

Do I care? Not one bit.

So lets see if we can put this in perspective. You obtained illegally distributed copies of novels you already obtained legally, and then gave away the legal copies since you had obtained the illegal copies. This is correct right? Would you consider it ethical to have purchased illegal hard copies to give them to charity? Or to buy illegal hard copies and then give away your legal copies? Ethically, it seems to me, those two cases are more or less identical to what you have done.

--
Bill

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Would you consider it ethical to have purchased illegal hard copies to give them to charity? Or to buy illegal hard copies and then give away your legal copies? Ethically, it seems to me, those two cases are more or less identical to what you have done.

They're different because there's a difference between the content and the container. You might not like them both, or like one and not the other, or whatever - but they're different.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

They're different because there's a difference between the content and the container. You might not like them both, or like one and not the other, or whatever - but they're different.

I would argue that ethically they are the same. In general, people are not buying the container -- they may have a preference over the container they use (ebook, paperback, hardback, etc.) but what they ultimately want is the content. So changing the container that you are using to distribute the content should be irrelevant to the ethical dimension of what you are doing.

--
Bill

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

I would argue that ethically they are the same. In general, people are not buying the container -- they may have a preference over the container they use (ebook, paperback, hardback, etc.) but what they ultimately want is the content. So changing the container that you are using to distribute the content should be irrelevant to the ethical dimension of what you are doing.

--
Bill

My point was that stealing a container, and obtaining an illegal copy of the content, are not the same. I don't think that either the law, or morality has caught up with the shift to digital media, but clearly there is
a difference between taking a container with content in it, and taking a copy of the content only.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

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.

And they are not the same ethically. It is very tiresome that people assume they are the same and destroy a lot of threads here.

[Rich_D]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

It may peak the reader's interest, but it is almost certainly going to prevent them from buying a copy of the book you gave them. Lets look at this way, is it ethical to use someone' money to gamble for them without their permission?



So lets see if we can put this in perspective. You obtained illegally distributed copies of novels you already obtained legally, and then gave away the legal copies since you had obtained the illegal copies. This is correct right? Would you consider it ethical to have purchased illegal hard copies to give them to charity? Or to buy illegal hard copies and then give away your legal copies? Ethically, it seems to me, those two cases are more or less identical to what you have done.

--
Bill

There are two differences. First, I didn't obtain illegal copies so I could give my legal copies away. The reasons for obtaining the illegal copies were for personal use. I gave the copies away because I didn't want to waste them.

Second, most everyone on board is assuming that everyone should follow the same ethics. Ethics vary by culture, religion, economic standing and education.

I'm not rationalizing my decision, I have no need to. I find my solution perfectly acceptable and ethical. If you don't... well... tough. I'm not telling you to follow my beliefs and I sure as heck don't want you telling me that I have to follow yours.

Let me ask this. Is it still unethical had I gone through the steps of cutting the binding, scanning, editing, etc... resulting in a format shift and the destruction of the original format?

What if I paid someone to do that for me?

What if, instead of downloading, I retyped the book, or was able to scan it without destroying the book still resulting in 2 viable copies? Would your ethics require me to destroy one copy?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

But the editor - assuming that any of this stuff is edited - didn't have the immediate reaction that I had, and think - you don't say that in a national newspaper, even if it is what you did. Which is the kind of thing that makes me wonder how much people do care at all about it. Are journalists and their editors so ill-educated that they don't understand what it means, or are they so blase about it that they don't think anyone will care?

But the CD market is pretty dead (or ought to be) and buying a CD collection is just a special interest. So why is it unethical to rip your music and sell the CD collection? The value on the CD collections it the covers and inlets and that you are selling.

[Bateman]

Originally Posted by Rich_D

I'm not rationalizing my decision

Right...

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by tompe

But the CD market is pretty dead (or ought to be) and buying a CD collection is just a special interest. So why is it unethical to rip your music and sell the CD collection? The value on the CD collections it the covers and inlets and that you are selling.

I don't think that the CD market is dead at all, and I'm sure that most people buying CDs are buying them for the content, not to obtain covers and inserts for material that they already own legally.

I accept that the CD market is in decline, but it's hardly dead yet. Why "ought" it to be dead? I suppose that I might accept that if digital downloads were available at the same quality - as a bit of an unnecessary waste. Is that what you meant?

