Before we start this discussion i must inform you that demonoid is an illegal file sharing site that has recently been closed down for the fourth time because the country they have there servers in has deemed them illegal and shut them down this is the 4th country to do so.

As soon as they closed you noticed this influx of people joining other sites looking for what they you used to get on demonoid. Moaning because there precious site has gone, posting messeges because they were spoilt for choice there and now they might have to actually pay for what they want.

The fact is closing demonoid has fractured the whole torrent community which is a good thing is most repects except for the person posting legal material such as music mixes, AND LEGAL TORRENTS ect.

My question is - is closing Demonoid a good first step towards stoping illegal material & copyright material being shared since its the main site for such things? and is this the end of the torrent?

Demonoid is gone for good. That is all I shall say about the matter.

moved to the lounge as it doesn't really qualify as e-book news

Anything that stops the criminal scum can only be good news.

"Criminal scum."

Heh. Have you ever driven over the speed limit, or rolled through a stopsign? You realize those things are probably more dangerous to society than torrenting a tv show or two, right? :) I don't mean to advocate piracy and I don't intend to do so, but the holier than thou attitude doesn't really fly with me. Disagreeing with piracy is fine and good, but the outrage is a little unjustified, don't you think?

In response to the original poster, I personally hope that Demonoid will come back. Most people don't know because they've never looked, but there's a lot of great (and very legal) content on the big torrent sites. I think it's unfortunate that the sites are used for so much illegal activity, but the tool shouldn't be blamed for the crime. Torrent sites themselves (most of them, anyway) don't actively promote piracy or theft of any sort. They're just an open means of sharing what you have. Their fault is that they're good at what they do.

Stealing the hard-earned property of others is both criminal and harmful. Rationalizing that it isn't is delusional. So I'm with Harry. Anything to stop criminal scum is okay by me. :)

Disagreeing with piracy is fine and good, but the outrage is a little unjustified, don't you think?


No. As an author and software developer who has seen my work blatantly pirated and offered for sale by criminals on eBay and other sources, I am outraged by people who think that they have some god-given "right" to steal and profit from people such as myself who spend YEARS working bloody hard to try to earn an honest living.

I don't see that rationalizing is a bad thing, as long as it makes sense. I think mine does, but you're certainly welcome to disagree with it. :) I'll say a little more though.

1) I agree with you. Stealing the creations of others, either physically or digitally, is wrong. As a rule, I don't do it. I will say though, that it's not NEARLY as harmful as the entertainment industry would have you believe. For example, there have been lawsuits seeking thousands and thousands of dollars for EACH song downloaded by an individual. There's simply no way a company could lose that much money via the downloading of one song, unless the individual owned his own little chinese bootleg shop. Which is ridiculous to assume.

And added to that, there's the fact that there are a couple studies out there that have suggested (not proven, but suggested) that sharing may even help copywrite holders. The idea being that the fast and ubiquitous spread of their material gives them invaluable advertising, and many users who download something might like it so much that they buy "the real thing." Again I reiterate that I do NOT think this makes it ok to steal the work, but I will definitely continue with the position that it's not nearly as bad as the major industries want us to think it is.

2) (I number my points because I'm terrible at transition sentences :P) My issue with Harry's post was not that I disagreed with him about the actual legality or morality of stealing material protected by copywrite. Rather, it was with the fact that he seemed so outraged/upset by the whole thing. Yes it's wrong, but we've all broken the law (intentionally) from time to time, and compared to other common violations (such as traffic offenses, that can put the very lives of multiple people in danger) this seems fairly minor.

Thanks for the reply though. I'm new in town, and it's nice to have people to discuss with. :)

My issue with Harry's post was not that I disagreed with him about the actual legality or morality of stealing material protected by copywrite. Rather, it was with the fact that he seemed so outraged/upset by the whole thing. Yes it's wrong, but we've all broken the law (intentionally) from time to time, and compared to other common violations (such as traffic offenses, that can put the very lives of multiple people in danger) this seems fairly minor.


I'll tell you what: you spend the next 20 years writing a piece of software that you're trying to make a living from in a difficult marketplace. Then see it sold for 1/10th of its market price on eBay by some joker who's out to make a fast buck, or given away free on a BitTorrent site. Then tell me that it's a "minor matter" that "doesn't really affect anyone".

It DOES affect people personally and it DOES take money away directly from hard-working people who are struggling to make an honest living. These people are SCUM.

I'll tell you what: you spend the next 20 years writing a piece of software that you're trying to make a living from in a difficult marketplace. Then see it sold for 1/10th of its market price on eBay by some joker who's out to make a fast buck. Then tell me that it's a "minor matter" that doesn't really affect anyone.

It DOES affect people personally and it DOES take money away directly from hard-working people who are struggling to make an honest living. These people are SCUM.

Firstly, I'm actually planning to do just that. Spend the next 20 years writing software, that is. So I imagine I'll get to experience this first hand, even if I haven't done it yet. I'll get back to ya if I change my mind. =P

That said, I think I'll bow out of this discussion. I have to leave in a little while anyway, and we're sort of going in circles. You guys are saying "it's bad!" and I'm responding with "yes, but it could be worse, and Demonoid isn't really to blame" and then we go back to "....but it's BAD!"

I agree. It's bad. But Demonoid is the means, not the crime. While I'm here, I might as well speak out and say I'm for email (despite its propogation of viruses that destroy millions in computer equipment every year), websites, (though many of them scam, steal credit card information, etc) and computer code in general, despite its usefulness in creating the aforementioned viruses.

Demonoid might be used primarily for illegal activity, but that's only because it's good at what it does: share information.

Sorry - I think that we all see issues which have affected us personally as being a lot more "serious" than perhaps people who are looking at it from a more dispassionate perspective do. As I said, I have personally been affected by so-called "pirates" duplicating my software CDs and selling them for peanuts on eBay, so any discussion of the rights and wrongs of IPR theft does rather tend to "push my buttons".

Anything that stops the criminal scum can only be good news.
scum indeed! these renegade 14 year olds looking for manga must be stopped!

I can see that there are some bad sides to Demonoid. I have seen the site but never used it. That said there are 20 or more bit torrent sites that are up and running. I agree, the illegal items should not be on the site. However, quite a few things are put on the site that are legal. Perhaps, Demonoid is only the is only the carrier but they would win more people over by policing it more thoroughly...



"Criminal scum."

Heh. Have you ever driven over the speed limit, or rolled through a stopsign? You realize those things are probably more dangerous to society than torrenting a tv show or two, right? :) I don't mean to advocate piracy and I don't intend to do so, but the holier than thou attitude doesn't really fly with me. Disagreeing with piracy is fine and good, but the outrage is a little unjustified, don't you think?

In response to the original poster, I personally hope that Demonoid will come back. Most people don't know because they've never looked, but there's a lot of great (and very legal) content on the big torrent sites. I think it's unfortunate that the sites are used for so much illegal activity, but the tool shouldn't be blamed for the crime. Torrent sites themselves (most of them, anyway) don't actively promote piracy or theft of any sort. They're just an open means of sharing what you have. Their fault is that they're good at what they do.

Feel free to rationalize all you want by judging for yourself what is more or less harmful to other people - whether you are knowledgeable enough to do so or not. But my recommendation is that people consider taking the high road and simply avoid the potential harm altogether. It doesn't cost much and keeps everyone out of trouble. :)

I write software for money.
One piece of software I do (not alone, naturally) costs tens of thousands of dollars. There is some copy protection but it's pretty weak and can be removed by any half-experienced cracker. I've never seen it on torrent sites since it's not something usable by a general user and is not really useful without support.
Another piece is a $15 shareware program. There are cracks readily available but I don't worry about them much. The price is low enough for an impulse buy that most people don't bother wading through all the stuff out there. Also, if the program is warezed it means it's popular. Someone might download an old cracked version then see that the new one is available and just buy it. The sales are pretty good BTW.
Anyway, I agree with mflood: there are much worse things than copyright infrigement (which, incidentally, is not a criminal offence yet in most countries). I'd say, regard it as free publicity: the more your stuff downloaded and passed around, the more people know about it. Many of them would buy your stuff if they needed it and knew about it, and proper PR costs money. Eric Flint described the situation with books pretty nicely in one of his articles, and a lot of his reasoning applies to software:
http://baens-universe.com/articles/salvos7

Free publicity? Sorry. It's theft. If the author and publisher wanted free publicity then they can decide to do that - not you. Yesterday I was looking for a particular highly regarded calculus text and instead of searching all the possible legal vendors of ebooks I went to Google where I was shown an incredibly long list of sites that had illegal copies available. So I reran the search to exclude hits with "torrent" on the page to see if there were legit vendors. I clicked on the top hit and an illegal pdf file of the book was on my desktop. A highly regarded and monumental work that is the result of years of effort was sitting on my PC almost by accident. I find this very sad and I would seriously like to hurt those who make it this easy.

Feel free to rationalize all you want by judging for yourself what is more or less harmful to other people - whether you are knowledgeable enough to do so or not. But my recommendation is that people consider taking the high road and simply avoid the potential harm altogether. It doesn't cost much and keeps everyone out of trouble. :)

The high road being to avoid Demonoid and all its ilk simply because there are crimes being committed there?

I suppose you have a difficult time visiting cities. . .or towns. . .or neighbor's houses then, do you not? :) I'm not saying "it's not that bad, so maybe we should only download a LITTLE bit of illegal stuff. Or maybe just the quasi-legal gray area stuff." The high road that makes sense to travel is the one where you only download stuff you're sure is legal. You can do that perfectly fine with Demonoid, and every other tracker site on the web.

EDIT: Also, you're completely right in that it's not for us to decide what it's ok to steal. The law doesn't care. The owner of the content sets the rules. You can't argue however, that a crime which helps the victim (making an assumption that it does, which your post did for this particular argument) is really that bad, or upsetting to the average person.

