Do you pirate books and why?

[Prestidigitweeze]

Elfwreck:

Your argument has the appearance of specificity (what with your lists) but the method of boolean exclusion. You assume categories have been ignored which are in fact entirely different categories.

The number of people who might borrow a book is accounted for, just as the guest list of a club might include a number of people who were invited for purposes of promotion. The same is often true with discounts on books, etc., etc. In fact, a ridiculous number of your exceptions are reducible to the club's guest list.

You also make the mistake of assuming that an analogy must be parallel in every way to be true in a particular way. But even to disqualify it in a particular way, you have to have understood its point and scope. You seem to be trying to draw sweeping conclusions, perhaps of a legal nature, from the idea that the club goes under unless we choose to support it. Whereas my point is entirely personal and addresses others' claims not only to be justified in downloading torrents of work by living writers who do expect to be paid, but to have taken the moral high ground in the process.

You've also inferred the assumption, nowhere made or even entertained by me, that an experience which is expected to be paid for in one situation must always be paid for in every other.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

The experience of reading the book is available, legitimately, to a great many people who have never paid for it.

It's available in many of the examples you've listed, to which I have never objected specifically or even in the abstract.

I do, however, object to cases in which the book is not available legitimately, specifically in cases where the purchase supports the author.

Usually, the guest list is intended to support the club or to populate it with desirable people who will attract others, much as free downloads of books or music offered by publishers and artists can help to create or sustain a following for the work and for a body of work.

The other factor is that, if publishers lose money, the effect will often be felt not on their A-list but in their more hard-won titles, and it is that sort of title which I and others tend to read more than their A-list. The author of The Hunger Games is not in trouble, but a future Harry Matthews without a trust fund very well could be.

Me: I'm not arguing about the mindset of the person who downloads a torrent of a book -- I'm not interested in Boolean ideas about their morality. I'm only talking about possible pragmatic repercussions -- financial and artistic -- for the person who created the work.

You: What's the difference between the pragmatic repercussions of someone who downloaded from Megaupload and someone who read the copy they found at a bus stop?

The difference, to the extent we can rule on a situation that vague, is what's done with the book found at the bus stop, and the party who ends up potentially operating at a loss is different. The book is already paid for, but the investment was made by someone else. Does the person who found the book take it to the driver of the next bus that stops it, so that it ends up in the bus company's lost and found? Ideally, but probably not, and even then, you have to wonder whether the person who lost that book in a physical place will think of the step of calling the bus company.

If the person takes home the book, the non-legal question becomes the same: Is the author now or recently alive and do they and/or their family members deserve support? If so, why shouldn't the person who found the book buy a copy later?

This is true. It's just that there's a big difference between "authors should be paid for their efforts" (presuming their efforts are judged to be of sufficient quality to entertain readers) and "authors should be paid for the experience of reading the book.

First option: Yes.
Second option: No, and it's never worked that way.

It has always worked that way. What seem to be differences are matters of promotion and exception. You can suggest that permanent digital copies = borrowing, but that's only true if the original bought copy is protected and uncracked (and I hate copy protection as much as I expect you do) or the borrower decides to support the creator.

I'm not suggesting people pay because I think they should be slapped down otherwise. I'm suggesting they do it as a gesture of support.

And a lot of the back-and-forth arguing is attempting to find a solution, some kind of middle ground between "it's okay to distribute all new works on the torrent networks so 10,000 people can download and read if they want" (hell no) and "it's illegal to hand your best friend your ereader for the weekend" (also hell no).

But those polarities are precisely what I've avoided talking about. Too often, arguments for one side lead to the dehumanization of the other, and I'm not interested in assassinating the character of a person I do know, let alone, someone I've never met.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Frankly, I have no idea what you're talking about anymore.

I've noticed and, what's more, you never have, so let's leave it at that.

[MrKyle]

I _used_ to pirate ebooks back when I had no money. Now that I have a good job I never do.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

I've noticed and, what's more, you never have, so let's leave it at that.

Wow, only one sentence? I guess I just don't rate anymore.

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by MrKyle

I _used_ to pirate ebooks back when I had no money. Now that I have a good job I never do.

Good on you for making the right choice when your income changed.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

Elfwreck:

Your argument has the appearance of specificity (what with your lists) but the method of boolean exclusion. You assume categories have been ignored which are in fact entirely different categories.

I did not intend to imply that either list was complete, just that I can think of many, many more ways to legitimately experience a book's contents without paying for it, than to experience a nightclub without paying for it.

The number of people who might borrow a book is accounted for, just as the guest list of a club might include a number of people who were invited for purposes of promotion. The same is often true with discounts on books, etc., etc. In fact, a ridiculous number of your exceptions are reducible to the club's guest list.

A club's guest list is a limited number of people per night. A book's potential readership is perhaps limited by "how many times can these pages be turned before they start falling out," but that's a potentially huge number--and unlike a nightclub's attendance, isn't trackable by the people hoping to make money from the book.

A nightclub can decide it's gotten popular enough to cut down the guest list. An author can't decide a book has gotten popular enough to disallow loaned or resold books.

