Should Demonoid Stay Down?

[vivaldirules]

Originally Posted by 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?

But it's a free download of something that was stolen. And if I had thought about, I think I should have said the same thing about the stolen software. I want nothing of them. But my biggest questions to you now are: do you float and do you weigh the same as a duck?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

Okay, but explain to me why you feel digitizing on your own versus downloading the same result is morally any different?

Because when I digitized on my own, for my own use, I did not intend to give it to anyone else and potentially deny the producer a sale. When you took from someone else, you did precisely that. (They don't know you bought a book already. Maybe you didn't.)

Originally Posted by Penforhire

I have everything I'd need to digitize a book but the effort to end up at the same place seems absurd.

And I can build a bicycle from scrap metal... nevertheless, I don't have the right to just take one from someone who stole a bike and saved me the trouble.

Originally Posted by Penforhire

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?

That "free" download isn't supposed to be there, hence, it is theft, illegal product. "I can take a stolen copy because I wasn't going to buy it anyway" is no justification for theft. Neither is the "victimless crime" argument. Theft is theft.

Originally Posted by Penforhire

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.

Only when you do it for yourself, and not to release "into the wild," where you have absolutely no control over what happens to it. The moment you do that, you have violated the agreement between you and the producer. And if someone gets it from you and sells copies, even if you did not make or sell the copies or profit from them, you will be liable for it.

[Penforhire]

I agree with your last statement. But if I download a copy for my own use and I already own the book, and could have digitized it myself, then there is no theft. You are saying theses digital bits are somehow tainted, like cocaine residue on $100 bills. I disagree.

In the software world distribution is often done by download (with or without DRM -- I have too many dongles!). If the e-book is equivalent to the p-book, and if I am entitled to e-book version of my p-book (the critical point between us I think), then all we have done is altered the distribution system. I am not a pirate but the person who downloads a book they did not already own is a pirate.

I thought some more about your comment about hardcover versus softcover. I feel I AM entitled to print my own hardcover version if I own the softcover. I am not entitled to the resources of the publisher's printer or any additional expense on their part. So to answer your question, yes I feel entitled to a hardcover version if I only own the softcover.

[vivaldirules]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

I agree with your last statement. But if I download a copy for my own use and I already own the book, and could have digitized it myself, then there is no theft. You are saying theses digital bits are somehow tainted, like cocaine residue on $100 bills. I disagree.

But you know where the ebook originated - from someone who stole it. Doesn't that put you off some?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Part of me can't believe I'm discussing the abstract philosophical justifications of ownership and theft! Is this really so hard to understand in a civilized world today? How do you think we became a civilized world? By setting agreements to behave like civilized people, so we could all trust each other, cooperate, and make a world that isn't run by marauding huns.

Looking for ways to strip those agreements away, thread by thread, is not helping! Once the cloth unravels, it'll take Hell to put it back together again.

Sorry. Shouldn't have skipped lunch. I'm going home.

[vivaldirules]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Part of me can't believe I'm discussing the abstract philosophical justifications of ownership and theft! Is this really so hard to understand in a civilized world today? How do you think we became a civilized world? By setting agreements to behave like civilized people, so we could all trust each other, cooperate, and make a world that isn't run by marauding huns.

You're right. I say we burn the witch!!

[NatCh]

The Romans were civilized once too, look where that got them.

Staying civilized is often harder than becoming civilized.

[Penforhire]

We're discussing it because of the subtlety involved.

You would have to be intentionally obtuse to not see any nuances comparing digitizing your own p-book with downloading a copy someone else made. I all cases of my claiming any morality I am talking about changing the format of something I already paid for.

Shutting down the discussion does not clarify the issue. We live in a digital age and our concept of ownership and theft is under scrutiny. Worthy topic for this board, no?

edit - It is not my intention to distress you and while my leanings are obvious I am not 100% convinced myself. The music format analogy is pushing me because that is a done deal, you ARE legally allowed to convert your own CD's to tapes or MP3's for your own use in America.

[schmidt349]

Copyright infringement is theft

The United States Supreme Court doesn't agree (Dowling v. US, 473 US 207):

Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud.

Copyright is a limited right granted to you by your country because your fellow citizens happen to think that it promotes innovation in the useful arts if you're given the exclusive right to reap the profits of an original creation for awhile. It can be and sometimes is revoked under the doctrine of copyright misuse.

Between copyright and DRM, I think that so little is going to be preserved of the cultural output of the ancient 21st-century American civilization when the archaeologists dig it up 3,000 years from now that they're going to think we had some kind of dark age.

[bingle]

Originally Posted by vivaldirules

But you know where the ebook originated - from someone who stole it. Doesn't that put you off some?

When you say "stole it", what does that mean to you? That they walked out the door of the shop with it? Or just that they digitized it on their own, and put it on the Internet?

If it's the second, then how is that different than digitizing it yourself? The end result is the same...

