6 ms·

As a lawyer, I can't recommend it, but I absolutely cannot discern any moral difference whatsoever between reading a library book for free and purchasing it lat

by jrm4 4y ago

As a lawyer, I can't recommend it, but I absolutely cannot discern any moral difference whatsoever between reading a library book for free and purchasing it later if I like it, and doing the same first thing by downloading the ebook from somewhere "unapproved." It's all very silly.

pacaro 4y ago
And many libraries have an ebook lending service too
- couchand 4y ago
  Subject to numerous senseless restrictions!
hansvm 4y ago
If the majority of customers for a given book are libraries and whatnot then it's no longer viable to make such a work. Mind you, I still think the whole thing is broken at its core and that we'd be better off if it were abolished, but would that sort of major change in incentives qualify as a moral difference?
- visarga 4y ago
  The internet 'hates copyright', it wants to link everything up. Search hates copyright, can't work unless everything is open to indexing. Now the AI hates it even more, gobbling up everything ever written or imaged and creating derivatives at the click of a button. I don't think copyright has a future, the general trend is against it. Graphical artists have already realised it only takes a second to imitate any style or content. What's the point of copyrighting a book when anyone can generate any text just for their own use, when it's so cheap and fast we throw away the result after one use?
dfxm12 4y ago
If a book (even an ebook) is in the library, it's already bought and paid for so the author gets whatever compensation they get as if it is a normal sale. I don't think arguing morals makes sense because of how subjective one's morals are, but, by using libraries, you are supporting the arts, whether you liked the book or not, and this is not a silly distinction.
- elil17 4y ago
  If my local library already owns the book and it is not checked out, what is the difference between driving there to check it out and downloading it illegally online? The impact to the author is the same: absolutely nothing.
  - bitxbitxbitcoin 4y ago
    Arguably, the environmental impact of downloading it is less than driving to the library to check it out.
    - komali2 4y ago
      ok swap out driving there for using libby / overdrive to check out the ebook from the library
      - bitxbitxbitcoin 4y ago
        Arguably, the carbon footprint of those companies having to exist in the first place…
  - akerl_ 4y ago
    Libraries use checkout frequency to determine which books to stock and which books to stock more of. The more an author's books are checked out of a library, the more likely that library is to buy more copies of that book, as well as more copies of other books by that author.
  - hodgesrm 4y ago
    As the previous commenter has already said, the author has been paid already in the first case. That's a material difference.
    - notch656a 4y ago
      It blows my mind that in a hypercapitalist society like the US, that copyrights still exist. Copyrights are a massive violation of property rights, criminalizing merely observing something and independently reproducing it with your own private materials for your own non-commercial use. IMO it shakes to the core free market, capitalist, and founding principles of our nation.
neilv 4y ago
I think you described one scenario that's not representative of all the issues, and then a reader might accidentally think the "it's all very silly" is the takehome message for all the issues. Also, as a lawyer, couldn't you come up with some a decent counterargument re moral differences, if you had to?
fortran77 4y ago
Oh it's stealing. Someone wants to get paid for the work, and they're entitled to get paid. I think people who know it's stealing, but are willing to download books anyway because of their personal risk/reward calculation (or perhaps they dislike the author and don't mind stealing from him!), have an intact moral compass: They know right from wrong. I wonder about people who try to rationalize the crime of book-stealing away. Do they know right from wrong? I won't judge people who decide to steal books, but I don't like those who try to argue it's not theft.
- majjgepolja 4y ago
  Some technical books are too costly for students, especially in third world countries.
  - fortran77 4y ago
    So they steal them. Sometimes you need to do what you need to do in order to survive. I'm just saying you shouldn't try to argue that it's "not stealing" if you decide the reward is greater than the risk, or the net benefit exceeds the transgression.
    - sgc 4y ago
      It's obviously not exactly the same as stealing, since you are only denying the person one very specific use of their "property" (which only recently has been artificially made property, through copyright laws). That specific use you are denying them is not the right of sale even, but the right of a monopoly on distribution. Of course, if it starts materially affecting the person's capacity to live a reasonable lifestyle, then it becomes a different moral issue, and there is still a moral judgment to be made regardless, but that is not the same thing at all as conflating unauthorized copying, which widens possession in a way that could potentially have averse effects, and the absolute of theft, which changes it in a zero sum way, and necessarily has averse effects. As one example, I know a guy who pays for online streaming subscriptions, but still pirates to not be forced through a crappy experience because people are attempting to extract the last penny and get as rich as possible through spying and ads, tiers of resolution, device restrictions, etc. I see no reason why there is any moral issue with bypassing their chosen distribution monopoly, especially because they are not starving. I strongly disagree with the tenet that extreme capitalistic gain is a right, and thus cannot consider intellectual property rights as such an absolute. Now, if one is to download something that someone earning a modest living made, and which has a real material impact on them providing for a reasonably comfortable life for themselves and their family, personally I consider that a problem, but that is quite rare (not least of all because smaller content producers are usually being exploited and making very little from distribution). It's not the likely case even with just a modicum of awareness in what and when you decide to download something.
wodenokoto 4y ago
American libraries don’t pay for their books?
- quercetumMons 4y ago
  How did you get that from that comment?
bawolff 4y ago
The difference is we had the library debate back in the 1800s, which is so long ago that people have forgotten it was once as controversial to publishers as ebooks are now.
galleywest200 4y ago
I pay for my access to library books with my taxes.
jjtheblunt 4y ago
Concurrency: a single library book with a wait list would drive further sales, unbounded digital downloads would not.

