[llasram]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

That's easy: It means a product which the author intended to be sold for money, but which you obtained for free. That's my definition of wrong.

Ok, but which is the wrong: the acquisition for free or the lack of author compensation? I really hope we can agree that the author not receiving compensation for their work is the problem.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Saying "It's not stealing because the law hasn't gotten round to calling it stealing" doesn't mean it's right. This is false justification for such actions.

Actually, that’s the opposite of what I meant . I was suggesting that there are many cases which are currently illegal and may even strike our initial intuition as “wrong,” but are fully justifiable.

At least in the US, copyright is explicitly a utilitarian, practical system we constructed to compensate content-creators. It isn’t the only such system possible, and its practicality depends upon a particular set of technological conditions which have pertained for only the past few hundred years. What value would copyright have in pre-literate societies utilizing purely oral traditions? Or even merely prior to the invention of the printing press? The high unit costs and miniscule market would make contemporary copyright useless then.

And now technology is developing beyond those conditions. Perhaps even now a system other than copyright would be more effective at compensating content-creators. Or perhaps innovators such as yourself will find ways to keep it working. Either way, our understanding of copyright is facing situations which simply weren’t possible prior to copying and distribution via digital data networks. But the key question to ask in all of these situations remains: is the system effectively compensating content-creators?

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

I don't have an issue with (1), assuming the e-book is made by the owner of the p-book, and it stays in their hands.

With (2), if the author agreed that the owner of a P-book was entitled to a free copy of the e-book, okay. However, that's not always the case. If you're expected to pay for it, you have to pay for it. No one expects that if they buy a hardback, they'll get a free paperback. The exact same issues apply.

Why would someone want both the hardback and the paperback? Not being facetious here. People find value in having both the p-book and e-book editions of a work or e-book editions in multiple formats, while I can’t think of a single reason I’d want to own both the hardback and the paperback of a book. This suggests to me that these situations are fundamentally different and the analogy is flawed.

Ignoring the analogy, you seem to be assuming the case where the recieved–e-book is an edition assembled by the publisher. I was assuming a pirated edition produced at no additional cost to the publisher whatsoever. In that case the impacts on the author’s bottom-line of just buying the p-book vs. buying the p-book and receiving the e-book are identical.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

(3), (4) and (5) are simply false justifications of the taking of a book, scarce in print form or not, and not paying for it. Unless that book is in public domain, or the legal producer of the e-book is willingly giving it away, not paying for it is wrong.

You seem to have missed that I agreed (4) and (5) were wrong and felt (3) was borderline. I think the important thing is not whether or not the recipient pays for the book, but whether or not the author receives compensations. The extremity of your position seems to suggest that borrowing a book from a library of from a friend is wrong as well.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

No... it leads publishers to believe that they cannot make a profit from that book, because it has been pirated, and they will subsequently not release it. (This is not necessarily true, in fact, but true or not, it is the perception on the publisher's part.)

This seems like a pretty shaky assumption. Many publishers have demonstrated awareness that their books are being pirated without noticing their sales dwindle to nothing. I have a hard time imagining that a publisher upon seeing a book being actively pirated would conclude that no market for that book existed.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

If they made e-books available in preferred formats and selling models, then yes, they'd be better off... they would not be pirated, because the legit copies were out there. There would still be theft, I'm sure, but a great deal of the "kudos"-based piracy would be reduced or removed.

I’m glad we’re at least in agreement here.