Piracy Experiment

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Maggie Leung

I think they're saying it's ethically / morally OK. I don't think they're saying it's not something that could land you in legal trouble. But I think you know that, lol.

Oh well, if they REALLY consider themselves to be criminals, despite their protestations of acting morally, I could of course understand their reluctance. It's certainly not for me to judge!

[Xanthe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

On a site dedicated to reading and book readers, it's hardly surprising that many people do not feel charitably disposed towards those who show disdain for the efforts of authors, and deny them their income.

Ah, but now you're bringing the discussion back around full circle to the "would they actually have bought it in the first place" argument.

Not to mention also imposing personal judgment by your choice of the word "disdain". I haven't read any posts in this thread (other than the 150 word discussion) where authors' efforts were disdained.

I am not asking for people to be "charitably" disposed. Neither I nor anyone else here is asking for anyone's "charity". Even the use of the term denigrates the opinions of others who don't share yours.

"On a site dedicated to reading and book readers" - precisely. Not to authors, not to publishers. To the readers of the products. Instead of encouraging the "this is right and this is wrong" attitude, how about we try to find some common ground - where the readers have a voice, too? Why do we have to accept the status quo? Why do we allow divisiveness to be encouraged among us? Why can't we try to influence the business model and change it, so that everyone is treated fairly and better lines of recompense to the authors and publishers are established - one that takes into account the technological changes instead of fighting it?

[Marcy]

Originally Posted by Maggie Leung

I don't think anyone who has committed copyright violation will send name, address and admission of violation to a publisher.

If I was going to go that route, I'd send a dollar bill and only use my first name!

-Marcy

[Maggie Leung]

Originally Posted by Marcy

If I was going to go that route, I'd send a dollar bill and only use my first name!

-Marcy

Yup, I would, too, lol.

[Xanthe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Oh well, if they REALLY consider themselves to be criminals, despite their protestations of acting morally, I could of course understand their reluctance. It's certainly not for me to judge!

Ha, ha.

Ho, ho.

Not.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

No, though some have.

But most of them would like to at least make some money (defined as "better than minimum wage for the hours spent"), and maybe even make their living writing. How do you propose they do so?
______
Dennis

Someone said not many books earn out their advance, so it would actually only be the publisher that would have the potential to lose anything through copyright violation? Any additional readers (assuming it isn't just downloaded by file collectors) would benefit the writers when they decide to self publish.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by ruel

Yes, you can occasionally get Google to stop indexing certain pages if you have a copyright claim, but once a file gets on file sharing websites it spreads like wildfire. Once one websites has a file it will spread to other websites within hours. There really is no way to get a file is removed. I don't think even the US government would be able to get a file off the internet, which seems to have held true with WikiLeaks (which now has over 1400 mirrors).

I know of writers who have done it successfully enough that a Google search will not show up any unofficial downloads. They might be there in dark corners, but not where "normal" people would be able to find them. So statistically, the people who do have access to them don't really matter.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Xanthe

"On a site dedicated to reading and book readers" - precisely. Not to authors, not to publishers. To the readers of the products. Instead of encouraging the "this is right and this is wrong" attitude, how about we try to find some common ground - where the readers have a voice, too? Why do we have to accept the status quo? Why do we allow divisiveness to be encouraged among us? Why can't we try to influence the business model and change it, so that everyone is treated fairly and better lines of recompense to the authors and publishers are established - one that takes into account the technological changes instead of fighting it?

Sorry, Xanthe, but I honestly find it difficult to find any common ground with people who consider it to be morally acceptable to take someone else's hard work without paying them for it. This is, for me, very definitely a "this is wrong and this is right" situation. This (for me) is wrong.

You obviously feel differently. You're perfectly entitled to your opinion, and I don't bear you any ill-will for holding that different opinion, but I'm afraid that I do not, and never will, agree with you about it.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Do you seriously believe that nobody illegally download books simply because they want to get something for free, rather than pay for it?

There's probably quite a few, but they will be more than compensated for by the people who go on to buy books by writers that they have previously downlaoded for free.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

There's probably quite a few, but they will be more than compensated for by the people who go on to buy books by writers that they have previously downlaoded for free.

That, from my point of view, is like saying that car thieves benefit the motor industry on the grounds that people who steal Fords enjoy driving them so much that they will subsequently go out and buy a Ford .

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

Like I said before, there are a lot of selfish people on this thread. Guess what? YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO ANYTHING. Get it? You took something from someone without permission and are now manufacturing reasons why it's ok. IT IS NOT OK.
):

Whether it is okay or not is irrelevant, it is just a fact of life. What you call piracy has existed for hundreds of years, and despite the bleating of the entertainment industry every time some new technology comes along, it has not caused the death of entertainment. The only thing that is different with the internet is it has made it a lot more visible than it used to be. The entertainment industries have used this visibility as an excuse to lobby governments and pay for new laws, but it hasn't made any difference to piracy whatsoever.

[Catlady]

Here's my question, and I really want to know the answer:

Why is it legally and morally acceptable for me to copy my own paper book to a digital file--just as I can rip mp3s from my own CDs--but not legally and morally acceptable for me to obtain a digital file of that same book from someone else?

[SleepyBob]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

The only thing that is different with the internet is it has made it a lot more visible than it used to be.

No, it has made it a lot more frequent, as well. Both in numbers of participants and in amounts pirated by each person.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

how do you feel if someone takes something from you without your permission? Let’s say – your ereader. I take your ereader without your permission. How do you feel about this action?

It's pointless trying to use real world items in your analogies, they just don't fit. Someone would have to use a Star Trek replicator to duplicate your ebook reader for it to be the same. Two people would then have an ebook reader, but only one of them would have paid for it.

Would the second person have bought an ebook reader if they couldn't get one for free with the replicator? If you refused to let them replicate your reader, would they rush out and buy their own, or would they just replicate somone else's reader instead? Would the ebook reader manufacturer benefit from having large numbers of people using their reader even if some of those people didn't pay for it? Would it matter if people just collected ebook readers and never used any of them?

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Ravensknight

wow. Glad you are so qualified to make such character judgements.
I agree with you that piracy is morally wrong, but to go around calling everyone selfish who doesn't subscribe to your moral viewpoint, well, that seems very hubristic...

She is absolutely correct. As are you when you note that piracy is morally wrong.

But your second point about hubris is completely wrong. For whatever reason, there is this idea floating around that it is just as bad to criticize someone for making an immoral choice as it is to make the immoral choice in the first place.

But this is ludicrous. Calling someone a thief is not equivalent to being a thief. Nor is it an example of arrogance. It's simple honesty, despite the fact that it might hurt someone's feelings. Which makes it *more* praiseworthy - it's easy to be honest when everyone agrees with you. It's much harder when you will be criticized for your honesty.