I also think that this constant repetition of "theft", "stolen", etc, is unhelpful. There's a huge difference between stealing something and violating copyright - the biggest being that stealing deprives someone else of their copy, while violating copyright does not.

Obviously, both are illegal. But they're not the same thing. At the very least, conflating the two confuses people like me, when you make statements like the above :-)

[recycledelectron]

Not everything on Demonoid.com was illegal, but some was pirated.
I used it to find legal Linux DVDs.

Not every eBook is illegal, but some are pirated.
I read legal eBooks.

Some of you seem to hate anything that MIGHT be illegal that you are not using.
Not every car is stolen, but some are. I think every car should be confiscated & melted down. Only pickups should be allowed as passenger vehicles - after all, there are too dang many stolen cars out there!

Andy

[vivaldirules]

I think it's a worthy discussion and I'm trying to find analogies, too. If you own a VHS tape could one feel reasonably to be entitled to the DVD? If so, should one feel that it's okay to download an illegal copy of it? The answer for me is no in both cases. In the first case because it's quite a step in technology from VHS to DVD so it seems right to me that the equivalent of the author and publisher in this case should be paid for the digital version. In the second case because of where it came from - a thief. For music, it's legal to create MP3s from your CDs for your own use so really neither of these seem to me to be quite analogous to the pbook to ebook question you pose. Hmmm.

[McDoof]

...but what have the Romans ever done for US?

Seriously - part of the reason this is so passionately disputed is because we are in a unique situation here. Comparing software or ebook piracy to stealing is logically flawed, since digital goods are reproducible without a loss of quality. The bicycle and scrap metal analogy sounds good, but when you take someone's bike, someone doesn't have a bike any more.

And digitizing a book you own might be legal, but the moment you upload it, you're contributing to its illegal distribution. Another issue altogether...

Again - we're in a new kind of territory here that, as far as I'm concerned, requires us to rethink the structure of distribution (i.e. cut out the publisher/record company influence) and deliver compensation as directly to the producer as possible (in the case of ebooks, the author gets the cash and not the publisher, distributor, and retailer).

Personally, I'm always skeptical of people who proclaim the infinite wisdom of the invisible hand of the marketplace, but I think in a decentralized medium like the Internet, ebooks distributed independently would survive and generate revenue only if they are of a certain high standard. This would likely be determined by market-like forces in the networked media: I write my book on my laptop. I convert it into various formats and offer it through a number of online marketplaces. If it's good, people send me a few shekels and if it's crap, I better write something else. Web forums like mobileread will then inform interested readers about what's good reading and what isn't.

MP3 Pirates will tell you that they're doing the art form a favor. When the profitability for record companies is reduced, the only people who will make music will be those who are passionate about it. I'm not saying that's true or desirable, but in the print medium, in which we're talking about the dissemination of cultural memory and literary heritage, we need some new models.

[vivaldirules]

Originally Posted by bingle

When you say "stole it", what does that mean to you? That they walked out the door of the shop with it? Or just that they digitized it on their own, and put it on the Internet?

If it's the second, then how is that different than digitizing it yourself? The end result is the same...

I also think that this constant repetition of "theft", "stolen", etc, is unhelpful. There's a huge difference between stealing something and violating copyright - the biggest being that stealing deprives someone else of their copy, while violating copyright does not.

Obviously, both are illegal. But they're not the same thing. At the very least, conflating the two confuses people like me, when you make statements like the above :-)

To answer your question, these seem equivalent to me. Walking out the door without paying for it and digitizing it so that others can take it without paying for it seem the same to me. Actually, the latter is worse since presumably there will be many people who will end up with the item without paying for it. Although the words theft may not sound right, it sounds perfectly good to me. I just have to think about the author and publisher who worked hard to provide a product which they are not be paid for. If I need to think of that as something other than theft, I'll need some help.

How am I different if I digitize my pbook? Because I paid for the pbook that is still sitting on my shelf and I intend to use the digital copy for me alone - no one will ever see it. Should I pay the author and publisher a second time for the ebook? At the moment, I'm not convinced either way. I think it's an interesting question to think about more. I should be clear though in saying that if the ebook is available, I'm buying it. I'm only interested in converting the pbooks that I have which I can't find digital copies of. Not sure that should make a difference, though.

[Penforhire]

Yep, the crux of my debate (and internal conflict) is whether or not the e-book is truly equivalent to the p-book. Your example of a VHS tape is another good one. Similar to the SA-CD versus CD, I have to agree the DVD is not the same as the VHS tape. edit - though dubbing a VHS tape to DVD by video capture is fine, IMO.

But I'm not seeing how the e-book is different in quality of content than the p-book. It would be very cool (future?) if authors added editorial content linked to locations in the book, similar to Director's over-voice on video DVD's. At that point there would be no debate from me, the e-book was an improved product. But here we are directly comparing photographed and OCD'd copies of a p-book, with no added value.