Piracy vs Bookstores

[moz]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

...no, you are not technically "stealing"... but you are clearly violating the law by denying the payment that provides due compensation to the producer (the BBC).

You make an excellent weasel when you want to.

So, downloading an ebook without paying is stealing, but not paying the piracy tax that would otherwise legitimise the download is not stealing. Is this one of the weird American "taxes are stealing" arguments?

[moz]

Originally Posted by sebastien

Why don't they just make it simple?A little paypal button on the author's (or publisher) website: "donate 3$"

Many musicians will accept that. I find that many artists who sell CDs or mp3 downloads will respond to an email asking to buy the FLAC or WAV files with enthusiasm. Well, enthusiasm or complete ignorance and an offer to sell pretty plastic trinkets. I prefer the former

I think to date I'm up to about 30 albums bought over the net as FLAC, and another 5 or so bought as trinkets because my friends wanted them (so I bought an extra license for my collection). I also have a nice photo of a pile of CDs just before I destroyed them. Technically that makes 90% of my music collection illegal in that I no longer have the trinket that certifies that I hate the planet.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by llasram

Ah, here’s perhaps our essential difference of opinion. I’m assuming a human nature which can learn a few new tricks but is ultimately static. People in aggregate will always want something for nothing, but will have an innate sense of fairness which prevents them from “stealing” as they intuitively perceive it. I see widespread digital piracy not as a failing of human nature in the face of inflexible rights, but as a failing of the system constructing those rights in the face of an inflexible human nature.

Check out footage of a riot in any major city, and you'll usually see human nature assert itself in taking whatever people think thay can get away with carrying. That "innate sense of fairness" is a great concept which, unfortunately, has not been widely demonstrated in real life. That's why we have to have laws in the first place.

Originally Posted by llasram

What about the one I’ve repeated several times: “the author’s compensation is not impacted”? You appeared to agree with that one in the personal-use p-book–ripping case from my earlier post.

I completely agree that we need to guarantee “proper compensation” for content-producers, and that this is purpose the institution of copyright serves. My argument is that this is only reason copyright exists, and any times copyright interferes with uses which do not relate to creator-compensation are failings of copyright. It may be illegal to violate copyright in ways which do deny creators compensation, but it is not immoral.

Your arguments seem to suggest your opinion is that as long as the author did not create the work you obtained for free, he is not impacted. I disagree. You, the consumer, in fact do not have the right to reproduce another person's work without permission. When you do, you create another instance of that person's intellectual property, which, due to copyright law, is his to sell... not yours. When you make the decision for him, without his permission, you are violating his rights. That is both illegal AND immoral.

Originally Posted by llasram

Sorry, still don’t buy it . I think most people’s intuitions are in line on the hardback-with-paperback-free analogy because the hardback and paperback are both physical things.

I hear this a lot: "An e-book isn't really an object to buy or sell... it's a bunch of electrons, nothing like a real, physical object that I can hold in my hand. Therefore it should, by rights, be free to create, trade, or give away."

What an e-book is, is an intellectual property. Whether you can physically hold it is immaterial... that is a rationalization which, in fact, does not hold water (because electrons are material objects... they are the basic matter that makes up material objects... and the fact that you can't actually see them doesn't mean they don't exist. I know an elephant named Horton who can tell you all about that concept). The intellectual property is considered valuable, whatever the medium, and laws are written to protect its creator/owner. Again, those laws may need to be revised to better encompass digital files, but they do cover them by intent already.

Originally Posted by llasram

Here I think you’ll butt hard against most people’s intuitions. Even if not explicitly legal like it apparently is in Australia, I think most people feel intuitively that purchasing a music CD gives them the right to listen to that music in any form they desire. Criminalizing CD-ripping creates more criminals than it stops CDs from being ripped. My intuition applies the same principle to books – that I should only need to pay twice for the same content if I want to sell or give away one “copy” of the content.

I don't mean to say that Joe can't rip the CD he owns to an MP3 for his own use. Almost every government on the planet gives an implicit okay to do this (even if it is just looking the other way). But Joe does not have the right to sell, or even give away, that MP3 to another, without the author's permission (in the U.S., and in some other countries). That is illegal (in the U.S., and in some other countries) and immoral (to anyone who believes that Thou Shalt Not Steal).

Originally Posted by llasram

Libraries pay a separate royalty beyond just the cover-price of the book? I haven’t previously been aware of that. Do you have any references?

This has been mentioned throughout this site, in many threads.

Originally Posted by llasram

You agreed previously that producing for personal use an e-book edition of a p-book one purchased was acceptable. What if a friend and I both buy copies of the same p-book, but then only I go through the effort to produce an e-book edition. Is it wrong for me to give him that e-book edition even though it would be alright for him to produce exactly the same thing himself?

Strictly speaking, you are violating the law to do so. Practically speaking, as long as neither of you sell your copies... the law couldn't care less. (Unless they catch you. Then you'll be fined, and wished you never heard of e-books. That one's up to you.)

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by moz

You make an excellent weasel when you want to.

So, downloading an ebook without paying is stealing, but not paying the piracy tax that would otherwise legitimise the download is not stealing. Is this one of the weird American "taxes are stealing" arguments?

Who's weaseling? You're the one using sematics trying to justify not paying for a service done to you. So, before you start insulting people, you might want to figure out how taking something you didn't pay for puts you on the moral high ground.

Move on.

[spooky69]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Who's weaseling? You're the one using sematics trying to justify not paying for a service done to you. So, before you start insulting people, you might want to figure out how taking something you didn't pay for puts you on the moral high ground.

