Over the weekend, the New York Times “Ethicist” wrote a rather controversial post defending the ethics of illegally downloading an e-book when you own the hardcover.
The Ethicist writes:
Your subsequent downloading is akin to buying a CD, then copying it to your iPod. Buying a book or a piece of music should be regarded as a license to enjoy it on any platform. Sadly, the anachronistic conventions of bookselling and copyright law lag the technology. Thus you’ve violated the publishing company’s legal right to control the distribution of its intellectual property, but you’ve done no harm or so little as to meet my threshold of acceptability.
Aside from being quite surprised that Ethicists are in the habit of encouraging people to break the law, I found this to be an astounding and irresponsible response.
It’s one thing for an Ethicist to remind a reader that they are within their ethical (and though I’m not a lawyer, likely legal) rights to create their own e-book by scanning their book into a computer strictly for personal and not-for-profit use. This is the proper CD-ripping analogy. It’s taking something you own and converting it to another format through your own time and effort, whether that’s making an electronic file or taking a book apart to wallpaper your house.
The fact is, buying a hardcover (or CD or DVD or paperback) does not grant someone the right to own a work in all platforms in perpetuity. I mean, this: “Buying a book or a piece of music should be regarded as a license to enjoy it on any platform” is an extraordinarily sweeping opinion. Any platform? Should we get the paperback for free when we buy the hardcover? Should we be able to get into the movie for free when we own the paperback? Those are just different platforms, right? Should I have shoplifted the DVDs when I switched over from my VHS collection? What exactly are we talking about here?
An e-book is a fundamentally different product than a hardcover – it’s searchable, it’s electronic, it’s portable, it doesn’t weigh anything. It allows you to do things that you can’t do with a hardcover. Not everyone obviously thinks it’s an improvement, but I think we can all agree that it’s a different product. They may be the same words, but it most definitely is not the same thing.
It may seem like it’s a trivial distinction to make when the resulting file from scanning yourself vs. pirating a book is potentially almost the same, but that’s where the line between ethical/legal and unethical/illegal is drawn for a reason. In the first version, you’re adding the value yourself through your own effort (just as taking notes in your own margins adds a form of value). By downloading a file illegally you’re misappropriating that added value from the only people (the publisher and author and e-booksellers) who are legally and ethically entitled to profit from it. That’s why we have copyright law. That’s where we’ve chosen to draw the line.
This is all completely setting aside the question of whether publishers should bundle hardcovers and e-books for sale – lots of people have expressed a desire for a situation where you, say, pay $2 or $4 or however much more for a hardcover and get the e-book for free. It’s a great idea! I suspect the fact that isn’t yet possible for most books is because of the logistical challenges involved, but it’s one that I hope publishers will continue to explore (see Joseph Selby’s comment for more background, and Mayowa points out that B&N has announced they would experiment with bundling).
But the fact that it’s not yet possible as a matter of course doesn’t then justify theft – I mean, I personally think it’s a great idea for supermarkets to sell peanut butter and jelly together for a discount, but if my local supermarket doesn’t do this it doesn’t mean I get to shoplift the jelly.
This is also setting aside the justifications people come up with when it comes to piracy – that people buy more when they pirate, that piracy does not necessarily equal loss of sale, that stealing a digital product is not the same thing as stealing a tangible object etc. etc. Look: we live in a society where the seller gets to determine the terms of sale. If it really is financially advantageous to allow things to be readily available for free or very cheaply or unencumbered with DRM let the sellers (the publishers and the authors and booksellers) make that decision. If it’s better financially for the parties involved, let the market move in that direction. Support the companies who have policies you like with your dollars, not through illegal activity.
The electronic era is full of possibility as well as potential downfalls, and I think we need to get past the idea that an electronic format is value-less relative to print. It has value. It is a different product. You can add that value yourself by converting something you bought, or you can pay for a new file.
If you’re stealing that value by downloading someone else’s e-book illegally: it’s copyright infringement.
