I think it's reasonable to both agree with your core premise, and to have a problem with the actions of the reader and the NYT ethics column. Would it be a good idea for a publisher to bundle an electronic copy of the book with the hardcover? Yeah, I think it would. Is it ethically wrong for the buyer to encourage piracy by downloading an illegally scanned version? Yes, I think it is, and I think the ethics column got that wrong in a huge way. Convenience, good business, and even reasonable compensation are not the core of ethics.
For the record I would not have had a problem with the reader scanning the book himself, as I believe making a single back-up, even in new media, is fair use for something you bought. But when you download the same material from someone who is making it freely available to anyone whether they have bought the original source or not, I strongly feel an ethical breach has occurred.
Nor do the facts that I know I am in the minority, and this battle is already lost at the hearts-and-minds stage of public discourse, change my opinion.
I think it's a stretch to suggest that the individual's actions described here "encourage piracy," and will prove quite difficult to build a serious and self-consistent ethics around the idea that things that "encourage piracy" in such an indirect fashion are ethically wrong above and beyond their direct impact. If the user gets his friend who bought the PDF version to copy it for him based on his (well-demonstrated) physical ownership of the book, is he guilty of this same nebulous sin?
Ultimately, if you're going to run full-bore with the idea that paying the price for a piece of content involves buying the content within, publishing entities are purveyors of far more manifest wrongs against this principle (like the use of legal force and intense lobbying to remove their own customers' fair-use rights) than a user following a slightly shady path to what ought to be a legitimate endpoint (a PDF version of the content he purchased).
Bob has a scanner, and uses it to scan a book he purchased book into e-form. The courts have ruled that this (called "media shifting") is perfectly legal.
Mike does not have a scanner. He can't scan a book he purchased.
You position is that Mike... is screwed? Even though there are free (illegal) copies out there, he can't get a free electronic backup of his book. It's like the government saying, "everyone who has a car gets free car insurance if they also own a power washer" (power washer is my example because you don't need a power washer to enjoy your car, it's unrelated technology, just as you don't need a scanner to enjoy your print book).
What if Mike uses Bob's scanner to scan Mike's book? Or if Bob scans Mike's book for Mike? Whether it's either of those options, or the third option where Mike downloads a pirated copy from the internet, the net result is the same: Mike now has a e-copy of a print book he owns. Limiting Mike to getting that free backup *only* if he has another piece of technology unfairly punishes Mike.
I agree the courts have agreed media shifting is legal. However, I believe that, yes, if Mike cannot access the technology he needs to do what he wants, and must resort to an illegal copy of material he is, ethically, screwed. To obtain an illegal copy is not ethical. To support people who make illegal copies is not ethical. (Yes, this is saying downloading illegal copies supports piracy. If no one downloaded them, no pirate would bother uploading. Thus, taking advantage of the service they offer is supporting them. Many also have banner ads that make them money, so they actually profit when you support them, though this is not needful for my ethical argument).
Just because you have an option I do not, I'm not "unfairly punished," as long as the option is not something crucial to my life.
Yes, Mike could borrow Bob's scanner. Yes, Bob could scan Mike's book for Mike. No, Bob could notscan his own copy and give it to Mike, since Bobn is then -NOT- media shifting. He's making an unauthorized copy.
Do I believe this is the direction most people go? No. Do I think it's SMARTER for a company to make it easy on their customers rather than hard? Yes. But -ethically- I believe there is a clear line in the sand here. It's obvious to me, and the fact that it may inconvenience people does NOT change the ethics of it.
And it's NOT like the government saying you get free insurance if you have a power washer. It's saying that Mike may make a backup copy with whatever tools he has available. He can borrow a scanner. He can rent a scanner. He can (I believe) ask a friend to scan it for him.
Copyright is, literally, the right to make copies. Precisely, to decide under what circumstances copies may be made. It is controlled by law, which includes the right to media shift. (Though as I understand it, that right is limited to a single copy. You can't, as I read the cases in question, make a tape, an MP3, and a CD of your 45 record just because you want to play it three different ways).
If you break that copyright for your convenience,m you are removing a legal power of the copyright holder. You have taken something from that holder -their power to decide when, how and for what media copies are made, without compensation. That's unethical. It's unjust. The fact you may lack tools to do what you want is no more unfair than someone who can't visit a national park because they don't have a car. As long as the park would welcome them on arrival, no injustice or unfairness has occurred.
It is also, I realize, impossible to prevent. My own business models always assume I should make customers happy for buying my products, not make them ticked at how many hoops I put them through in the hopes they won't be criminals. That's stupid. But it would be my legal right, and customers abrogating it would be unethical. While life and death, dignity of existence and basic human freedoms are fair basis for challenging laws and rights, INCONVENIENCE is not.
