Should Demonoid Stay Down?

[Trenien]

[Disclaimer]Although I do have an opinion about it, I make no moral judgement [/Disclaimer]

Let's see, how should I go about this ?...

- Steal: To take the property of another without right or permission.

- Copyright: The legal right granted to an author, composer, playwright, publisher, or distributor to exclusive publication, production, sale, or distribution of a literary, musical, dramatic, or artistic work.

Please reread the copyright definition once again. You'll note that nowhere is it written that copyright is property. Copyright is a state-granted monopoly to its owner (in other word you don't own any kind of knowledge you produced, you own a copyright to it). If you want to keep an "idea" (i.e: idea, book, song, movie and so on) your property, don't make it available to anyone in any shape or form.

Fun fact: the first law recognized as copyright (the Statute of Anne ) worldwide was in England - for 20 or 30 years after publication. Because it didn't suit them for a long time, the US didn't have any kind of copyright until the late XIXth century. If I remember properly, it was originally of about fourteen years after publications; to be compared with the now 70 years after the death of the author (anybody knows when is the next time Disney will be about to lose Mickey Mouse?)

Some of the most extremist in favor of copyrights' laws are against free libraries - you should pay each time you borrow a book. In fact you should pay each time you make use, in any shape or form, of any copyrighted material. At least that's internally consistent.


I did upload a few of my works (mostly clip-arts) on the internet over time. I always made sure it was under CC. it's a fact my livelihood isn't based upon copyright at all, but I do know if my job was along those lines, I'd do my best to make it so my wages were not dependent upon whether or not the copyright has been infringed:

Harsh fact: copyright infringement (as defined today) is here for good. You can rage at it all you want: Although the people in power are for now toughening copyright's law worlwide, it only gains momentum (demonoid case being a very minor stepback). Populations at large don't think it's wrong. At one time or another, laws will have to recognise that (that's Democracy folks). Sorry, but people who don't embrace it are keeping their head in the sand (and are going to be trampled by it).

[bingle]

Originally Posted by vivaldirules

I find this very sad and I would seriously like to hurt those who make it this easy.

I find this really disturbing. Maybe it was said in a lighthearted manner? Or maybe you mean "hurt" in a financial sense? But without any smilies or other indications, I can't help but imagine you sitting under a single bare lightbulb, fondling a claw hammer... *shudder*

Surely, in the grand scheme of things, copyright infringement is not that bad? Do we really need to threaten bodily harm against people who aid in copyright infringement, especially when that line can be drawn all sorts of weird places?

I feel like a lot of people on this forum have lost their sense of perspective when it comes to this topic...

[mflood]

Originally Posted by bingle

I feel like a lot of people on this forum have lost their sense of perspective when it comes to this topic...

Yeah, that was the point I was trying to make with my original reply. I still do agree with you, but I can also agree with the point Harry was making earlier about it being a bigger deal to those whose livelihoods depend on it.

[hidari]

It is a bigger deal for those whose lives depend on it. If that is the case, then THOSE people must change.. I feel no compassion for them. I have lived in Russia for Ten years. I know Doctors who make 50 dollar a month for their work. I know others: scientists, writers, professors: They have changed their career and gone into business: selling clothes on the street: working for state companies etc.... They are not doing what they want but they are not whinging about it.


The only constant in life is change.



They adapt and move on. Well, perhaps some in the Publishing and Music industry will have to do the same.

Originally Posted by mflood

Yeah, that was the point I was trying to make with my original reply. I still do agree with you, but I can also agree with the point Harry was making earlier about it being a bigger deal to those whose livelihoods depend on it.

[mflood]

LEGAL change, sure. It occasionally hurts people, but as you say, it's necessary sometimes. We do not however, ask people to shrug it off when they're mugged. Or when a loved one is murdered. People still retain the right to be upset when the law is broken and they suffer loss.

I don't think they have the right to call their friends and neighbors "criminal scum" when they've committed other offenses that are equally bad, and that's why I posted. I was looking for perspective, not vindication of the crime. And in that vein, I'm not sure how you can possibly argue that it's the COPYRIGHT holder who's in the wrong when someone illegally downloads their work. Maybe the public will one day rise up against the whole idea of copyright and change the laws, but until that happens, copyright IS law, and circumventing it is therefore wrong.