One pusher down, two more take its place... it never stops.:sad:

Well put. I know several people who do go and buy the software after they have tried it for free on download.com for example. I buy my software from there quite often, after a free trial period. The more exposure the more sales...


I write software for money.
One piece of software I do (not alone, naturally) costs tens of thousands of dollars. There is some copy protection but it's pretty weak and can be removed by any half-experienced cracker. I've never seen it on torrent sites since it's not something usable by a general user and is not really useful without support.
Another piece is a $15 shareware program. There are cracks readily available but I don't worry about them much. The price is low enough for an impulse buy that most people don't bother wading through all the stuff out there. Also, if the program is warezed it means it's popular. Someone might download an old cracked version then see that the new one is available and just buy it. The sales are pretty good BTW.
Anyway, I agree with mflood: there are much worse things than copyright infrigement (which, incidentally, is not a criminal offence yet in most countries). I'd say, regard it as free publicity: the more your stuff downloaded and passed around, the more people know about it. Many of them would buy your stuff if they needed it and knew about it, and proper PR costs money. Eric Flint described the situation with books pretty nicely in one of his articles, and a lot of his reasoning applies to software:
http://baens-universe.com/articles/salvos7

who died and made you the king of moral judgment ?



Feel free to rationalize all you want by judging for yourself what is more or less harmful to other people - whether you are knowledgeable enough to do so or not. But my recommendation is that people consider taking the high road and simply avoid the potential harm altogether. It doesn't cost much and keeps everyone out of trouble. :)

Just because breaking copyright in some countries is not a criminal offense does not make it O.K. In South Africa in the not too distant past it was not a criminal offense to discriminate against people who were not of European decent. It was still obviously morally reprehensible.

Stealing is taking what is not offered. It hurts the person who had something taken from him that did not offer it. The wealth of the person that had something stolen is irrelevant. So is the morality of the person who had something stolen. The person who steals harms there own morality. All that harm for something that is wanted or desired but not needed. It is not like we are talking about hungry people taking food. We are talking about the planets most affluent, as those who have access to computers are, risking their morality and others source of income because of an inflated sense of entltlement to even more non critical consumer entertainment.

Sorry for the little rant but I see people starving on the way to work and then listen to wealthy people justifying why they should not have to pay for even luxury items. Makes me mad.

"Criminal scum."

Heh. Have you ever driven over the speed limit, or rolled through a stopsign? You realize those things are probably more dangerous to society than torrenting a tv show or two, right? :) I don't mean to advocate piracy and I don't intend to do so, but the holier than thou attitude doesn't really fly with me. Disagreeing with piracy is fine and good, but the outrage is a little unjustified, don't you think?
To be honest, I don't mind TV show downloads. I recently changed the cable box to my cable TV service and ended up getting a free DVR. When I watch a network TV show I've recorded to time shift, I do fast forward past the commercials. To me, downloading a TV show is like time shifting using the DVR. Just without the hassle of fast forwarding past the commercials.

But you do have to look at it from Harry's POV. He writes commercial software. If people can get it for free, some that may have purchased it won't purchase it since it is now free. Granted, the people who download it for free that would never had purchased it is no loss. But some people when they cannot get a free copy will go and purchase. Those sales are something that Harry has lost out on. So yes, I do see things from his side of the fence.

I don't think most of us can say we've never downloaded something for free that we should have paid for or used shareware without paying. The thing is, though with some software, you have to go through so many hoops to get it to work, that it is easier and less of a hassle to find a pirated copy. Take WindowsXP for example. We have a spare computer that has XP running on it. We added more memory and a CD-Burner/DVD reader combo drive to it all at the same time. XP then decided to tell us we needed to activate it again. So we tried to activate it. Microsoft's activation system said our key was not valid. I called Microsoft to try to get a valid key. The support person gave me two keys that neither worked. These keys came directly from Microsoft. The only choice I had left was to goo out on the net to look for a program to fix the problem. So what ended up happening is I had to find an illegal way to solve a problem that should have been solved legally.

The point being, make it too hard to do things legally and people will turn to the much easier illegal way. And once they realize how easy it can be to get stuff for free, you might have just lost a paying customer thanks to someone convoluted method of forcing them to jump through hoops to get some piece of software to run.

Anyway, Demonoid is dead. It's never coming back.

Anyway, Demonoid is dead. It's never coming back.

(I know that it must throw a strange light at me, this being my first post, so bear with me ;) )

How do you know? Have they taken down the people behind demonoid? Communities like this have so many members because of a few reasons:

People want stuff they otherwise would have to pay for handed to them as a freebie. They want something that they either couldn't get because the original is to expensive to buy or because they are too scroogy to purchase it for it's set price.

This being the main reason there are, however, other not so obvious reasons: Have you ever tried getting a really old or really rare movie in retail? I know that I have combed my local retailers and ebay for all they were worth and couldn't find it (meaning they couldn't order it either).
Now if you fire up any of the bigger torrent sites there is a real chance you might get your hands on the item you are looking for, and that's without the hassle of driving around for hours and talking to a great deal of people just to find out that you're running against a brick wall.
(I see a great chance for distributing these things legally if only the industry would adapt to the current situation and digitalize all these things to offer them on a legal platform for a sensible price.)

I don't want to go into the whole copy protection thing because it all has been said in above posts.

There are many more "arbitrary" not-so-obvious reasons that make people use the p2p tools . As long as these reasons exist there will always be an underground satisfying these needs and no matter how often a site gets beaten down, either it will reincarnate (like demonoid has done 4 times) or another one will grow into it's place (because a community so huge has to go somewhere else for their free fix).

To make my point: You can't keep down these sites without offering a serious alternative and the industry is a long way from that yet. iTunes is a first step into the right direction but it only covers a small portion of it's true potential. If there are offers good enough to make the hassle and the legal prosecution because of illegal downloads not worthwhile anymore the illegal torrents sites will diminish by a great factor (I don't think you ever can shut them down completely because there's always somebody scroogy or brave/dumb enough to continue when there are good alternatives). The one way not to go is to introduce stricter laws though (some people get more years in prison for filesharing than a rapist. I know that's an extreme case but I still think the whole copyright thing is blown out of proportion). Guess which way we are heading and what consequences will arise for your personal freedom out of that.

What we need are new categories, I think. I am a grad student (and correspondingly poor) and I recently searched for some useful books on Sony's connect site. The limited selection they did have included academic books with three digit price-tags (that was in dollars, not pesos).

I can't afford that kind of content, and if I could get similar content from P1rate Bay I would probably do it.
I can't, by the way, but if you're looking for Tom Clancy it's your lucky day.

My point is that those of you who publish or have friends who are authors or musicians need to ask yourselves how much of the final price ends up in the pockets of the artist/author/writer anyway.

Do you really thing the author of A Political Chronology of the Middle East (http://ebooks.connect.com/product/400/000/000/000/000/060/946/400000000000000060946.html) is going to lose 175 dollars if I find a PDF of her book for free elsewhere online? Not likely. She'll be harmed, but more damage (relatively speaking) is done to the publisher.

And on a tangent...
In an ebook environment, there's no reason for academic books to be so obscenely expensive anyway. Used to be that the limited run made the printing a financially questionable process. Now online texts can be digitally reproduced but the prices remain high. It's a tradition, I guess.:unafraid:

And on a tangent...
In an ebook environment, there's no reason for academic books to be so obscenely expensive anyway. Used to be that the limited run made the printing a financially questionable process. Now online texts can be digitally reproduced but the prices remain high. It's a tradition, I guess.:unafraid:

On the contrary, I am a textbook author myself, and it's textbooks which always will be expensive because they are expensive to produce.

It doesn't matter (in a sense) what novels say. With a textbook, it has to be factually correct. All reputable publishers employ a panel of experts in the field to review and offer comments on the manuscript of a textbook. Textbooks are, generally speaking, also very expensive to typeset, since they generally contain many more pictures, diagrams, etc, than do novels.

Add to that the fact that a textbook has an enormously smaller audience than a novel. Sales of 10,000 copies would be pathetic for a novel, but fantastic for a textbook. Not only, therefore, is the textbook inherently more expensive to produce, but the UNIT cost is also higher, due to the lower sales.

All these factors conspire to make textbooks expensive. It's just simple economics I'm afraid - (good) textbooks will always be expensive, and the savings to be made from producing textbooks as eBooks rather than pBooks are considerably lower, due to the significantly higher cost of publication.

Good points, HarryT.

But the question remains. Most people in the forum here are (rightfully) talking about the harm that piracy does to the creators of various works and not to the publisher/record company/software firm that distributes them.

The costs of peer review and research make quality textbooks and non-fiction more expensive than other genres to be sure, but does it bring you, the author, a bigger check than if you had written a romance novel? Probably not.
I mean, do you really think that 175 dollars is a fair price for an etextbook? (A question for another thread, perhaps)

My point here is really that I'd love to see a system that protects intellectual property, benefits the authors, and protects the quality of the work. Is that possible?

I'm imagining a Radiohead kind of system, I guess. One in which you pay what you can and do so directly to the creator of the work you buy. Seems to be the perfect model for ebooks. But maybe it's naive.

I'll be publishing my first non-fiction work next year and I'm terribly interested in these kinds of questions...

My point here is really that I'd love to see a system that protects intellectual property, benefits the authors, and protects the quality of the work. Is that possible?In the immortal words of every AOLer out there: Me too! :grin:

What about the honest customers who pay for software and then cannot get it registered without going through a tangle of hoops because of a paranoid developer's fear of piracy?

This happened to me recently. I purchased Hardware Sensors Monitor Pro by AB Software. The owner did not send me a registration key.

The email sent from my "trial programme" to register the product contained a large encrypted list apparently describing my PC. I tried to send many of these emails but most of them errored with a "Mapi" error. I had to uninstall my second email programme (Outlook) which I reserve for another of my more private email addresses before the errors stopped.

