[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

A little late, but what the hey, I'd like to take a stab at this one.

Okay, this is not wrong, and I'll make my arguments why it isn't.

1. It's highly unlikely to happen. Authors who give away their material and are without DRM are not popular on file sharing sites. There is no point in copying a product that is reasonably priced and without DRM, so the file sharers wouldn't be interested to begin with.

I am highly unlikely to murder someone, does that mean it is not wrong to do so?

And before you suggest I am likening "file sharing" to murder, I am not. I am simply pointing out that something being highly unlikely to happen does not in any way mean that it is not wrong to do that thing.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

2. Nothing is lost if it is shared. If it was shared (again, highly unlikely) those who shared it would not have bought it. Zero sum game. A lost sale cannot be quantified when the someone sharing the copy would not have paid for it in the first place. Whereas you might gain sales if it is available to a larger audience.

Again, I am not talking about lost sales, revenue or anything of that nature.

Simple question, in the example where none of the usual arguments for "file sharing" hold true, is it wrong or not to "file share"?

Your point above is simply putting up the argument that it is not wrong because no sale has been lost and is not actually answering my question at all.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

3. The author should want it shared. Authors need readers, the file sharing community is millions strong and growing every day. You make a splash in file-sharing, you will gain a market that with DRM and restrictions you wouldn't otherwise get. Even without DRM and a reasonable price, an author ignores file-sharing at his own peril.

CASE STUDY: Best-selling author Paul Cohelo (The Alchemist) has given away his works on the Piratebay and seen nothing but benefits and an increased readership from this endeavour.

What you believe the author should want is not the issue I was asking about.

Again, simple question, in the example where none of the usual arguments for "file sharing" hold true, is it wrong or not to "file share"?

So far you have claimed it is not wrong and then used all the usual arguments in an attempt to show why it is not wrong. I am asking you to set aside those arguments, assume the example is the case in point, all those barriers(high price, old model, authors and consumers not taken care of, DRM free etc etc etc) have been set aside and it is easy, cost effective and convenient to fairly, legally and honestly obtain a copy of the work. Is it wrong to obtain a copy through "file shareing"?(meaning specifically torrenting, web download etc, obtaining a copy from some anonymous person who has shared it with possibly thousands of other people and not borrowing a copy from a mate)

Originally Posted by Moejoe

What I would suggest to this hypothetical author is that he move with the times, ditch the ancient "taster" marketing and adopt the Creative Commons Share-Alike license. If he wants an audience, he better start understanding that he can't do it "the old way".

So your final argument seems to be saying that it is not wrong if the author chooses to do things any way that you personally do not like. Is that it? In essesnce things are done your way or you feel you have the moral right to take the work in question without fair recompense?

Cheers,
PKFFW