And by the way, the examples you gave (doctors, scientists, etc) have nothing to do with this situation. If a doctor can't find work or isn't paid well, it's a result of economic factors, and certainly isn't a result of illegal activities forcing them out of their chosen profession. I'm really not sure how you can justify what you're saying.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by NatCh

You're leaving out the step where they pub brings out a new edition every couple of years, regenerating the "new" book demand.

There are some fields where that's absolutely vital - eg genetics. Not for elementary textbooks, though, certainly.

[hidari]

Perhaps it does not. I am only giving an angle. Look It could be come an economic factor for some in the future. I wish writers would get more for what they do. Sadly, The large Publishers and Music companies seem to get the most out of it all.

Originally Posted by mflood

LEGAL change, sure. It occasionally hurts people, but as you say, it's necessary sometimes. We do not however, ask people to shrug it off when they're mugged. Or when a loved one is murdered. People still retain the right to be upset when the law is broken and they suffer loss.

I don't think they have the right to call their friends and neighbors "criminal scum" when they've committed other offenses that are equally bad, and that's why I posted. I was looking for perspective, not vindication of the crime. And in that vein, I'm not sure how you can possibly argue that it's the COPYRIGHT holder who's in the wrong when someone illegally downloads their work. Maybe the public will one day rise up against the whole idea of copyright and change the laws, but until that happens, copyright IS law, and circumventing it is therefore wrong.

And by the way, the examples you gave (doctors, scientists, etc) have nothing to do with this situation. If a doctor can't find work or isn't paid well, it's a result of economic factors, and certainly isn't a result of illegal activities forcing them out of their chosen profession. I'm really not sure how you can justify what you're saying.

[vivaldirules]

Originally Posted by bingle

I find this really disturbing. Maybe it was said in a lighthearted manner?

I meant it as stated. I'm not looking for a lynching, mind you. It's a simple matter of insisting on justice which I would hope people agree that we need. Victims can forgive those who hurt them if they so choose. But the rest of us need to protect others from becoming victims. Copyright infringement is theft and is harmful to people and needs to be prevented and those who commit it need to be punished. I don't understand why that should be disturbing to read although it may be distasteful. If it is still disturbing, please explain more.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by vivaldirules

I meant it as stated. I'm not looking for a lynching, mind you. It's a simple matter of insisting on justice which I would hope people agree that we need. Victims can forgive those who hurt them if they so choose. But the rest of us need to protect others from becoming victims. Copyright infringement is theft and is harmful to people and needs to be prevented and those who commit it need to be punished. I don't understand why that should be disturbing to read although it may be distasteful. If it is still disturbing, please explain more.

It did sound a little as though you were advocating "vigilante-ism", and I'm sure that none of us would like to see that, even those of us who do feel passionately about it. I'm sure that you didn't mean to give that impression.

It's like the case I saw reported on the BBC News recently from your home state, Texas, where someone had gone out of his house with a shotgun and murdered, in cold blood, two men who had broken into his neighbour's house. Yes, we'd all accept that burglary is a crime, but it certainly isn't one for which the death sentence is appropriate, and there's never any justification for someone to take the law into their own hands. The appalling thing in this particular case is that the man who committed these murders had not even been arrested. I was absolutely horrified to hear that .

[vivaldirules]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It did sound a little as though you were advocating "vigilante-ism", and I'm sure that none of us would like to see that, even those of us who do feel passionately about it. I'm sure that you didn't mean to give that impression.

It's like the case I saw reported on the BBC News recently from your home state, Texas, where someone had gone out of his house with a shotgun and murdered, in cold blood, two men who had broken into his neighbour's house. Yes, we'd all accept that burglary is a crime, but it certainly isn't one for which the death sentence is appropriate, and there's never any justification for someone to take the law into their own hands. The appalling thing in this particular case is that the man who committed these murders had not even been arrested. I was absolutely horrified to hear that .

I suppose I was a bit riled when I wrote "hurt" but I truly meant meant was "appropriately punished" as any civil society should do to those who harm others. As to the incident you cite that recently occurred in Houston, I can only say that I frequently find things that go on here to be stunningly bizarre and sad. There has been a law here for many years that allows a homeowner in Texas to use deadly force to protect both people and property if the incident occurs after dark. This struck me as something quite archaic and I was glad to see it reconsidered recently. Unfortunately, the law was "strengthened" to allow such deadly force during the daytime, too. I hope civilization appears here soon. Time to bury myself in a good book.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by vivaldirules

I suppose I was a bit riled when I wrote "hurt" but I truly meant meant was "appropriately punished" as any civil society should do to those who harm others.

