Paper Books vs. Electronic

[Noroldis]

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.

I do not own any physical copies of those sourcebooks. But as I mentioned, there are no copies, either physical or digital, currently available for legal purchase from the publisher, so my downloading available online versions would not result in lost revenue for the publisher or the authors.

[MisterOJ]

I do not own any physical copies of those sourcebooks. But as I mentioned, there are no copies, either physical or digital, currently available for legal purchase from the publisher, so my downloading available online versions would not result in lost revenue for the publisher or the authors.

Hmmm... I missed the part about them being out of print. If that's the case, then I don't see any problem with downloading a digital copy of them.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Noroldis,

Any copies available from second hand sellers?

[TrackerNeil]

The legal situation is a lot greyer than that. It depends what country you're in, for instance.

Agreed, and I didn't mean to set myself up as a legal expert. (I'm not.) However, if something is illegal, one who does that is not doing something "technically illegal"; it's just plain illegal.

I sense that people are veering into a discussion of morality, which certainly isn't my intent. I don't think that people who engage in copyright violation are moral monsters or something, but neither am I sure it's a victimless crime. In any case, I think those who do it should simply own it. When I steal a pen from my employer I don't try to cast it as anything other than theft, and I wish that those who engage in illegal downloading/copying would simply do the same.

[MisterOJ]

Agreed, and I didn't mean to set myself up as a legal expert. (I'm not.) However, if something is illegal, one who does that is not doing something "technically illegal"; it's just plain illegal.

I sense that people are veering into a discussion of morality, which certainly isn't my intent. I don't think that people who engage in copyright violation are moral monsters or something, but neither am I sure it's a victimless crime. In any case, I think those who do it should simply own it. When I steal a pen from my employer I don't try to cast it as anything other than theft, and I wish that those who engage in illegal downloading/copying would simply do the same.

Is stripping the DRM off the ebook I own so my wife can read it on her Nook straight-up illegal, though? I honestly don't know the law well enough, but it seems like a case could be made that it's not.

[TrackerNeil]

Is stripping the DRM off the ebook I own so my wife can read it on her Nook straight-up illegal, though? I honestly don't know the law well enough, but it seems like a case could be made that it's not.

Again, I'm not legal eagle so I could not say. But isn't there a way you can transfer ownership of the book? I thought I'd read that this was possible with some ebooks. If not, it probably should be.

Honestly, I agree that there is a weirdness to the way the rights to ebooks are handled, and I think change can and should happen. However, I don't think we do ourselves any favors by trying to justify copying and/or distributing the work of others.

[MisterOJ]

Again, I'm not legal eagle so I could not say. But isn't there a way you can transfer ownership of the book? I thought I'd read that this was possible with some ebooks. If not, it probably should be.

Honestly, I agree that there is a weirdness to the way the rights to ebooks are handled, and I think change can and should happen. However, I don't think we do ourselves any favors by trying to justify copying and/or distributing the work of others.

I actually talked to Barnes & Nobel about this and it was impossible for my wife and I to share books because when we bought our Nooks, we set up separate accounts. If we had put them both on one account, we could have shared, but we weren't told this beforehand. So the only way for us to share books with each other is either

a) Strip the DRM and then copy it over

or b ) Just swap out Nooks, which is a pain in the butt.

or I suppose c) pay full price a second time so she can have a "legal" copy of the book on her Nook

I honestly am the kind of person who prefers doing things the right way. But when it comes to something that should be simple, but isn't because of some bullcrap red-tape, I don't mind cutting some legally gray corners to do what I should be able to do from the state. Like share a book I bought with my wife.

[Noroldis]

Noroldis,

Any copies available from second hand sellers?

Physical copies, yes, but it's digital versions I want to get. There's already too many gaming-related books on my bookshelves to my (and the rest of the family's) liking.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Noroldis,

So, under your logic if an author doesn't want to release their work in digital format it's cool to reproduce it in digital format without their permission?

[PaulineMRoss]

However, if something is illegal, one who does that is not doing something "technically illegal"; it's just plain illegal.

Again, it's really not as black and white as all that. There are countries where some activity may be (possibly) illegal as the law is written, but the authorities have an understanding that there will be no prosecutions. I would describe that as 'technically illegal' :-) Here in Europe, there may be conflicts between a country's own law, European Union law, International law and terms and conditions imposed by publishers and Amazon, for example. In those cases, the law will only be defined when tested in court, and frankly I'm not holding my breath waiting for Amazon to prosecute an individual for DRM-stripping so his wife can read the ebook he purchased legally.