You also make the mistake of assuming that an analogy must be parallel in every way to be true in a particular way.

No, but I did present the argument as if that were the case. I don't assume the situations are exactly analogous, nor that perfect parallelism is required for a metaphor to be valid or useful.

Whereas my point is entirely personal and addresses others' claims not only to be justified in downloading torrents of work by living writers who do expect to be paid, but to have taken the moral high ground in the process.

You cannot address the "wrongness" of download-via-torrent (or similar method) without context. Which part is wrong: experiencing the book without payment? Without authorization? Making an unauthorized copy? Distributing that copy? Does it become less "wrong" if it takes place in a setting where it's legal? Is it less wrong if it's illegal, but done with the author's blessing--which, perhaps due to contracts--he can't publicly grant?

There are both legal and ethical issues involved, and conflating them doesn't help anyone sort out how to change people's behavior in the future.

You've also inferred the assumption, nowhere made or even entertained by me, that an experience which is expected to be paid for in one situation must always be paid for in every other.

No, I've claimed that insisting "authors should be paid" does not lead directly to "therefore, torrents are wrong."

The other factor is that, if publishers lose money, the effect will often be felt not on their A-list but in their more hard-won titles, and it is that sort of title which I and others tend to read more than their A-list. The author of The Hunger Games is not in trouble, but a future Harry Matthews without a trust fund very well could be.

I do understand this. I don't see any simple solutions; pleading that authors need to get paid doesn't actually get them paid.

The difference, to the extent we can rule on a situation that vague, is what's done with the book found at the bus stop, and the party who ends up potentially operating at a loss is different.

Ah! I wasn't think of *any* party being at a loss; I was thinking of Bookcrossing, or something similar, where one person deliberately left a book somewhere public, in the hopes that someone else would find it and enjoy it. The finder doesn't know the person who bought the book; there's no relationship between them. (In my apartment building, people often leave boxes of books & other items near the mailboxes. I'm not going to feel guilty for picking up & reading some of those books.)

If the person takes home the book, the non-legal question becomes the same: Is the author now or recently alive and do they and/or their family members deserve support? If so, why shouldn't the person who found the book buy a copy later?

Do you believe the person is morally obligated to buy a copy later?

But those polarities are precisely what I've avoided talking about. Too often, arguments for one side lead to the dehumanization of the other, and I'm not interested in assassinating the character of a person I do know, let alone, someone I've never met.

Do you have any proposed solutions? Any methods for regulating very troublesome distributions without infringing on people's basic ability to share cultural experiences with those closest to them? More author-directed: Any way for authors to build a solid fanbase, a large collection of potential-future-readers, with the strong restrictions on legitimate ways of sharing books?

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Uploading content when you are not an authorized distributor and fair use does not apply is against the law in the US. Downloading is a lot less clear. At best, it could be considered contributory infringement (not direct infringement), but that is extremely difficult to prove. I'm not aware of anyone being sued for downloading.

The last one I remember was the teenager in Houston. She received music from a friend (I don't remember the method) and the Circuit Court judge found her guilty.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

As far as I have read they had movable type (of course in Chinese you don't have an alphabet, you need several thousand different characters that can be exchanged as needed --- you could probably get away with 2-3000 of the most common). Printed newspapers circulated in China as early as the 9th century AD. So cheap printing was available much earlier than in the west. Though calligraphy is still considered an important art form to this day.

Yes, but the "machinery" used in China was not called "printing press".

[Fluribus]

I used to pirate books. I quickly found out that they never carried any booze or booty, I couldn't keel-haul them, and I couldn't make them walk the plank. You can't bury 18 men on a dead man's chest when there ain't no chest. Takes all the dang fun out of it.

Of course, if one wants to be all ethical and legal and stuff... There's a whole heap of public domain books and library books.

Now if someone puts a gun to your head and says, "Download the latest Steven King novel from a torrent or you're dead.." But I rarely do that.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by MrKyle

I _used_ to pirate ebooks back when I had no money. Now that I have a good job I never do.

If money did not exist, would piracy?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

Basically it's an action which current laws are not equipped to handle.

Yes they are, it's called copyright law.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

What they're stealing is an experience. If you go to a bar with a cover charge and sneak past the bouncer, you might not steal the one drink included with the price of admission -- you might not drink at all -- but what you're taking is an experience that cost time and money to create and was offered at a price.

That's called trespassing, not stealing.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Fbone

The last one I remember was the teenager in Houston. She received music from a friend (I don't remember the method) and the Circuit Court judge found her guilty.

Do you have a link, or any names that I can use to search for one? Are you sure it wasn't another case of the media writing a story about "illegal downloading" when in reality the case is about something much different (which is what usually happens).

[Quexos]

If money did not exist, a lot of inequities would simply not be. Though knowing human greed, they would probably invent another way to keep elites on one side and the rest on the other.

Originally Posted by Giggleton

If money did not exist, would piracy?

[covingtoncat73]

Is it considered piracy if I strip DRM and convert eBooks I have paid for, even if I don't share them with anyone else?