Book publisher files mass BitTorrent lawsuit

[Anjohl]

Originally Posted by Kevin8or

I think you've asked and answered your own question, by separating legality from morality. Once you pass that fork in the road, you're free to follow your chosen ethical system wherever it may lead.

Agreed. The law is meant to serve man, not the other way around. I accept that in the digital age, the law has been behind the curve, while the technology is always ahead of it, but hasn't that always been the case? I think civil law should be restrained to ensure that there are no undeserving victims left along the way.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Anjohl

The relevance is that if you buy a DRM'd copy of a piece of media, and I pirate a DRM free version, *I* have the definitive version. DRM punishes people for NOT stealing, which in turn encourages stealing.

Sorry, but no you don't. You have an illegal stolen copy of someone's property.

[Anjohl]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Sorry, but no you don't. You have an illegal stolen copy of someone's property.

I am talking about characteristics, not value judgements.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Anjohl

I am talking about characteristics, not value judgements.

And I'm talking about morality, ethics and law.

Even so you are still wrong. The "definitive" copy is the one the owner says is the "definitive" copy.

[Anjohl]

Originally Posted by kennyc

And I'm talking about morality, ethics and law.

Even so you are still wrong. The "definitive" copy is the one the owner says is the "definitive" copy.

The law exists to serve man, not the other way around. And by "definitive" I mean the work, unencumbered by devices which have nothing to do with the work. So your assertion of my incorrectness is invallid. A book written by a writer has no artificial lock to prevent it from being shared. Last time I checked, my copy of Clash of King's didn't require a DNA check to read, nor did it require a receipt. The definitive copy of an electronic work of art is one free of any third party device intended to dissuade sharing. This has *nothing* to do with copyright infringement, theft, etc. The argument that the publishers use to seek damages is based on a flawed assertion as well, that the decline of sales corelates with the increase in "illegal" downloading. This has not been proven. What has been proven is an overall decrease in consumer good purchasing due to the economy, and increased reliance on cheap/free entertainment, including alternate competing forms such as internet news, free ebooks (Gutenberg), etc.

Keep your self righteousness to yourself.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Anjohl

The law exists to serve man, not the other way around. And by "definitive" I mean the work, unencumbered by devices which have nothing to do with the work.

Keep your self righteousness to yourself.

The U.S. and most countries are based on rule of law. That is point and that is the point that makes you wrong in your claim.

[DustyDisks]

The argument can also be looked at like this , your neighbor has a large garden and you wanted some of his corn that he grows. So he sold you some of it, and it was good.

Now, do you have the right to go to his garden again and take corn from him you have no intension of paying for, and you go and take it, in the dark of night?

The first is fair market value and the other is theft.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Sorry, but no you don't. You have an illegal stolen copy of someone's property.

Since you repeatedly insist people stick to accepted scientific definitions when discussing scientific topics, I will ask you to stick to accepted legal definitions when discussing legal topics.

Copyright infringement is not theft regardless of how you dress it up or twist it to suit your personal definition.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Anjohl

The law exists to serve man, not the other way around.

What does this even mean? There are two parties (at least) to most legal disputes, and they will likely have a different idea of how they should be "served".

And by "definitive" I mean the work, unencumbered by devices which have nothing to do with the work. So your assertion of my incorrectness is invallid. A book written by a writer has no artificial lock to prevent it from being shared. Last time I checked, my copy of Clash of King's didn't require a DNA check to read, nor did it require a receipt. The definitive copy of an electronic work of art is one free of any third party device intended to dissuade sharing. This has *nothing* to do with copyright infringement, theft, etc.

Pretending that there is some mythical "definitive" work has *nothing* to do with anything in this conversation, although it may have to do with a conversation on editing and OCR errors. The Gutenberg Bible locked in a rare book library is no more or less definitive because it is behind lock and key.

The argument that the publishers use to seek damages is based on a flawed assertion as well, that the decline of sales corelates with the increase in "illegal" downloading.

Except that this is not the argument any publisher uses to seek damages. They always seek statutory damages.

This has not been proven.

