The ethics of "free" e-books

[TrackerNeil]

AP,

For the record; I do think copyright needs serious revision and modification to deal with the digital world. I simply refuse to accept that there is nothing wrong with copying and distributing the copyrighted work of other people without the copyright holder's permission.

Is that unreasonable?

I don't think so. Ultimately, torrenting books for which one has never paid and never will is in my opinion not the mark of a nice person. That, to me, is reason enough not to do that.

[Darth Richard II]

I don't think so. Ultimately, torrenting books for which one has never paid and never will is in my opinion not the mark of a nice person. That, to me, is reason enough not to do that.

Well, yes, isn't that just stealing? Or did I miss something?

[Lady Winter Rose]

Well, yes, isn't that just stealing? Or did I miss something?

It's not stealing in Croatia.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

LWR,

This is something of an interesting international "choice of laws" question. If Slovenia or Abkasisia make it legal to hack people's bank accounts that are held outside their territorial jurisdiction is such an action illegal for the person from Slovenia or Abkasisia hacks and drains my bank account here in South Carolina? The money from my bank account is still gone whether it is hack is legal or not and I and my bank account are, presumably, not subject to Slovenian and Abkasisian law. Has the hacker committed a crime in hacking my bank account in my hypothetical?

[Barty]

I used to do it a lot back in the day (before Kindle) - some might have been illegal but quite a few books were just free. Nowadays its just easier to buy the books than to search online for an illegal copy - especially since most of the really famous works I've already read and the books I now look at are less famous/obscure (therefore almost impossible to find an illegal copy of).

Kindle has made life much easier - though there have been situations where the book is not released (delayed release) in my part of the world and that just pisses me off and I then go online and use "questionable" methods.

[SilentRoamer]

Ser Scot,

A crime by definition means breaking the framework of the law. There is some differentiation between international and national (also I suppose Federal in USA) laws. So while they may be breaking a national law in the USA, they were never prescribed to that particular framework of law. So to you they may have committed a crime, but within their own legal framework - which they are bound to, no crime has been committed.

What are we discussing being stolen? The content? The virtual product? Remember a digital file is never stolen as it created from thousands of smaller files which are also each shared voluntarily - these are copies and the original remains.

I find it interesting that LWR is clearly operating in the boundaries of her national laws - where does this place your argument?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

SR,

That "Choice of Laws" is really complex. It's possible to be acting legally in one place but simultanously illegally in another.

[SilentRoamer]

I appreciate that Ser Scot,

LWR is only in one place though, sure her actions are not geographically restricted but why should she be subject to laws not of hew own country?

By this standard everyone is breaking a law held somewhere, would it be right to say that all American women should conceal because this is Islamic law in some countries?

The problem is you cannot "simultaneously" apply two different frameworks of law on any individual - I mean lets be honest, do most people actually know where all of their data comes from? Can you be certain of compliance in everything you do online? Again I think it comes down to what we believe is actually being stolen? Content? Files? Copyright infringement? Lets also try to shed some clarity in that US law makers have actually ruled that copyright infringement can not easily be associated with theft, as theft must be counted against commercial loss. If I say I was never going to buy it, and my copying of it did not result in a lost sale (or loss of a physical product) how easily can this be equated to theft? Remember that digital files are infinitely reproducible.

Does everyone operating online have to necessitate international law in all of their online interactions?

I guess you can see where I am going with this :)

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

SR,

Where was the file copied located? Where was the original copy that was copied located? I'm confident the copy can be tied back to a jurisdiction where such copying is illegal.

[SilentRoamer]

Ser Scot,

The file being copied is located in thousands of machines all around the world and the machine doing the downloading is not downloading any complete content from anywhere. It is downloading thousands of individual files which constitute the whole - from multiple sources. These files are not being taken from anywhere however they are being copied. Oh - you can trace IPs easily enough to see which jurisdiction this data is coming from and then look at their legal framework but to what end? LWR is not accountable under said legal framework. Similar to how you are not accountable for the numerous infractions you would have caused if you were subject to other countries governing laws.

Ultimately LWR is only responsible to adherence under the framework of law to the country in which she is a member of - other countries laws have no legal framework which can be applied here. When the laws are analogous then it is different but in this case Croatia does not acknowledge the legitimacy of copyright infringement as being comparable to theft. Therefore LWR, as a resident of Croatia, is breaking no laws which apply directly to her.

[awesome possum]

BitLit: take a picture of your bookshelf and the app/website will tell you which books you own have ebooks available to download for free.

AP,

For the record; I do think copyright needs serious revision and modification to deal with the digital world. I simply refuse to accept that there is nothing wrong with copying and distributing the copyrighted work of other people without the copyright holder's permission.

Is that unreasonable?

Not at all. I am perfectly okay with people viewing torrenting as stealing, because that's what it is. And yet, I just can't bring myself to feel bad about it. Nice guys finish last.

[sologdin]

Well, yes, isn't that just stealing? Or did I miss something?

it can't be a common law theft, which is asportation with intent to permanently deprive. copyright statutes (as with most IP) by contrast normally define rights and then define infringements of those rights.

