Submitted by whydoesyourbedsmell t3_10j604u in books
NekuraHitokage t1_j5kjcb7 wrote
My take: You already paid for it. You could go through the process of cutting the binding, scanning it into a computer converting it into a PDF, and then reading it on your phone... Or you can find a PDF someone else already did that for. You already paid for access, digital is just a backup.
Disparition_2022 t1_j5kl5vi wrote
"You already paid for access" that's interesting to think about.
Imagine it were like 50 years ago and digital books didn't exist yet. You buy a book at a store and lose or damage it and need a new copy. Or, to keep it like the OP, your eyes got bad and now you need it a different font. Do you feel entitled to walk into a bookstore and grab a second copy for free because you already "paid for access" to the text itself?
When you buy a book the general understanding is that you are buying *one copy* of the book, not an infinite number of copies of it. The text doesn't belong to you, it still belongs to the author and publisher. What you've bought is one physical copy of that text, not the right to make other copies of it.
Now that we've made the transition to digital, and creating an infinite number of copies of a book is far easier, does this somehow mean what you've bought has changed? Did you buy one digital copy of the book, or does the price include lifelong access to as many digital copies as one might need?
mooimafish33 t1_j5puiia wrote
>Do you feel entitled to walk into a bookstore and grab a second copy for free because you already "paid for access" to the text itself?
No because a book is an actual physical thing that costs money to produce, an ebook is not.
You have already supported the author and they are not losing anything by you downloading a different format.
Personally I think that someone having access to a book is always more valuable than a publisher getting paid, and don't see an issue with people pirating everything if it's not economically accessible. But if you feel the corporatist urge to make sure they get every cent they possibly can, go ahead.
NekuraHitokage t1_j5kos7i wrote
I think this would be more akin to buying a book and owning your own printing press. You are making a copy to be privately used in case the original is damaged. This is a practice going back to scribes and handwriting copies.
You bought the first copy and there is no law stating that you cannot reproduce it for personal use and that is the line.
It has nothing to do with the book itself or any number of copies. If I'd purchased an original scroll of an ancient text, nothing stops me from hand-vopying it as many times as I desire. That it is digital and, thus, easier is no different than moving from handwriting to the printing press. I wouldn't feel entitled to walk in and get a different book, but this is not that. This is copying the book by hand in a larger font and saving the original book, essentially. To grab another copy from a store would not be the same. Those materials are still worth something, even if you already purchased the story part. It isn't equivalant.
What stops me from recounting the tale orally from memory? Is copying it to my mind and redistributing it aloud breaking some law? We could argue the lines all day as it's all mere social agreement.
Thus, to me, the line is drawn at true redistribution and the nuance of the situation.
If i am OP, this is my thought:
I have already purchased a hard copy of the book.
I own a physical access pass to the words the author wrote.
I have multiple ways to consume words.
A physical book does not emit light of its own has a few other issues and being able to read on the go then return to the physical book would be nice.
I am not redistributing the copy I make for myself.
Making another copy for myself does not harm the author as I have already paid to read those words.
Where I read them does not matter.
Purchase is access to the book and words therin. You now own that book for any level of personal use. Make 1000 copies and wallpaper your house with it. Let anyone who's anyone borrow a read while they're in your home. As long as they stay within your personal sphere of influence and are not goven to others, you violate nothing.
To flip your analogue... What of a DVD i've purchased? Must I charge every person who comes to my home a Box Office fee and pay the distributor of the movie a fee for allowing a few friends to consume it with me? I am the one who paid for access yet they did not. Now a number of people have seen the movie without paying anything for it.
You paid to own a copy of that movie and watch it yourself. Not redistribute it. Is that then illegal?
The reality is that there is much more nuance to things than we'd like to think. You purchased a pre-written pre-copied version of the book distributed by a single publisher and a single author. If anything, you are paying for the work done and access to the story. You pay as much for the materials as for the access. If I were an author and someone came to me and said "i read your book into the ground and the pages are frayed and unreadable. I'd love another copy." I'd... Give it to them. I lose on the materials, but they already bought access to that story. I got paid once for the story I wrote once.
Having to repurchase a same book is a quirk of capitalism and of physical product. If I pay for a digital book, i indeed have "infinite copies" because I can view it on any device and read it as many times as I want wherever I want. I even have the option of printing the book into as many physical copies for my personal use as I'd like. I'm just not allowed to redistribute it. That's the consistent lynch pin.
LaunchTransient t1_j5kzam6 wrote
>there is no law stating that you cannot reproduce it
I mean, there is literally a piece of text on the first or second page of most books that reads:
>No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without written permission of the publisher.
