Do you pirate books and why?

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

No, it has both of those components. When you pirate a book, you deprive the author of the money that he/she deserves. ie, the money that the author has a right to own.

That might well be, but it's still copyright infringement and not theft, I am afraid. Theft requires a tangible object to be stolen, the chief difference being that the original owner no longer has it. That's not the case with intangible goods, as we know, which is why the law treats the case differently. (Oh, and according to the law books "piracy" is an act of violence committed on the high seas, but that ship has probably sailed.)

Just because people think it is prettier to say piracy is not theft because you are not taking a physical book, you are still taking money from the author.

"Prettier"? Try more correct.

You are depriving the author of something that he/she has a right to.

Just because you said it three times: Not necessarily so. There's hundreds of people who have no intention to buy what they download, or simply couldn't afford it. If somebody downloads "the best 5000 ebooks of all time", does he really deprive all authors of their full share of the retail price? If some college kid that really doesn't need (much less can afford) a copy of the latest "Photoshop" downloads a cracked trial version, does that really deprive Adobe of a sale? If all those people had behaved legally and morally, what would authors have gained? Why, nothing. So what have they lost? Exactly, nothing.

Whoever fails to see a difference between theft in the common sense, i.e. the taking-away of tangible property in such a way that the original owner no longer has it, and unauthorized copying / copyright infringement either has a hidden agenda, or simply lacks the required intelligence for a meaningful discussion on the subject.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by rkomar

Maybe you don't think the phrase "copyright infringement" sounds severe enough, and want to replace it with the harsher word "theft", but that doesn't make it true.

Hey, why don't we call it mind rape? You know, taking something without consent ...

[Iphinome]

One could find themselves very tempted to privateer a book when you pre-order and amazon waits a few days past the release date to bother dropping it in the mail.

[WT Sharpe]

I suppose pirated movies and songs don't cut into the profits of the major movie studios and recording companies, either. I guess that explains their Live and Let Live policy towards those who download pirated music and movies.

[rogue_librarian]

Funnily enough it's even (much) less clear cut with music. I live in a country that has a "blank media levy", i.e. I pay a few cents for every blank CD (or a few bucks for every HDD, for that matter) I buy. In turn I am entitled to copy music for private and non-commercial purposes. This includes mix tape swapping during recess, copying CDs or MP3s from friends (or the public library) but also downloading from the internet (provided I don't upload at the same time, which would amount to distributing or disseminating publicly, which is not allowed. In other words, one-click-hosts: yes, bittorrent: no.)

That said, I'm perfectly happy with Spotify these days, so no need to make use of those rights.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

Hey, why don't we call it mind rape? You know, taking something without consent ...

Mind rape is pretty accurate, you take something that doesn't belong to you, but the victim hasn't "lost" anything...

Honestly, all this is just arguing semantics. But tell me, from the pirate's perspective, what is the difference between theft and an illegal download? The downloader gets something for free he or she is not entitled to. The effects on the copyright holder are uncertain, but for the downloader it is exactly like theft. And should saying the magic words "I would never have paid for this, anyway" automatically erase any guilt?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

Theft requires a tangible object to be stolen, the chief difference being that the original owner no longer has it.

So, by your argument, "identity theft" is not "theft", because the original owner of the identity still has it?

Oh, and according to the law books "piracy" is an act of violence committed on the high seas, but that ship has probably sailed.)

You should tell that to the people who drafted the 1886 International Berne Copyright Convention. They were happy to use the term "piracy" (see Article 12 of the Convention).

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by HarryT

So, by your argument, "identity theft" is not "theft", because the original owner of the identity still has it?

Absolutely. Identity "theft" makes about just as much (well, little, really) sense.

You should tell that to the people who drafted the 1886 International Berne Copyright Convention. They were happy to use the term "piracy" (see Article 12 of the Convention).

Do tell? Article 12 concerns the "Right of Adaptation, Arrangement and Other Alteration", if I'm not mistaken. Here's the full text of the treaty. I didn't find piracy mentioned anywhere, perhaps you could be more specific?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

Do tell? Article 12 concerns the "Right of Adaptation, Arrangement and Other Alteration", if I'm not mistaken. Here's the full text of the treaty. I didn't find piracy mentioned anywhere, perhaps you could be more specific?

That's the modern treaty. Article 12 of the original 1886 treaty states:

Pirated works may be seized on importation into those countries of the Union where the original work enjoys legal protection. The seizure shall take place in accordance with the domestic legislation of each country.

And here's a fun advertisement from 1906, issued by a firm of American lawyers touting for business:

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

Do tell? Article 12 concerns the "Right of Adaptation, Arrangement and Other Alteration", if I'm not mistaken. Here's the full text of the treaty. I didn't find piracy mentioned anywhere, perhaps you could be more specific?

Check Article XI of the 1886 text.

http://www.archive.org/stream/intern...lco00offigoog/

"... and be consequentially admitted to institute proceedings against pirates before the courts of the various countries of the union ..."