Some of my registration request emails must have got through eventually because I then received loads of automated email replies stating:

"ATTENTION!!! All messages originated from unknown E-mail addresses will be silently REMOVED from the queue. Only messages originated from E-mail addresses registered in the orders will be processed." (You could not reply to this automated reply). As I was not getting any replies I assumed that my order had been lost and was not in the registered orders lists.

I won't go into any more detail here about how you have to register the software because it would make some people cry. Suffice it to say that I have never experienced anything so complicated.

I emailed many times to the contact email address on the website and was told that the key had been sent and I should check my spam filter. I replied that I do check my spam filter and if the purchase receipt had escaped the spam filter why shouldn't the registration key do likewise?
I tried to post a message on the forums in the registration issues section. But guess what - you have to be a registered owner to be able to view and post in this section! And I was still without my registration key! There was no address or telephone number on the site and nowhere to contact the owner apart from the contact email address and the recipient of this was not replying in a helpful manner.

Because I was getting nowhere I eventually sent a copy of my purchase receipt which showed my order number, name and address and telephone number. This did prove successful because I received the registration key shortly thereafter.

But to add insult to injury I receive another email from this company saying I had to acknowledge receipt of the key!

I feel that to inconvenience honest paying customers is counter-productive because, although I am normally such a person, with hindsight I would definately have downloaded a cracked copy if I could have found one.:angry:

On the contrary, I am a textbook author myself, and it's textbooks which always will be expensive because they are expensive to produce.


I am also a textbook author. Now I don't know what the practice is elsewhere, but here in the US after the first year or two of sales of a new book, the author's renumeration drops down to zero due to the huge number of books that end up in the used book market. It would be one thing, if at least the consumer benefited, if the price for the used book would be very cheap. However, the college bookstores charge almost as much for the used book as the for the new book. Of course the bookstore buys the book from the student at a pittance. Neither the publisher nor the author get anything from the used book market. That is one of the reasons the publisher charges so much for the new book. I can thus understand why students would try to get the book for nothing since they are being taken advantage of.

You're leaving out the step where they pub brings out a new edition every couple of years, regenerating the "new" book demand. :wink:

Although I do have an opinion about it, I make no moral judgement

Let's see, how should I go about this ?...

- Steal: To take the property of another without right or permission.

- Copyright: The legal right granted to an author, composer, playwright, publisher, or distributor to exclusive publication, production, sale, or distribution of a literary, musical, dramatic, or artistic work.

Please reread the copyright definition once again. You'll note that nowhere is it written that copyright is property. Copyright is a state-granted monopoly to its owner (in other word you don't own any kind of knowledge you produced, you own a copyright to it). If you want to keep an "idea" (i.e: idea, book, song, movie and so on) your property, don't make it available to anyone in any shape or form.

Fun fact: the first law recognized as copyright (the Statute of Anne ) worldwide was in England - for 20 or 30 years after publication. Because it didn't suit them for a long time, the US didn't have any kind of copyright until the late XIXth century. If I remember properly, it was originally of about fourteen years after publications; to be compared with the now 70 years after the death of the author (anybody knows when is the next time Disney will be about to lose Mickey Mouse?)

Some of the most extremist in favor of copyrights' laws are against free libraries - you should pay each time you borrow a book. In fact you should pay each time you make use, in any shape or form, of any copyrighted material. At least that's internally consistent.


I did upload a few of my works (mostly clip-arts) on the internet over time. I always made sure it was under CC. it's a fact my livelihood isn't based upon copyright at all, but I do know if my job was along those lines, I'd do my best to make it so my wages were not dependent upon whether or not the copyright has been infringed:

Harsh fact: copyright infringement (as defined today) is here for good. You can rage at it all you want: Although the people in power are for now toughening copyright's law worlwide, it only gains momentum (demonoid case being a very minor stepback). Populations at large don't think it's wrong. At one time or another, laws will have to recognise that (that's Democracy folks). Sorry, but people who don't embrace it are keeping their head in the sand (and are going to be trampled by it).

I find this very sad and I would seriously like to hurt those who make it this easy.

I find this really disturbing. Maybe it was said in a lighthearted manner? Or maybe you mean "hurt" in a financial sense? But without any smilies or other indications, I can't help but imagine you sitting under a single bare lightbulb, fondling a claw hammer... *shudder*

Surely, in the grand scheme of things, copyright infringement is not that bad? Do we really need to threaten bodily harm against people who aid in copyright infringement, especially when that line can be drawn all sorts of weird places?

I feel like a lot of people on this forum have lost their sense of perspective when it comes to this topic...

I feel like a lot of people on this forum have lost their sense of perspective when it comes to this topic...

Yeah, that was the point I was trying to make with my original reply. I still do agree with you, but I can also agree with the point Harry was making earlier about it being a bigger deal to those whose livelihoods depend on it.

It is a bigger deal for those whose lives depend on it. If that is the case, then THOSE people must change.. I feel no compassion for them. I have lived in Russia for Ten years. I know Doctors who make 50 dollar a month for their work. I know others: scientists, writers, professors: They have changed their career and gone into business: selling clothes on the street: working for state companies etc.... They are not doing what they want but they are not whinging about it.


The only constant in life is change.



They adapt and move on. Well, perhaps some in the Publishing and Music industry will have to do the same.




Yeah, that was the point I was trying to make with my original reply. I still do agree with you, but I can also agree with the point Harry was making earlier about it being a bigger deal to those whose livelihoods depend on it.

LEGAL change, sure. It occasionally hurts people, but as you say, it's necessary sometimes. We do not however, ask people to shrug it off when they're mugged. Or when a loved one is murdered. People still retain the right to be upset when the law is broken and they suffer loss.

I don't think they have the right to call their friends and neighbors "criminal scum" when they've committed other offenses that are equally bad, and that's why I posted. I was looking for perspective, not vindication of the crime. And in that vein, I'm not sure how you can possibly argue that it's the COPYRIGHT holder who's in the wrong when someone illegally downloads their work. Maybe the public will one day rise up against the whole idea of copyright and change the laws, but until that happens, copyright IS law, and circumventing it is therefore wrong.

And by the way, the examples you gave (doctors, scientists, etc) have nothing to do with this situation. If a doctor can't find work or isn't paid well, it's a result of economic factors, and certainly isn't a result of illegal activities forcing them out of their chosen profession. I'm really not sure how you can justify what you're saying.

You're leaving out the step where they pub brings out a new edition every couple of years, regenerating the "new" book demand. :wink:

There are some fields where that's absolutely vital - eg genetics. Not for elementary textbooks, though, certainly.

Perhaps it does not. I am only giving an angle. Look It could be come an economic factor for some in the future. I wish writers would get more for what they do. Sadly, The large Publishers and Music companies seem to get the most out of it all.



LEGAL change, sure. It occasionally hurts people, but as you say, it's necessary sometimes. We do not however, ask people to shrug it off when they're mugged. Or when a loved one is murdered. People still retain the right to be upset when the law is broken and they suffer loss.

I don't think they have the right to call their friends and neighbors "criminal scum" when they've committed other offenses that are equally bad, and that's why I posted. I was looking for perspective, not vindication of the crime. And in that vein, I'm not sure how you can possibly argue that it's the COPYRIGHT holder who's in the wrong when someone illegally downloads their work. Maybe the public will one day rise up against the whole idea of copyright and change the laws, but until that happens, copyright IS law, and circumventing it is therefore wrong.

And by the way, the examples you gave (doctors, scientists, etc) have nothing to do with this situation. If a doctor can't find work or isn't paid well, it's a result of economic factors, and certainly isn't a result of illegal activities forcing them out of their chosen profession. I'm really not sure how you can justify what you're saying.

I find this really disturbing. Maybe it was said in a lighthearted manner?

I meant it as stated. I'm not looking for a lynching, mind you. It's a simple matter of insisting on justice which I would hope people agree that we need. Victims can forgive those who hurt them if they so choose. But the rest of us need to protect others from becoming victims. Copyright infringement is theft and is harmful to people and needs to be prevented and those who commit it need to be punished. I don't understand why that should be disturbing to read although it may be distasteful. If it is still disturbing, please explain more.:)

I meant it as stated. I'm not looking for a lynching, mind you. It's a simple matter of insisting on justice which I would hope people agree that we need. Victims can forgive those who hurt them if they so choose. But the rest of us need to protect others from becoming victims. Copyright infringement is theft and is harmful to people and needs to be prevented and those who commit it need to be punished. I don't understand why that should be disturbing to read although it may be distasteful. If it is still disturbing, please explain more.:)

It did sound a little as though you were advocating "vigilante-ism", and I'm sure that none of us would like to see that, even those of us who do feel passionately about it. I'm sure that you didn't mean to give that impression.

It's like the case I saw reported on the BBC News recently from your home state, Texas, where someone had gone out of his house with a shotgun and murdered, in cold blood, two men who had broken into his neighbour's house. Yes, we'd all accept that burglary is a crime, but it certainly isn't one for which the death sentence is appropriate, and there's never any justification for someone to take the law into their own hands. The appalling thing in this particular case is that the man who committed these murders had not even been arrested. I was absolutely horrified to hear that :(.

It did sound a little as though you were advocating "vigilante-ism", and I'm sure that none of us would like to see that, even those of us who do feel passionately about it. I'm sure that you didn't mean to give that impression.

It's like the case I saw reported on the BBC News recently from your home state, Texas, where someone had gone out of his house with a shotgun and murdered, in cold blood, two men who had broken into his neighbour's house. Yes, we'd all accept that burglary is a crime, but it certainly isn't one for which the death sentence is appropriate, and there's never any justification for someone to take the law into their own hands. The appalling thing in this particular case is that the man who committed these murders had not even been arrested. I was absolutely horrified to hear that :(.

