Piracy

[rgard]

From what I understand (and just looked up at copyright.gov), you can transfer formats of media so that you can use said product on various devices in your house. Specifically CD to MP3 was mentioned as being legal, so long as it all remains in your sole possession. Whether books are covered or not explicitly, the implicit reasoning says that you could print out a PDF and store the hardcopy on your shelf (for when you go off the grid), or you could personally transfer the medium from the book to your computer (say, by scanning), but under law you cannot receive a product, even if you own it in another form, if that form was obtained or distributed illegally.

Owning a pdf of the PHB that you downloaded from Mininova, even if you own the hard copy, is technically illegal.

Yep. Folks tend to ignore (see the last couple of posts) the last part.

 

[Mercutio01]

The Constitution gives you a time limited monopoly on your work in exchange for you allowing it to enter the public domain. As it stands now, nothing you write will enter the public domain until 90 some years after your death.

70 technically. That's to give your direct offspring the rights to also profit from your work, which when you think about it, makes perfect sense. That's for any work printed after 1978. Based on a quick read, the Disney problem comes about under "work-for-hire" and doesn't expire for 95 years from first publication or 120 years from creation. That also applies to "anonymous" or "pseudonymous" creations. Even weirder is that that doesn't actually apply to Steamboat Willie because it was created pre-1978. Disney can only hold that copyright until 2045 (67 years from 1978)

 

[Krensky]

70 technically. That's to give your direct offspring the rights to also profit from your work, which when you think about it, makes perfect sense. That's for any work printed after 1978. Based on a quick read, the Disney problem comes about under "work-for-hire" and doesn't expire for 95 years from first publication or 120 years from creation. That also applies to "anonymous" or "pseudonymous" creations. Even weirder is that that doesn't actually apply to Steamboat Willie because it was created pre-1978. Disney can only hold that copyright until 2045 (67 years from 1978)

All of which is way too long. About 50 or 60 years too long. But this isn't the venue or topic to discuss that.

 

[Rel]

are you talking about apples and oranges who quoted the NRA? Seriously...

Well i hope you protest about the death sentences in the US 100x compared to the energy you invest in this discussion here, as it is a trillion times more immoral then "stealing" IP.

I think all know that downloading a 4e pdf which you have not bought is bad, but in the end it all sums up about what you did after you did that thing. 8% did the wrong thing - the rest is ok with me. And as i am the one dictating myself whats moral and not - i can sleep like a baby.

The "No Politics" rule is there for a reason.

 

[Asmor]

You would be paying for two different products; one hard copy, one digital. If you want a digital version and the hardcopy version, (but don't want to pay for the digital version) you can always type what you need into a word document. That falls under fair use.

Thanks,
Rich

So let's say I bought the PDF. Are you saying it would be wrong of me to print the book out?

 

[Mercutio01]

Not in my opinion, and it appears to be backed up by the DMCA and copyright laws in general. I posited the very thing a few posts back. The law says you can transfer media from one format to another for your own personal use. But you can't give away the hard copy. If you do, then you're no longer protected under fair use and are in violation of copyright law. The question was asked about, so what difference does it make if I download it rather than scan the book myself? The law is clear on that too. Transmission of copyrighted material without the copyright owner's consent is violation of copyright law. So you have a right to own the book in whatever medium you choose, but you don't have the right to illegally obtain said medium just because you own the hard copy. The law assumes that you don't traffic in illegal goods. And if you distribute any copy of the book you have, you have to transmit all of them or else destroy any other copy.

This is the essence of book returns to the printer and book destruction. That's why you're not supposed to buy hard cover books that have been marked for destruction (usually a black mark on the top or bottom of the pages) or a paperback with the cover torn off. Those books were marked for destruction and the publisher considers them destroyed. Any reselling of those books is in violation of copyright because the author and publisher assume they are not being sold. Therefore royalties aren't being transmitted up the line, etc.

 

[rgard]

So let's say I bought the PDF. Are you saying it would be wrong of me to print the book out?

No. Not saying that.

 

[Asmor]

So let's say I bought the PDF. Are you saying it would be wrong of me to print the book out?

No. Not saying that.

Ok, wonderful!

So then I have only payed for the digital version of the book, but now possess both a digital and print copy of it.

How is this fundamentally different from me buying the hard copy and then downloading the PDFs? In that case, I've paid for the print version of the book and possess both a digital and print copy of it.

 

[Echohawk]

So then I have only payed for the digital version of the book, but now possess both a digital and print copy of it.

No, you have paid for the digital version, and printed (at your own cost and effort) a paper copy of it.

How is this fundamentally different from me buying the hard copy and then downloading the PDFs? In that case, I've paid for the print version of the book and possess both a digital and print copy of it.

If you had created a digital version from your own print copy (at your own cost and effort), then the comparison would be the same. But that's not what you are describing here. If you want a digital version, and you don't want to create it yourself, then you need to pay for it for it to be legal.

 

[Asmor]

No, you have paid for the digital version, and printed (at your own cost and effort) a paper copy of it.

I also downloaded the PDF at my own cost (internet service/bandwidth) and effort (finding it).

Cost and effort are completely irrelevant to the situation.

If you had created a digital version from your own print copy (at your own cost and effort), then the comparison would be the same. But that's not what you are describing here. If you want a digital version, and you don't want to create it yourself, then you need to pay for it for it to be legal.

I completely concede that it's not legal. I've conceded that point for a while. I also don't care about what's legal and what's not. So I ask you this: what is the ethical difference between me scanning a book myself and my downloading the same book?

Let's take a whole new hypothetical situation. Let's say some fictional company called Sorcerers of the Heartland puts out The World's Simplest RPG (WSRPG). WSRPG is so simple, in fact, that it takes up only a single side of a single piece of paper.

WSRPG is available for purchase both as a PDF or as a piece of paper. And, of course, since WSRPG is so popular, it's also widely pirated and easy to find for anyone who cares to look.

Which of the following situations would you consider morally acceptable?

1. I purchase the WSRPG PDF. I print it out, which takes negligible effort and cost, and have something which is indistinguishable from the official dead tree version.

2. I purchase the sheet of paper WSRPG. I scan it in, which again takes negligible effort and cost, and have something which is indistinguishable from the official PDF version.

3. I purchase the sheet of paper WSRPG. I download a pirated copy of the official PDF, which is indistinguishable from the scan I could have theoretically made instead.