Rapidshare loses court battle against German booksellers

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by SleepyBob

Even if I am 100% guaranteed to be caught and fined, it's still cheaper for me to pirate my books, if the fine is only a fraction of the purchase price. That kind of fine gives no incentive for people not to pirate as a matter of course.

If you were %100 guaranteed to be caught you would only download what you wanted and were willing to pay for. In fact, with 100% possibility of getting caught there would be no difference between a legitimate purchase and an illegitimate download, since you are inevitably going to pay either way. If there was absolute guarantee of getting caught, you would not download thousands of files that you only have a modicum of interest in, unless you somehow value only marginally valuable digital goods over your ability to pay for rent, food, housing, retirement, hardware, relationships, transportation, vacations, insurance, and so on.

Your hypothetical simply furthers the point that it is not the size of the fine that is the most important determinant of deterrence, but the possibility of getting caught and punished. i highlighted the absurbidity of the notion that only a fine greater than the retail value of the goods downloaded can be a deterrent or that a person would be profitting in a post a few pages back, which no has been able to rebut

By this logic, someone could lose their home, their car, their retirement, all their discretionary income, but would be "profiting" if the value of the fine didn't exceed the retail value of the information illegally obtained.

Really, what this thread demonstrates is that shockingly many people don't even have even an intuitive or common sense understanding of opportunity cost and diminishing returns, that what someone values at zero they might not value at any price above that, or that even if someone values something above zero, they still are not willing or able to sacrifice other goods for it. At zero a person could value almost any book enough to at least download it. But even at .99 cents for 100$ books they might not even be valuable enough for them to spend money on what they could or need to spend on something else.

It is one thing to argue that it is only fair that someone pay for the the goods they downloaded. That is a legitimate argument which i have no bones with. But when someone goes from "it is only fair that" to asserting a downloader "profits" from having to pay for goods that they only value at zero as long as they don't pay retail price then we are entering into a realm of irrationality highlighted in the quote above.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by tompe

Not if you loose the copy. And when you fix a new copy you have to pay a new fine.

It will also be very much trouble and loss of time to get caught all the time.

That is kind of like if you steal a shirt get caught and lose it before wearing it, and then stealing another and get caught. I don't think there is any exemption for stealing the same article twice no matter what it is. Or for that matter does stealing a shirt that is too small to wear make it excusable?

Helen

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

That is kind of like if you steal a shirt get caught and lose it before wearing it, and then stealing another and get caught. I don't think there is any exemption for stealing the same article twice no matter what it is. Or for that matter does stealing a shirt that is too small to wear make it excusable?

Helen

A more appropriate analogy is that you have a 3d printer, see a shirt at the store you like, print out a copy of that shirt, are fined before you wear the shirt, print out another shirt you don't wear and get fined again. Or, you print out a shirt you saw at the store, decide you hate it and print out a different shirt.

Although perhaps even more appropriately, you have a 3d printer and a replicator that provides you with nearly unlimited amounts of materials for making clothes. You have some clothing catalogs and say, what the heck, why not? So you make copies of every piece of clothing in those catalogs, which is as simple as sticking the catalogs in the 3d printer. Some of the clothes you wear, but most of them are too big, too small, for people of the opposite gender, or just not your style. Fortunately, you have capsules that can shrink the clothes down to a microscopic size so the clothes don't take up too much space, and just as fortunately, the clothes are automatically stored in those capsules so you don't even have to hassle with storing the clothes.

[OtterBooks]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's not a matter of what the owner has lost, but of what you have gained.

Well then obviously you agree it's not a matter of what the owner would have charged, but what you would have paid. Well said.

Copyright infringement is not like sneaking onto a bus or into a cinema; it's like copyright infringement. There are different laws for the same reason similes don't work here: because things are different from one another. But yes, sneaking onto property or vehicles owned by someone else certainly does result in a loss of resources that could be used otherwise.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

A more appropriate analogy is that you have a 3d printer, see a shirt at the store you like, print out a copy of that shirt, are fined before you wear the shirt, print out another shirt you don't wear and get fined again. Or, you print out a shirt you saw at the store, decide you hate it and print out a different shirt.

If we apply your analogy to ebooks, and someone laboriously typed out or scanned a book that they borrowed so they could keep it, then I could sort of agree. Even photocopying is not the offence it once was. But downloading a copy of an ebook is not the same thing. It does not inject any significant effort into the equation.

Again, I am not I am totally against people doing a lot of things if the circumstance demand it. Self defense, feeding the children, being totally shirtless or nude with no hope of getting clothing without stealing it. I am not in a position to cast the first stone. It just irritates me no end when people attempt to justify it and encourage others to do it without need. Irritates me too when people try to pose as health care professionals or freedom fighters to disinfect or liberate their books They can do what they want IMO but why repeatedly make such a ninny of themselves in public

Helen

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Irritates me too when people try to pose as health care professionals or freedom fighters to disinfect or liberate their books They can do what they want IMO but why repeatedly make such a ninny of themselves in public

Helen

I don't understand your point about health car professionals. What do you mean by "disinfect or liberate their books"?