I suppose I was a bit riled when I wrote "hurt" but I truly meant meant was "appropriately punished" as any civil society should do to those who harm others. As to the incident you cite that recently occurred in Houston, I can only say that I frequently find things that go on here to be stunningly bizarre and sad. There has been a law here for many years that allows a homeowner in Texas to use deadly force to protect both people and property if the incident occurs after dark. This struck me as something quite archaic and I was glad to see it reconsidered recently. Unfortunately, the law was "strengthened" to allow such deadly force during the daytime, too. I hope civilization appears here soon. Time to bury myself in a good book.:tired:

I suppose I was a bit riled when I wrote "hurt" but I truly meant meant was "appropriately punished" as any civil society should do to those who harm others.

I would certainly agree with you there!

I'm pretty close to law-abiding side of this discussion but the world is not black-and-white.

Example? I purchase legal copies of any software I use "for a purpose" at home and absolutely everything used in any way at work. But there are pieces of software that I may be curious about whose publishers do not have an adequare demo version of. In those cases I feel 100% justified in sampling an illegal copy and deciding whether to buy it or delete it.

Does that violate the letter of the law? Yes, no argument. But the morality is snow white to me.

Another example? I'm undecided on this one. Suppose I bought a particular printed book. Should I have to buy the e-book version also? Or is it okay, in this case, to obtain a darknet copy (I love that term here)? How is it different than buying a CD and copying it to tape or MP3 for my own use? I lean toward equivalency here, that it is moral if not even legal (and it might be).

What say you? Am I just a scoundrel for these considerations in your black-and-white world?

What say you? Am I just a scoundrel for these considerations in your black-and-white world?

A scoundrel amongst us! A witch, even! Let's burn him at the stake!! Where's the emoticon for the burning witch? This will have to do. :devil:

Just kidding, of course.

You got me on the first one, Penforhire. I suppose I would be tempted to check out the software if I couldn't get it legally just to try. For products of smaller companies, I'm guessing that if you asked them to try it they'd be happy to let you. In fact, I'm sure they would if they knew there were illegal copies available to you and you were still considering paying them for a legal copy!

As to the second, I'm just not going there - not for me. Yes, I have many, many books on my shelves and I know that if I spent some time I could find illegal copies of the ebooks. But I just can't imagine me doing that. I guess I'd rather do without or digitize them myself for my own use only. Probably not a habit I would want to get into.

Another example? I'm undecided on this one. Suppose I bought a particular printed book. Should I have to buy the e-book version also? Or is it okay, in this case, to obtain a darknet copy (I love that term here)?

Your example should be considered this way: Suppose you bought a hardback copy of a book. Does that justify you to take a paperback from the store when it is released, and not pay for it?

Answer: Unless the author/publisher offers a free paperback to you: No. It really is that simple.

Having just discovered this particular thread, reading it from end to end has been... educational. It seems as if some people say my e-books should be available to anyone with the gumption to take them, some think I'd be justified to lock up anyone who took even one, and some want me to get a real job! (Okay, that's an exaggeration, but it's been interesting seeing these viewpoints kicked around in here.)

This brings me back to the wish that content producers like myself could all get into a "subsidized income" situation, so we could produce as we please, get paid for our efforts, and not have to worry about what's selling and what's being stolen. Alas, that just isn't practical for all of us... we can't all get a publisher, or score patrons, and make a living that way.

Getting to the original subject, I don't have a problem with Demonoid staying down. I don't consider that a blanket condemnation of Torrent, and eventually, a site offering only legit content will become popular and stay up. I expect that technology will eventually find a way to make piracy too much of a hassle to be bothered with, by all but the most avid pirates, leaving everyone else to get used to paying for content. This actually has plenty of historical precedent, and people do get used to the idea that things worth having have to be paid for.

All this will just take time to shake down. I think the e-book and e-music industry are at the beginnings of a sea-change that will leave them unrecognizable to us in the future. Will I survive as an author? Will I ever make more money than I already have? I don't know. (Good thing I have a day job, huh?)

Okay, but explain to me why you feel digitizing on your own versus downloading the same result is morally any different? I have everything I'd need to digitize a book but the effort to end up at the same place seems absurd.

I could see the difference if I was paying a Chinese pirate (land o' scofflaws these days) for his digitized copy. That would be financing piracy. But a "free" download in the wild?

What is the ethical difference to the fair use I noted for music? The mapping of music media to book media is very accurate to my eye, the same goods in different formats.

edit - I wasn't responding to Steve. But I don't think it is simple. Your argument about hardcover versus softcover is analogous to regular CD versus Super Audio CD. In both cases (hardcover) I agree I'm not entitled to the 2nd form but I AM entitled to the formats I mentioned (CD to MP3 and p-book to e-book). At least I believe so.

Okay, but explain to me why you feel digitizing on your own versus downloading the same result is morally any different? I have everything I'd need to digitize a book but the effort to end up at the same place seems absurd.

I could see the difference if I was paying a Chinese pirate (land o' scofflaws these days) for his digitized copy. That would be financing piracy. But a "free" download in the wild?

But it's a free download of something that was stolen. And if I had thought about, I think I should have said the same thing about the stolen software. I want nothing of them. But my biggest questions to you now are: do you float and do you weigh the same as a duck? ;)

Okay, but explain to me why you feel digitizing on your own versus downloading the same result is morally any different?

Because when I digitized on my own, for my own use, I did not intend to give it to anyone else and potentially deny the producer a sale. When you took from someone else, you did precisely that. (They don't know you bought a book already. Maybe you didn't.)

I have everything I'd need to digitize a book but the effort to end up at the same place seems absurd.

And I can build a bicycle from scrap metal... nevertheless, I don't have the right to just take one from someone who stole a bike and saved me the trouble.

I could see the difference if I was paying a Chinese pirate (land o' scofflaws these days) for his digitized copy. That would be financing piracy. But a "free" download in the wild?

That "free" download isn't supposed to be there, hence, it is theft, illegal product. "I can take a stolen copy because I wasn't going to buy it anyway" is no justification for theft. Neither is the "victimless crime" argument. Theft is theft.

What is the ethical difference to the fair use I noted for music? The mapping of music media to book media is very accurate to my eye, the same goods in different formats.

Only when you do it for yourself, and not to release "into the wild," where you have absolutely no control over what happens to it. The moment you do that, you have violated the agreement between you and the producer. And if someone gets it from you and sells copies, even if you did not make or sell the copies or profit from them, you will be liable for it.

I agree with your last statement. But if I download a copy for my own use and I already own the book, and could have digitized it myself, then there is no theft. You are saying theses digital bits are somehow tainted, like cocaine residue on $100 bills. I disagree.

In the software world distribution is often done by download (with or without DRM -- I have too many dongles!). If the e-book is equivalent to the p-book, and if I am entitled to e-book version of my p-book (the critical point between us I think), then all we have done is altered the distribution system. I am not a pirate but the person who downloads a book they did not already own is a pirate.

I thought some more about your comment about hardcover versus softcover. I feel I AM entitled to print my own hardcover version if I own the softcover. I am not entitled to the resources of the publisher's printer or any additional expense on their part. So to answer your question, yes I feel entitled to a hardcover version if I only own the softcover.

I agree with your last statement. But if I download a copy for my own use and I already own the book, and could have digitized it myself, then there is no theft. You are saying theses digital bits are somehow tainted, like cocaine residue on $100 bills. I disagree.

But you know where the ebook originated - from someone who stole it. Doesn't that put you off some?

Part of me can't believe I'm discussing the abstract philosophical justifications of ownership and theft! Is this really so hard to understand in a civilized world today? How do you think we became a civilized world? By setting agreements to behave like civilized people, so we could all trust each other, cooperate, and make a world that isn't run by marauding huns.

Looking for ways to strip those agreements away, thread by thread, is not helping! Once the cloth unravels, it'll take Hell to put it back together again.

Sorry. Shouldn't have skipped lunch. I'm going home.

Part of me can't believe I'm discussing the abstract philosophical justifications of ownership and theft! Is this really so hard to understand in a civilized world today? How do you think we became a civilized world? By setting agreements to behave like civilized people, so we could all trust each other, cooperate, and make a world that isn't run by marauding huns.

You're right. I say we burn the witch!!:wink:

The Romans were civilized once too, look where that got them. :shrug:

Staying civilized is often harder than becoming civilized.

We're discussing it because of the subtlety involved.

You would have to be intentionally obtuse to not see any nuances comparing digitizing your own p-book with downloading a copy someone else made. I all cases of my claiming any morality I am talking about changing the format of something I already paid for.

Shutting down the discussion does not clarify the issue. We live in a digital age and our concept of ownership and theft is under scrutiny. Worthy topic for this board, no?

edit - It is not my intention to distress you and while my leanings are obvious I am not 100% convinced myself. The music format analogy is pushing me because that is a done deal, you ARE legally allowed to convert your own CD's to tapes or MP3's for your own use in America.

Copyright infringement is theft

The United States Supreme Court doesn't agree (Dowling v. US, 473 US 207):

Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.


Copyright is a limited right granted to you by your country because your fellow citizens happen to think that it promotes innovation in the useful arts if you're given the exclusive right to reap the profits of an original creation for awhile. It can be and sometimes is revoked under the doctrine of copyright misuse.

Between copyright and DRM, I think that so little is going to be preserved of the cultural output of the ancient 21st-century American civilization when the archaeologists dig it up 3,000 years from now that they're going to think we had some kind of dark age.

But you know where the ebook originated - from someone who stole it. Doesn't that put you off some?


When you say "stole it", what does that mean to you? That they walked out the door of the shop with it? Or just that they digitized it on their own, and put it on the Internet?

If it's the second, then how is that different than digitizing it yourself? The end result is the same...

I also think that this constant repetition of "theft", "stolen", etc, is unhelpful. There's a huge difference between stealing something and violating copyright - the biggest being that stealing deprives someone else of their copy, while violating copyright does not.

Obviously, both are illegal. But they're not the same thing. At the very least, conflating the two confuses people like me, when you make statements like the above :-)

Not everything on Demonoid.com was illegal, but some was pirated.
I used it to find legal Linux DVDs.

Not every eBook is illegal, but some are pirated.
I read legal eBooks.

