![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
E-book ethics
Here's an interesting question – I would not normally consider giving somebody else a copy of an e-book that I have bought. However, what if it is a book that I didn't like? If it were a paper book, I would have no hesitation in passing it on.
In this case, I bought a gay romance – which is reasonably well-written – but when I got well into the plot, it turned out to feature zombies. The zombies were not mentioned in the blurb, and I would not have bought the book if they had been.
Is it therefore ethical to give someone else a copy of my DRM free e-book – assuming that there is anyone out there who actually wants to read a gay romance featuring zombies…
no subject
There's probably a legal reason why it shouldn't be done, but that's because the law's messed up, part of the point of pushing for DRM free stuff is to allow people to sell on, or give away, their property once they're done with it.
Publishing houses don't like it for the same reason publishers tried to block 2nd hand bookshops and similar.
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
When it's pure data, it's logical that we just make copies. The problem with this is that it's unfair on the author. Deleting your own copy doesn't feel as though it makes it any more fair on the author, since if one keeps it, there's presumably not a lot of chance that anyone would read it. And we end up with a bizarre situation where we only actually share things that aren't any good rather than sharing things that deserve to be shared.
Don't really have a solution. This is more a ramble to the effect that digital copies being different from physical copies is something that more people need to think about because I don't think the current way of thinking about things is really the best way to balance the rights of the author and the reader.
no subject
So many of these gay romances include werewolves, zombies and vampires, and all of them bore me stiff. I can just about cope with well done ghosts, or magic powers.
no subject
no subject
The main quibble I would have with the position would be if it cost noticeably less than a dead tree equivalent of the same publication, because if it did then I think in choosing to spend the lower amount on the purchase of the tale one of the things you were choosing not to pay for was the right to pass the publication on when you're done. The fact that you (IIRC) bought an e version due to it being more readable by you in that format would be irrelevant to that quibble.
Legally definitely not, but you know that. And it is where as a librarian I have a big problem with the shifting of publications to e versions, because rarely does the price reflect the fact that such a shift actually comes with restrictions on usage that a physical object does not come with.
no subject
no subject
'Do I feel the book was sold at a sufficiently high price that it's pretty much what I would expect to have paid for a dead tree edition of same if it was available in that format' sort of a thing. If it cost £5 or less then probably not moral. If it cost £7 or more then probably I'd be comfortable feeling that I had been asked to buy a book, regardless if it was delivered to me in hard or soft copy. £5-7 being middle ground for me to decide based on the length. All price bars being adjustable to reflect any given individual's knowledge of a book and it's marketplace and the popularity of the author (the latter being a factor more for 'this person is popular enough that if they were being published in hard copy then the time frame when I bought the book is in that time frame when it's non-existant dead tree edition would have been a hard back', because that moves the price bars more than other factors).
I'm improvising here, but does that make sense?
no subject
It costs less than 5 pounds, but I think that was mainly because of its length.
no subject
Copying it and giving to someone else would be unethical (and illegal of course).
no subject
It's unethical. You bought the book on a certain agreement, your agreed with it, so you are going back on your word by doing something else. You know this, because if you didn't, then you wouldn't have asked the question.
My ebook is DRM free, so... was that a mistake?
no subject
Mind you I say if it was rubbish and the blurb was misleading them fuck 'em :D
no subject
no subject
"It's unethical. You bought the book on a certain agreement, your agreed with it, so you are going back on your word by doing something else."
No, what's unethical (and probably not legally enforceable) is the sort of nonsense that you find in End User Licence Agreements: "By buying this/ downloading this/ clicking on this you accept a whole load of BS which we will try to use to intimidate you into thinking that your normal legal rights do not apply"!
The only reason that software companies, e-book companies and the like have never tried to enforce such EULAs is that they don't dare, because they'll most likely find case after case being thrown out of court as being in breach of established rights or simply not enforceable in the jurisdiction of the person they're trying to use it against.