by jrm4 4y ago

pacaro 4y ago

And many libraries have an ebook lending service too

couchand 4y ago
Subject to numerous senseless restrictions!

hansvm 4y ago

If the majority of customers for a given book are libraries and whatnot then it's no longer viable to make such a work. Mind you, I still think the whole thing is broken at its core and that we'd be better off if it were abolished, but would that sort of major change in incentives qualify as a moral difference?

visarga 4y ago
The internet 'hates copyright', it wants to link everything up. Search hates copyright, can't work unless everything is open to indexing. Now the AI hates it even more, gobbling up everything ever written or imaged and creating derivatives at the click of a button. I don't think copyright has a future, the general trend is against it. Graphical artists have already realised it only takes a second to imitate any style or content. What's the point of copyrighting a book when anyone can generate any text just for their own use, when it's so cheap and fast we throw away the result after one use?

dfxm12 4y ago

If a book (even an ebook) is in the library, it's already bought and paid for so the author gets whatever compensation they get as if it is a normal sale. I don't think arguing morals makes sense because of how subjective one's morals are, but, by using libraries, you are supporting the arts, whether you liked the book or not, and this is not a silly distinction.

elil17 4y ago
If my local library already owns the book and it is not checked out, what is the difference between driving there to check it out and downloading it illegally online? The impact to the author is the same: absolutely nothing.
- bitxbitxbitcoin 4y ago
  Arguably, the environmental impact of downloading it is less than driving to the library to check it out.
  - komali2 4y ago
    ok swap out driving there for using libby / overdrive to check out the ebook from the library
    - bitxbitxbitcoin 4y ago
      Arguably, the carbon footprint of those companies having to exist in the first place…
- akerl_ 4y ago
  Libraries use checkout frequency to determine which books to stock and which books to stock more of. The more an author's books are checked out of a library, the more likely that library is to buy more copies of that book, as well as more copies of other books by that author.
- hodgesrm 4y ago
  As the previous commenter has already said, the author has been paid already in the first case. That's a material difference.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    It blows my mind that in a hypercapitalist society like the US, that copyrights still exist. Copyrights are a massive violation of property rights, criminalizing merely observing something and independently reproducing it with your own private materials for your own non-commercial use. IMO it shakes to the core free market, capitalist, and founding principles of our nation.

neilv 4y ago

I think you described one scenario that's not representative of all the issues, and then a reader might accidentally think the "it's all very silly" is the takehome message for all the issues. Also, as a lawyer, couldn't you come up with some a decent counterargument re moral differences, if you had to?

fortran77 4y ago

Oh it's stealing. Someone wants to get paid for the work, and they're entitled to get paid. I think people who know it's stealing, but are willing to download books anyway because of their personal risk/reward calculation (or perhaps they dislike the author and don't mind stealing from him!), have an intact moral compass: They know right from wrong. I wonder about people who try to rationalize the crime of book-stealing away. Do they know right from wrong? I won't judge people who decide to steal books, but I don't like those who try to argue it's not theft.

majjgepolja 4y ago
Some technical books are too costly for students, especially in third world countries.
- fortran77 4y ago
  So they steal them. Sometimes you need to do what you need to do in order to survive. I'm just saying you shouldn't try to argue that it's "not stealing" if you decide the reward is greater than the risk, or the net benefit exceeds the transgression.
  - sgc 4y ago
    It's obviously not exactly the same as stealing, since you are only denying the person one very specific use of their "property" (which only recently has been artificially made property, through copyright laws). That specific use you are denying them is not the right of sale even, but the right of a monopoly on distribution. Of course, if it starts materially affecting the person's capacity to live a reasonable lifestyle, then it becomes a different moral issue, and there is still a moral judgment to be made regardless, but that is not the same thing at all as conflating unauthorized copying, which widens possession in a way that could potentially have averse effects, and the absolute of theft, which changes it in a zero sum way, and necessarily has averse effects. As one example, I know a guy who pays for online streaming subscriptions, but still pirates to not be forced through a crappy experience because people are attempting to extract the last penny and get as rich as possible through spying and ads, tiers of resolution, device restrictions, etc. I see no reason why there is any moral issue with bypassing their chosen distribution monopoly, especially because they are not starving. I strongly disagree with the tenet that extreme capitalistic gain is a right, and thus cannot consider intellectual property rights as such an absolute. Now, if one is to download something that someone earning a modest living made, and which has a real material impact on them providing for a reasonably comfortable life for themselves and their family, personally I consider that a problem, but that is quite rare (not least of all because smaller content producers are usually being exploited and making very little from distribution). It's not the likely case even with just a modicum of awareness in what and when you decide to download something.

wodenokoto 4y ago

American libraries don’t pay for their books?

quercetumMons 4y ago
How did you get that from that comment?

bawolff 4y ago

The difference is we had the library debate back in the 1800s, which is so long ago that people have forgotten it was once as controversial to publishers as ebooks are now.

galleywest200 4y ago

I pay for my access to library books with my taxes.

jjtheblunt 4y ago

Concurrency: a single library book with a wait list would drive further sales, unbounded digital downloads would not.