It doesn't have to be.

What has been proven is an overall decrease in consumer good purchasing due to the economy, and increased reliance on cheap/free entertainment, including alternate competing forms such as internet news, free ebooks (Gutenberg), etc.

As above, this doesn't matter, either.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Since you repeatedly insist people stick to accepted scientific definitions when discussing scientific topics, I will ask you to stick to accepted legal definitions when discussing legal topics.

Copyright infringement is not theft regardless of how you dress it up or twist it to suit your personal definition.

Sorry but you are wrong as well. It is theft of property. Theft of intellectual property. We have been through this dozens of times, I would have thought you'd have learned something by now.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Sorry but you are wrong as well. It is theft of property. Theft of intellectual property. We have been through this dozens of times, I would have thought you'd have learned something by now.

You are wrong. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat yourself, you are still wrong.

Under the law, copyright infringement is not theft.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

You are wrong. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat yourself, you are still wrong.

Under the law, copyright infringement is not theft.

Depends on the jurisdiction. And on what precisely you mean by "theft." But a lot of courts seem to generally disagree:

"And deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft. " (Grokster, US Sct. 2005)

"The fair use doctrine is not a license for corporate theft, empowering a court to ignore a copyright whenever it determines the underlying work contains material of possible public importance." (Harper & Row v. Nation, US Sct 1985).

"A CATV that builds an antenna to pick up telecasts in Area B and then transmits it by cable to Area A is reproducing the copyrighted work, not pursuant to a license from the owner of the copyright, but by theft." (Teleprompter v. CBS, US Sct. 1974).

"There is little doubt that the largest opportunity for copyright theft is through peer-to-peer (“P2P”) software." (In re Verizon Internet, US Dist. Ct. D.C., 2003).

"The matter before the court concerns the boundary between sharing and theft, personal use and the unauthorized world-wide distribution of copyrighted music and sound recordings." (A&M v. Napster, N.D. Calif., 2000).

There is a lot of legislation that made similar points, although I'll grant that the use of the word "theft" in the "Protecting Intellectual Rights Against Theft and Expropriation Act of 2004" may have been motivated in part because it helps spell "PIRATE".

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Anjohl

This has *nothing* to do with copyright infringement, theft, etc. The argument that the publishers use to seek damages is based on a flawed assertion as well, that the decline of sales corelates with the increase in "illegal" downloading. This has not been proven.

I am sorry, but "I downloaded from the darknet but I never would have paid for the book anyway, so there is no monetary loss" argument makes no sense. If you download from the darknet you are taking something of value that doesn't belong to you. There is no excuse. And the rest of us are paying for your reading pleasure through higher prices.

If you think a book is too expensive then read some low priced books or something that is in the public domain.

[Ken Maltby]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

I am sorry, but "I downloaded from the darknet but I never would have paid for the book anyway, so there is no monetary loss" argument makes no sense. If you download from the darknet you are taking something of value that doesn't belong to you. There is no excuse. And the rest of us are paying for your reading pleasure through higher prices.

If you think a book is too expensive then read some low priced books or something that is in the public domain.

Not just more expensive, but loaded with the annoyance of DRM, based on
a claim that it is preventing the "sharing". Those who are actually stealing
ebooks, are making it harder on all of us who are willing to buy ebooks.

Luck;
Ken

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by Ken Maltby

Not just more expensive, but loaded with the annoyance of DRM, based on
a claim that it is preventing the "sharing". Those who are actually stealing
ebooks, are making it harder on all of us who are willing to buy ebooks.

Luck;
Ken

Remove the infection of DRM and other restrictive out of date practices like geographic restrictions and I would imagine a lot of "casual" downloaders would return to purchasing ebooks rather than have to seek an "alternative" source.

Darknet file sharing is not going to go away period. You would be totally foolish to believe it will.

The important thing is to make ebook purchases more attractive to buy. This requires a business model shift of some magnitude from major publishers who seem most reluctant to even consider.

The money they pay copyright trolls and firms that evolve dodgy statistics could be best used for such a change.

But no...