Do you pirate books and why?

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I didn't say that they were. I was asking a rhetorical question, to which the only answer is "nobody knows".

Car market has dropped 30% this year, in my country.
If it was possibile to download a car from a torrent site, they'd be blaming piracy by now.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by tompe

That questions seems to have the same answers as the question why bankers and others feel they can get absurd amounts of money were there is no correlation between the amount and the actual useful work they do.

The old diversion tactic... why not answer Harry's question? So if the police fine me for speeding I get off when I mention Charles Manson?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

The old diversion tactic... why not answer Harry's question? So if the police fine me for speeding I get off when I mention Charles Manson?

Beacuse the question is not proper. You do not take stuff. You copy stuff. And why should you answer that specific question. Turn it around instead and say that you as default can copy whatever you want. Then the questions is why some people want to use laws to restrict that default. So if we get answer to that question instead we can see if these aswers are convincing or not.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

But I'm guessing that the cast album of each recent year's Tony award winning best musical is massively pirated. And while the stars make a good income, others who get a share of the revenue do not.

I really doubt that original cast albums, Tony winners or not, are "massively pirated." Show tunes are generally not huge sellers in any case.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HarryT

They technically can be of course, but the primary question to ask if why anyone thinks that it's right to take stuff that they haven't paid for?

For the same reason they think it's reasonable to watch TV without paying for it (there is no TV tax in the US), listen to music at a friend's house or on the radio (or overheard from the neighbor's barbecue), take a book left in a box in the mailroom of an apartment complex, read dozens of greeting cards at a store without buying any of them, look up a chart at the library without checking out the book, read yesterday's newspaper that someone left on the bus, visit a coffee shop with free wifi and read blogs for two hours, watch a video at syfy.com, or browse the murals painted on the sides of buildings.

There has never been an expectation of "you will pay for every bit of entertainment and information you experience." There is no sharp easy line that says, "THIS bit of media is okay to enjoy for free; THAT media must be paid for."

There are specific requirements attached to specific bits of content distributed in some ways--but there's no definable *rule* about that. There is no "you must pay for all the books you read." Nor "must pay for all the movies you watch." Not even "must pay for all the movies you watch in the theatre"--when I was a member of a Rocky Horror cast, cast members had the right to watch any movie at that theatre, and bring a friend for free when they did so.

Yes, this was at the permission of the theatre owner. However, there was no hint of an ethical requirement to pay for those viewings; the ethical thing, as far as everyone was concerned, was to coordinate a satisfactory deal with the person who had the legal right to allocate permission to view.

Saying, "why would you think you have the right to view/read/listen to copyrighted material without coordinating a mutually satisfactory arrangement with the person who controls the legal right to access to that material" sound ridiculous. And it's obviously not as simple as, "why would you think you can use what you haven't paid for?"

[Mujokan]

There should be a law against analogies when talking about this subject.

[Genesis]

i consider downloading a book the same as borrowing from library. Since there is no Physicality in an ePub; you read it, you delete it... you reduce emissions by not driving to return book to library.
But of course, as you well know, I speak of rarities, books out of or have never seen print or books out of copyright, yet publishers charge usurious prices for a copy.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

For the same reason they think it's reasonable to watch TV without paying for it (there is no TV tax in the US), listen to music at a friend's house or on the radio (or overheard from the neighbor's barbecue), take a book left in a box in the mailroom of an apartment complex, read dozens of greeting cards at a store without buying any of them, look up a chart at the library without checking out the book, read yesterday's newspaper that someone left on the bus, visit a coffee shop with free wifi and read blogs for two hours, watch a video at syfy.com, or browse the murals painted on the sides of buildings.

This is an excellent point. I would add that when it comes to TV especially, we also feel we have a right to make a copy of the program for our own use. Or to photocopy or scan material from library books. Or to read newspapers online and copy the content.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by Catlady

This is an excellent point. I would add that when it comes to TV especially, we also feel we have a right to make a copy of the program for our own use. Or to photocopy or scan material from library books. Or to read newspapers online and copy the content.

So the whole perfect digital copy is a red herring? I'd have to agree, we should not be lamenting the fact that we are now capable of instantaneously reproducing our information. We should be championing the fact instead.

[wgrimm]

Originally Posted by HarryT

They technically can be of course, but the primary question to ask if why anyone thinks that it's right to take stuff that they haven't paid for?

Another question to ask is does anyone think it is okay to pay for a book and then be deprived of its use, most likely because of drm? This has happened to me with ebooks.

People can argue ethics and morality for hours regarding this subject. I think it is far more pragmatic to realize that piracy occurs, it is easy, and to understand why books are pirated. And also to realize that people get books for free at the library, and many do not understand why this is not wrong but piracy is.

[Quexos]

No it's not alright. It's called being ripped-off

Originally Posted by wgrimm

Another question to ask is does anyone think it is okay to pay for a book and then be deprived of its use, most likely because of drm? This has happened to me with ebooks..

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Mujokan

There should be a law against analogies when talking about this subject.

Then we can never discuss morality. You think X is right, I think it is wrong, end of discussion.

The discussion comes when we appeal to something that is arguably analogous, but where there is less disagreement as to its rightness or wrongness. Then we can discuss whether the analogy is a good one, rather than whether this person is a prig, or that one a crook.

I like analogies

[SteveEisenberg]

To, with apologies to Johnny Mercer, illustrate my last remark:

Originally Posted by tompe

You do not take stuff. You copy stuff.

Yes, although perhaps not in the sense of the rest of the post I quote (#813).

The taking of the book is one reason why shoplifting from a corporate-owned bookstore is slightly less bad than piracy. Forty percent of paper books are pulped. By stealing a paper book, the shoplifter generally reduces the number of books to be pulped by one. This reduces the emissions for transporting books from Barnes and Noble to the remainder house, and then to the place where it will be pulped.

[Mujokan]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Then we can never discuss morality. You think X is right, I think it is wrong, end of discussion.

No, what happens is, first you define why some things are right and others wrong; then you look at the particular case to see how it stacks up.

Generally people create an analogy to get the result they want. One type I find particularly annoying is the Rush Limbaugh "Imagine if a white person had said that" or "Imagine if a man had said that". I tend to think people should stick to the actual case.

If one could only discuss one issue in morality by analogy to another issue, one would never reach solid ground. You decide the first by analogy to the second and the second by analogy to a third. Where does it stop? It's better not to start.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Mujokan

If one could only discuss one issue in morality by analogy to another issue, one would never reach solid ground. You decide the first by analogy to the second and the second by analogy to a third. Where does it stop? It's better not to start.

It starts with something you agree on. So I do not see any problem here.