It really is a matter of ethics. Oh. Also the law.
I think the bundle is a MUST. I love my DVDs that come with the digital download… and usually, that doesn't even cost more. Books could even come with a code so you could download digitally… save the CD or whatever it would go on.
However, I'm another photographer (I saw another up there) that HATES the idea that people think that if they buy one picture, they can reproduce it (in a crappy, crappy medium usually) and call it okay. It's so not the same thing!
And I think that if you have to steal the file to get it digital, then you should think, "hmm, I'm stealing" and that should be your big "DUH" moment 🙂
honestly if i've paid ÂŁ20 for a hardback i'm not going to have a crisis of conscience if i download a copy for my e-reader. same as if i've paid for a cd i don't think twice about downloading the same tracks. i've paid for it once, i'm not paying for it again. i think you're being pedantic by jumping on the "all platforms" part of the comment.
I like your VHS to DVD comparison best. E-books still have costs for production and distribution, and while some of it may overlap with the print edition (general editing, etc.) some may require additional work, warranting the additional cost.
Does copy editing and page formatting for an e-book differ from formatting for print?
I should probably ask Eric at Pimp My Novel that…
@Nathan: I also see what you're saying. I don't mean to impute absolutely pure motives to the street-corner bat replica guy. I'm sure the baseball bat company doesn't like him much, either. I just meant that this is something much more subtle and indirect than shop-lifting, and depends on whether or not the guy downloaded a product which could actually be bought.
The Ethicist does often distinguish between lawful and ethical behavior, which is valid. The question is, is it ethical to break the law if you don't agree with it? Society depends on voluntary compliance to function; it isn't possible to force everyone to behave all of the time. I figure, if I believe in my government, and want my fellow citizens to follow the laws I favor, then I don't get to pick which laws I follow based on my own ethical calculus. It's not that Civic Disobedience is never called for, but I think that to follow Thoreau, you need to be putting your ass on the line, not just excusing temptation. (I really want to copy the CD's I've checked out of the library. It would be so easy, no one would know…).
However, I'm certainly not a saint who's never copied a CD. Relying on control of distribution and consumer goodwill may become insufficient means to profit from books, when creating copies is so easy and feels so harmless. Publishers and artists will have to find new mechanisms to fund their art/product. I'm just afraid that I won't like the solution. Embedded advertisements? Product placement? Ug.
To those who get the ethical dimensions but still feel frustrated by the logistics of having to lug a thick book on the plane…doesn't it seem like there's a simpler solution than piracy or even waiting for an e-book to become available?
Maybe choose *a different book* to read on the plane? Such as one that's already available in either e- or paperback format? How hard is that? Maybe that book could be Daniel Goleman's Emotional Intelligence, which is all about how delayed gratification and patience are more important indicators of success in life than IQ.
Your thick book will be waiting for you when you get home…though why you haven't read it already is strange to me.
@anon 12:57:
You bring up an interesting point. If an eBook is not available for sale, but you bought the hardcopy, is downloading a pirate copy okay?
So I know that the Harry Potter books are not available as eBooks. If I download a pirated eBook, after having bought a hardcopy, am I right or wrong?
Or to put this a different way: do creators have the right to control the medium of the content?
I'm with the Ethicist on this one. I don't think it's fair for publishers to force someone to buy the same novel twice if they want it in multiple formats.
Okay, I get that there are production costs associated in creating the e-book. But those are not the bulk of the e-book's cost. The bulk of the e-book's cost is paying the author, agent, editor, copyeditor, etc., and if you've bought the hardcover, you've already paid for those once. Why should you have to pay for them again?
If you've already paid for the hardcover, the e-book should be available to you at a much lower price. Which makes the bundle deal a good idea.
Customers are very sensitive about feeling like they're getting a raw deal, and they are getting a raw deal if they buy a hardcover and then have to pay full price for the e-book.
Nathan 11:48 – yes, very nicely said!