Is stripping the DRM off the ebook I own so my wife can read it on her Nook straight-up illegal, though? I honestly don't know the law well enough, but it seems like a case could be made that it's not.

And this is where all the talk of legal vs illegal falls down, because Joe Public has an extremely robust level of common sense. If two people can perfectly legally share ebooks if they have a joint account, but can't do that if they have separate accounts, then the law is an ass. Nor do people understand this business of not actually owning an ebook, merely having a licence to read it. They're bound to say: well, I paid for it, it's mine. I can bequeath my Kindle, loaded with all my ebooks, to my daughter in my will, but I can't bequeath her the books themselves? It's nonsense, and the sooner the publishers and lawmakers get to grips with that, the better.

All this has happened before, with other forms of digital media, and with other forms of copying (remember the fuss about the first affordable twin cassette players?). Eventually things settle down, and everyone learns to live with a degree of copying for personal use, and piracy amongst the impoverished or those beyond Amazon's reach. And yes, there will always be people who will take the free version rather than paying, just as there will always be shoplifters and employees nicking pens from work, you're never going to stop it, but the evidence from the music business is that most people prefer to buy from legal sources if they're readily available at a reasonable price. They just don't like ridiculous restrictions on what they can do with something they paid good money for.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

DP

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

PMR,

And yes, there will always be people who will take the free version rather than paying, just as there will always be shoplifters and employees nicking pens from work, you're never going to stop it

But under pro-piracy logic shoplifters do no damage because they weren't going to buy it anyway and if it can't be stopped it might as well be legal.

[Baitac]

I actually talked to Barnes & Nobel about this and it was impossible for my wife and I to share books because when we bought our Nooks, we set up separate accounts. If we had put them both on one account, we could have shared, but we weren't told this beforehand. So the only way for us to share books with each other is either

a) Strip the DRM and then copy it over

or b ) Just swap out Nooks, which is a pain in the butt.

or I suppose c) pay full price a second time so she can have a "legal" copy of the book on her Nook

I honestly am the kind of person who prefers doing things the right way. But when it comes to something that should be simple, but isn't because of some bullcrap red-tape, I don't mind cutting some legally gray corners to do what I should be able to do from the state. Like share a book I bought with my wife.

I only have one account for my Nook, but share the account with my husband and sons. Are you sure that you cannot open your wife's account and therefore her library in your Nook and vice versa? It seems like if you have access to both accounts in your regular computer, you should be able to access both accounts in your Nooks? You would have to sign in and out of your accounts whenever you want to read books from the other's library, but that isn't too big of a deal.

[3CityApache]

But under pro-piracy logic shoplifters do no damage because they weren't going to buy it anyway and if it can't be stopped it might as well be legal.

Ser Scot

But it is not exactly the same, is it? Precisely because it is a digital copy we are talking about. Shoplifters steal actual, physical items, which can't be sold after they were stolen, so there is a loss for a producer no matter if the thief would buy it or not, as opposed to downloading stuff.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3city,

Okay, lets play hypothetical. Suppose there is a 3D copier that can recreate a plastic piece of something identically. If a shoplifter takes a plastic item from a hardware store, puts it into a 3D copier and recreates that item and then returns the item to the store after 24 hours has the shoplifter commited a crime or done something that is morally uncouth?

[3CityApache]

Ser Scot

I know it's hipothetically possible, but it's a bit too high level of hipotheticability for my taste. :)

But I would rather say if it was possible, shoplifter wouldn't have to steal this thing in order to recreate it, he would just have to borrow it. And perhaps that's the path we should follow in amending copyright law in regard to digital copies.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3city,

So, if the item is "borrowed" then replaced there is no crime?

[3CityApache]

Ser Scot

Of course there is, under current law, I never said there wasn't. I just argue that perhaps it should be changed.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3City,

So, you'd prefer law allow someone to take your car for 24 hours without your permission, return it with a full tank of gas, and you would have no recourse for their actions?

[3CityApache]

Ser Scot

If it wasn't 24 hours but a fraction of a second (and that's closer to the case we're discussing here), sure, I wouldn't mind (and I drive a diesel car; Europe, you know). :)

Seriously though, what I'm saying is that I have some doubt if the law and its instruments are suitable to handle the issue we are dealing with, that's all. Some things are just incomparable (though in the eyes of the law they are) and there's nothing you can do about it except creating new instruments, more appropriate.