[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Not sure of how the latin goes but the translation is something like..."He who is silent is taken to consent". Another way of saying if you disagree with something you should speak up, otherwise how is anyone to know?

Forgive me for not noticing sooner that page 51 of a 62 page thread was asking questions of people who commented at page 3. "Silence = assent" is reasonable within half a dozen posts of someone's comments; saying it two weeks later is ridiculous.

I do not agree that "filesharing is wrong." I agree that some files should not be shared by p2p networks, and which files those are depend on the exact circumstances involved.

In the circumstance you described--single author, reasonable price, no DRM, etc.--you left out an option: perhaps the author thinks publicity is more important than piracy, and isn't interested in stopping filesharing. Perhaps he has consciously decided to allow a certain amount of filesharing, on the theory that, if people had money, they'd buy from him, and if they don't, he'd rather they read his stuff for free. Maybe he believes they're more likely to buy his next book. Maybe he's a philanthropist who thinks it's okay for some free copies to float around. Maybe he's a fanatic who's more interested in getting his message out than getting paid, but recognizes the importance of getting paid in order to spread more message.

Describing a single situation where filesharing is obviously unethical doesn't continue that judgment to the next situation.

Firstly, how much money is made from a work is not the deciding factor in whether one has the moral right to take that work without fair recompense.

Agreed. However, note that books borrowed from a (U.S.) library are also "taken without fair fair recompense"--the ideas go from the author to the reader without payment. The idea that the author deserves payment for every single reader has never been the way books worked, and it is that notion that filesharing challenges, not the notion that prices are too high for people to pay for them.

Secondly, I did say your assertion that file sharing will lead to more sales is most likely correct. That is not the point though.

But it does counter the largest claim for the reasons for DRM and the dislike of piracy. If it doesn't cost the author anything, the objections start sounding less like morality and more like selfish control issues.