My journey into the darknet

[TGS]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Society at Large is not "just ducky" with it. If they were the laws would change.

It does depend on what group you are referring to as "society at large" doesn't it? People you come across, people whose opinions make it into the public arena, people from a restricted range of socio-economic backgrounds, people who live in the USA, or Europe, people who have never seen nor heard of an ebook, people who have no chance of ever owning one even if they have heard of them,people who don't have enough money to feed their children. I suspect that the proportion of people from "society at large" who give a monkey's chuff about the issue one way or the other will vary from infinitesimally small to significant depending on who you are referring to.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by TGS

It does depend on what group you are referring to as "society at large" doesn't it? People you come across, people whose opinions make it into the public arena, people from a restricted range of socio-economic backgrounds, people who live in the USA, or Europe, people who have never seen nor heard of an ebook, people who have no chance of ever owning one even if they have heard of them,people who don't have enough money to feed their children. I suspect that the proportion of people from "society at large" who give a monkey's chuff about the issue one way or the other will vary from infinitesimally small to significant depending on who you are referring to.

Clearly I'm talking about the group that makes the laws applicable to the person/activity in question.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Clearly I'm talking about the group that makes the laws applicable to the person/activity in question.

Apologies, I thought the group in question - "Society at large" - those who are or are not "just ducky", was a different group from the group that makes the laws.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by kennyc

You poor sheltered thing. I've absolutely run into it and express my opinions on it all the time (you didn't know that did you ).

Society at Large is not "just ducky" with it. If they were the laws would change.

Birds of a feather I guess

Lee

[leebase]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

Exactly-- the percentage of older people who won't go through the time and effort (and malware risks) to learn how to download stuff and do it is likely pretty high. The percentage of older people to say no to a free burned copy of something they want if you offer it to them is likely pretty low.

Pirating is a hassle for everybody. That's why companies need to ensure that buying legit material is less of a hassle.

I would agree there are folks who wouldn't go through the hassle and danger of acquiring pirated material that would be just fine if you handed it to them.

But there are folks who simply can afford to pay for what they want, and they do so. Just as there is tendency to pirate the easier it is, there's a tendency to not pirate when one doesn't need to.

Lee

[vaughnmr]

Originally Posted by leebase

Pirating is a hassle for everybody. Lee

You ommitted several reasons that pirates exist:

1) ebooks are simply not available, the publishers won't release them. You can buy the book, but you can't read it on your ereader.

2) ebooks can't be released due to copyright (including orphan) issues. The ebook is in a legal la-la land, no one can do anything with it, usually for a long, long time. Long after you die, for sure.

3) you can't buy the ebook because of where you live.

4) ebook quality is so bad that properly formatted pirate copies are easier to read. Really doesn't make sense, but that is probably the case a lot of the time.

Just wanted to bring it up, since you are so hung up on the pirate/theft thingy.

[scveteran]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

Exactly-- the percentage of older people who won't go through the time and effort (and malware risks) to learn how to download stuff and do it is likely pretty high. The percentage of older people to say no to a free burned copy of something they want if you offer it to them is likely pretty low.

I think that the percentage will be much higher if you explain to them that this material is stolen.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by scveteran

I think that the percentage will be much higher if you explain to them that this material is stolen.

That will be hard since it is not stolen. And you should not lie to people so you should not try to fool them.

[scveteran]

Originally Posted by Logseman

If I'm stumbing against beliefs, against the belief that I'm lying or that I'm dishonest (which is implied by your statement), we may of course leave the discussion. I won't bear to be insulted by my word being taken as a lie, for I haven't taken and will not take yours as such. If something ought to be clear is that we're two honest people sharing points of view about a topic. Or is it that, since I "steal" as you say, I deserve to be treated as a crook?

Again, I am not calling you a liar here. I really believe that you have convinced yourself of that, but when the time comes you would take the money. My reasons for this belief is that you brought up the money, and your stated belief that you should get as much as you can for the least money. If I am wrong in this belief, I apologize. And one more time, I am stating that I belive you are not lying but have convinced yourself of this.