Marilyn, thanks for bringing up Kohlberg's stages of moral development. Very apt.
I also want to add that I'm not sure how the argument that e-book theft doesn't deprive someone of a sale is relevant. If someone steals something from me that I wasn't even interested in selling, it's still theft.
I think you're talking damages, but the act of stealing is still the same.
@anon 1:02: I think this falls in the category of things which are ethically OK (albeit slightly unsavory) and legally probably not OK. I've been in the situation of really needing a particular book when I'm away at a conference in the middle of nowhere, a book that I own at home or could check out from my university library. In this circumstance, my conclusion is that it doesn't really harm anyone if I go ahead and download the pirated scanned copy.
Anon 1:25 if you illegally download my book, you are stealing from me.
You have harmed me.
Continuation of my previous comment re: downloading books at conferences: As a clarification, these are books that do not correspond to any e-book I could buy
Here is another way to look at the situation. If you own one television set, you do not have the right to simply take other televisions and say "I just wanted another set for somewhere else in my house. Don't worry, it's ok, I already own one."
If someone wants 2 copies of a product, they need to purchase 2 copies of that product.
Exactly! To continue the music analogy: if I buy the CD, I don't get to download the MP3 for free. As you said, if I want to put the time and effort into ripping an MP3 track from my purchased CD, that's fine, and I suppose I could create my own ebook with my print copy as well. But I don't get to buy the CD and then just get the MP3 from somewhere else for free. If I want it, and don't want to make it myself, I have to go to iTunes or some similar service. I don't think you even have to go into the VHS/DVD or book/movie comparisons. Go too far, and some will accuse you of comparing apples and oranges. The CD/MP3 analogy works fine.
I'm all for the bundle packages, the same way I like the DVD/digital copy or DVD/Bluray bundles. It costs a little more but I can get both formats. I don't see why it should be any different with books.
Anon @1:28 PM,
I agree with Mira. The problem is that, when you download a pirated eBook copy from an illegal site, you’re supporting a site that’s giving away authors’ work without permission. Authors and publishers work very hard to shut down these sites because they deprive the author and publisher of income every time they give away eBooks for free. J.K. Rowling has said that the main reason she doesn’t allow her books to be published in eBook format is because she then automatically knows when an illegal digital version has surfaced, since all digital versions of her books are illegal.
Illegal copying and shoplifting are not the same thing, for a variety of reasons that you appear to already know. The ways in which they are different are substantial and relevant to the discussion.
You actually weaken your argument when you conflate the two. You have a good point to make about the rights of creators and consumers, but if you use an improper analogy critics can focus on that without engaging the substance of your argument.
Suze,
I love that analogy. The first 3-D TVs are now being sold. They look very cool! I’m pretty sure stores won’t allow customers to just steal one because they already own a TV. 🙂
Gavin – arguing about whether shoplifting and copying are the same thing is not the point.
Shoplifting and downloading an e-book YOU HAVE NOT PAID FOR are exactly the same thing.
Whether you are stuffing a book under your jacket and sneaking it out of the store, or logging onto an illegal site and taking my e-book without paying me – you have stolen from me.
Suze – nice point.
Good point, Mira. And I’ll take that even one step further. Writers usually receive a much larger royalty on eBooks than on paperbacks or hardcovers, so in cases where an eBook version is pirated, writers lose significantly more income than they would if a paperback or hardcover version were stolen.
I'm not sure the morals changed so much. Remember recording tapes from LP's? They weren't for backing up your collection, you gave them away to your friends.
At university, we used to xerox whole books. Classes organized mass xeroxing of literature we had had to read. There was no *wink, wink* it's really my father's copy, no bad conscience about depriving authors and publishers their hard-earned bucks.
And do you remember these CD-burners with which you could make several copies at once? Did anybody assume the copies were for personal back-ups only?
The line between all right and illegal was a different one: it was okay if you gave it away, but if you sold your copies, you'd be persecuted.