Here, my basis for the ethical question is largely legal. It may be the law should be changed. But while it has not, my position is clear to me, and I don't see why anyone would think otherwise. If you have a black and white television, you can't decide to pay the cable company less than your contract because you aren't getting the colors. If you lack the appetite of your neighbor, you can't take food home from the buffet with the no doggy-bag policy just because your neighbor ate more than you can. It's the ethical equivalent of a misdemeanor, but yes, it's a violation.
Yes, Mike could borrow Bob's scanner. Yes, Bob could scan Mike's book for Mike. No, Bob could notscan his own copy and give it to Mike, since Bobn is then -NOT- media shifting.
Your original claim is justifiable, if problematic. If you think that interfacing with someone who is actively distributing something in contravention of the law is morally problematic it's certainly possible to support that in various ways.
This position, however, is ludicrous. Both books have the exact same content. If the right to create a copy that is shifted to another physical location and format exists, it must do so because the purchase of the former grants you a right to utilize the content itself (rather than just the physical representation of it you originally bought) in various ways. If so, what you have to do to get at the raw content might be ethically and legally relevant (if you have to participate in a criminal activity, for example) but whether your digital copy is "sourced" from the same physical book is not.
I'll note that inasmuch as your position seems to be based purely on an appeal to authority ("this is the law, so it must be right"), US caselaw suggests that someone else format-shifting for you, from a copy of the same media that you own, is legal as long as it is established sufficiently firmly that you do own the content in question.
There appears to be a mismatch between your rhetoric and your ethical stance.
You seem to be making a consequentialist argument (the actions "encourage piracy"), but with your feelings as the only evidence in support of the assertion. That is not an effective method of argument. (Because nobody gives a damn how you feel.)
Your actual underlying ethical system seems to be deontological in nature. Rather than looking at outcomes (consequentialist ethics) or at intentions (virtue ethics), you seem to be concerned with the rules and duties that apply to the individuals involved.
Unfortunately, deontological ethics must be argued largely by assertion, and such an ethical system generally takes the form of a social consensus on what actions are inherently good or bad. However, by relating a given action to another similar action that is commonly agreed to be good or bad, you can avoid bringing personal sentiment into the argument, and thus avoid being punched right in the ego.
In this instance, I would argue that even if the rules of property are unjust at this time, we implicitly acknowledged their value when we purchased the hardcover of the work. Subsequently stealing a digital copy of the book is wrong because it creates a personal breach of ethics -- we are being inconsistent with what rules we obey solely in the name of personal convenience. This is true regardless of the social harm that may or may not result from our actions. In so doing, we have surrendered the ethical high ground, and diminished our stature as ethical actors. We have simply met one unethical behaviour (i.e. inconsistency on what, exactly, is being sold) with another unethical behaviour.
Well, that is what I'd argue if I gave a damn, anyway…
For the record I would not have had a problem with the reader scanning the book himself, as I believe making a single back-up, even in new media, is fair use for something you bought. But when you download the same material from someone who is making it freely available to anyone whether they have bought the original source or not, I strongly feel an ethical breach has occurred.
Nor do the facts that I know I am in the minority, and this battle is already lost at the hearts-and-minds stage of public discourse, change my opinion.
Reply
Ultimately, if you're going to run full-bore with the idea that paying the price for a piece of content involves buying the content within, publishing entities are purveyors of far more manifest wrongs against this principle (like the use of legal force and intense lobbying to remove their own customers' fair-use rights) than a user following a slightly shady path to what ought to be a legitimate endpoint (a PDF version of the content he purchased).
Reply
Bob has a scanner, and uses it to scan a book he purchased book into e-form. The courts have ruled that this (called "media shifting") is perfectly legal.
Mike does not have a scanner. He can't scan a book he purchased.
You position is that Mike... is screwed? Even though there are free (illegal) copies out there, he can't get a free electronic backup of his book. It's like the government saying, "everyone who has a car gets free car insurance if they also own a power washer" (power washer is my example because you don't need a power washer to enjoy your car, it's unrelated technology, just as you don't need a scanner to enjoy your print book).
What if Mike uses Bob's scanner to scan Mike's book? Or if Bob scans Mike's book for Mike? Whether it's either of those options, or the third option where Mike downloads a pirated copy from the internet, the net result is the same: Mike now has a e-copy of a print book he owns. Limiting Mike to getting that free backup *only* if he has another piece of technology unfairly punishes Mike.
Reply
I agree the courts have agreed media shifting is legal. However, I believe that, yes, if Mike cannot access the technology he needs to do what he wants, and must resort to an illegal copy of material he is, ethically, screwed. To obtain an illegal copy is not ethical. To support people who make illegal copies is not ethical. (Yes, this is saying downloading illegal copies supports piracy. If no one downloaded them, no pirate would bother uploading. Thus, taking advantage of the service they offer is supporting them. Many also have banner ads that make them money, so they actually profit when you support them, though this is not needful for my ethical argument).
