Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan
It's been awhile since I've seen a thread of this subject that, by now, hadn't completely devolved into pure insult and irrationality. Kudos to all. Some points:
I think both of these comments are vital to this discussion, as the first represents a set of "metaphors" that might suit ebooks better than most product/services, and the latter raises an important concept also touched on by cable services.
I remember when cable services were rolled out in our area, and right away, consumers were trying to figure out how to "steal" cable signals from neighbors, what rights they had to run lines through their homes and create multiple outlets out of one, and why they were suddenly paying for something they used to get for free (excepting the cost of a television).
The customer logic was that the cable companies weren't "losing" anything through cable sharing. It was the same show, whether they got it over the air or from a spliced cable, and they'd never paid for it before. In one sense, it seemed a logical argument.
The cable companies didn't see it that way: They were creating infrastructure and providing a customized access to video materials, even if they didn't create the materials themselves; in short, they were providing a service to customers, and customers were free to pay for the service, or get their TV elsewhere.
Cable services put a lot of effort into working out problems like that, mostly through massaging laws and offering value-added extras to their services. They have been largely successful over time in satisfying customers that they are getting a valuable commodity for their money (content quality notwithstanding), and getting legislatures to back their assertion that their services could not be "pirated" without prosecution. Today, most customers do not obsess over attempts to "pirate" TV signals... they are more likely to complain about not liking the content on the 500 channels they pay for.
"Theft" of ebooks is, in many ways, similar to cable "theft," in that strictly speaking, there is no loss of physical product involved; it is considered a theft of service, the idea that you are legally expected to pay for their services provided, or go without.
The discussion about the $1400 software touches on this, as there is no "justification" for unauthorized access to something you don't need to survive; you either pay to use it, or go without. All software, from $1400 CAD programs to $5 MP3 rippers, go by this legal assumption, and it is understood and (mostly) accepted by all parties involved. (The argument that "I need this software for (work, school, whatever)" is not justifiable; if you can't afford the materials needed to follow a vocation, you simply choose another one you can afford. Society has no obligation to let you steal the supplies you need to follow a particular career choice.)
Therefore, ebooks should be considered in the context of software and broadcast services, as a digital file created by a service and offered by a provider (and therefore requiring the mutual agreement of the customer to compensate the service/provider for their work as requested), and protected by the same statutes that prevent unauthorized re-broadcast or reuse of broadcasts. This makes much more sense than looking at ebooks specifically and solely as analogues to the physical products that they replace, a model that has proven to be unworkable in the marketplace even if it seems logical on its surface.
From that foundation, we ought to be able to make the required adjustments for the realities of the internet and digital devices to ensure the proper adherence to these considerations, and most importantly, establish a way to identify and prevent unauthorized activity.
Boy, I have said way too much. Moving on!
|
For those that don't want to pay, just stay away from it. Arguing semantics over whether it is correct to call it theft or not and what your intent is? That does seem like trying to make up excuses. The point is, downloading without paying is wrong. There are plenty of free or cheap alternatives, there is no need or natural right to have a particular book. And by now, due to aggressive campaigns by the industry, everybody knows that most "sharing" is illegal. So claiming ignorance really is not believable in any case. Not that it matters if you know you are breaking the law or not.
So while the word theft is not exactly right (if you closely follow the definition), theft is appropriate in that it has a strong, negative meaning. Nobody wants to be called a thief. If everybody used the word theft, I am sure that a lot more casual downloaders would think twice -- and that would be a very good thing. And whatever word is being used to describe the act of illegally downloading copyrighted material, it must be a word that clearly implies wrongdoing.