Paper Books vs. Electronic

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Melonica,

. I don't begrudge our Croatian board member since it's only for personal use and he has an acceptable reason for doing so (and we've all done it at some point)

I beg to differ. I do not own an eReader and have never downloaded a book to a computer without the author's permission.

[Melonica Stormborn]

Melonica,

I beg to differ. I do not own an eReader and have never downloaded a book to a computer without the author's permission.

Okay. Sorry for generalizing. I don't have a legit e-reader too. Just open files on a PC or phone when I need to refer to bookmarked quotes or do a search. I have to do this because I don't really like writing on or highlighting paper books.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Melonica,

Looking at a quote from a book or a portion of a book online falls under "fair use". It is the downloading of the entire work (creating a whole new copy) that is in violation of copyright law.

[Melonica Stormborn]

Melonica,

Looking at a quote from a book or a portion of a book online falls under "fair use". It is the downloading of the entire work (creating a whole new copy) that is in violation of copyright law.

Yes, but in my case, the fact remains that I downloaded an illegal copy after buying a paper copy. As I said I don't consider it a problem, but it's not a desirable scenario that buyers have to go through that. :)

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Melonica,

I think Shryke has a good point about making things easy to buy.

[MisterOJ]

It's not "technically illegal"; it's illegal. You did it because you felt silly taking legal action to share your copy of the book, but let's call what you did by its true name. Just plain Illegal. You don't have to feel guilty about it - no one can force you - but dissembling about it just seems weird.

Well, I used the term "technically illegal" because that's how I see it. Is making a copy so my wife can read WWZ on her Nook instead of borrowing mine illegal? Yes. Is it morally wrong? No, I don't think it is.

I liken it to other laws that can be broken technically, but aren't morally wrong and would never be prosecuted in a million years. Like the speed limit. If the speed limit is 55 mph, and I am driving 57 mph, technically I am doing something illegal. But I don't think you'd ever find people arguing that it is morally wrong, or that I should be given a ticket for doing so.

[Melonica Stormborn]

Melonica,

I think Shryke has a good point about making things easy to buy.

Agree with him as well. People with the capacity to buy will do so if it's convenient. Although I also think a tie-in purchase for ebooks and paper books could work.

[mjgambino]

I'm curious to know what the anti-piracy people here would like to see happen to book pirates. I arrested a guy a few months ago from stealing some shit from a CVS. It was less than 100 bucks worth of stuff, non-pharms, nothing that he could resell on the street. Anyway, he actually got some jail time for it, because he had a bunch of priors, all for small thefts.

Anyway, this guy has probably taken less than 600 dollars worth of stuff and is in jail for a couple of months. Most pirates steal thousands of dollars of crap and get nothing... or a fine.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Mjg,

Fines.

[MisterOJ]

Here's another scenario for y'all to think about.

A bunch of years ago when Napster was all the rage for illegal music downloads, I was in college and like a lot of my peers, I downloaded a bunch of music. Most of it was stuff I would never buy and barely listened to. But, in doing that, I found several new bands I liked. Bands I probably would have never heard otherwise. Like my favorite band, Carbon Leaf.

If not for illegally downloading an album or two of theirs, I never would have heard their music. In the years since, I have bought and paid for every album they've produced, bought tickets and attended several concerts and bought T-shirts and other merchandise they have sold. Because of an illegal download years ago, they have benefited many times over the cost of original download.

Does it make what I did all those years ago right? I don't know. Was it illegal at the time? Yes. But the band has reaped the benefits of that. And there are other bands I have bought albums for that I discovered that way as well. Carbon Leaf just happens to be the best example for me personally.

Can illegal downloads hurt artists and authors? Yes, absolutely. Can it help them as well? Again, absolutely yes. Is it more bad than good or more good than bad though?

[Melonica Stormborn]

I think there is no clear cut answer on whether piracy does more good or bad in the long run. Despite my opinions about it, I accept that it will depend on the quality of the literature or music if the pirate would think that the piece is worth paying for. A very good book, song or movie can translate to fandom and more sales since fans tend to buy merchandise to support the fandom, but a mediocre one may not get anything tangible.

[3CityApache]

Well, I guess if you asked Carbon Leaf themselves, the answer might be different than the one by an average lawyer. On the other hand, there was also a bunch of bands you didn't particularly like among the stuff you downloaded, right? So one could argue that they potentially lost something then, as you weren't probably downloading completely on random, so if you couldn't have done it at all, perhaps you would buy some of their stuff. It's not an easy answer.

[MisterOJ]

Well, I guess if you asked Carbon Leaf themselves, the answer might be different than the one by an average lawyer. On the other hand, there was also a bunch of bands you didn't particularly like among the stuff you downloaded, right? So one could argue that they potentially lost something then, as you weren't probably downloading completely on random, so if you couldn't have done it at all, perhaps you would buy some of their stuff. It's not an easy answer.