Just because you have an option I do not, I'm not "unfairly punished," as long as the option is not something crucial to my life.
Yes, Mike could borrow Bob's scanner. Yes, Bob could scan Mike's book for Mike. No, Bob could notscan his own copy and give it to Mike, since Bobn is then -NOT- media shifting. He's making an unauthorized copy.
Do I believe this is the direction most people go? No. Do I think it's SMARTER for a company to make it easy on their customers rather than hard? Yes. But -ethically- I believe there is a clear line in the sand here. It's obvious to me, and the fact that it may inconvenience people does NOT change the ethics of it.
And it's NOT like the government saying you get free insurance if you have a power washer. It's saying that Mike may make a backup copy with whatever tools he has available. He can borrow a scanner. He can rent a scanner. He can (I believe) ask a friend to scan it for him.
Copyright is, literally, the right to make copies. Precisely, to decide under what circumstances copies may be made. It is controlled by law, which includes the right to media shift. (Though as I understand it, that right is limited to a single copy. You can't, as I read the cases in question, make a tape, an MP3, and a CD of your 45 record just because you want to play it three different ways).
If you break that copyright for your convenience,m you are removing a legal power of the copyright holder. You have taken something from that holder -their power to decide when, how and for what media copies are made, without compensation. That's unethical. It's unjust. The fact you may lack tools to do what you want is no more unfair than someone who can't visit a national park because they don't have a car. As long as the park would welcome them on arrival, no injustice or unfairness has occurred.
It is also, I realize, impossible to prevent. My own business models always assume I should make customers happy for buying my products, not make them ticked at how many hoops I put them through in the hopes they won't be criminals. That's stupid. But it would be my legal right, and customers abrogating it would be unethical. While life and death, dignity of existence and basic human freedoms are fair basis for challenging laws and rights, INCONVENIENCE is not.
Here, my basis for the ethical question is largely legal. It may be the law should be changed. But while it has not, my position is clear to me, and I don't see why anyone would think otherwise. If you have a black and white television, you can't decide to pay the cable company less than your contract because you aren't getting the colors. If you lack the appetite of your neighbor, you can't take food home from the buffet with the no doggy-bag policy just because your neighbor ate more than you can. It's the ethical equivalent of a misdemeanor, but yes, it's a violation.
Reply
Your original claim is justifiable, if problematic. If you think that interfacing with someone who is actively distributing something in contravention of the law is morally problematic it's certainly possible to support that in various ways.
This position, however, is ludicrous. Both books have the exact same content. If the right to create a copy that is shifted to another physical location and format exists, it must do so because the purchase of the former grants you a right to utilize the content itself (rather than just the physical representation of it you originally bought) in various ways. If so, what you have to do to get at the raw content might be ethically and legally relevant (if you have to participate in a criminal activity, for example) but whether your digital copy is "sourced" from the same physical book is not.
I'll note that inasmuch as your position seems to be based purely on an appeal to authority ("this is the law, so it must be right"), US caselaw suggests that someone else format-shifting for you, from a copy of the same media that you own, is legal as long as it is established sufficiently firmly that you do own the content in question.
Reply
Reply
There appears to be a mismatch between your rhetoric and your ethical stance.
You seem to be making a consequentialist argument (the actions "encourage piracy"), but with your feelings as the only evidence in support of the assertion. That is not an effective method of argument. (Because nobody gives a damn how you feel.)
Your actual underlying ethical system seems to be deontological in nature. Rather than looking at outcomes (consequentialist ethics) or at intentions (virtue ethics), you seem to be concerned with the rules and duties that apply to the individuals involved.
Unfortunately, deontological ethics must be argued largely by assertion, and such an ethical system generally takes the form of a social consensus on what actions are inherently good or bad. However, by relating a given action to another similar action that is commonly agreed to be good or bad, you can avoid bringing personal sentiment into the argument, and thus avoid being punched right in the ego.
In this instance, I would argue that even if the rules of property are unjust at this time, we implicitly acknowledged their value when we purchased the hardcover of the work. Subsequently stealing a digital copy of the book is wrong because it creates a personal breach of ethics -- we are being inconsistent with what rules we obey solely in the name of personal convenience. This is true regardless of the social harm that may or may not result from our actions. In so doing, we have surrendered the ethical high ground, and diminished our stature as ethical actors. We have simply met one unethical behaviour (i.e. inconsistency on what, exactly, is being sold) with another unethical behaviour.
Well, that is what I'd argue if I gave a damn, anyway…
Reply
Leave a comment