I would certainly agree with you there!

[Penforhire]

I'm pretty close to law-abiding side of this discussion but the world is not black-and-white.

Example? I purchase legal copies of any software I use "for a purpose" at home and absolutely everything used in any way at work. But there are pieces of software that I may be curious about whose publishers do not have an adequare demo version of. In those cases I feel 100% justified in sampling an illegal copy and deciding whether to buy it or delete it.

Does that violate the letter of the law? Yes, no argument. But the morality is snow white to me.

Another example? I'm undecided on this one. Suppose I bought a particular printed book. Should I have to buy the e-book version also? Or is it okay, in this case, to obtain a darknet copy (I love that term here)? How is it different than buying a CD and copying it to tape or MP3 for my own use? I lean toward equivalency here, that it is moral if not even legal (and it might be).

What say you? Am I just a scoundrel for these considerations in your black-and-white world?

[vivaldirules]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

What say you? Am I just a scoundrel for these considerations in your black-and-white world?

A scoundrel amongst us! A witch, even! Let's burn him at the stake!! Where's the emoticon for the burning witch? This will have to do.

Just kidding, of course.

You got me on the first one, Penforhire. I suppose I would be tempted to check out the software if I couldn't get it legally just to try. For products of smaller companies, I'm guessing that if you asked them to try it they'd be happy to let you. In fact, I'm sure they would if they knew there were illegal copies available to you and you were still considering paying them for a legal copy!

As to the second, I'm just not going there - not for me. Yes, I have many, many books on my shelves and I know that if I spent some time I could find illegal copies of the ebooks. But I just can't imagine me doing that. I guess I'd rather do without or digitize them myself for my own use only. Probably not a habit I would want to get into.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

Another example? I'm undecided on this one. Suppose I bought a particular printed book. Should I have to buy the e-book version also? Or is it okay, in this case, to obtain a darknet copy (I love that term here)?

Your example should be considered this way: Suppose you bought a hardback copy of a book. Does that justify you to take a paperback from the store when it is released, and not pay for it?

Answer: Unless the author/publisher offers a free paperback to you: No. It really is that simple.

Having just discovered this particular thread, reading it from end to end has been... educational. It seems as if some people say my e-books should be available to anyone with the gumption to take them, some think I'd be justified to lock up anyone who took even one, and some want me to get a real job! (Okay, that's an exaggeration, but it's been interesting seeing these viewpoints kicked around in here.)

This brings me back to the wish that content producers like myself could all get into a "subsidized income" situation, so we could produce as we please, get paid for our efforts, and not have to worry about what's selling and what's being stolen. Alas, that just isn't practical for all of us... we can't all get a publisher, or score patrons, and make a living that way.

Getting to the original subject, I don't have a problem with Demonoid staying down. I don't consider that a blanket condemnation of Torrent, and eventually, a site offering only legit content will become popular and stay up. I expect that technology will eventually find a way to make piracy too much of a hassle to be bothered with, by all but the most avid pirates, leaving everyone else to get used to paying for content. This actually has plenty of historical precedent, and people do get used to the idea that things worth having have to be paid for.

All this will just take time to shake down. I think the e-book and e-music industry are at the beginnings of a sea-change that will leave them unrecognizable to us in the future. Will I survive as an author? Will I ever make more money than I already have? I don't know. (Good thing I have a day job, huh?)

[Penforhire]

Okay, but explain to me why you feel digitizing on your own versus downloading the same result is morally any different? I have everything I'd need to digitize a book but the effort to end up at the same place seems absurd.

I could see the difference if I was paying a Chinese pirate (land o' scofflaws these days) for his digitized copy. That would be financing piracy. But a "free" download in the wild?

What is the ethical difference to the fair use I noted for music? The mapping of music media to book media is very accurate to my eye, the same goods in different formats.

edit - I wasn't responding to Steve. But I don't think it is simple. Your argument about hardcover versus softcover is analogous to regular CD versus Super Audio CD. In both cases (hardcover) I agree I'm not entitled to the 2nd form but I AM entitled to the formats I mentioned (CD to MP3 and p-book to e-book). At least I believe so.