I generally agree with your other points. One area where I don't have a problem with pirating is in developing countries. I posted this passage from a book called Bad Samaritans awhile back.

Today, Korea is one of the most inventive nations in the world--it ranks among the top five nations in terms of the number of patents granted annually by the US Patent Office. But until the mid-1980s it lived on reverse engineering. My friends would buy 'copy' computers that were made by small workshops, which would take apart IBM machines, copy the parts, and put them together. It was the same with trademarks. At the time, the country was one of the 'pirate capitals' of the world, churning out fake Nike shoes and Louis Vuitton bags in huge quantities...at the time imported music (LP records) or films (videos) were so expensive that few people could afford the real thing. We grew up listening to pirate rock'n' roll records...As for foreign books, they were still beyond the means of most students...most of my books in English were pirated. I could never have entered and survived Cambridge without those illegal books.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by shalym

Actually, I don't. Now if you could PROVE beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the person who downloaded the item was using it, then MAYBE your system would apply.

If beyond a shadow of a doubt is the standard, no one would ever be held to account for anything.

In your bus analogy, there is no doubt that the person actually used the bus ride.

There's always doubt. Can you prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that their ticket wasn't stolen? And by the time it gets to a judge, what about mistaken identity? Or a bus inspector trying to meet an informal quota? Or retaliation because the ticket inspector wasn't offered a bribe? Or doesn't like your looks and demeanor? Etc. Etc.

Originally Posted by HarryT

Being fined $100 for downloading $1000 of books is not a reasonable penalty; in fact it's not a penalty at all.

What about being given a $26 parking ticket in Philadelphia, where the parking lots cost about that for a day? Most people, including myself, nonetheless avoid illegal parking. One reason is that there are a lot of people checking the meters, so the chances of being caught are high. Punishment? Maybe not. Deterrence? Yes.

[Yamada]

A person didn't pay for it, but took it anyway, it's theft. Then it gets really laughable (particularly in software) when the opining goes "I'll download it to try, then buy if I like".

Really?

Yeah, right.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by spellbanisher

I don't understand your point about health car professionals. What do you mean by "disinfect or liberate their books"?

I generally agree with your other points. One area where I don't have a problem with pirating is in developing countries. I posted this passage from a book called Bad Samaritans awhile back.

People often refer to DRMed books as diseased or infected or infested. This is an analogy that I cannot see, diseases and infestations spread, infections get better or worse. DRM doesn't seem to do this. It is a nuisance I agree in many cases. My feeling is that they are feeling guilty about the act itself and attempting to glorify it which should just make me feel sorry but I get irritated. Was mostly referring to another analogy run amok.

I am pretty sure it is not that illegal to pirate books etc. in a lot of developing countries, although I don't think of Korea as being terribly poor. Perhaps I am wrong in that. Lots of poor people and exploitation, but compared to many countries not that badly off. Compared to Canada, the Koreans I know and those I have worked for and with tell me that Korea is better in most ways. The North American education system is seen as far superior by them only in the credentials it supplies and how they are recognized. This is all hearsay on my part.

As to pirating books being the only thing that allowed them to go to Cambridge. Hmmmm.... Cost of books VS cost of tuition. Which costs many times more. Doesn't quite hold up to scrutiny but I haven't read the book.

Personally I think that textbooks are an area with many thorny issues. Obviously the author wants to sell as many as possible. But a captive market is created where only certain editions of books will do, and these books are often updated in a pretty meaningless way as to actual content with the sole intent of the student having to buy a new copy. There are cases I have read about when the same book basically is used for several levels, and the student must buy it again at each level because of miniscule revisions.

The author should have a reasonable expectation of profit, but not at the cost of someone being forced to buy their book even once unless it is the only adequate one in existence.

Education in countries that have the resources should, IMO be provided free to those who have demonstrated abilities and work ethic. Or have those who cannot afford an education but are able to pass the entrance exams, pledge a small percentage of their future earnings. An Asian person once told me it is pretty easy to buy your way to a degree in North America and frankly I believe them.

Helen

[spellbanisher]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

People often refer to DRMed books as diseased or infected or infested. This is an analogy that I cannot see, diseases and infestations spread, infections get better or worse. DRM doesn't seem to do this. It is a nuisance I agree in many cases. My feeling is that they are feeling guilty about the act itself and attempting to glorify it which should just make me feel sorry but I get irritated. Was mostly referring to another analogy run amok.

I am pretty sure it is not that illegal to pirate books etc. in a lot of developing countries, although I don't think of Korea as being terribly poor. Perhaps I am wrong in that. Lots of poor people and exploitation, but compared to many countries not that badly off. Compared to Canada, the Koreans I know and those I have worked for and with tell me that Korea is better in most ways. The North American education system is seen as far superior by them only in the credentials it supplies and how they are recognized. This is all hearsay on my part.

As to pirating books being the only thing that allowed them to go to Cambridge. Hmmmm.... Cost of books VS cost of tuition. Which costs many times more. Doesn't quite hold up to scrutiny but I haven't read the book.