Some of you seem to hate anything that MIGHT be illegal that you are not using.
Not every car is stolen, but some are. I think every car should be confiscated & melted down. Only pickups should be allowed as passenger vehicles - after all, there are too dang many stolen cars out there!

Andy

I think it's a worthy discussion and I'm trying to find analogies, too. If you own a VHS tape could one feel reasonably to be entitled to the DVD? If so, should one feel that it's okay to download an illegal copy of it? The answer for me is no in both cases. In the first case because it's quite a step in technology from VHS to DVD so it seems right to me that the equivalent of the author and publisher in this case should be paid for the digital version. In the second case because of where it came from - a thief. For music, it's legal to create MP3s from your CDs for your own use so really neither of these seem to me to be quite analogous to the pbook to ebook question you pose. Hmmm.

...but what have the Romans ever done for US?

Seriously - part of the reason this is so passionately disputed is because we are in a unique situation here. Comparing software or ebook piracy to stealing is logically flawed, since digital goods are reproducible without a loss of quality. The bicycle and scrap metal analogy sounds good, but when you take someone's bike, someone doesn't have a bike any more.

And digitizing a book you own might be legal, but the moment you upload it, you're contributing to its illegal distribution. Another issue altogether...

Again - we're in a new kind of territory here that, as far as I'm concerned, requires us to rethink the structure of distribution (i.e. cut out the publisher/record company influence) and deliver compensation as directly to the producer as possible (in the case of ebooks, the author gets the cash and not the publisher, distributor, and retailer).

Personally, I'm always skeptical of people who proclaim the infinite wisdom of the invisible hand of the marketplace, but I think in a decentralized medium like the Internet, ebooks distributed independently would survive and generate revenue only if they are of a certain high standard. This would likely be determined by market-like forces in the networked media: I write my book on my laptop. I convert it into various formats and offer it through a number of online marketplaces. If it's good, people send me a few shekels and if it's crap, I better write something else. Web forums like mobileread will then inform interested readers about what's good reading (http://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16860) and what isn't.

MP3 Pirates will tell you that they're doing the art form a favor. When the profitability for record companies is reduced, the only people who will make music will be those who are passionate about it. I'm not saying that's true or desirable, but in the print medium, in which we're talking about the dissemination of cultural memory and literary heritage, we need some new models.:yes:

When you say "stole it", what does that mean to you? That they walked out the door of the shop with it? Or just that they digitized it on their own, and put it on the Internet?

If it's the second, then how is that different than digitizing it yourself? The end result is the same...

I also think that this constant repetition of "theft", "stolen", etc, is unhelpful. There's a huge difference between stealing something and violating copyright - the biggest being that stealing deprives someone else of their copy, while violating copyright does not.

Obviously, both are illegal. But they're not the same thing. At the very least, conflating the two confuses people like me, when you make statements like the above :-)

To answer your question, these seem equivalent to me. Walking out the door without paying for it and digitizing it so that others can take it without paying for it seem the same to me. Actually, the latter is worse since presumably there will be many people who will end up with the item without paying for it. Although the words theft may not sound right, it sounds perfectly good to me. I just have to think about the author and publisher who worked hard to provide a product which they are not be paid for. If I need to think of that as something other than theft, I'll need some help.

How am I different if I digitize my pbook? Because I paid for the pbook that is still sitting on my shelf and I intend to use the digital copy for me alone - no one will ever see it. Should I pay the author and publisher a second time for the ebook? At the moment, I'm not convinced either way. I think it's an interesting question to think about more. I should be clear though in saying that if the ebook is available, I'm buying it. I'm only interested in converting the pbooks that I have which I can't find digital copies of. Not sure that should make a difference, though.

Yep, the crux of my debate (and internal conflict) is whether or not the e-book is truly equivalent to the p-book. Your example of a VHS tape is another good one. Similar to the SA-CD versus CD, I have to agree the DVD is not the same as the VHS tape. edit - though dubbing a VHS tape to DVD by video capture is fine, IMO.

But I'm not seeing how the e-book is different in quality of content than the p-book. It would be very cool (future?) if authors added editorial content linked to locations in the book, similar to Director's over-voice on video DVD's. At that point there would be no debate from me, the e-book was an improved product. But here we are directly comparing photographed and OCD'd copies of a p-book, with no added value.

To answer your question, these seem equivalent to me. Walking out the door without paying for it and digitizing it so that others can take it without paying for it seem the same to me. Actually, the latter is worse since presumably there will be many people who will end up with the item without paying for it. Although the words theft may not sound right, it sounds perfectly good to me. I just have to think about the author and publisher who worked hard to provide a product which they are not be paid for. If I need to think of that as something other than theft, I'll need some help.

OK, I'm not arguing that there is no harm to others with copyright infringement. But it's not the *same* harm as with theft. People are harmed when you stab someone with a knife, but we don't call copyright infringement "assault" or "murder". Calling it theft is just as inaccurate.

You would no doubt be confused if I said "Well, when you download a book, that's murder". Even disregarding the accuracy, using loaded terms like that will simply harm the argument.


How am I different if I digitize my pbook? Because I paid for the pbook that is still sitting on my shelf and I intend to use the digital copy for me alone - no one will ever see it. Should I pay the author and publisher a second time for the ebook? At the moment, I'm not convinced either way. I think it's an interesting question to think about more.

So if someone digitizes a book, and puts it on the Internet and no one downloads it, is it still theft? What if the only people who download it are people who already own the book, like you?

I'm not saying that happens, I'm just trying to probe the borders of this strange linguistic anomaly you've constructed :-)

I'm back. (And I've had a snack.)

Okay, I realize that it's very hard to quantify or put a price on what is essentially a collection of electrons. I honestly believe this is the crux of any argument about e-books, e-music, etc... the fact that it seems to be free and effortless to reproduce them, and that the product in a macroscopic sense, apparently does not exist.

However, in point of fact, it does have a physical form: Electrons. Electrons, in specific collections corralled by your hard drive, essentially make up the e-book, in the same way as a constantly changing collection of atoms makes up your body. Any quantum physicist would tell you that an e-book as a distinct entity is as real as your body. The courts will agree with that assessment, too.

Further, a book is considered an intellectual property, and there is a value to an intellectual property, whatever its medium. That value does not change, just because the medium has changed. A book still has the same value (plus whatever additional physical costs were involved in producing it), whether it be hardback, paperback, e-book or audiobook. Same thing goes for a movie, whether it's on film, on digital tape, or on a hard drive. It still has an inherent value, and--most importantly--it is still an intellectual property, and subject to the same regulations as any other intellectual property, whatever its medium.

This means that it is wrong, in any sense of the word or concept, to give away that intellectual property without the express permission of the creator. It also means that it is wrong, in the same word or concept, to duplicate or share it without said permission.

Legally, morally or ethically speaking, we would not expect that if we went to a movie in a theatre, we would therefore be entitled to a free DVD of that movie, or of its soundtrack, or even a poster of the hot chick in the lead. We know that we are expected, in an honest and ethical society, to pay for that other item, because it is in fact an item separate from the movie we saw in the theatre.

We also know that, if we buy a poster of the hot chick, then take a picture of that poster and try to sell our duplicate pictures, we can be hauled off to copyright court and forced to pay a fine for violation of copyright. There is no question that what we have done is wrong.

So: Is an e-book a distinct entity? Yes. Is it considered an intellectual property? Yes. Should it be free, because it has no physical form? No, because it does have a physical form... electrons... and it is treated by law as if it has a physical form.

Is a copy of an e-book the same as a copy of a printed book? Not in the eyes of the law, the property rights or the intellectual rights holder. It has physical form, therefore it is a distinct entity, and anyone who obtains it is expected to pay for it, and to respect its intellectual and property rights by not copying it and giving the copies away.

Does this make sense? Yes, in a society that exists by agreement, abides ethics and respects law and honesty. To those who do not respect law, honesty, ethics and agreement, this clearly makes no sense at all.

But the word "Anarchy" does.

Part of me can't believe I'm discussing the abstract philosophical justifications of ownership and theft!

There is a reason for that: Theft is when you take a physical good from someone. When you download an ebook (or whatever other piece digital good) without paying for it when the copyright's owner isn't giving it out for free, your committing copyright infringement. Not theft.

Once again: copyright infringement isn't theft, and one download doesn't equal one less sale. And at least in the case of artistic works, although for some download you get one less sale, for others you get one you wouldn't have otherwise.

I expect that technology will eventually find a way to make piracy too much of a hassle to be bothered with, by all but the most avid pirates, leaving everyone else to get used to paying for content.

I'm sorry but you haven't much technical know-how, do you? That statement is, at best, wishful thinking. For the last ten-fifteen years, crooks have been selling this kind of snake-oil to various content producers. It doesn't work. It can't work - that's why there are laws such as DMCA and the end result is actually more of a bother to paying user than to those who don't care and download infringing versions.

You really think your customers will put up with the hassle indefinitly? When there are alternatives available?

How am I different if I digitize my pbook? Because I paid for the pbook that is still sitting on my shelf and I intend to use the digital copy for me alone - no one will ever see it. Should I pay the author and publisher a second time for the ebook? At the moment, I'm not convinced either way. I think it's an interesting question to think about more. I should be clear though in saying that if the ebook is available, I'm buying it. I'm only interested in converting the pbooks that I have which I can't find digital copies of. Not sure that should make a difference, though.

If you convert a book that you own, and intend to use that copy only for yourself, you are exercising "fair use" (in the US, anyway). "Fair use" is essentially a loophole, allowing you amnesty for your copy if no one else gets it. However, you should be aware that if someone breaks into your home, takes your digital file and sells it, you can be held liable for creating the copy.

I do not believe that you owe the author/publisher any money for creating your own copy for fair use. But you do owe them for any copy that ends up in someone else's hands.

I think what's important here is to remember that an e-book is more than just a "concept" or "illusory object." It is real, even if you can't see it. Just like the bacteria crawling all over your skin right now, and the germs that give you colds, you accept that they exist, that you don't catch colds because of magic or bad luck, even though you cannot physically see them.