With digital copies, the change is not so much with the ethic, but with the scale and the technical ease. I do understand that hacking into amazon and downloading an actual e-book is stealing, but what about the book someone scanned and uploaded to a peer-2-peer site for free? What's the different from xeroxing it?
Obviously, scale and ease do matter, and the music industry has already suffered because of it. But I don't think moralizing can be the end of it. The film, music, and book industry will have to find an solution to the problem that the individual copy of a piece of art has been greatly devalued with digitalization. Irrevocably.
Marilyn – That's an excellent point!
I think what you said about people feeling cheated and powerless against big corporations was totally on target.
But it's important to remember that when you steal a book you are not just 'getting back at' the corporation, you are hurting the author.
Most of us are authors here. How would you feel if you put all of that ridiculous amount of sweat, blood and tears into writing your book, not to mention querying, finding an agent, going through editing and publishing just to find out that people were stealing your book!
I'd feel just horrible.
And with that, I think I'd better stop. I'm way over my comment quota. 🙂
Thanks Nathan.
Mira-
I said that they were different in some respects. I did not say that they were both ethical actions.
You think that there's something unethical about a person reading your novel without permission. That is the core of your argument.
Here's a good way to look at it:
A. Taking someone's creative work: Unethical
B. Taking paper: Also unethical, but for different reasons
C. Taking a printed book: Doubly unethical, because it's both of the above
A and C aren't the same, and if we claim that they are, people will endlessly point out that they're not–and use that as ethical cover for doing A.
I agree with Nathan.
I'm shocked anyone would suggest the two things are the same, especially those who do eminent thinking for a living.
I did vinyl to Cassette to CD; can I get a refund?
As an e-book author I say, thank you Nathan!
My books don't come out in traditional print, just e-format, so what is my publisher supposed to do regarding bundling? There is no hardcover to stick a code or cd in. Does that make it okay for people to nick my work and deprive me of my and my publisher of our income? No, it does not! And whether you know it or not, or whether you agree with me or not, that is exactly what you are doing every time you download an e-book illegally. You want to talk ethics? Formats/platforms aside, if it is deemed by law to be illegal, you can pretty much guantee that it is also UNETHICAL!
Whoops – breaking my last comment rule –
Gavin, I get what you're saying. You don't want to give people an opening to distract from the point of the argument. I agree with that thought, for sure.
But I also think we are at a crucial moment of definition.
E-books are new. It's important to argue (I think) that paperless or not, a theft is a theft is a theft, and whether you stole two things (content and paper) or just one thing (content) doesn't really matter. A theft is a theft.
Not arguing it would cede the point, which is not a point that should be ceded, imho. Shoplifting is a term that I believe should be applied regardless of substance.
But that's my opinion. 🙂
Phyllis, ask the textbook companies how they feel about students standing around xeroing whole books.
Okay, really my last comment. Gavin, if you respond, I'll e-mail you my response.
I am a newbie to this sight and a novice/idiot in the technological world. Having a book in any form other than on paper does not excite nor interest me. I am probably strong enough to carry even a 2 lb. book, I don't do financial exchanges over the internet, my work is dirty and rough, in other words the technology doesn't fit. If this E-book/Kindle thing does become mainstream, I'll be one of the last to jump on the boat. A question for ya'll though, if you buy an E-book would you print it out for me and my friends and their friends so that we all can have a hard copy? From a economical stand point, which income brackets are buying books versus those who are actually buying/downloading/pirating e-books. Nobody I know owns nor has an interest in owning an E-reader. I read about 2500 pages a week, so yea $$$$ for books, and will continue this way of living. I am not against change, unless it is forced down my throat. You can take my printed copy of IN COLD BLOOD from me when you pry it from my cold dead hands. This may sound off the wall to those that are more technologically advanced than I but there is a limit to the gadgets the average American will handle. For instance, I don't text, twitter, nor Ipod. No blue tooth or black berry no palm pilot.
