Do you pirate books and why?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Coming to MR and boasting, in your first post, about how much stuff you've stolen, is not a good way to win friends around here.

And calling copyright infringement theft is not a good idea either.

[WT Sharpe]

Right. Taking what doesn't belong to you and to which you don't have the rights is just being honest and upright. No semantics here.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Right. Taking what doesn't belong to you and to which you don't have the rights is just being honest and upright. No semantics here.

Taking? What are you talking about? And were do you get honest and upright from? Nobody have claimed that about any situation in this thread. Are you on purpose misunderstanding?

[WT Sharpe]

I think most people understand what stealing is.

[ProfCrash]

But is so much prettier and less nasty to infringe on someones copyright then admit to stealing money from the author.

[TGS]

According to the poll as it stands, slightly more people pirate books than don't. And yet the tone of this thread and many others is that those who do pirate books are some kind of morally derelict low lifes. Interesting.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

I think most people understand what stealing is.

You obviously do not understand it.

And regardless of that. Where did somebody claim in this thread that copyright infringement was honest and upright? You seemed to claim that (I cannot be sure since you do not use the correct terms). Did you claim that or not? If not what did you mean?

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Right. Taking what doesn't belong to you and to which you don't have the rights is just being honest and upright. No semantics here.

Nice strawman argument, really quite a nice example of the fallacy.

Originally Posted by tompe

You obviously do not understand it.

And regardless of that. Where did somebody claim in this thread that copyright infringement was honest and upright? You seemed to claim that (I cannot be sure since you do not use the correct terms). Did you claim that or not? If not what did you mean?

I think you missed the memo - if you say copyright infringement is copyright infringement and not theft, then you are fine with stealing bread from the mouth's of authors' children.

Seriously though, you can analogize theft to copyright infringement for the sake of an argument if you like, but the two terms do have distinct meanings. It's too much of a simplification to go from "copyright infringement is like theft" to "copyright infringement is theft".

[hidari]

Most of the hardcore Copy Infringement crowd come across as if you committed Rape or Murder.....?!.......As I have read before....Pirating in someways has helped to spread information to developing countries where one is not allowed to "read" some of the books or cannot afford them. In this case the spreading of information can be helpful. Perhaps, the EU and the US should start removing forefingers of known copyright infringers...... and upload the vids on Youtube....That'll show "em....

Originally Posted by TGS

According to the poll as it stands, slightly more people pirate books than don't. And yet the tone of this thread and many others is that those who do pirate books are some kind of morally derelict low lifes. Interesting.

[sbroome]

Originally Posted by TGS

According to the poll as it stands, slightly more people pirate books than don't. And yet the tone of this thread and many others is that those who do pirate books are some kind of morally derelict low lifes. Interesting.

I think the lesson is that people will do as much as they can get away with, and relying on people's sense of accountability is probably not a good idea with this generation, any more than leaving your doors unlocked like it's the '20s.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Coming to MR and boasting, in your first post, about how much stuff you've stolen, is not a good way to win friends around here.

Unless this individual lives in The Netherlands or Switzerland then they are an upstanding member of society.

[Katsunami]

Huh... Please explain. As a Dutchman, I don't understand.

(As I stated somewhere in this thread, I will only pirate books if there is no legally feasible way for me to get it. Taking a plane to the USA to go pick up a book that Amazon won't send to me is not an option for example.)

[Wasgo]

Theft consists of two primary effects:

1. A person obtains something they have no right to own.
2. A person loses something they have a right to own.

Copyright infringement only has one of these two effects, specifically the first one.

Conversely, we can construct a situation that consists of only the second one, such as someone purposely smashing a person's e-reader that was placed on the table in front of them.

Nobody would call the second situation theft, but clearly it falls into the category of doing something wrong. It's equally possible for copyright infringement to be wrong, without claiming that it's theft.

[ProfCrash]

No, it has both of those components. When you pirate a book, you deprive the author of the money that he/she deserves. ie, the money that the author has a right to own.

Just because people think it is prettier to say piracy is not theft because you are not taking a physical book, you are still taking money from the author. That is theft. You are depriving the author of something that he/she has a right to.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

No, it has both of those components. When you pirate a book, you deprive the author of the money that he/she deserves. ie, the money that the author has a right to own.

Just because people think it is prettier to say piracy is not theft because you are not taking a physical book, you are still taking money from the author. That is theft. You are depriving the author of something that he/she has a right to.

No money was taken from the author because they never had it in the first place. A potential transaction wasn't realized, but you can't call that theft. That's what all the push-back is about with your re-definition of the word. Maybe you don't think the phrase "copyright infringement" sounds severe enough, and want to replace it with the harsher word "theft", but that doesn't make it true.

There is no difference between copying and borrowing a physical book by your definition; they both deprive the author of a potential sale. Yet one is illegal and the other isn't. If your philosophy can't distinguish between these two situations, then it's broken.