An e-book must be considered as a very tiny but very real object, and when it is considered real, most of these questions are duly answered.

I'm sorry but you haven't much technical know-how, do you? That statement is, at best, wishful thinking. For the last ten-fifteen years, crooks have been selling this kind of snake-oil to various content producers. It doesn't work. It can't work - that's why there are laws such as DMCA and the end result is actually more of a bother to paying user than to those who don't care and download infringing versions.

I know exactly what I'm saying. I know it is easy to copy electronic files. But I'm sorry, did you really think that was the point here?

You really think your customers will put up with the hassle indefinitly? When there are alternatives available?

The "alternatives" you are speaking so vaguely of are content producers who stop creating content, because they cannot make a living at it because of theft. The result is: No more professional authors, musicians, theoreticians, designers, engineers, artists, inventors, and actors. We have those professions, and they can make a living, because the laws of society protect their rights. You are essentially saying "they can no longer be protected," implying that society will simply roll over and let the law be trampled by those who disrespect property rights and ethics. You are telling all of them to stop creating, and go get cashiers' jobs, because that is all they are worth.

Is that the alternative you want?

Is a copy of an e-book the same as a copy of a printed book? Not in the eyes of the law, the property rights or the intellectual rights holder. It has physical form, therefore it is a distinct entity

Er.... Bull?

You're blurring the issue (again) with logically wrong arguments (again).

Your electron story doesn't fly. If you have a p-book for sale in your shop, and I come and take it, I've committed theft (and you're short one p-book).

If I hack your website and copy one of of your books in its ebook format, whoa lookee : you still have that file on your server!

To use your image, the electrons that compose it are still on your drive, arranged in a way that a computer can translate to what you've written. Physically, the only thing I've done is rearrange electrons on my drive so they have the same pattern as those on yours. The only thing that has been exchanged is information (and you'll note I said exchanged, not taken). Your electrons are still yours.

The thing, with the advent of the digital age, we now have objects (computers and so on) that are able to do what was before the exclusive realm of brains : exchange of information without need of a physical medium.

The "alternatives" you are speaking so vaguely of are content producers who stop creating content, because they cannot make a living at it because of theft. The result is: No more professional authors, musicians, theoreticians, designers, engineers, artists, inventors, and actors.

Wrong!

Do you any idea of the number of people who produce artistic work without earning any kind of livelihood from it? it's huge, so that point just isn't true.

That said, I never meant that people shouldn't be able to earn a living from their work. What I'm saying is that the previous model where reading one novel/listening to one song meant you paid for your copy of it (brushing aside exchange between people) isn't valid anymore.

I'm don't know what form this kind of thing will be in the future, but I'll bet you the farm that it won't be everybody - or even the majority - dutifully going to sanctioned websites and pay for their copy of whatever.

I do know there already are people making good money out of their work although they made it available for free (in the writters' realm, Cory Doctorow comes to mind).

If I hack your website and copy one of of your books in its ebook format, whoa lookee : you still have that file on your server!

That does not change the fact that you have, in fact, taken a copy of information, or an intellectual property, that does not belong to you, without permission. Theft of information without permission is still theft.

Further, the simple fact that reproducing something is easier (and make no mistake, even if we're only talking about a few milliwatts of power, it's still expending resources to be copied) doesn't mean it should automatically be free. That is a thief's argument.

At best, you can argue that you've sold a copy of the original... which makes you a forger.

And sure, people can still give away their creations if they want. Cory D can do it, and it helps him, because he's already an established author, making a living, and giving away material for free helps spread his already-established name, making him more money. This logic does not work for those who are not already known, and therefore have not reached the critical mass of hundreds to thousands of fans and followers to spread the word of their existence. If all you needed was to give away some free stuff, we'd all be rich now.

This is an interesting discussion indeed.

Allow me to chime in :)

Like HarryT and others, I too create software for a living. Guess what? I'm a smart person and as such, nothing insults me more than misapplication of terms and manipulation of language.

1. Piracy is robbery on the oceans. Piracy isn't copyright infringement. Copyright infringement isn't theft.

2. If someone makes a copy of my software and uses it without paying me for it...they haven't stolen the software from me. I still have it. I have NOT been deprived of my property.

3. NO ONE is entitled to software that is charged for without paying for it. CONVERSELY...I do not have the "right" to be paid. It isn't a "right" in the true sense of the word, as I am not being deprived of property, but of income *potential*

Copyright infringement isn't a technological problem...its a social/moral one. People should not use software they did not pay for...and I would prefer it greatly if in fact people purchased a license to use mine.

Its not going to happen. Everyone that uses it isn't going to pay for it. Its funny...the first year or so our stuff was available...we dedicated a ridiculous amount of time chasing down "pirates" and flipping algorithms and attempting to devise various ways to stop folks from using the software without paying for it.

It is, at the end of the day, a deterrent at best for casual folk...nothing more. Some people will always think it is worth "more" to spend the time figuring out how to not pay than to do so. These people are not...customers.

I don't care about them, or their problems...at all.

We finally came up with a "compromise" solution that I know for sure "hurts" my customers more than those that are not...sadly.

I've even in the past sold product to known "pirates"...

Believe it or not...the people that I find worse than the "crack please" types are the ones that purchase a product with the sole intent of getting a license...then complaining to their bank/cc company for a refund...because that costs me *more than the sale*.

I suppose its my Libertarian way of thinking about capitalism, but I realize no one is entitled to anyone else's Actual Money. Not even me.

I do not think of these people as "criminal scum" because I don't take it personally. If I never sell another copy of any of our software products, I still have the blueprints and the knowledge that was used to invent them in the first place.

If someone was able to take those away...then we have crossed into the realm of theft.

Legally, morally or ethically speaking, we would not expect that if we went to a movie in a theatre, we would therefore be entitled to a free DVD of that movie, or of its soundtrack, or even a poster of the hot chick in the lead. We know that we are expected, in an honest and ethical society, to pay for that other item, because it is in fact an item separate from the movie we saw in the theatre.


This is a poor analogy for modern society as people expect just that, to some degree.

Trade Unionists and creatives are the worst in fact....they expect to receive residual compensation for work-for-hire.

If you make a car or paint a set...should you be entitled to payments beyond the work you did to create your small part of the whole...even though you did not absorb the risks involved with creating the whole in the first place?

This is essentially the core belief of collectivists. The truth of the matter is Steve that the cost of making 9000 copies of an ebook or 900 or 90000 is negligible as far as matters of scale and to do so you aren't being deprived of any Real Assets you hold (like actual money) in any level even remotely near that of someone that was buying paper, ink and bindery, or paying someone else to do so.

I'm *in* the Electronic distribution chain...its how I feed my kids.

And at the end of the day, after all rhetoric of "theft" and "entitlement" are cast aside, I know in my heart I'd stand to lose more if I was pressing discs and warehousing inventory.

I know that even if i did, it would cost me more because what i make, annualized over the costs of digital manufacturing is far and away a larger in the pocket profit than hard goods manufacture...AND...I know I contribute FAR LESS to the broader economy by doing so.

While I would LIKE everyone that uses my software to pay me for it...I know in all honesty that if I was making physical product, I would have been done and out of business long ago because every "lost sale" (hate that phrase) would cost so much more.

And Guess what? You know it too...as does anyone else that is tech-saavy. You'd be better served thinking of what you provide as a service....or doing paper pub and taking some far more "tangible" risks.

That is not to say that the digital way doesn't carry its own risks and pitfalls but they are far, far less devastating. Production scales better, etc.

2. If someone makes a copy of my software and uses it without paying me for it...they haven't stolen the software from me. I still have it. I have NOT been deprived of my property.

I would consider your intellectual product your property, whether it takes physical form or not (and as software, even a copy of software, it is in a physical form).

3. NO ONE is entitled to software that is charged for without paying for it.

Hallalujah. Thus endeth the lesson.

CONVERSELY...I do not have the "right" to be paid. It isn't a "right" in the true sense of the word, as I am not being deprived of property, but of income *potential*

Again, you have had intellectual property taken from you without permission. Unless you agreed to that without compensation, I still believe you have a *right* to be paid for it.

Copyright infringement isn't a technological problem...its a social/moral one.

Exactly. Arguing about how many mouse-clicks it takes is being obtuse. This is an ethical issue, nothing less, and part of the Big Picture that we can't afford to ignore.

We are compromising principles, here... we are unilaterally sacrificing others' rights, we are declaring ourselves above others in our desires. We are the elite in the castle, saying that we are above the law simply because the peons outside can't get to us. Does that make it okay to copy others' files? No. It just makes it easy for you to get away with being less than a member of civilization.

(And tomorrow: I'm gonna eat cake!)

I didn't put it in my profile thingee, but I'm actually in four-one-oh. Howdy, neighbor!

I didn't put it in my profile thingee, but I'm actually in four-one-oh. Howdy, neighbor!

:bigwave:

While I would LIKE everyone that uses my software to pay me for it...I know in all honesty that if I was making physical product, I would have been done and out of business long ago because every "lost sale" (hate that phrase) would cost so much more.

And Guess what? You know it too...as does anyone else that is tech-saavy. You'd be better served thinking of what you provide as a service....or doing paper pub and taking some far more "tangible" risks.

If I thought of my work that way... as a service, instead of a product... I would probably charge more for it, as I would consider each e-book worth the time it took me to create it. I know what you're saying, but I don't think that works for anyone except a creator who is being paid directly by a boss/publisher/patron. I'm an independent author, and every dime I make comes directly from every product I sell, minus my personal overhead to make them available, not from a set salary.

That's why I sell my books as e-books, as opposed to print-on-demand or vanity press books, to keep my costs down, and be able to pass that cost to the consumer in the form of low product prices. Because, no, I could not afford to spend money on, or lose sales from, more expensive printed products.

I would consider your intellectual product your property, whether it takes physical form or not (and as software, even a copy of software, it is in a physical form).