Helen

Before the 1980s, the period Chang grew up, South Korea was one of the poorest countries in the world. It is only in the last twenty years that South Korea has become a high income country. Chang remarks that from the year he was born (1963) to the time the book was written (mid 2000s) per capita income in South Korea grew 14 times, which is about the amount per capita income grew in Great Britain from 1800-2000. He entered Cambridge in 1982 on a scholarship.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by Yamada

A person didn't pay for it, but took it anyway, it's theft. Then it gets really laughable (particularly in software) when the opining goes "I'll download it to try, then buy if I like".

Really?

Yeah, right.

"Try before you buy" exists. People do it all the time with library books, music heard for free, TV programs,... They do it with software, too. There is some rationale behind not paying immediately (i.e. to avoid rewarding those who provide crap, and to avoid the feeling of being swindled when buying said crap). There is rationale to pay for something after trying it for free (to show appreciation and encourage similar endeavors in the future). We are more complicated than you think.

[Istvan diVega]

Originally Posted by Yamada

A person didn't pay for it, but took it anyway, it's theft. Then it gets really laughable (particularly in software) when the opining goes "I'll download it to try, then buy if I like".

Really?

Yeah, right.

In my book it's only theft if the taking of something deprives someone else of that something. If that's not the case, then it cannot be classed as theft. IMO.

And I certainly don't see what's laughable about downloading stuff to try. I do that routinely with new music (i.e. music I don't already know). If I like it I buy the album, if not I delete the album. And it's not as if my music shopping strategy is exceptional; pretty much everyone I know do the same thing. Nothing strange or unusual about it; I don't buy anything else unseen or untried either if I can help it.

It used to be that around here there were 4 excellent record stores, all carrying different music and all with a row of turntables along one wall for people who wanted to listen before buying. I could spend whole days at a time in there. Later on the turntables were exchanged for CD players, but still you could listen before buying and I still hung around for hours on end. Then the stores started to disappear and today there's a single record store left with a singularly lousy selection and no possibility of listening to anything even if I wanted to.

Now you can say "yeah, right" until your throat gets hoarse, but I've been listening before buying for around 40 years and if/when I can no longer do so I will simply stop buying music. That would be no hardship for me seeing as I own some 7-8000 albums, all of them legally bought, but I doubt it is the result that the record companies want.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Istvan diVega

In my book it's only theft if the taking of something deprives someone else of that something. If that's not the case, then it cannot be classed as theft. IMO.

It's not theft - it's copyright infringement. That doesn't make it any less "wrong". You are still taking something that you have no right to without paying for it.

And I certainly don't see what's laughable about downloading stuff to try.

It's not laughable in the least. It's simply wrong.

I do that routinely with new music (i.e. music I don't already know). If I like it I buy the album, if not I delete the album. And it's not as if my music shopping strategy is exceptional; pretty much everyone I know do the same thing. Nothing strange or unusual about it; I don't buy anything else unseen or untried either if I can help it.

There are other entirely legal ways of sampling music in the form of streaming services. Deleting the file doesn't lessen the offence of copyright infringement. You've infringed copyright the instant you download the file.

[doctorow]

Tim O'Reilly was once interviewed by Forbes magazine in 2011, of which I still have the print edition. Here is what he said about pirates:

Q: Aren't you worried about piracy?

Tim O'Reilly: No. And so what? Let's say my goal is to sell 10,000 copies of something. And let's say that if by putting DRM in it I sell 10,000 copies and I make my money, and if by having no DRM 100,000 copies go into circulation and I still sell 10,000 copies. Which of those is the better outcome? I think having 100,000 in circulation and selling 10,000 is way better than having just the 10,000 that are paid for and nobody else benefits.

People who don't pay you generally wouldn't have paid you anyway. We're delighted when people who can't afford our books don't pay us for them, if they go out and do something useful with that information.

I think having faith in that basic logic of the market is important.

Here the analogy with the bakery:

Tim O'Reilly: There's a bakery in Berkeley that every day dumps a lot of fresh bread into a dumpster behind the store. And there's a bunch of people who get their bread there. I guarantee you that there are a lot more people who, even if you told them they could, would not do that. A lot of sources of free content are like going rooting through the dumpster.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's not theft - it's copyright infringement. That doesn't make it any less "wrong". You are still taking something that you have no right to without paying for it.

It's not laughable in the least. It's simply wrong.


There are other entirely legal ways of sampling music in the form of streaming services. Deleting the file doesn't lessen the offence of copyright infringement. You've infringed copyright the instant you download the file.

I think, at a fundamental level, your first assertion is what drives your position on copyright and what many are disagreeing with. You are essentially arguing that something is wrong because it is wrong, not because it necessarily results in harm. That just seems like an arbitrary way to determine what is right and wrong and how the law should operate.

If someone downloads my work without paying for it, and would never have paid for it, what do I care? I wouldn't be made better off in that transaction if they hadn't downloaded it at all.

On the plus side, I'm glad these conversations have moved past the childish, "downloading is stealing!" line of reasoning. Maybe we're actually making some progress towards having a reasonable conversation on copyright.