So to you they may have committed a crime, but within their own legal framework - which they are bound to, no crime has been committed

fairly certain that international law will allow the united states jurisdiction to prescribe criminal statutes extraterritorially, such as criminal IP infringement. croatia may not care, say, but that indifference will not immunize someone with respect to other jurisdictions. i therefore urge infringers in the strongest possible terms to avoid cavalier dismissals of other states' criminal statutes.

Ultimately LWR is only responsible to adherence under the framework of law to the country in which she is a member of

this defense was conclusively, and correctly, destroyed by the nuremberg IMT.

[johndance]

I don't know the answer to the question I have this and that's why I'm asking. Not to argue one way or another. What is the difference between borrowing a book, ebook, or audiobook from a library vs. "illegally downloading" it?

I haven't paid for a book, whether it's a physical copy, ebook, or audiobook in the past year. I've been able to get them from the library. Most recently it's been ebooks I've been reading. It's literally a few clicks and it downloads to my e-reader. It automatically gets deleted afterwards but I've been able to read these books and haven't paid a cent. I've borrowed and read 20+ books this way over the past year. Most of which are probably considered "new releases".

Are authors ok with this? I am having the exact same experience that someone else is having who is paying the $5-$10 dollars to amazon and downloading the book right to their kindle. It's the same format, same content, etc. If authors are ok with this, then what is the difference from someone else who buys the ebook and puts it on a site where people can download it for free?

Again, I just don't know and I am curious. I assume that maybe libraries are paying something extra to be allowed to provide this service or something like that but if not, from an author's standpoint I see no difference between the two.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Johndance,

I don't know the answer to the question I have this and that's why I'm asking. Not to argue one way or another. What is the difference between borrowing a book, ebook, or audiobook from a library vs. "illegally downloading" it?

I haven't paid for a book, whether it's a physical copy, ebook, or audiobook in the past year. I've been able to get them from the library. Most recently it's been ebooks I've been reading. It's literally a few clicks and it downloads to my e-reader. It automatically gets deleted afterwards but I've been able to read these books and haven't paid a cent. I've borrowed and read 20+ books this way over the past year. Most of which are probably considered "new releases".

Are authors ok with this? I am having the exact same experience that someone else is having who is paying the $5-$10 dollars to amazon and downloading the book right to their kindle. It's the same format, same content, etc. If authors are ok with this, then what is the difference from someone else who buys the ebook and puts it on a site where people can download it for free?

Again, I just don't know and I am curious. I assume that maybe libraries are paying something extra to be allowed to provide this service or something like that but if not, from an author's standpoint I see no difference between the two.

This has been answered at least half a dozen times in this thread alone. Libraries, in the US, pay a license fee for the priviledge of lending the book and their copies to lend is limited in number, unlike torrent sites.

[SilentRoamer]

Ser Scot,

Torrent sites do not hold a single copy of anything let alone an infinite amount.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

SR,

So, there's a limit to the number of downloads a torrent site will allow?

[kuenjato]

SR,

So, there's a limit to the number of downloads a torrent site will allow?

Torrent sites merely provide the data connection nodes. Downloading occurs peer to peer, not from the site itself.

btw, I received an amazon gift card for christmas and, gosh, spent $100 dollars on physical books -- all content that I could have gotten (in fact, some of which I already have) online. Amazing how this new fangled tech works... three of those books I previewed through 21st century browsing. Guess those weren't "lost sales" after all.

[Darth Richard II]

Really? We're going to do the semantics of torrenting dance?

[unJon]

Johndance,

This has been answered at least half a dozen times in this thread alone. Libraries, in the US, pay a license fee for the priviledge of lending the book and their copies to lend is limited in number, unlike torrent sites.

this has not been adequately answered. What is a typical licensing fee? What does an author see in revenue of that per book lent? Does the author get to choose whether to let the library have a copy?

Honestly, the library model may be an outdated dinasour at this point. Ebooks may kill it. If it is really as easy as a few clicks on a computer to rent a massive library of ebooks, then I can see a trend of this starting to eat into sales to a much greater extent than libraries do in brick and mortar sites.

Libraries maybe come the new torrent site. Many pirates won't care that the ebook gets deleted.

[johndance]

this has not been adequately answered. What is a typical licensing fee? What does an author see in revenue of that per book lent? Does the author get to choose whether to let the library have a copy?

Honestly, the library model may be an outdated dinasour at this point. Ebooks may kill it. If it is really as easy as a few clicks on a computer to rent a massive library of ebooks, then I can see a trend of this starting to eat into sales to a much greater extent than libraries do in brick and mortar sites.

Libraries maybe come the new torrent site. Many pirates won't care that the ebook gets deleted.

I was thinking the same thing. The answer mearly being that 'libraries pay licensing fees" is extremely vague. I'd be interested in getting answers to some of the questions you've posed. How much is the licensing fee that the library pays to loan out all of these ebooks and does the author see any of the revenue? Two excellent questions. If the fee is considered non-substantial and if the author is not seeing any revenue from this fee, from that author's viewpoint how is this so different from having their book illegally downloaded?