e-Reader Accessories wrote:
It is slightly different if you get something that someone else made (even though you own the paper book). Both the paper book and the ebook have intrinsic value and to justify getting one because you have the other doesn't make sense to me.

It depends on what you're buying. Are you buying the paper and the ink or are you buying the story? If you're buying the story shouldn't you be able to read it where you prefer? If you download an ebook and sell the physical book that would be wrong, but if we want to read it why are we limited to. When I was younger I used to tape songs off of the radio. How is that different?

We're not trying to get something for nothing. We believe he author used his/her mind and we want to pay for them for our enjoyment. A value for value trade. In that trade we realize that we have to also trade to the publisher for assembling and distributing the book and the book store for stocking it. However, we aren't willing to turn a blind eye to the fact that we are saving the publisher and bookstore money by buying electronically. And we refuse to spend more for the same product.

Both the paper book and the ebook have intrinsic value and to justify getting one because you have the other doesn't make sense to me.

Remember that line from Men In Black, when Kay is showing Jay new technology and says "Guess I'll have to buy the White Album again." Well I am done buying the White Album. You know I have music right now on my iPod that I have purchased on 45 records as well as LP's, then on 8 track, and cassette, then CD... geez just how many times does McCartney need me to pay for Hey Jude?

Similar feelings apply here. I have books that when I first bought them it was hard cover or nothing. So I bought them. Then a trend started of re-releasing popular books later in paperback, which for me is easier to hold, so I bought them again. Then because when I travel, audiobooks are very convenient, and in somecases relaxing I have several favorites on audio (or reverse, I loved an audiobook so well I went out and bought the paperback). Now because space has become an issue I have decided to move to the digital format. I'm supposed not only pay again for books I own, but pay more than paperback price in some cases! No. Just because they've decided to issue a 5 yr old book digitally, doesn't mean I should have to pay the same price as it's 2010 hardcover. (the sookie books for example, all the previous 11 are $9.99, yet their paperback versions are under $6)

When I was younger I used to tape songs off of the radio. How is that different?


Right. Did that stop you from buying the Album? No. I'm not saying the digital version has no intrinsic value what I am saying is that it doesn't have more. Especially when you don't have any rights you would have with a paper version, yet they want you to pay more.

I love the conversation this has spurred, but I feel some people are missing something here.

The question is, if it's unethical to get something from someone else that you can and would be well within your rights to do. Like I said, I'm not saying if you find value in purchasing multiple formats whether you should buy all the formats. I've done it, I bought a few eBooks that I have physical copies to. But I could have taken that book, started on page one, opened up MS Word and start typing out the book. Why would I do that? Because I want that same book on my eReader. In the past we had the same situations occur. When I bought a CD, and I wanted it on my iPod, I could rip it to my hard drive and listen to it there. If I want the DVDs I own on my HTPC, I can rip them to my HD for easy access.

So I can do all of these without issue. But is there an ethical issue by taking from someone whose done all the work already. If I own the CD but didn't want to spend the time to rip it, is it unethical to copy it from a friend? If I own the DVD and want it on my HTPC, is getting it from someone whose already done the work unethical? So if I have the physical copy of the book, is it unethical to get a digital copy from someone else?

If you find value in the purchase of both, all, whatever then no one's saying your stupid. Just wanted to see where people stand. Does the person that actually does the work (ripping a CD or typing/scanning a book) effect the ethicalness of an act?

Does the person that actually does the work (ripping a CD or typing/scanning a book) effect the ethicalness of an act?

I think the industry does. The music or movie industry would consider it unethical if you downloaded someone else's ripped copy even if you own a store bought copy yourself.

Add to that, how would you know if the content you are downloading is actually the work product of someone who owned the actual book, and not someone who just pirated a ebook? I think the latter is far more prevelant, and definitely unethical.

Guinan wrote:
I think the industry does. The music or movie industry would consider it unethical if you downloaded someone else's ripped copy even if you own a store bought copy yourself.

I disagree, industry looks at it at a completely legal perspective. They feel it violates copyright law. Like I originally said, I'm not a legal professional and don't understand the in's and out's of copyright law, but I'm not addressing that question. In fact, copyright law is notorious for being old, antiquated, and not dealing with new technology. To the extent that new laws had to be created (ie. fair use), I believe (and again I'm not a legal professional) that B&N's own LendMe feature technically violates copyright law, but B&N probably have some technical language behind them that makes the copy "authorized", because my experience with copyright situations require written consent and I know I don't get that when I lend an eBook to a friend. I'd love to be proven wrong on this point though.

I believe I'd be in the right side of the law to have a digital copy of a physical book I own (fair use). I don't know if I'd be in violation of the law (I know the publishers would like me to be) if I took that copy from someone else. All cases that I know of (ie RIAA, etc) have dealt with distribution. The industry found access to shared folders and files and that's why they were taken to court. I haven't heard of any case involving someone downloading for personal use but not redistribution.

Back on point. I'm not arguing copyright violations here. Downloading from someone else just might violate copyright law. But if you've ever taken an Ethics course, you'll know that ethics and legality sometimes contradict. And your point where downloading from someone who doesn't own the book doesn't change the question. Does the person actually doing the transfer from paper to digital change the ethical situation? Regardless of whether or not it was take from a person who took it from a person who took it from a person who actually did the transfer.

_{This is nice, ethical questions are always hard. But I don't think that industry's opinion effects the ethical right/wrong decision.}