I don't know. I still bought CDs back then. It wasn't like I stopped paying for music during the time when I was into downloading it. But, I just bought music I knew I liked.

I can only think of one time I ever walked into a CD store and bought a CD by a band I had never listened to before - and that was on a very strong recommendation from a friend. Most of the songs I was downloading was of bands I'd never heard before. I wasn't going to be buying their music anyway. But, once I listened to it - sometimes I did go out and buy it, because I liked it that much. Other times, I deleted it pretty quickly, because I didn't like it at all. The gray area is the music I liked somewhat, and listened to more than once, but never really cared to go out and actually buy. I could see how you could make an argument those bands were harmed somewhat.

[Mr. E]

Anybody see the movie Lincoln? I think it actually provides a pretty good answer on this question.

I don't think there should be prevarication, or negation in the law. Maybe I'm like Stannis in that? I do think there should be compassion, discernment, and understanding with individual cases, but we can't say "This is okay; this is legal," just because it's justified. The end question, and perhaps the end question to the entire history of human civilization, is do the ends justify the means.

So in the movie Lincoln, Lincoln works to pass the 13th amendment. To do this, he lies, stalls, bribes, emotionally blackmails, and all sorts of unethical things. Does the fact that he's working to end slavery make this actions any less unsavory? No. Do the ends justify the means? In this case, yes.

That's really the point I've been trying to make, with Errant Bard and everyone. I have no doubt whatsoever that Mister OJ spent more money on bands because he was able to sample their music illegally. I did it, most everyone did it, and it doesn't make us horrible people. And in the end, do the ends justify the means? Sure; because it's a very minor violation we speak of here. But the point is: does that wipe away the fact that the action itself, not its potential outcomes, is illegal and unethical? The answer there is no. It has to be.

[mjgambino]

On a non-piracy related note (if that's allowed), I like that typos and other errors can be corrected with e-books. Also, there is always the potential of adding bonus features at a later time into the same edition.

[3CityApache]

I don't know. I still bought CDs back then. It wasn't like I stopped paying for music during the time when I was into downloading it. But, I just bought music I knew I liked.

I can only think of one time I ever walked into a CD store and bought a CD by a band I had never listened to before - and that was on a very strong recommendation from a friend.

Yes, but if there was no possibility for downloading whatsoever, your attitude might be slightly different I guess, you could be a little more willing to spend your money on a band you only moderately knew, instead of sample their music first, as Mr. E put it. I don't know. We are all in the area of "what if" here.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3city,

Isn't that wh many bands put up free youtubes of their music. They allow it out there. Further, that's why many authors allow portions of their work to be read for free on line. That's simply not the same as saying "copy and share all my stuff without paying me". The pro-piracy people seem to believe they are entitled to copy as much of a given artists work as they want. This is what I object to.

[3CityApache]

The pro-piracy people seem to believe they are entitled to copy as much of a given artists work as they want. This is what I object to.

Ser Scot

And we agree here of course. I just think that sometimes copyright regulations are a bit behind a common sense (like with this necessity to swich eReaders when you want to share your e-copy with a friend) and perhaps it would be wise to think it over, in order to make it more user friendly. I think sooner or later progressive digitalisation of culture will force us to do so.

[Noroldis]

Here's a situation I'd like to present to you guys. I'm a Dungeons & Dragons player. After I obtain a Kindle eReader next Christmas, I'd like to acquire in eBook format a number of sourcebooks, notably from the 3rd edition d20 Modern and d20 Future lines. Yet the publisher, Wizards of the Coast, has not published any of those sourcebooks in physical format for years and, as nearly as I can tell, has not made them available to be legally bought online in any eBook format. So if I download what has to be pirated online versions of those sourcebooks, am I being morally and/or legally wrong?

[MisterOJ]

Here's a situation I'd like to present to you guys. I'm a Dungeons & Dragons player. After I obtain a Kindle eReader next Christmas, I'd like to acquire in eBook format a number of sourcebooks, notably from the 3rd edition d20 Modern and d20 Future lines. Yet the publisher, Wizards of the Coast, has not published any of those sourcebooks in physical format for years and, as nearly as I can tell, has not made them available to be legally bought online in any eBook format. So if I download what has to be pirated online versions of those sourcebooks, am I being morally and/or legally wrong?

Do you already own physical copies of the books you want in e-format? If so, and the books don't exist as ebooks, then I don't think it would be morally wrong to download digital copies. Now, if you don't own those books, and you're just going to obtain the information through an illegal download without paying for them in any way, then I would think that's wrong.