Do you pirate books and why?

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Regardless of your views on the term, the word "piracy" has been used to describe the unauthorised copying of books for more than 400 years.

And what does "unauthorized" mean, exactly? Where are the boundaries of fair use?

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Can you explain why it is "nonsense" to say that illegally downloading a book, rather than buying it, is depriving the author of income? It appears to be something which is self-evidently true to me.

Then I'm also "depriving the author of income" if I borrow said book from a friend, or if I buy a used copy, am I not?

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Format C:

Like I said, there are several ways of legally deprieve the author of said income, without breaking any law.
So, I suppose we have to blame as ethically wrong things like borrowing books, buying used paperbacks, in-shop browsing, in-library reading (which is free in my country), having someone read aloud, peeking a reader's shoulder, and so on (*).

Not to mention, "posting a scathing review so that other people won't buy it." Although that doesn't involve non-customers reading the book, it is depriving the author of money, just as much, often more, than downloading a free copy.

[HarryT]

To equate eBook piracy to posting bad reviews seems a little ridiculous to me. I suspect that, if you're honest with yourself, you do actually understand the ethical difference between taking a copy of an author's book without paying for it, and posting a bad review of that book.

[DiapDealer]

I think the argument might have less to do with "ethically equating" and more to do with accurately assessing the damages both can potentially inflict. It's much easier to establish common ground there than "ethically."

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HarryT

To equate eBook piracy to posting bad reviews seems a little ridiculous to me. I suspect that, if you're honest with yourself, you do actually understand the ethical difference between taking a copy of an author's book without paying for it, and posting a bad review of that book.

Absolutely. I'm pointing out that if the measure of ethics is "how much damage does this act do to the author," there are more damaging things than downloading & reading without paying, and many of those are legal.

Sorting out why an act is considered immoral, and why some people think it's not, is a big part of figuring out how to enforce the law.

Is it immoral because "it costs the author money?" --In which case, why aren't other actions that cost more money, immoral?

Is it immoral because "it makes a copy?" --In which case, what's the core issue, because most of us don't think of "copying" as an innately immoral act. Unauthorized copying of some works is illegal; others are not (clothing, furniture, office supplies).

These are semi-rhetorical questions; they've been discussed almost to death. The point is, most of us are aware that "illegal" and "wrong" are not automatically synonymous, that the law often lags behind technology and either forbids things after many people think they should be legal (drm cracking for archival purposes), or allows things that many people believe should be illegal (cyber-bullying). Sorting out the actual *wrong* involved begins with sorting out the harm done and the amount of effort that should go into preventing that harm.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Regardless of your views on the term, the word "piracy" has been used to describe the unauthorised copying of books for more than 400 years.

What do you mean by "unauthorized copying" then? If you're talking about copyright infringement, then call it copyright infringement. Or does "piracy" also refer to legal copying that happens to be unauthorized? If that's your definition, then a "pirate" is anyone that the Publishers say so, regardless of whether or not any laws have been broken.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Can you explain why it is "nonsense" to say that illegally downloading a book, rather than buying it, is depriving the author of income?

You're assuming that there would have been income in the first place. You're also assuming that the downloading didn't result in MORE income.

Basically, you're just regurgitating the whole "every pirated copy is a lost sale" nonsense that the industry tries to claim.

It appears to be something which is self-evidently true to me.

Yes, lots of nonsense seems to be "self-evident" to you.

I have difficulty sometimes telling if some of the stuff you say is actually serious, or if you're just trying to tweak the discussion.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Then I'm also "depriving the author of income" if I borrow said book from a friend, or if I buy a used copy, am I not?

I guess in Harry's world, libraries and used book stores are full of evil pirates.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Although that doesn't involve non-customers reading the book, it is depriving the author of money, just as much, often more, than downloading a free copy.

It also costs authors money when people defend piracy, because it makes it more socially acceptable; a lot of people follow what others do. But it would absurd to say that you are taking something that isn't yours by expressing an opinion, whether over the quality of their book or how to obtain it. Authors lack a comprehensive right to other people not harming them. But they do have, in my view at least, a right to their intellectual property, even if exercising it would hold them harmless. And I look forward to the day when it starts being enforced, so long as punishment isn't severe enough to harm downloaders' future life prospects.