PS The EULA of this message says that by reading it you agree to send me £100. I can take cash, cheque or credit cards ;-)
no subject
However, their 'wrong' doesn't excuse other wrongs. The correct response to EULAs is not to buy the product and tell the supplier why. (And I couldn't agree with your EULA because you didn't supply an opt out.)
Just because the various EULAs are un-policeable, doesn't mean they can be flouted. Not legally enforceable doens't mean ethical. (They probably are legally enforceable, I bet lawyers wrote them, but it's not financially viable because those same lawyers charge a lot.)
Everyone was agreeing so I did decide to play Devil's Advocate, but I think my points are fair.
no subject
EULAs in England and Wales would most likely be subjet to the Unfair Contract Terms Act which basically says that one party to the contract cannot insist on terms applicable to the other party which are not similarly applicable to them, so simply saying "these are the terms on which you buy our product, take it or leave it" is not acceptable.
And I beg to differ, an EULA which is not legally enforceable is not ethical for the same reason of it being an Unfair Contract, trying to force the consumer to accept terms which are in breach of their established rights.
no subject
I didn't mean to say that an EULA is ethical. I don't think they are.
Is it that we all do this? Digital material is easy to copy and copyright increasingly impossible to police, so we all do it and thus are we simply making up ethical frameworks to justify ourselves?
If I'm selling five beans and demand a cow, then that's unethical because you are over pricing. If you then run off with five beans saying "ha, ha, you were unethical, so I'm not going to pay anything" then perhaps I deserved it, but you are still stealing.
no subject
How much it does or doesn't harm/benefit the author, the publisher or the wellbeing of the world in general, and other such considerations of expediency, are academic. You shouldn't buy things under restrictive licence agreements if you don't intend to abide by them.
no subject
The marvels of the interweb is someone will read the licence, blog about it and raise a storm that causes the provider to change their ways, all with me doing nothing.
no subject
no subject
1) Arbitary restrictions imposed by seller, which are unenforeceable. EULAs, Terms and conditions etc
2) Contract Law which trumps 1
3) Criminal Law which works with 2
4) Ethics.
99% of the population have never studied 1-3, and most couldn't understand how its formulated anyway, so they rely on 4
1-2 don't matter for most transactions, where the damages shouldn't exceed the purchase price. You employ a professional when buying a house to check things, and might want to worry about terms when buying a new car or building an extension, but otherwise life's too short.
3 matters if a lot if you get it wrong, but the current system does a fair job of only stiffing the dodgy
4 is what matters day-to-day, in loads of micro transactions, controlling our self-esteem through guilt. But what feels 'right' may have no relation to 1-3.
But its that pit-of-the-stomach feeling that matters in life, and that's were the right to deal with our possessions rests. And it feels right to me to pass on something I've bought to others, free or charged, provided genuinely relinquish it.
no subject
However people in those countries have problem opting out. You can opt out of EULAs by not buying the product.
A lot of certain individual's pit-of-the-stomach feelings are just plain wrong. e.g. The Angels told me to murder him.
I've a 'gut feeling' that some of this does sound to me like rationalisation. Sorry, but it does.
no subject
I'm not really that conscience-bothered about the minor wrong of passing on an unread e-book, and would probably do it without a qualm. But I would never consider evading income tax on my earnings, for example. Yet plenty of other people seem to be able to do that quite cheerfully.
So I think advocating use of those 'it feels right' feelings as the chief guidelines for behaviour is potentially a bit societally risky.
no subject
I think for big things we need the guidance of the law, but
no subject
no subject
(I've not heard TFTD for a decade now, and feel so much better for it!)
no subject
But as
Of course, it's unethical for publishers to try and sneak (arguably) unfair agreements past lazy users. But two wrongs don't make a right, as the wise old sage (my mum) used to say.
no subject
no subject
The passing on of unwanted books may increase subsequent sales. That author won't sell to you again, but the recipient might
So go ahead
no subject
no subject
no subject