Hallalujah. Thus endeth the lesson.



Again, you have had intellectual property taken from you without permission. Unless you agreed to that without compensation, I still believe you have a *right* to be paid for it.



I didn't lose anything but sleep if I decided to get twisted about it. I got over that long ago. its just not realistic...and the alternative is worse to me. See below:


Exactly. Arguing about how many mouse-clicks it takes is being obtuse. This is an ethical issue, nothing less, and part of the Big Picture that we can't afford to ignore.

We are compromising principles, here... we are unilaterally sacrificing others' rights, we are declaring ourselves above others in our desires. We are the elite in the castle, saying that we are above the law simply because the peons outside can't get to us. Does that make it okay to copy others' files? No. It just makes it easy for you to get away with being less than a member of civilization.

(And tomorrow: I'm gonna eat cake!)

Yeah...the DCMA tho sort of makes it real apparent to me that putting "real" locks on data that can effectively be reproduced via the real world equivalent of Star Trek "transporter" technology has far, FAR worse effects on the rights of others and the "peons" and "unwashed masses".

I did NOT always feel this way. It happened over time, really, when I actually got fed up with people "ripping me off" and decided it was "going to stop" with the next product we did. I decided it was going to exist as a physical boxed product in the really-for-real world.

The thing is...it wasn't a runaway hit. I have boxes and boxes of the thing still unsold...and THAT was when it hit me.

We're winning...for now. As a consumer and producer of e-products...I know things like DRM are just...wrong and hurtful to consumers...which is why really we've relaxed more and more the shackles on the software we make.

It seems to be a cycle in software devs...every 15 years we figure out copy protection or whatever doesn't work...then we get sucked back in :)

With ebooks its got to be the same. I mean you control the process, end-to-end...and it SUCKS to buy an eBook and not be able to read it on a Mac...or play an iTune on an Xbox.

I think consumers are driven by these shackles in the "peon" ranks nowadays much more so than back when I was a youngster because I don't think e-Product is fairly priced for them...especially when its restricted.

And if you ask around, there are some that will never pay for ANYTHING but many, many more that feel that content providers charge more for "less" with e-products.

They see it as the "art"...consumers see the product as the medium, because traditionally art is a patronage thing and medium is a traded good.

Something you cannot retrade is inherently worth less to the buyer.

Perhaps if e-things took this to heart (moreso with content than software products) than everyone would be better served.

The flaw of any business plan, one learns early, is that if you have to "educate the customer" for them to understand the value of your product, then you've really already failed :)

And sure, people can still give away their creations if they want. Cory D can do it, and it helps him, because he's already an established author, making a living, and giving away material for free helps spread his already-established name, making him more money.

To be candid, although I just read his Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Doctorow), I'm not clear as to Doctorow's fame before he published his first novel. What I DO know is that from the start he published under Creative Commons.

I also know that copyright (and in fact any kind of intellectual property) is something relatively new (about two hundred years) and has wildly varied over times and regions of the world. For instance, for a very long time, the US didn't have any IP law because it suited them that way. Interestingly enough, there are quite a lot of countries which have been recently strong-armed by the US and EU into having such laws (many of them in South-East Asia). However, these places used to have a striving market (of now IP'ed products) without these laws before.

I'd invite you to read this: http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/95psa.html
or a significantly longer work on the same subject here :
http://www.dklevine.com/general/intellectual/against.htm

I'd invite you to read this: http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/95psa.html


I did not read the second paper, but the first is basically an attempt to apply communist theory to knowledge work.

The basic "solution" was to essentially have a cash pool for folks that create IP draw a salary from, and just do it.

The problem with this is, of course, said creator doesn't get to pick their pay :)

It looks good on paper...but the practical application leaves much to be desired, at a minimum.

The reality of the matter is, that the cost to individual freedom for a system effective enough to stop illegal copying is not worth that price...and this, from someone that pays the bills via the proceeds of the sales of software.

At the end of the day, its business and like all business, there is a risk/reward or pain/gain matrix. People copy software, music and books and such and do not pay the creators.

On the other hand...a great many more people follow a different path...if they did not, I would not have the keys to even type this on :)

And that, all rhetoric aside, is the point of it all.

-K

Feel free to rationalize all you want by judging for yourself what is more or less harmful to other people - whether you are knowledgeable enough to do so or not. But my recommendation is that people consider taking the high road and simply avoid the potential harm altogether. It doesn't cost much and keeps everyone out of trouble. :)

Rationalize? Okay, here is an example of file sharing- tell me, is it evil or not. A television show is broadcast freely, someone captures it and distributes it over torrent. The show was originally freely given away, but is IP- so what's the deal? And if this is bad, from whose perspective- the company that developed the show, the broadcaster, the advertisers who paid for the broadcast? And if distributing via torrent is bad, well, wouldn't capturing it on Tivo or whatever and watching it also be bad? Especially if your household watches the program more than one time?

People should be a little realistic about these matters. The companies that distribute "content" should accept that they will never be paid what they want to be paid for their content, and consumers should realize it is their purchases that allow content to be created. And musicians should probably wake up and exemine how the record companies have ripped them off for years. Any way you look at it, the paradigms are changing, and no attempt at DRM is going tio change this.

I'm back. (And I've had a snack.)

This means that it is wrong, in any sense of the word or concept, to give away that intellectual property without the express permission of the creator. It also means that it is wrong, in the same word or concept, to duplicate or share it without said permission.

Legally, morally or ethically speaking, we would not expect that if we went to a movie in a theatre, we would therefore be entitled to a free DVD of that movie, or of its soundtrack, or even a poster of the hot chick in the lead. We know that we are expected, in an honest and ethical society, to pay for that other item, because it is in fact an item separate from the movie we saw in the theatre.


Information, as a resource (and this includes "content") has been declining in price for years. It will continue to do so. DRM won't stop this trend. Indeed, piracy will probably accelerate the trend. In richer societies, like ours, certain groups will manipulate markets and legislate to "protect" their incomes, at everyone else's expense. For example, the scheme for marketing textbooks to college students.

In software, we'll see alot more free and open source products, and if M$ doesn't lower its prices, it will disappear. In regards to textbooks, most of the world will start using extremely inexpensive e-texts, and we'll wonder why our technologically advanced country is so stupid that we make kids pay $100 or more for a single text, not available in e-format. And books, movies, and music will drop in price, or companies won't sell very many copies of them. Not when people can visit their local library and get the stuff for free.

If you convert a book that you own, and intend to use that copy only for yourself, you are exercising "fair use" (in the US, anyway). "Fair use" is essentially a loophole, allowing you amnesty for your copy if no one else gets it. However, you should be aware that if someone breaks into your home, takes your digital file and sells it, you can be held liable for creating the copy.



The law is still very vague on this issue...What happens if I make a backup copy of a digital e-book that I own, and someone breaks in and distributes the copy I made. Would I be liable? How could I be, if the copy is identical to the "original." I doubt you could ever seat a jury that would hold someone liable for creating a digital copy of something that was later stolen. Any more than you would be held liable if someone stole a book that you owned and sold it later.....

And sure, people can still give away their creations if they want. Cory D can do it, and it helps him, because he's already an established author, making a living, and giving away material for free helps spread his already-established name, making him more money. This logic does not work for those who are not already known, and therefore have not reached the critical mass of hundreds to thousands of fans and followers to spread the word of their existence. If all you needed was to give away some free stuff, we'd all be rich now.

Well, I am waiting for the law that makes publishers pay ME for wasting my time reading a crappy book <G>. If I go to the library and check a book out and it sucks, I am not losing $15 or more for my wasted time. Publishers really had better hope that consumers like me actually read their advertising blurbs and show some trust, because if I REALLY wanted to be sure that the content I buy doesn't suck, I would examine each purchase at a library beforehand, and buy only what was good. And I would probably spend about 1/10 of what I do now on music and books and movies.....As a segment of the population, book-buyers are a small percentage. In a market like e-books, especially, if you piss off your good customers, you might lose the market rather quickly.

Part of me can't believe I'm discussing the abstract philosophical justifications of ownership and theft! Is this really so hard to understand in a civilized world today? How do you think we became a civilized world? By setting agreements to behave like civilized people, so we could all trust each other, cooperate, and make a world that isn't run by marauding huns.



I am wondering when the people in the US- us- stopped being marauding huns. the US ignored copyright laws for years, our publishers made money ripping off British and European books and printing them for consumption here. Now the Chinese and others are doing the same to us. Surprising? Not really. Doesn't surprise me that M$ sales are dismal in other parts of the world compared to the US either.

Seems to me that ethics and morality aren't really the motivating forces behind many of the arguments I hear or the policies that are instituted. It's greed, plain and simple.

It's like the idiots that have tried (and failed) to print public domain e-books and charge $5 or $6 for them- didn't work becaause they priced themselves out of a market. Same with the e-book sellers that think DRM will allow them to sell for a few bucks less than the hardcover version- their greed results in few sales.

People in any business need to look at WHAT IS rather than at WHAT SHOULD BE.

It's like the case I saw reported on the BBC News recently from your home state, Texas, where someone had gone out of his house with a shotgun and murdered, in cold blood, two men who had broken into his neighbour's house. Yes, we'd all accept that burglary is a crime, but it certainly isn't one for which the death sentence is appropriate, and there's never any justification for someone to take the law into their own hands. The appalling thing in this particular case is that the man who committed these murders had not even been arrested. I was absolutely horrified to hear that :(.

Sounds to me like those 2 burglars pretty much got what they deserved. If someone ever breaks into my house, if I was in a very chipper mood, they MIGHT get a single warning. I am not going to risk my wife and kids lives when dealing with intruders. Who knows whether that intruder just wants to steal a tv set or wants to murder the inhabitants of the house. IMHO, if a person breaks into a residence, he deserves anything he gets, including multiple shotgun blasts to the head. That's not "cold blood," that's self-defense.