If someone takes something of mine and is arrested, I hope the court is not going force the prosecution to prove I was harmed. Maybe my house has so much clutter I'm better off without that stuff. Maybe it was just a bunch of old junk I was about to throw out. Maybe I am pleased with my homeowner's insurance settlement (and the insurer did, for the long term, OK as well, because I was so pleased that I switched to them for car insurance). But it would be insulting if the judge allowed testimony concerning whether I was really harmed. Harm or no harm, it is wrong to appropriate my stuff without paying for it.

P.S. Do I ever do stuff that is wrong? Of course I have. Everyone has. I just don't think I should defend it. Instead I should try to not do it again.

[xg4bx]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Not to mention, "posting a scathing review so that other people won't buy it." Although that doesn't involve non-customers reading the book, it is depriving the author of money, just as much, often more, than downloading a free copy.

i tend to agree with this, as silly as it may seem to some. i'd say the damage that can be caused by thousands of eyes seeing a 1 star "omfg this book is ****!" review is greater than the handful of people who may be interested in the title on a file sharing site because if you're looking to spend cash money to buy the book the reviews may sway you against it. many pirates may be downloading it just to download it and will never read it. if 200 people mark my 1 star review as 'helpful', thats 200 people who probably didn't buy the book and erased its existence from their minds.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

If someone takes something of mine and is arrested, I hope the court is not going force the prosecution to prove I was harmed. Maybe my house has so much clutter I'm better off without that stuff. Maybe it was just a bunch of old junk I was about to throw out. Maybe I am pleased with my homeowner's insurance settlement (and the insurer did, for the long term, OK as well, because I was so pleased that I switched to them for car insurance). But it would be insulting if the judge allowed testimony concerning whether I was really harmed. Harm or no harm, it is wrong to appropriate my stuff without paying for it.

But taking something--depriving the rightful owner of something tangible--is by definition harmful to the victim. Simply copying something that is intended to be disseminated and is being disseminated (as opposed to copying some private/personal/secret document), though--if there is no quantifiable harm to the originator of the material, and if the person who copied the material is not attempting to make money selling copies, what exactly makes it wrong?

I think the focus should be on stopping distribution to file-sharing sites--I think that's the problem, not my stripping DRM and making a backup copy and maybe providing a copy to a friend in the same way I might loan out a physical book.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

You're assuming that there would have been income in the first place. You're also assuming that the downloading didn't result in MORE income.

You might want to read what I actually said, which is that if a person illegally downloads a book rather than buying it, then IN THAT SPECIFIC SITUATION they are depriving the author of income.

Are you going to claim that nobody who illegally downloads is a potential purchaser?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Catlady

But taking something--depriving the rightful owner of something tangible--is by definition harmful to the victim. Simply copying something that is intended to be disseminated and is being disseminated (as opposed to copying some private/personal/secret document), though--if there is no quantifiable harm to the originator of the material, and if the person who copied the material is not attempting to make money selling copies, what exactly makes it wrong?

What makes it wrong is that it's not a free gift - it's a product that's being commercially sold. What gives you the right to take it without paying for it? The product only exists because there are honest people out there who are willing to pay for it; you're "freeloading" on the backs of those honest purchasers.

It's exactly like saying "what's the harm in riding on a train without buying a ticket? The train is making the journey anyway, and I'm not depriving anyone of anything." If everyone took the same approach, the train would not be operating. If everyone pirated books, there won't be any new books.

[Apache]

Originally Posted by HarryT

What makes it wrong is that it's not a free gift - it's a product that's being commercially sold. What gives you the right to take it without paying for it? The product only exists because there are honest people out there who are willing to pay for it; you're "freeloading" on the backs of those honest purchasers.

It's exactly like saying "what's the harm in riding on a train without buying a ticket? The train is making the journey anyway, and I'm not depriving anyone of anything." If everyone took the same approach, the train would not be operating. If everyone pirated books, there won't be any new books.

One is stealing and the other is not.
Unless you can prove, that the person posting reviews, is doing so maliciously and with intent to harm then there is no laws being broken.
Apache