NekuraHitokage t1_j5l1s72 wrote
That is a term of service and a generic statement of copyright.
Fair use and archival purposes allow for copies for use of many reasons, including educational and research, so long as the copies do not leave the premises.
I would argue "I made photocopies / downloaded an archived copy for the ease of reading on a screen for my own personal use" falls withon fair use when the person has no intention of distribution themselves. Indeed we are skirting an edge by just downloading a copy, but since they have a full copy themselves it is a shortcut and nothing more.
Now, egg on my face, it does seem copies for replacement of a damaged copy are actually limited to 3 in total so... No, no plastering a wall, but copies for personal use fall well within copyright.l imo. Obviously not a lawyer, but it seems fairly clearly stated.
There is more nuance to the law than some blurb on a page and it all has to do with commercial loss and context of use and status of distribution.
DwarfOfRockAndStone t1_j5n64m1 wrote
Im surprised to see this so downvoted Its not even advocating for piracy, just using long-established AUTHOR AND PUBLISHER PERMISSIONED [READ: LEGAL] rights.
EDIT: The post as a whole is also downvoted, just for asking humbly. Hmmmm
NekuraHitokage t1_j5n8uyk wrote
I figure many people here are aspiring authors as well. Many of these aspiring authors may also be looking to make it their living or make it "big" and may not have the same "You bought your ticket, you may pass" mentality as I have. A person forced to buy a second book is just more profit, after all.
Law and ethics are separate and they are forever arguable. For those that would profit from an extra copy sold or those that would advocate for the people that write those things which they hold dear... I can understand it.
​
But I still hold that this is harmless and ethically neutral... The copy is for one's own use and they already paid the author and publisher the asking price as you said.
whydoesyourbedsmell OP t1_j6kkbto wrote
Oh gosh, I hope no one here thinks I'm their ticket to making it big. It was really more a am I reading these books now or in possibly a few years time question.(broke)
I do definitely agree that laws and ethics are seperate and should always be thus. there are to many possibilities in this world to account for in law. To many laws created by the well off.
Thank you for supporting that idea so strongly throughout this thread.
NekuraHitokage t1_j6kl2hh wrote
Absolutely! I truly do think your purpose is justified and your intent good. That you worried about it in the first place is a sign of that and that you would worry so strongly on the thoughts of others is another. None of us are perfect and some of us would if we could... But we can't and, in some cases, shouldn't have to.
Disparition_2022 t1_j5l8a2u wrote
"I think this would be more akin to buying a book and owning your own printing press. You are making a copy to be privately used in case the original is damaged. This is a practice going back to scribes and handwriting copies."
Scribes predate modern copyright law. In the current day, in most countries, if you copy the entire contents of a book whether you do so by hand, with a xerox machine, or digitally, you are technically violating the copyright.
If you are just making one copy in the privacy of your home for the ease of your eyesight or whatever, it's extremely unlikely that anyone will care or that you will be doing any real harm to anyone. But I was more taking issue with the idea that buying a copy of a book is the same thing as "paying for access" to the text in some greater sense, that's not really how it works, your use of the text is very limited and ultimately, it's not yours.
NekuraHitokage t1_j5l8v9d wrote
Not so, I'd say
I would argue that fair use allows for a full "blown up" copy for the sake of a purchaser's eyesight. It allows them to more easily understand the text. A single copy for private use - even if it was to have one in the study and one in the john just in case you forget it - is well within fair use so long as the copy does not leave the premises. A specific caveat made by the law. The caveat is that it is not then distributed as far as the law is concerned.
Disparition_2022 t1_j5l9xtm wrote
>I would argue that fair use allows for a full "blown up" copy for the sake of a purchaser's eyesight
Where exactly are you getting your definition of "fair use"? I have never seen a definition that allowed one to copy *the entire contents* of a book for any reason. Even if you are copying something for educational purposes, this is limited to a chapter or so. You do realize that schools are entirely educational and have to actually buy the books they use, right? You can't just claim "educational" and copy entire books.
NekuraHitokage t1_j5lc258 wrote
Yes.
As one would be purchasing their initial copy of the book.
I have been handed an entire plastic punch-bound cover to cover copy of a book to read along in class only to turn them in at the end.
Part of copyright is the distribution aspect. I was incorrect on my statement of "1000." An exaggeration. But for fair use it would be a simple lack of sale or distribution. It is not being distributed, sold, or otherwise causing some undue commercial impact to the party that sold the book as it was already purchased. The purchaser cannot read two books at the same time, will not be offering one book to one person whooe they read theirs (which, in the case of a book club, would it not be fair use for educational purpose?)