I guess my big question about all this hub-bub boils down to this, are electronic books actually going to push bound copies out of existence? If so, won't all those new self-publishing firms that the big publishing forms despise so badly be hurt. Which format/industry will actually prevail?
yea yea yea, I know comment was about pirating not format so here goes, pirating is bad, don't do it.
Yes, I have owned Dark Side of the Moon, on LP, 8 track, Cassette, and CD. No I have never, ever, ever thought about stealing it physically nor electronically, nor digitally. EVER.
This article made me think more about what do I buy exactly, when I make a purchase on i-Tunes (or potentially on a future i-Pad). Do I only buy the right to listen to or read the product in the format purchased?
For music, I tend to think I have bought the audio right to listen to that piece of music in that specific version/recording for my own personal use for all time – I have bought it on audio format – and whether it's on my Mac, i-Pod or in my car, I am still making use of my purchased right to the audio experience of the piece I bought – unchanged of itself.
If I buy an e-book, I am buying the right to read it as an e-book, making use of my purchased right to the electronic visual experience of the piece I bought – unchanged of itself.
As soon as I change the format ie: I print it even for myself, am I not infringing on the rights I bought?
The difficulty I have compounded in this e-book ownership understanding, is how the rights I purchased are 'temporary' with Kindle for example, since they can remove books I bought remotely at a later date.
Mira @2:17 PM,
Absolutely! I absolutely agree with you! I’ve had my books pirated, and it sucks. I definitely wasn’t justifying a lack of ethics against a person or corporation, even if that person or corporation is behaving unethically themselves. I was just trying to understand why there seems to be such widespread acceptance of bad behavior against certain public entities lately. When I read the Ethicist’s article yesterday that described a certain type of stealing as ethical, it started me wondering how we ever arrived at a point where an ethicist would be giving out such advice. I was rather shocked.
Steeling is steeling… but the choices need to be available so this doesn't happen to all the authors and publishers out there. Ethics are needed in this matter and saying it's okay to steel is just not right. It's like saying it's okay to steal a refill at the movies because you bought a popcorn last time you were there.
Nathan – you're right. Gavin and I are making fruit salad and arguing about apples vs. oranges. 🙂
Marilyn – I thought your point about why was very well spoken. And I'm sorry your book were stolen. Sorry, sorry, sorry.
I'm literally leaving the computer now.
Fascinating discussion. Thanks.
Turns out Barnes & Nobles is going to give the whole bundling (print and ebook) thing a GO.
Lets see how this turns out eh?
I wonder what NYT 'Ethicist' Randy Cohen's employers would say if we all started pirating and reselling New York Times subscription articles? Things could get messy. Like shoplifting jelly. Or wallpapering your house with the Kama Sutra.
I'm floored that the NYT — a newspaper, A NEWSPAPER!!! — would support The Ethicist's stance.
I'm not a subscriber to the New York Times, but I'd be interested to see how much of its content is posted online.
Does it offer a free e-subscription to readers who subscribe to its print edition?
It should. If this is the stance that its writers are going to take on this subject, then it should allow its print subscribers to download a readable PDF or JPEG of its entire edition online.
This is your best post ever, Nathan.
Thanks, Mayowa, hadn't seen that!
Nathan,
I still think it's clear that when you're downloading from a stranger it is definitely not personal use.
I think this is where many pirates will disagree and where they are feeling criminalized.
As I said, scale and ease do matter, and I mean in a moral sense, too. We can't uphold the standards of the past if they don't befit the realities of the present. When mixing tapes and xeroxing books may be negligible in terms of profit loss, e-piracy isn't.
My main point is a different one though. And you are right, it's related, but slightly off topic.
The value of the individual copy of a book has diminished significantly with the digital age. The book industry will have to deal with that. Any creative ideas?
I am with you on this. This really bothered me. Would he say it was all right to palm a paperback version because you'd bought the hardback? I doubt it. What's the difference then? The tangibles, paper, ink, distribution by truck? Then what he's really saying is that intellectual property suspended in electrons should be free? He didn't think this one through or he reacts with his gut and not his conscience.