Originally Posted by Logseman

Ta-daaa! Thanks to the magic labeling process, now I'm an Anarchist without me having said a word about it myself. If you want my stance, I consider myself a Strabic Bigot, aka Strabigot for briefness's sake. If you want to know what it is (though I count that you won't) I'll merrily explain it where you wish.

You have said multiple times you support an anarchist organization. You have also espoused ideas supported by anarchist. So that leads me to believe you are anarchist. I think that is a rational and logical deduction.

As for considering yourself a Strabic Bigot, that is great. I would like to know more about it if it is not something that was created for your own personal use at some time in the past. I did do a search in Google and Wikipedia and found nothing for either of those terms. Of course there is nothing wrong with you creating a name for your own personal views. I consider it a good thing if it helps a person to formulate and analyze their beliefs. Unfortunately, I don't have time to listen to every single person's beliefs. I can only spend time on learning about it if it really affects a fair number of people. So if it is a recognized group, please send me info on it by personal mail.

BTW, I consider myself a Rational Anarchist.

Originally Posted by Logseman

Aside of that, I've given my reasoning that it's not stealing if it's not physical property, which actually causes a loss of value if it's stolen: on the contrary, intellectual property is how they manage to put fences on the sea. However, let us take your words and follow the logic: thwarting someone's prospects of income is stealing. How can any new business be opened then? By its very creation, it implies more competition against the other firms of its industry. Those other firms or individual businesses will possibly be less profitable, thus their prospects of income are thwarted and, well, that is something we cannot allow, can we?

The problem here is that you are looking at this as merely thwarting someone else's prospects of income. In reality it is taking something that doesn't belong to you. You can artificially make distinctions about physical or non-physical property.

So where does it stop? Maybe it is alright to steal someone's car if it red instead of another car? Or you can take someone's home if they live on the left side of the street? I know that those two examples seem absurd, but so does the idea of stealing property because it is non-physical IMO.

Originally Posted by Logseman

Do not think it's a reductio ad absurdum: it happens already. We only have to ask about banks, insurance companies, doctors, lawyers and a wide array of industries where there are huge entrance barriers. After all, letting more competition would menace the revenues of those who're "In The Money" as poker players say.

This part is just plain stupid and you should be embarassed for posting it. The entrance barriers for those fields of commerce have nothing to do with limiting competition or the revenues of others.

I guess you want to go see the doctor who has no medical training and is a high school drop out. Or maybe you want to buy insurance from a guy who has no reserves to pay you from?

Originally Posted by Logseman

A-ha! I was considered dishonest, and now I have the mindset of a psychopath. Downloading things from the darknet is not only communism, as that old mock poster said, it's even a mental sickness.

I never mentioned communism. What I pointed out that your stated belief in breaking any law that you can get away with is in common with a pyschopath. If you disagree with that, I suggest you look it up.

As I said earler, this is not being said to be offensive. Nor am I saying that you are actually a pyschopath. I am saying that your stated beliefs are in line with one.

Originally Posted by Logseman

The state is an autonomous body inside society, not society itself. Such a synecdoche is usual, so I can understand your stance. Nevertheless, confounding chaos with spontaneous order is one of the biggest hazards in understanding what we're talking about. I never denied that you need rules in a society, I just claim the state, as an organisation which resorts to aggresion, is not legitimated to give them. That leaves a huge quantity of individuals to set up their own laws and codes, as they actually do today. At any rate, your choice of words is interesting: "either you obey or you must be prepared to face the consequences"... Capisce?

I did not say that the state is the total society. I realize that it is a part of society as a whole. So the mistake in understanding that was your own.

Since the state gets it power from the society as a whole, your idea that it is an organization that is not legitimate to make rules is flawed IMO. I will agree that there are codes of conduct that come from both larger and smaller parts of the society.

My words "either you obey or you must be prepared to face the consequences" may have been more clear, so let me make it clear now. If you steal a car, you face the possible jail time. You kill someone, you may face the death penalty. You steal electronic products, you may face fines, jail time, and/or lawsuits. You committ civil disobediance you may face a night in jail. Now is that clear?