Copyright is intended to protect the sales and ownership of a work. If a person is making a copy for personal use, they may as well have made no copy at all as only that one person will ever use it.
I suppose I could also argue archival context, but again... I'm not a lawyer. What I do see is a law that is made to protect the integrity and ownership of a work as well as to make sure the owner of that work is fairly compensated for their work. As long as that is not broken, no law is broken.
This person has a very good reason to need this copy. It helps them read what they already bought without further undue hardship. No law is broken.
Disparition_2022 t1_j5lglvx wrote
Again, there is an element of "fair use" you are missing. Here is the law:
>"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—(1)the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;(2)the nature of the copyrighted work;(3)the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and(4)the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."
I bolded the third point because it's the one you seem to keep ignoring, the relationship between the portion used and the work as a whole. You can use a portion of a work for educational purposes or criticism, that doesn't mean you are within rights to copy the entire thing.
Note also that the specific reasons mentioned for "fair use" include education, criticism, reporting, and teaching. There is absolutely no mention of personal archival copies, nor anything related to if your eyesight gets bad.
I'm certainly open to other definitions of fair use which is why I asked where you are getting yours, but this is the law as I found it.
NekuraHitokage t1_j5lipwu wrote
I did not miss it. You ignored the three surrounding clauses and leaned heavily on one. All parts are important and the other three simply outweigh that one, so it was never mentioned. Not ignored.
> (1)the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
Nonprofit educational. Degrading eyesight makes a digital copy with scalable text make sense. Individual has agreed to one personal use digital copy.
> (2)the nature of the copyrighted work;
A physical book that I will boldly assume is available in one font purchased through a proper author to retailer chain.
> (3)the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
The entirety.
> (4)the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."
None, as this copy will remain on this individual's personal device and is acting as a replacement for their physical copy which they are retaining.
With all these factors in mind, i think it is perfectly acceptable to allow it. These are a set of criteria. It doesn't even say that it cannot be done, merely that these factors will be considered when judging a case. It is then up to the judge to rule on the criteria set forth.
Were I the judge, I would deem it well within rights for fair use since it is a personal copy allowing the purchaser to continue enjoying what they purchased in spite of their degrading health. Maybe with a cheeky warning about having the foresight to buy the digital copy first next time with thr amazingly and frustratingly connected world we live in.
I didn't ignore anything. You're focusing on one thing too much.
Disparition_2022 t1_j5lxrfq wrote
>*Nonprofit educational. Degrading eyesight makes a digital copy with scalable text make sense. Individual has agreed to one personal use digital copy.
But the OP didn't purchase a digital copy with scalable text, they purchased a physical copy with the text set in one specific size. No agreement between the individual and the copyright holder regarding a digital copy has taken place.
>A physical book that I will boldly assume is available in one font purchased through a proper author to retailer chain.
That is indeed a bold assumption, and raises a good point: Many books are indeed available both in a regular font *and* in a separate, larger-type edition specifically for people who are visually impaired. If you purchase a book in a regular font and then your eyes go bad, do you believe you are entitled to go to the store and grab a large-type edition for free? If not, then why would you be entitled to do the same digital version with scalable text?
Also nothing in the OP mentioned educational use. As far as their post indicates, this is purely personal and for all we know the book could just as easily be just entertainment. There is absolutely nothing in the fair use code that mentions personal archives, and I'm very curious about where you got that stuff you were talking about as far as "three copies" and "as long as it doesn't leave the premesis" none of which appears in the law. What is your source for that stuff?
NekuraHitokage t1_j5m95jt wrote
No. That is different. Making one's own larger copy does not equal walking into a store and taking a second copy that happens to be larger. Someone else made that for sale. That a twist of fate made it so a paying customer suddenly cannot read the copy they already purchased should not remove their access and allows exception in this case and in this manner. Any other "whatabouts" you can come up with do not argue that point.
Walking in to a store and taking a premade copy is far different from digitizing a copy for personal use or -in this specific case - downloading a digital copy. Assuming there are no large print copies - especially on release - is only so bood. Large print is only so marketable.
Further, the store theft... You would be stealing the materials and work done on that individual book regardless of access. The supply chain and etcetera that went into producing a number of access points to the story. That is removing one paid for access ticket from the pool of tickets, if you will. That is another entirely transferrable copy. They could, for instance, buy thebigger print one and happily gove away the other copy because it is a legally distributable cooy.
