What is piracy?

[Joshua.P]

Kennyc, you don't have to be so condescending. I'm not stupid and I would appreciate it if you didn't talk to me as if I were.

Anyway... I believe it to be "morally just", so to speak, not legal. It is a greedy practice by these film studios in paying for both viewing the movie at the cinema, and being able to repeat view at home. That's my 2 cents, and if you don't agree continue to waste your hard earned cash, when I'm downloading my movies, for free (after of course viewing at the cinema).

[jjmgreen]

Originally Posted by Joshua.P

What is your stance if I already have a paper copy huh? Isn't the creator already compensated and as such it shouldn't matter if I download the ebook?

It seems to be related to #2 on my original response.

This isn't *quite* as clear-cut. It could be argued that you're just
getting a format-shift of a book which you already own. I'd still
consider it piracy unless

1. It was an ebook created from a scan of a physical book
(allowing someone else to do the format-shift, which you
could do yourself)

or

2. The publisher has a policy allowing free access to ebook versions
of paper book copies which a person owns (I think one or two
publishers of some technical books allow this)

[jjmgreen]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

Let's just imagine all markets and all computer servers, and all book warehouses/public libraries as part of the global public library. Why shouldn't we imagine these things as thus? Isn't it imperative that we all read as much as we can in order to advance the condition?

Perhaps it is the idea of selling that is wrong.

Let's just imagine all goods as part of a global warehouse - everyone
just takes what they want, with a contribution jar at the door.


...


How long do you think it would be before the warehouse was empty?

...

Digital copies won't empty it, you say? Well, how do you expect
content creators to eat, if they don't get recompense for their effort.
Seeing a number of downloads count increase is not sufficient to
pay their bills.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Joshua.P

Weren't you the one who was saying it was wrong for me to pirate the ebook because I already owned the papercopy? I'd be surprised to see how this situation is any different.

(PS. Sorry if it wasn't you. I just don't want to navigate through 6 pages.)

No, it wasn't me, and if you're going to accuse someone of an inconsistency, you really SHOULD navigate through 6 pages to get your facts straight.

[nogle]

Originally Posted by Joshua.P

Anyway... I believe it to be "morally just", so to speak, not legal. It is a greedy practice by these film studios in paying for both viewing the movie at the cinema, and being able to repeat view at home. That's my 2 cents, and if you don't agree continue to waste your hard earned cash, when I'm downloading my movies, for free (after of course viewing at the cinema).

It is also morally just for your employer to cut your pay. It is a greedy practice on your part to expect to be paid to show up for work in the morning and be paid again for showing up after lunch.

[Joshua.P]

Nogle, I don't quite understand your analogy.

Catlady, no need to be rude. "Feisty".

[morantis]

Technically and legally making the copy is piracy, but in the end if you paid for the original copy then why would anyone care is follow through.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Joshua.P

Kennyc, you don't have to be so condescending. I'm not stupid and I would appreciate it if you didn't talk to me as if I were.

You've heard the saying about people living in glass houses, haven't you?

Originally Posted by Joshua.P

You would get all pompous...

Originally Posted by Joshua.P

You guys are really strange you know that?

Originally Posted by Joshua.P

I'm not saying there was a crime crazy cat lady,

Anyway... I believe it to be "morally just", so to speak, not legal. It is a greedy practice by these film studios in paying for both viewing the movie at the cinema, and being able to repeat view at home. That's my 2 cents, and if you don't agree continue to waste your hard earned cash, when I'm downloading my movies, for free (after of course viewing at the cinema).

By all means, make the moral case. This should be amusing. You are claiming that when you buy a ticket to a movie that this gives you a moral right to watch that movie as many times as you wish. Surely there must be some basis for this position. That ticket you purchased entitled you to one viewing of the movie at a particular place and time. If buy a ticket to a play, does this entitle me to attend the play as many times as I wish without purchasing an additional ticket? That would be consistent with your position regarding movies. When I rent a car does for a day, does that entitle me to drive that car as many days as I wish without additional payment? If I buy a hamburger does that entitle me to all the hamburgers that I want?

When I buy a book or a DVD, I'm entitles to watch or read it as much as I wish. When I buy a ticket, I've only paid to watch it once. The moral principle is that you are entitled to what you paid for. I could rent a DVD for a dollar at Redbox, but that doesn't entitle me to keep a copy of it, if I wanted that, I should have paid the $20 to have my own copy.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by jjmgreen

Digital copies won't empty it, you say? Well, how do you expect content creators to eat, if they don't get recompense for their effort. Seeing a number of downloads count increase is not sufficient to
pay their bills.

We just have to imagine that our society would not allow its valued creators to starve. Do we live in such a society? If not why not? If you are a popular download in the KDP Select program the increase in the download count does as you suggest.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by AndrewH

Money has been around at least 5,000 years, and barter has been around thousands of years prior. The idea of selling isn't "wrong", and it's a lot better than slavery or beating people over the head with a club and taking what you want.

But the concept of intellectual property is much more recent.

Originally Posted by kennyc

You paid to VIEW the movie, not to own a copy. Completely different things. Like reading a book from the library, does not give you the right to make a copy of that book.

I would have thought that watching a movie on TV, not going to the cinema would be analogous to the library.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

We just have to imagine that our society would not allow its valued creators to starve. Do we live in such a society? If not why not? If you are a popular download in the KDP Select program the increase in the download count does as you suggest.

We already have such a system. If you want a book, you pay for the book.

[Joshua.P]

Well, QuantumIguana, I'm not talking about going to the movie or play an unlimited time. Because part of the fee you pay is for using that venue. I wouldn't want to steal someone else's seat.

[QuantumIguana]

Originally Posted by Joshua.P

Well, QuantumIguana, I'm not talking about going to the movie or play an unlimited time. Because part of the fee you pay is for using that venue. I wouldn't want to steal someone else's seat.

Sure you are. You're claiming that purchasing a ticket for a movie entitles you to watch that movie as much as you want. Why? Why are you entitled to this? And if you are entitled to this, why aren't you entitled to watch a play as many times as you want just because you bought a ticket, and why aren't you entitled to drive a rental car as much as you wanted just because you paid for one-day's rental?

The principle is identical. You claim that the ticket you purchase entitles you to watch the movie as much as you want. If so, then you should be entitled to watch the play as much as you want, or drive the car as much as you want. Your claim is that a ticket which gives you right to watch a movie once, at a particular time and place in fact gives you the right to watch it as much as you want.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Joshua.P

Catlady, no need to be rude. "Feisty".

This is what I get from the person who earlier called me crazy?

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

We just have to imagine that our society would not allow its valued creators to starve. Do we live in such a society? If not why not? If you are a popular download in the KDP Select program the increase in the download count does as you suggest.

Why not imagine you are an honest person with a few dollars to spend who uses those dollars to buy what he can afford and saves up for purchases he cannot afford at present.

-or-
Imagine you are unable to resist the compulsion to steal but you know it is wrong so you do not encourage others in an attempt to feel better about yourself.

The society you harp about in a rather silly fashion does not exist. Society as a whole does not place a particular value on creators. Football players and union chain store workers get more money from the system. Creators are valued by those who pay for tjeir works in one manner or another. The only help an author will get from the system to keep from starving is welfare. Not even a pension in many cases.

Helen