Still, I like CDs, even though I don't own a CD player (except in computer equipment). I like them as a (reasonably) high quality medium, a back up, and a license token.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

I don't think that the CD market is dead at all, and I'm sure that most people buying CDs are buying them for the content, not to obtain covers and inserts for material that they already own legally.

I accept that the CD market is in decline, but it's hardly dead yet. Why "ought" it to be dead? I suppose that I might accept that if digital downloads were available at the same quality - as a bit of an unnecessary waste. Is that what you meant?

Well, maybe I was a bit flippant. But CDs take a lot of space so from a consumer perspective a file is much better. Also with "ought" I referred to what I would prefer the pace of the technological development and its use to be.

For me it really does not feel ethically wrong to rip your CD collection and sell it. It seems equivalent with buying a book, reading it, and then selling it. The normal use of a CD is to listen to it many times. The normal use of a book is to read it once.

[Rich_D]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Ah, but can something be considered ethical behavior if it doesn't take into account all those involved? Does a Doctor have a right to treat a patient that doesn't want to be treated? Even if it is in the best interest of the patient?

Bill

O.k. we are getting more abstract going from copyright infringement to possible life and death...

My Brother-in-law fell off a roof, hit his head on the way down, knocking himself out, then landed head first on concrete. The EMS and ER surgeons pulled him back from death. In order to save him, the doctors had to remove the damaged parts of his brain, effectively lobotomizing him. That was 6 years ago. He now has all the memories and experiences from 41 years with an 8 year olds mentality on life. He knows he used to be a carpenter and can tell you how to build a deck, but can't swing a hammer. He knows he used to play softball, hike, hunt and ski but can barely walk 100 yards. He knows he used to drive a car, snowmobile and boat but doesn't have the coordination to operate a pedal and steer. This doesn't even take into consideration the financial hardship the resulting care has cost his family. The doctors did the ethical thing in saving him. If a similar accident happens to me, I hope the doctors ignore their ethics and let me go.

[mrkarl]

I don't have a problem with it......with all the digital stuff now authors can start doing away with publishers and that way we aren't shafted by having to pay 40 bucks because the only copies are in hardcover wich sucks for a book that can be read in a few hours.............my living pretty well relies on print and I still see a point to actually printing stuff but most novels really don't need to be put on peper anymore so an author can now say "ok, Ill write my story, I figure that out of 6 billion people 1 million should want to read it, I'll charge say, 3 bucks a piece to download from from my website and that should keep me going until I write the next story" But yeah, some I've bought some books a few times over my life and now I really don't have a problem find them out thier on the net......I'd actually pay for the download but a lot of them just aren't out there to buy.................I actually felt bad once and wanted to send the author 5 bucks but I couldn't find an address.

well, one day the whole mess will sort itself out and creativity will be rewarded appropriately

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by tompe

Well, maybe I was a bit flippant. But CDs take a lot of space so from a consumer perspective a file is much better. Also with "ought" I referred to what I would prefer the pace of the technological development and its use to be.

For me it really does not feel ethically wrong to rip your CD collection and sell it. It seems equivalent with buying a book, reading it, and then selling it. The normal use of a CD is to listen to it many times. The normal use of a book is to read it once.

I think that the difference that some people see is that when one sells the CD, but continues to use a ripped copy, the ripped copy effectively becomes illegal because you've given up the license "token" that you previously had. The person that bought the CD from you legally purchased it, so has a right to the music, but you no longer do.

With a book, you don't retain a copy, so it's different.

So, while I wouldn't argue with you about what feels right and wrong to you - only you can determine that - I would argue that they are not equivalent cases.

One situation to think about would be buying a second-hand CD, ripping it, then selling it for the same second-hand price. In this case, the music has been obtained at no cost. Repeat, and one could build up a music collection without the creators being paid at all for it. Does that seem right?

[Barcey]

The way I look at it is that copyright was intended to be temporary until it falls into the public domain. By purchasing a copy I've licensed it for my personal domain until the time it falls into the public domain. I don't have a problem if people make digital copies of books they've already purchased.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

One situation to think about would be buying a second-hand CD, ripping it, then selling it for the same second-hand price. In this case, the music has been obtained at no cost. Repeat, and one could build up a music collection without the creators being paid at all for it. Does that seem right?

And you can do so with books building up a good "collection" of read books. And that definitely feels right.

If I rent a movie I can make a copy of it and watch it later. If I pay for a cable channel I can record a program and watch later. You can look at the ripping of the CD just as a way to delay your consumption.