Stealing a published copy is not making your own copy of something you already paid for for your personal use. That is stealing a publically sold and published copy. To make one's own copy for a very good, personal use reason causes no commercial strain on anyone in that chain as the book was already purchased by one person once. You can only ever ask for that first purchase, really. Especially of a book. The hope is that many will like it and the sheer volume of sales make it worth it... But if you have 10,000 copies and all 10,000 sell and someone makes their own personal pdf on a phone somewhrlere, never distributes it, never even tells anyone... Then there is no impact. Maybe on the... Falsified rarity of making only 10,000 copies, but since we started with ethics... That's hardly ethical to me. Art is to be shared. Fairly compensated for, but made freely available.
The skirting here is downloading of a digital copy rather than making one's own copy. What you are describing is not the same as what I am describing. It is not having a single digital copy of the physical work already purchased. This is a false equivalance.
I got the amount of copies from the law. The archival section. I said it was arguable under either, but you stuck on fair use.
Archival allows archives or employee of archives to make no more than one copy for archival purposes. If she were to argue that it was being stored for personal archival purposes, it could likely be arguable under this. Bit again as stated multiple times, I am not a laywer. I am a person giving an asked for opinion on the internet.
It also allows up to three reproductions for the purposes of replacing damaged works.
And an archive is an archive. As long as they follow certain rules, even a personal archive would be an archive.
Law is flexible. What works in one situation does not fit another. In this situation no law is broken in my eyes. That's it. You aren't going to convince me otherwise, I'm not going to convince you otherwise. We both stated our opinions, neither of us are lawyers (i assume) and i'm certain we are merely going to disagree on this interpretation of the law. Shall we merely agree to disagree and move on?
Disparition_2022 t1_j5mf8or wrote
Fair enough.
My understanding of "archival law" is that it applies specifically to libraries and other kinds of professional archives, not just any private person who happens to own books, and thus wasn't particularly relevant to the conversation.
NekuraHitokage t1_j5mfi1y wrote
Ahh, but that is the beauty of law. I'm certain I could register as an archive or library if I had a certain number of books, allowed public access, etc. With the small scale here i'd say it could be arguable.
Whether or not this all would hopd up? Iunno. That'd be for courts to decide. It's merely how I judge this. Not saying I'm right!
Disparition_2022 t1_j5mh01k wrote
>Ahh, but that is the beauty of law. I'm certain I could register as an archive or library if I had a certain number of books, allowed public access, etc. With the small scale here i'd say it could be arguable.
You wouldn't have to allow public access, there are plenty of private archives. I used to work at a university library that had one. But there is definitely a difference between an archive and a random private collection of books. The issue is not the number of books nor the degree of public access but rather the question of the historical nature of those books and the methods you use to preserve them (and the methods you make others use to read them. At the archive in the library where I worked, for example, everyone had to have gloves on at all times and no one was allowed to have a pen or any other kind of ink-containing device anywhere near a book while reading it). Also you can't just like, put a book on a normal shelf and call it an archive. Books age, paper yellows and gets brittle, etc. and archives are often specifically designed to counter or slow the effects of this aging. There's a whole science to it. (and fwiw you can't just "register as a library" either. You have to go to school and get a degree in library science to become a librarian, it's not trivial and it's certainly not the same thing as just being a person who owns a bunch of books and lets others borrow them)
Also, you'd have to have set all that stuff up *in advance* of making whatever extra copies you are entitled to as an archivist. The OP didn't mention anything about doing any of that stuff and has not indicated that they are an archivist of any kind.
Again, one person downloading (or making) one copy of one book is unlikely to end up in a courtroom at all, not because of what the law says but because it's incredibly unlikely any authority figure will ever know about it, so the question of whether it's legal is purely academic anyway, but I do think it's an interesting discussion. My issue is less with the OP's actions and more with your claim about the level of "access" that one purchase entitles you to.
scarletseasmoke t1_j5kozzm wrote
You could probably use some phone apps to make a digital "backup" pretty fast without even cutting the books. My guess is one payed app for easy high quality results or 2-3 free alternatives with a bit of extra effort. And those apps are important for accessibility until we have better solutions, because it's not however many years ago so we're not just telling disabled people they are SOOL.
Imo it's a very ethically grey area. So my vote is unethical for convenience, acceptable for accessibility if there's no better alternative (eg getting assistive devices like glasses).
NekuraHitokage t1_j5kphrs wrote
I don't think it's too grey. Personal use is acceptable. Redistribution is unethical.