I pay for a satellite feed for tv shows I download from america. I watch them via bittorrent and pay for them via satellite. I do not consider my position ethical or otherwise. I wish to consume these tv shows and am prepared to and do pay. I am not however prepared to wait ten months. You may see me as a criminal, but an infinitely reproduceable digital file is not the same as a television or a physical book. The cost of the digital file should reflect cost of preparation and distribution – but not the cost of the paper and physical distribution of a weighty object. If a plain text book cost $10, then the digital file should cost $10 less the printing and distribution and paper and storage and disposal costs, + the bandwidth costs – ie $2-4. Everything else is horseshit
So here’s another interesting way of looking at this dilemma. If Amazon retains the right to remove Kindle eBooks – that a customer has paid for – directly from their Kindle, and Apple retains the right to control what material is allowed to be downloaded into a customer’s iPad in the first place, this implies that a customer doesn’t have complete control over the eBooks or digital devices they pay for. Soooo, does this make it more likely that people will define "ownership" of eBooks in their own unique way, too? Just wondering out loud about the psychology of making digital purchases. This has been a very interesting discussion today. I realize that different people probably define digital ownership in very different ways. As for authors, I think most have no say, either to Amazon or Apple or customers, in how their digital books are sold or at what price they’re sold.
@Kat_Harris (2:41):
Oooohh. What an interesting point you have made. NYT does offer their content online for free now. Previously, they offered a paid online subscription that allowed access to certain "premium" content, such as opinion pieces.
Then all of nyt.com was made available to anyone. However, as someone who gets NYT in my driveway every morning, I do have certain privileges, such as Times Reader, which is a super cool format that I really don't use.
Very interesting point, indeed. I still say, though, at this moment, books are different. But it's a brave new world for all of publishing.
Ethics aside, buying a book (or music, dvd, whatever) needs to be as easy as possible. Most people want to do the right thing, I believe, but when faced with obstacles, they can justify pirating it.
For instance, I would rather go to Amazon and buy a cd in about a minute, than search for it on a torrent, download it, and have to worry about viruses.
I think that's why it's vital for some kind of universal platform get put in place pronto. If people have to download special apps every time they want to get a book from different sources, that's an obstacle and a certain percentage of people are going to take the 'easy' route.
I'm back for a serious post. I think we're all struggling to make relevant analogies (no offense but the baseball bat one was the worst), but ultimately this is a *different* industry. When I buy a book, I'm buying that product to enjoy as long as it weathers the elements. I can loan it out if I want, give it away to a friend or to charity. I can put it in my library and read it in 15 years. That was the "deal" when I purchased that product.
When I go to the library, it's a different "deal," and I do *not* get to make copies or keep the book. There's no "it's like this or it should be like that" it is what it is.
A movie is a completely different product altogether. You don't get unlimited passes for you and your friends just because you paid $10.50 to see it at the theater! It's a different product. A DVD is a different product. Music is a different product.
I'm sorry but this isn't a technology question at all, it's a cultural question. Whoever wrote that we've become the entitlement society hit the boxer in the jaw. Without getting too political here, we've become the society where if we want it/it should be provided to us (and if it's not, and at a cost we approve of, then we're justified in complaining about it and/or stealing it). Hey I want free books and downloads….hey I can get them at the library for free, so they should be free everywhere!
Wrong. Just wrong.
Ha. Stephen takes the bat to my bat analogy.
I completely agree. I am astonished by how society views bootlegging as acceptable, so acceptable that parents send their students to school with bootleg DVD's! I refuse to play them in my classroom. They are teaching their children it is okay to steal as long as the likely hood of getting caught is low. Disgusting.
I agree with Mary that ease will determine ethics for a lot of people (not me, I'm towing the hard ethical line with Nathan and not e-pirating ever). This is why it is SO important for the industry to get the pricing right. If e-books are well priced (and not have the e-book be MORE expensive than the paper back), and there are options like bundling available, AND people like the Ethicist are not allowed to devalue the moral pressures, then the majority of people will pay for their products, so they can feel legal.