I fully agree with you calling out people who aren't willing to take full responsibility for stealing content, but as somebody who really has something to lose/gain from adapting or not adapting to the realities of piracy, I encourage you to pay careful attention to me and the other people who are explaining the mentality of piracy and the ways its damages can be minimized, or even exploited to entice a new group of paying users.
You have solid morals and a legitimate complaint, but neither of these is going to help your bottom line. The more you plan on your profits only coming from that group of people who will always stay on the up-and-up, the more money you are going to lose by not courting the middle ground people who pirate content but are also willing to pay for it if given the right impetus.

[Donnageddon]

Man, I came late to this thread and, in all honesty, I am not going to go through the entire thread right now.

The plain fact is piracy is wrong. Not a novel statement, I know.

Some people can justify the piracy of music, because most musicians do not gain (much) money through the sales of CDs (or albums for the neo-ludites). Musicians gain most value from their music through performance, at concerts (and t-shirt sales).

But Authors do not tour. And when they do it is usually for free as an advertisement for their books. There is a movement of Authors that use free downloads of their books as advertisements of their work as well, and I can grog their reasoning. But downloading a pirated book of a work that an author <i> has not</i> put out as an advertisement is just wrong.

But, I admit, the temptation is strong, when a book you desire is not available, under any circumstances, in a <i>legal</i> digital form.

I wish there was an format to send money directly to an author whose book you gained through underground channels. That would give them money outside of the publishing web directly, and reinforce the idea to them that there are digital readers who appreciate their work, and desire it in a digital format.

That might make them renegotiate their publishing contracts, or just tell the paper publishers to "have sex with themselves" and just publish on their own books digitally and eliminate the middleman.

[moz]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Who's weaseling? You're the one using sematics trying to justify not paying for a service done to you.

You're quite wrong - I won't pay for a service not rendered.

Also, to native English speakers "service done to you" often has a negative connotation, presumably from the homophobic connotation. If that was unintentional, perhaps you could avoid the phrasing in future.

you might want to figure out how taking something you didn't pay for puts you on the moral high ground.

Steve, for someone who spends so much time and energy coming up with incredibly rigid definitions of right and wrong, you're so often wrong that it's actually funny sometimes. Sort of like arguing with biblical literalists. Compare that to your insistence that the legal system in the USA is the be-all and end-all of morality... see any parallel? When you accuse me of all sorts of lawbreaking and immorality because you don't understand the law, you've crossed the line into idiocy.

But while you're in your legalistic frame of mind,here's a question: if I write "this book is, and remains, the property of Moz" in a book then lend it to someone who will lend it on when they've read it, do I still own it? This has relevance since as you're aware I will hopefully soon have the right to make and read an electronic copy of a book that I own. I'd like to be prepared.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by llasram

The United States’ experiment with criminalizing alcohol during the Prohibition didn’t stop people from drinking – it just made criminals of those who drank. The law ran counter to moral intuition and lost. Moreover, the distributed, victimless nature of the crime made it ultimately impossible to enforce effectively. Alcohol consumption in the US went up during the Prohibition.

Could one not use exactly the same argument about any drug use (and let's not forget that alcohol is a drug)? Should people who use cannabis or cocaine be "criminalised"?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by moz

Also, to native English speakers "service done to you" often has a negative connotation, presumably from the homophobic connotation. If that was unintentional, perhaps you could avoid the phrasing in future.

It's a perfectly normal English expression in the UK at least. Doesn't have the slightest "connotations" to me.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Donnageddon

The plain fact is piracy is wrong. Not a novel statement, I know.

Copyright 70 years after an authors death is also plain wrong.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Actually, I have been speaking in very straightforward terms, trying to emphasize the fact that a product that an author makes money on should be paid for, whatever its format. The fact that e-books can easily be copied and disseminated by others, thereby creating instances of the product independent of the author's efforts, does not change this one fact (yes, I personally consider this a fact). And finally, that copyright law should be written/rewritten to indicate and protect this fact.

This has nothing to do with American morals, or anyone else's. This has to do with one simple point of understanding that any society should honor: A producer's work should be paid for. Any rationalizations to the contrary are anti-social, even though they are obviously NOT anti-human nature. However, if we allow human nature to oversome the needs of society, we will not be better off... with almost 7 billion people on this planet, if we don't follow the rules laid down by societies, we haven't got a chance of surviving.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The "TV Licence Fee" in the UK funds the BBC. It currently costs £135.50 (about US$270) per year, and every household which own a TV set has to have one. Not having a valid TV licence is a criminal (not civil) offence, the penalty for which is a statutory £1000 fine. It's free for people aged 75 or over.

My wife got a series of emails from the TV licensing people saying she did not pay her TV fee and they were going to come round and check it out. I wonder if they ever did.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

My wife got a series of emails from the TV licensing people saying she did not pay her TV fee and they were going to come round and check it out. I wonder if they ever did.

The TV licencing authorities have a database containing all the addresses in the UK which DON'T have a TV licence, and a fleet of "detector vans" which detect the emissions from a TV (ie wonder if they work with LCD screens?). They have a legal right to forcibly enter your home and search it for TV sets (seriously!).

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The TV licencing authorities have a database containing all the addresses in the UK which DON'T have a TV licence, and a fleet of "detector vans" which detect the emissions from a TV (ie wonder if they work with LCD screens?). They have a legal right to forcibly enter your home and search it for TV sets (seriously!).

It's a really long drive to Massachusetts. I hpe thye have enough gas.

[HarryT]

I realise that Jon's wife is probably "out of their juresdiction" . Presumably, however, she must be on the UK census (or something like that) in order to have come within their "radar".