I'd argue it to be more unethical to force someone to pay for the same thing twice just because the medium is different. Whther physical pages or digital text, the words don't change and the individual already paid for access to the words.
scarletseasmoke t1_j5kr1rq wrote
That's totally fair. But there's the person who has a book they want to read but needs a digital copy to do so, and then there's the person who seeks out the cheapest damaged copy of a book to exploit the backup copy laws of their country - if they download the same book from the same source for personal use the two of them both participate in redistribution the same way but it's not the same level of ethical.
NekuraHitokage t1_j5kutxf wrote
If we went full Minority Report we would have nothing. We cannot prevent the dishonest from being dishonest. We can only punish the dishonest after the fact. A dishinest person doesn't care about ethics. There are none. They do as they please and do anything to get what they desire. We cannot blanket out a simple binar ly switch of whether it is ethical or not. It is too nuanced. The billionaire that steals an apple os a criminal. The starving man that steals an apple is in dire need of help and cannot be blamed. Would he otherwise be condemned to death?
This is not as extreme, of course, but the same ideas can apply. The person who digs a copy out of the trash and goes "haha! Here's my access pass!" Is just as legitimate as the person who purchases it in my book... With some caveats...
The thing is, once that person throws away or sells their purchased copy, they have sood their access. It is the person who sold that tattered copy that now needs to be sure they have no further copies. If they do, they've now copied for redistribution. Doesn't matter that they're selling the original, they've still essentially stolen a copy by gaining access, making a copy, then revoking access while keeping the copy.
The vast majority will be honest.
Are we so worried about that one person costing an author the $15 they were never going to get from that person anyway that we would hover, paranoid, over the shoulder of every person that would want to follow the rules?
After all, in your scenario, they are buying a damaged, presumably used book... So the money doesn't go back to the author or the publisher anyway. It goes to the original purchaser who is now reselling something not meant for resale and making money off of someone else's work after they have already consumed it. If anything, selling the original after consumption and damage is now the unethical thing. At least the person that bought the ruined copy tried to pay for it! They did not steal it outright, they legitimately purchased a copy that the reseller valued at a lower dollar amount.
The vast majority are people like OP. They just want their own personal use copy. They have every means to make their own personal use copy. If someone else already did it the only ethical "break" perhaps is that they are using the shorter road instead of putting in the effort of copying it themselves.
And those two are not participating in redistribution. Only one would be on technicality because the one who purchased an illegible copy does not have that same ability to make their own copy. There it does become greyer, but only because it is indeed being downloaded from an outside source and is not a perfect copy of the exact book in their hands. They are aiding in someone else's redistribution, but their downloading it doesn't change if it was there or not. It was already redistributed illegally.
They have a full, readable copy and could copy it themselves. Thus, I feel it is ethically ok to download a copy that has already been digitalized since it is essentially a shortcut of something they could do themselves.
The person with an illegible book does not have this same ability and, thus, hits one of those caveats on ownership I was speaking of.
Ownership is becoming muddier by default these days anyway. With streaming, digital distribution and other such things it actually is the access you pay for. If I buy a book on Kindle, i have purchased the right to access that book on any Kindle device or App. I do not own any part of that book, even a physical copy... So if I print it for my own use, that is just... Access. Access that can actually be revoked at any time, unlike a physical copy.
The second I give a copy to someone else I break ethics.
whydoesyourbedsmell OP t1_j5mq3bp wrote
The issue of "what is owning something in the modern day?" Or "whether the second hand book market is ethical?" are not quite the issues I expected to come from this question. I suppose however, that the vast interconnectedness of the world, is part of what makes ethics fun to discuss in the first place.
Remembering to properly delete any digital copies if I ever give up, sell, lose, or otherwise damage the original book. Thus maintaining that as my "book access pass" is basically the take I've gotten from this?
Is it stealing to pirate a book, or is it abelist and classist to prevent someone who needs it, from getting the kind of book they need.(a bit of an exaggeration of those terms I know.) To have the right to a service, someone else must be obliged to provide it. If making and maintaining a book in brail is more labour intensive, then you should charge more to compensate the labourer. If being born blind makes books more expensive then isn't that injust?
I'd say it's both which is why I asked for further insight. I believe that authors should be properly compensated for their work, and that I shouldn't have to pay for secondary copies of books I already own to correct a health issue. These are conflicting beliefs and thus both buying E versions and pirating the books will cause cognitive dissonance.
whydoesyourbedsmell OP t1_j5mj96b wrote
That's definitely a way of looking at it. I did photo copy a book I couldn't read about a year ago when this all started. It was a short book and still took long enough that I'm not game to go again. I did not feel any moral issue in that action.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments