I am definitely guilty of reading books in bookstores without buying them, however. Usually this is when I have to kill time while I’m waiting to pick someone up and I haven’t brought any reading of my own. Rarely do I ever read a whole book, though I did recently read all of Sway in Barnes & Noble while waiting on my husband. I always buy a latte or a drink or something while I do, so I guess B&N is getting some money out of me. I dunno if it’s illegal, but it falls within a level of ethicality (is that a word?) I’m comfortable with, so long as the behavior isn’t excessive.

I guess a better alternative would be finding the library in the town I’m in and going there.

That’s what happens when I don’t pay attention.

I’m in Costco nearly every Saturday. I get my heart and cholesterol medication there, and buy many things in bulk. Many different food products are given out as samples during the day (especially Saturday).

I’ve heard the argument both ways: I paid my membership and the product is free, so I’ll take as much as I want. Then there are those who stop, listen to the spiel from the staffer, take one item, and move on. I know people who structure their day around being at Costco at say, 1PM so they can graze the premises and get a free lunch. I’m more in the “sample one here, sample one there” camp. Just because there are a whole tray of quesadilla samples in front of me does not mean I’m entitled to all of them.

I believe this the difference between being frugal (me) and being cheap (my lawyer, among others).

Your argument is from a faulty premise, so it really isn’t an article but rather a logical fallacy.

You can write down the poem. Yes, you own the pen and ink but you can not distribute it and take credit for creating the poem.

I could write down Joyce Kilmer’s poem Trees, but it is not MY poem. I did not create it, I merely copied it down. Kilmer created it. It is her work.

I’m a writer by trade (despite two business degrees, companies in down economies aren’t hiring many MBAs). I take copyright law very seriously. I loathe the idea of pirating and believe that authors and artists are entitled to compensation for their work.

©2009, Bill in Houston Enterprises

On the other hand, with sheet music it is illegal to copy if. However, out of print music is impossible to get parts for. And the music publishing industry until very recently has refused to let you get just, say, the first bassoon part. You had to pay for the whole arrangement to get one missing part. That has led to wholesale copying.

However, if I pay for an arrangement, why can’t I make copies of parts to use in playing and keep the arrangement score intact? That seems to me to be fair use.

I disagree, it also comes into play when deciding how to write laws and public opinion. I’m not advocating violating the law. I’m advocating changing your perception and encouraging you to voice that opinion to a representative.

@Kim “It is offensive to me that someone would steal the creative work…” You can only steal a copy of a creative work. You can make a copy for yourself and deprive nobody else of that original copy. This is not stealing. It does infringe their copyright, but it is not stealing. never confuse the two. Objects can be stolen, Ideas can only be shared.

Software has it’s own limitations. Purchasing it does not grant you the right to deconstruct the code and alter or redistribute multiple copies. Typically the only right of copying is one backup copy and the installation on one CPU and one laptop owned by the same person, but not for use at the same time.

The argument that has been made to me is that “creativity is a gift from God and so should not be sold.” Rubbish. A tradesman has a gift in the ability to create things with his hands. He may be naturally gifted in metals, woodwork or stonework, but he must hone his craft through learning and practice and WORK, for which he is paid. A writer hones his natural abilities the same way, but it is the actual WORK that produces the item. A musician/composer must WORK at his/her craft. Etc., etc. It is offensive to me that someone would steal the creative work of artists, musicians, and writers, and it should be criminal in the same way it would be criminal to steal someone’s cabinetry work, their plumbing, their accounting work, their mechanical work, or to order food from a restaurant with no intent to pay for it.

The ONLY time it is okay to copy music is from one’s own legally purchased files onto their own listening/recording device and for their own use, or when given permission from the author/creator of such a piece. We have no divine right to the work of another.

There is a doc whom i follow – he sends out a frequent newsletter. His marketing standards are along the line of “Read about this supplement to help boost your energy!” And then, “buy my book, buy my book, buy my book.”

I’m not suggesting he give me all the info in his book for free. However, his newsletter doesn’t give me enough info to make the decision whether or not i think his book will be worth it for me (& his books are quite highly priced). His marketing drives me nuts & i did decide to buy his book – from an online used bookstore.

Ethical? I don’t know, but i do know i did not want to support his form of marketing. I follow other health websites that are not so obnoxious with their marketing & occasionally i purchase items from them.

If there is a strong demand for an author’s backlist, the publisher will keep it in print so that more people can buy new copies rather than used. Sometimes publishers will even bring back work that had previously gone out of print – say, to sell an e-book edition.

On a smaller scale, the same goes for rare music discs and DVDs, and the vinyl record resale business is still hopping.

Of course, *all* these markets rely on people being willing to actually pay for their entertainment, but unlike downloadable content, hard media have to physically change hands.

Ultimately, it’s the creator of content who gets to decide, but I think Doctorow is a great example of how giving away content is good business.

Then I totally agree!

I am just a bit lost on the concept that an author might think he/she should get paid the second time because a user buys it second-hand. I don’t grasp why anyone would consider it unethical. Isn’t this part of the negotiation the first time? Information is expensive, especially when bought new; you kind of have to expect them to factor those “lost” second-hand profits into the equation.

You own the piece of paper you wrote it on, certainly, but you don’t own the right to make a profit off someone else’s work. So, you can give away that piece of paper, but you can’t sell it without the creator’s permission.

Think of it this way, what if you had an idea and told your boss. And then your boss wrote that idea down and submitted it to his boss. You wouldn’t be very happy if your boss got a bonus and all the credit for YOUR idea and you got nothing, would you?

If that seems silly, remember, most money is not cash, its 1s and 0s on a computer at your bank, in other words, its information that you own.

My statement on buying new simply pertains to the creators getting paid. Buying used means they will not get paid again for your personal usage.

As a third-year law student who’s taken more classes than I’ve cared to on copyright and related issues, here are my two cents. If what you’re doing is copyright infringement, it doesn’t matter whether you think it’s ethical or unethical. You can still be sued, and heavy fees are associated with your copyright infringement.

The only time ethics comes into play is when what you’re doing doesn’t violate federal copyright law.

@ Jonathan
Your proposal to buy everything new essentially means that I can’t dispose of my personal property in the manner I see fit. Right? If it’s unethical to buy music or books or movies second-hand, is it also unethical for me to sell it? Why? It’s my personal property. I own that copy of the author’s work. As long as I do not copy it, I can do whatever I want with it.

Regarding the “ethics” of reselling. This deserves additional consideration. Think of the parallel with the used car market. If there is greater demand in the resale market (and hence greater resale value) that is often reflected in the first market price – i.e. the maker actually does receive a benefit from the secondary transaction. How does this apply to other goods?