Sounds to me like those 2 burglars pretty much got what they deserved. If someone ever breaks into my house, if I was in a very chipper mood, they MIGHT get a single warning. I am not going to risk my wife and kids lives when dealing with intruders. Who knows whether that intruder just wants to steal a tv set or wants to murder the inhabitants of the house. IMHO, if a person breaks into a residence, he deserves anything he gets, including multiple shotgun blasts to the head. That's not "cold blood," that's self-defense.

But two burglars broke into an unoccupied house and stole property. The man who killed them didn't warn them to stop when they left. He simply shot them dead. While the crime of burglary isn't defensible, I don't see how this action is either.

Steve, I'm not arguing the the e-book is not a distinct valued item. I'm asking how is it different than an audio cassette tape (or MP3-on-CD) made from a CD I own? That tape is a distinct valued item also. But I'm entitled to make it.

I think you are confounding the issue of ease-of-duplication with fair use. Just because something is easy to duplicate perfectly does not mean I cannot make fair use. In my world the author still gets paid for one sale.

While it can be argued that legally copyright infringement is not theft that is the term that matches most of the impact but I think the idea mentioned earlier that this is really forgery captures the idea better.

All those who argue that copyright stealing is ok can use the same exact arguments that stealing someone identity is also ok for the same reasons. Using someones credit card number does not deny them the credit card which they still have. Sometimes we don't have the technically correct words in our language to define some illegal actions but that doesn't make the actions ok.

Dale

There has been a law here for many years that allows a homeowner in Texas to use deadly force to protect both people and property if the incident occurs after dark. This struck me as something quite archaic and I was glad to see it reconsidered recently. Unfortunately, the law was "strengthened" to allow such deadly force during the daytime, too. I hope civilization appears here soon. Time to bury myself in a good book.:tired:

I think it is appropriate to use deadly force to protect the sanctity of one's home at ANY time, night or day. If I find someone wandering through my house, my primary goal is defense of my family. If I have to use deadly force to achieve that goal, so be it. What the hell right does anyone have to invade my family's home anyways? If anyone does so, they do so at their own peril.

I live in a good neighborhood, but home invasions have occurred not only in bad neighborhoods in my city, but in a couple of the good ones as well. I don't care to hear about a criminal's "rights"- my house, my rights.

But two burglars broke into an unoccupied house and stole property. The man who killed them didn't warn them to stop when they left. He simply shot them dead. While the crime of burglary isn't defensible, I don't see how this action is either.

Well, I guess the solution is- don't break into people's houses. Sorry, I have no sympathy for the scumbags that bought the farm. What they did was certainly not a "victimless" crime. ANd how did they know the house was unoccupied.

If someone had done that to 2 criminals breaking into my house, I would think that was mighty neighborly of him. Now just suppose these 2 criminal scumbags had spent the last week or so pirating music and software. Some people here would be ready to hang'em........

But two burglars broke into an unoccupied house and stole property. The man who killed them didn't warn them to stop when they left. He simply shot them dead. While the crime of burglary isn't defensible, I don't see how this action is either.

um actually he did. ive listened to the tapes over and over. mr horn CLEARLY says "move, [and] youre dead," then there is a 3 second pause followed by gunfire.

Sometimes we don't have the technically correct words in our language to define some illegal actions but that doesn't make the actions ok.

I think that may be key to the matter here... electronic file sharing is so new that the laws haven't really caught up with them yet. "Fair use" is at best vaguely defined and understood.

wgrimm, regarding your TV analogy, "fair use" covers your watching a broadcast program in your home (which was already paid for by advertisers) as often as you like. It's when you either make copies of it to sell, or even give away, or when you invite others to see your copy in order to make a profit from their gathering, that it ceases to be fair use, and you are guilty of copyright infringement. (This does not apply when the program is live and not taped for re-watching, which is why bars don't have to pay the NFL to air a football game, say.)

"Fair use" also allows you to make as many copies of something you own as you'd like, as long as it's used only by you. When someone else gets the copy you made, that violates fair use. If you made the copy they stole, sorry, but that means you violated fair use. If they steal your original first and make copies, they committed the violation to fair use... not you. Get it?

I know, it's silly when you think about it... but the point is, the person who is considered guilty is the person who created the copy that is now in the wrong hands, whether that was their intention or not. That's more or less the letter of the law, though it should probably be altered to better satisfy the spirit of the law (in other words, to make you not liable when someone steals your Tivo'd season of "Lost" and resells it).

I am wondering when the people in the US- us- stopped being marauding huns.

Who you calling a hun? ;)

I think you are confounding the issue of ease-of-duplication with fair use. Just because something is easy to duplicate perfectly does not mean I cannot make fair use. In my world the author still gets paid for one sale.

Actually, I'm not arguing against that, nor confusing them. What I am saying is that, in the eyes of the law, a copy you make of a protected work is still a protected work, no matter how easy it is to copy it, and you do not have the right to sell it to someone else (or even to give it away, really) without compensating the original creator, unless they expressly gave you permission to do so.

If you don't sell it, that's "fair use," and everybody's happy. If you do sell or give away the copy you made... even if, through intent or accident, it gets sold or given away... and even if it simply "gets out of your hands," and has the potential to be sold or given away... you are considered a violator of "fair use," and prosecutable to the full extend of the law. Remember the Thomas trial? That's how they got her. If she'd simply kept all her music copies off of the P2P networks, the RIAA wouldn't have had a leg to stand on, and she wouldn't be financially ruined now.

If someone had done that to 2 criminals breaking into my house, I would think that was mighty neighborly of him.

Suppose it had been a kid who'd accidentally thrown a ball through your window, and went inside your house to retrieve it? Do you honestly want a neighbour who's going to shoot to kill first and ask questions later? Someone who tells the emergency operator "I'm going outside to kill them"? That's a rather peculiar definition of "self defence".

Property can be replaced. Human lives cannot.

I fully appreciate that we live in completely different societies when it comes to gun ownership and use, but all the same, I honestly don't see how any decent human being can sanction what appears to be the cold-blooded killing of two unarmed men, AGAINST the specific orders of the law-enforcement authorities.

Suppose it had been a kid who'd accidentally thrown a ball through your window, and went inside your house to retrieve it? Do you honestly want a neighbour who's going to shoot to kill first and ask questions later? Someone who tells the emergency operator "I'm going outside to kill them"? That's a rather peculiar definition of "self defence".

Property can be replaced. Human lives cannot.

if that kid takes a friend and, instead of going to the front door, uses a crowbar or pry open your side door to retrieve said ball and exits the house 7 minutes later with arm loads of loot that they didnt have before, yes i think think kid should have a few rounds fired at them.

ps - nice edit. they were not unarmed. at least one clearly had a crowbar which he used to enter the home. how many people enter homes illegally unarmed? just ask that football player that was shot this week. oh wait you cant. because hes dead. he was shot by the people who were BURGLARIZING HIS HOME. oh yeah. ONE WAS A MINOR

Suppose it had been a kid who'd accidentally thrown a ball through your window, and went inside your house to retrieve it? Do you honestly want a neighbour who's going to shoot to kill first and ask questions later? Someone who tells the emergency operator "I'm going outside to kill them"? That's a rather peculiar definition of "self defence".

Property can be replaced. Human lives cannot.

WHAT???!!! How many kids do you assume are going to break into a house to retrieve a ball? As for the dirtbag burglars that were shot, no, I am not going to waste any time agonizing over their fate. These poor criminally inclined fellows won't be breaking into any more houses, and it looks like TX law doesn't care if dirtbags like this are shot during commission of a crime. Like I said, the solution is simple- don't break into houses. And if you're in Texas, look at all the gun racks in vehicles in that state. Maybe criminals should get some smarts and realize that Texans take their firearms seriously, and don't much care for thieves.....

BTW, what if people had been home in that house? Would it have been okay for THEM to dispatch these criminals with a shotgun?

Maybe this will be a lesson for other criminally-minded folks, just like the recent file-sharing trial put P2P'ers on notice.....

ME THINKS THAT THIS THREAD HAS GONE AWRY!....




if that kid takes a friend and, instead of going to the front door, uses a crowbar or pry open your side door to retrieve said ball and exits the house 7 minutes later with arm loads of loot that they didnt have before, yes i think think kid should have a few rounds fired at them. oh yeah. ONE WAS A MINOR

ps - nice edit. they were not unarmed. at least one clearly had a crowbar which he used to enter the home. how many people enter homes illegally unarmed? just ask that football player that was shot this week. oh wait you cant. because hes dead. he was shot by the people who were BURGLARIZING HIS HOME

how many people enter homes illegally unarmed?

I don't know about your country, but in the UK, no sensible burglar would carry a gun, because whereas the publishment for burglary might be 6 months in prison, if you were carrying a gun they'd lock you up and throw away the key. I believe there's a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years for any crime involving carrying or use of a firearm.

Perhaps, though, it's different in the US because guns are so widely available and used? I don't know - it's literally beyond my capability to imagine what it must be like to live in a society where anyone can own guns. To be honest, the very thought of it terrifies me.

As I said, we live in completely different societies. I guess that what we each have is what we want. I wouldn't like to live in a place where kids seem to routinely go on random shooting sprees for 15 minutes of fame. I see that it's happened again today. I don't want to live in a place like that, I really don't :(.

Let's just agree to differ about this. I don't think we're going to convince each other of the other's viewpoint, do you?

if criminals were worried about they consequences they wouldnt commit the crime. this is but one reason the death penalty is not an effective deterrent to murder

Perhaps, though, it's different in the US because guns are so widely available and used? I don't know - it's literally beyond my capability to imagine what it must be like to live in a society where anyone can own guns. To be honest, the very thought of it terrifies me.



I have to chuckle at this, because it does the exact opposite for me- makes me feel very safe. Have you ever read what George Orwell said about gun ownership in one of his essays? Orwell believed that as long as capable weapons were in the hands of the citizenry, that their govt. would never become totalatarian. I believe that too, and would also like to note that wher