Mike Shatzkin took a broader and significantly more intelligent (IMHO) approach to the same Ethicist column. He said the problem wasn't ethics or even legality but the shortsightedness of the industry to foresee and manage this issue in advance (via a bundle, as has been discussed).
Ethical and legal are two different things. I'm sure this distinction has already been widely discussed.
The guy paid the licensing fee for the content, so what's the problem? How can he steal something he's already paid for?
I've resented having to rebuy music on CD that I'd previously purchased as LP.
Is it now unethical for me to illegally download a song I've already paid for twice?
Give me a break.
In your words Nathan:
"I could very easily pirate anything I wanted, but I choose not to because I believe in supporting artists."
As I understood it, the origional questioner wanted a digital copy, but the publisher delayed the release of the digital copy so as not to canibalize hardcover sales.
So they payed more for the hardcover then they would have for a digital copy, just to get it early, then downloaded a digital copy.
Didn't the writer still get payed? Didn't the publisher still get payed? The digital distributor lost a sale, but couldn't the publisher's decision to delay digital release be seen as the real culprit? Is the digital distributor the "artist" that you're trying to protect?
Now royaly rates may differ on hardcover vs digital, and the digital distributor has a right to make a living, but don't pretend you're fighting for the writer on this one.
I don't think the author is the loser here.
Anon @3:50 PM,
Typically, authors receive a higher royalty on eBooks than paperbacks, but nothing at all on pirated copies.
andrewdugas-
Mike Shatzkin was approaching it mainly from an availability standpoint, and I agree with him and others who feel that one of the best deterrent against piracy is to make things like bundles available at a fair price. He was somewhat coy about where he was drawing the line on stealing, but he mainly focused on the same point that I made, which is that there's a distinction between someone making their own personal copy and pirating. I part ways with him when he suggests that publishers have lacked a clear digital policy when it comes to hardcovers. Do you really have to tell people you don't get a free upgrade from hardcover to e-books? (his article is here by the way)
I still believe there is a moral and ethical component to this and I don't believe that piracy should be decoupled from ethics, which again, is why I was dismayed by the Ethicist's post.
You may well resent upgrading your music and yes, the songs are the same, but when you change formats you gain value – it has steadily become more portable and there is value added there that we have paid for. How many times have you upgraded to new computers or phones over the years? Why is that different?
We have all had to deal with format changes with other products, and I don't agree that there should be a moral decoupling with the switch from print to digital. The person in question didn't steal something he'd already paid for – he didn't pay for it.
ghostfolk-
I might have just missed the joke, but that sounded sinister. E-mail me if it's the former.
Nathan –
A lot of the controversy around digital formats in general surrounds what exactly constitutes piracy. (I do not advocate piracy, BTW.)
In a hardcover, the content and the container are integrated. When you buy an e-book, you are buying strictly content. Reselling a hardcover is considered neither illegal nor unethical, yet do that with an e-book and you are a pirate.
So, there is no real ownership of an e-book; you are only licensing the right to view the content.
Now, when I buy a hardcover, I am similarly licensing the content. As you say, it is a matter of format, but on these grounds I agree with the ethicist.
I think you have a very strong point about the advantages of different formats (portability, etc.) and the value added thereby, but that is not how these are sold.
Indeed, one could argue that industries foist different formats upon us just so they can sell us the same songs/books over and over. VHS gets sidelined by DVD which is on the way to being sidelined by Blue-Ray and so on and on. (Don't get my grandfather started about his old 78s.)
So where does that leave me?
No way should the person in the Ethicist article be required to pay full price for an e-book when he's already bought the book new. (You could make a case for used books, since the copyright holders get nothing.)
I do look forward to seeing how this will all shake out in the future.
Thanks for another debate-stirring blog post.