Originally Posted by Logseman

I established the example of black markets as an example of spontaneous organisation which rises from the opposition of the State to the ingenious initiative of the individuals. Those psychopaths will try and get away with selling rationated items out of the ration system.

And as they try to get away with committing their crimes, they tend to hurt those around them. To say otherwise is either to be living in a fantasy world or to be dishonest.

Originally Posted by Logseman

For the second statement, I'll leave a small graph,popular in Econ 101 course, to explain the matter:


Compare the efficiency area below the "price ceiling" bar with the market efficiency area which comes from crossing the demand and supply functions. Which is bigger?

I don't see how this is relevant. Maybe you can make this more clear.

Originally Posted by Logseman

It's interesting how noone asks people who pay taxes in the Cayman Islands to consider themselves affected by their own country's laws. It is just us, the ones who have no other way but paying our taxes, who shall submit to the strongest rulings.

Totally different things. You might as well compare apples to door knobs.

Originally Posted by Logseman

If it's society at large's fault, I'd like to commend you to the right thread:
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77605

Very funny, but worthless. Nor have I said that your actions are the fault of society at large. It is MO that the society at large thinks the action of stealing is wrong.

Originally Posted by Logseman

Consumers' choices try to maximize their enjoyment and welfare. Producers' choices try to maximize their profits (their ideal being eternal revenue sources). They do everything what is in their power to arrive to such status. But then again, do not pay heed to my psychopathic mumbles.

Consumers' choice do try to maximize their enjoyment and welfare, but in legal means. It does not include theft anymore than it includes armed robbery.

Originally Posted by Logseman

_________________________________________________

For the "old people buy - young people download" disyunction, I'd like to point out a small bit: young people download content for their elders too.

Well some do. I would bet that this is not as rampant as you think. I will admit I don't have proof of that and I could be wrong in that area.

[scveteran]

Originally Posted by vaughnmr

You ommitted several reasons that pirates exist:

1) ebooks are simply not available, the publishers won't release them. You can buy the book, but you can't read it on your ereader.

2) ebooks can't be released due to copyright (including orphan) issues. The ebook is in a legal la-la land, no one can do anything with it, usually for a long, long time. Long after you die, for sure.

3) you can't buy the ebook because of where you live.

4) ebook quality is so bad that properly formatted pirate copies are easier to read. Really doesn't make sense, but that is probably the case a lot of the time.

Just wanted to bring it up, since you are so hung up on the pirate/theft thingy.

You forgot to add that some people just don't want to pay for the products that they want and feel that they are entitled to do whatever they want.

[scveteran]

Originally Posted by tompe

That will be hard since it is not stolen. And you should not lie to people so you should not try to fool them.

The thing is it is stolen. No matter how you want to try and cover it up, taking things that don't belong to you without permission is stealing.

And you really should not lie to people to fool them into agreeing with you.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by tompe

That will be hard since it is not stolen. And you should not lie to people so you should not try to fool them.

I agree completely and that is why I refuse to call it "sharing" or "copying." I call it what it is theft of intellectual property.

[scveteran]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I agree completely and that is why I refuse to call it "sharing" or "copying." I call it what it is theft of intellectual property.

Who are you agreeing with? You said you agree with Tempe who called me a liar and said it is not stolen. Yet your message seems to agree with me in calling it theft. So which is it?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by scveteran

The thing is it is stolen. No matter how you want to try and cover it up, taking things that don't belong to you without permission is stealing.

And you really should not lie to people to fool them into agreeing with you.

It might be copyright infringement. Your failure to make this distinction really hurt all else you are saying.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by scveteran

Who are you agreeing with? You said you agree with Tempe who called me a liar and said it is not stolen. Yet your message seems to agree with me in calling it theft. So which is it?

No, I did not call you a liar. I said that when you know that it is copyright infringement you should not lie and try to say to people that it is theft.