« Hymns to Stalin  •  Do you like my new look? »

Legal or ethical? A question about copyright violation

July 24, 2007 in Interesting, but otherwise unclassifiable by markk

Borrowing Harry Potter at the library: LEGAL

Reading the whole thing at Borders over a cup of coffee: LEGAL

Downloading “Deathly Hallows” via BitTorrent: ILLEGAL

All of the above actions are essentially the same, yet two of them are legal while the other is not. So while the law is split, presumably the ethics of each action are the same. All of them do not involve a purchase on my part. All of them presume that someone else is buying the product, while I get a free ride.

I’m not about to reveal whether or not I did any of the above, but perhaps you can figure it out :D

My question to you: Which, if any, of the above actions are ethical?

POSTSCRIPT: On being told of my reading Harry Potter, a friend of mine exclaimed “You Satan-worshipping freak!”

These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Netscape

12 comments

Comments feed for this article

July 24, 2007 at 12:52 pm

benjamin

I think maybe the issue is are you going to make money from your copy of something. It goes for pretty much any kind of piracy I think. If I rent a DVD and copy it so I can watch it again some other time without re-renting it I don’t think anyone is going to care. It’s when I go down to the markets and try to sell my burned copies with dodgy photocopied covers that the law starts to take an interest.

Oh, and why is everyone is love with Harry? I tried to read the first book and I just couldn’t get into it. Is it just me?

July 24, 2007 at 7:25 pm

markk

The reason I read Harry is because everyone else does. But because everyone else does, it becomes necessary to read it as quickly as possible before someone else can spoil it for you.

I stayed up til 3AM two nights in a row in order to finish it.

I found the books entertaining, and much better written than past childrens book fads such as Goosebumps or Choose Your Own Adventure, or schlock thrillers such as The Da Vinci Code or Left Behind.

Choose Your Own Adventure was a lot of fun though.

July 24, 2007 at 8:59 pm

Pete Aldin

I like the irony of the three ways of getting through the material. Good point.

July 25, 2007 at 9:58 am

Irvine Mortgage

Copyrights are all a little finicky in my opinion. It’s almost like hiding a scientific discovery…someone’s going to find out about it. What these companies should really do is find a way to profit from copyright infringement…like the RIAA setting up it’s own version of Napster with advertisements and everything. People are going to do it and you’re not going to stop them, might as well jump on the wagon.

July 25, 2007 at 10:09 am

Mat

1. Erm… authors receive

a) Royalties from sales to libraries

and

b) Royalties from all library borrowing.

2. What was that? Over a coffee? Reading a copy that Borders has already paid for? So

1) Author already receives royalties

2) Borders also receives indirect compensation through the coffees it would take to get through the book

So your point is false, because the first two examples can CLEARLY not be compared to your Bit Torrent efforts.

There. I win. This comment has been so devastating that it’s almost post worthy.

July 25, 2007 at 4:09 pm

markk

While copyright has its flaws, I’d rather have copyright than not have it, as it allows a huge amount of music, films and books to flourish that we wouldn’t have otherwise.

Better what we have than China, where piracy rules and there is practically no local music industry. I read somewhere that only 12 CDs were commercially released by the Chinese music industry last year. 12! I don’t know the figure for any western countries, but it would be in the thousands.

July 25, 2007 at 4:19 pm

markk

Devastating, eh Mat? We shall see.

1. Authors do indeed receive compensation for having their books in libraries. But how much compensation? Under the “Public Lending Right” scheme, authors receive $1.40 for each copy of their books in a library. So if that book is then borrowed 50 times, that’s only 3c per reader!

For more info on the PLR scheme go to http://www.dcita.gov.au/arts_culture/arts/lending_rights/public_lending_rights_guidelines_for_claimants

2. I think you’ll find Borders would prefer customers to read only a few chapters over a cup of coffee, and then buy the book to take home.

I could also point out that most works uploaded to BitTorrent were purchased legally by the uploader.

Mat, consider yourself owned.

July 26, 2007 at 9:47 am

themolk

Where did my comment go? My defining commment that would have ceased this infernal navel gazing? SIGH… some people are obviously too busy with their “new look and feel”…

July 26, 2007 at 10:38 am

markk

Dunno, molk. Try submitting it again.

August 4, 2007 at 1:14 am

Las Vegas Personal Injury Lawyer

Actually a very simple issue. It is all about ownership and not consumption. When you are downloading a book you are transferring ownership of said material.