Although note that by 1908 that article had become article 15, and the text changed to

"... and admitted in consequence before the courts of the various countries of the Union to proceed against infringers, ..."

[rogue_librarian]

So "piracy" was used in that sense between 1886 and 1906? Be that as it may, I said that ship had sailed, and people will casually use it that way, legal definitions notwithstanding.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

So "piracy" was used in that sense between 1886 and 1906?

Oh no, the usage goes back much, much further. Eg, Thomas Dekker, in the introduction to a book called "The Wonderfull Yeare", published in 1603, writes:

Banish these Word-pirates... into the gulfe of Barbarisme: doome them euerlastingly to liue among dunces: let them not once lick their lips at the Thespian bowle, but onely be glad ... if hereafter (as hitherto they haue alwayes) they may quench their poeticall thirst with small beere.

The term "pirate" to describe those who copy and publish works without authorisation has a history almost as long as the history of printing.

[Pulpmeister]

One thing about all of this is the fantastic complexity of book publishing.

I speak from the limited experience of writing, and having them published commercially, three non-fiction books.

It never occurred to me, at the time, that anybody outside the very limited audience for these books - books all on paper - that (a) anybody outside my home country of Australia would be the slightest bit interested [wrong]; (b) that any non-English speaker would be even slightly interested [wrong]; or (c) that anybody would want an e-book edition [yet to be established].

So my publishing contracts were licences for first-time English language only. Before any of it goes to e-book, or to non-English-language translation (a fantastically remote possibility) it all comes back to me. I have to do the licencing.

One of my books has since been self-published as a website-on-a-disc -- a CD ROM version. I expanded the photo content from 400 b+w pics to 800+ pics including colour. I did all of it myself, capitalised it myself (cash up front) and happily I got my money back eventually. I don't doubt for a second that the CD-ROM edition has been pirated - hey, all you need is a PC.

Why am I rabbiting on like this? Well, it's Friday evening in Western Australia, I've just had a few beers and feel like it, but in my wandering way I just want to make it clear that the publishers (bless their little cotton socks) aren't evil villains - well not all of them, and not all of the time - but have a lot of constraints placed on on them by often very cranky authors, by obsolete publishing conracts and systems, and by a technological revolution in printed word publication that is moving at about Warp 7 while the law is moving at about 16.35 miles per hour (with a tail wind).

Have I pirated any books? I'm not sure.

I have an e-reader full of books, the books being given to on a disc by a relative. After trying to read them sitting at my PC I gave up and bought the e-reader, much to the gratification, not doubt, of the manufacturer. Are those books pirated? Or are they loaned?

I have shelves of paperbacks - mostly cheerful pulp, hence my handle - but these were almost bought second-hand, often in charity shops, mostly in second-hand bookshops. Are the printed books "pirated" because I didn't buy them new?

I am converting a lot of my disintegrating paperbacks to e-book format, specially my mountain of old Agatha Christie paperbacks. My starting point for these has been the net, looking for on-line searchable magazine and newspaper serialisation versions. I have found about 18 Aggies so far, downloaded the automatic OCRs, and then laboriously hand-corrected the OCRs against my paperbacks, before creating the e-book editions for myself. I don't trade these, I don't sell them. Is that piracy?

There's so much grey area at the moment that finding anything black or white to grab hold of is damned near impossible.

Still, it's fun.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Pulpmeister

I am converting a lot of my disintegrating paperbacks to e-book format, specially my mountain of old Agatha Christie paperbacks. My starting point for these has been the net, looking for on-line searchable magazine and newspaper serialisation versions. I have found about 18 Aggies so far, downloaded the automatic OCRs, and then laboriously hand-corrected the OCRs against my paperbacks, before creating the e-book editions for myself. I don't trade these, I don't sell them. Is that piracy?

All of Agatha Christie's books are still in copyright in Australia. I would have thought that they're also all available as ebooks in Australia.

Copyright piracy? Probably. The UK doesn't have any laws allowing format conversion, and I suspect that Australia doesn't either.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

So, by your argument, "identity theft" is not "theft", because the original owner of the identity still has it?

You should tell that to the people who drafted the 1886 International Berne Copyright Convention. They were happy to use the term "piracy" (see Article 12 of the Convention).

"identity theft" is an interesting example, but you're quite right, that also wouldn't meet the definition of a theft in the way it's used. In fact, in my jurisdiction, you won't find a law in the criminal code called "identity theft". The use of the term "identity theft" provides no real commentary on what is and isn't theft.

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

No, it has both of those components. When you pirate a book, you deprive the author of the money that he/she deserves. ie, the money that the author has a right to own.

Theft of potential profits is not theft.

Here's a handy chart that may assist:



It doesn't hurt your arguments that copyright infringement/piracy/whatever is not theft; frankly, this is the least interesting component of it.