Can free e-books be pirated?

[elenderg]

[issybird]

Originally Posted by elenderg

.....

I've fixed your tags, but I don't agree with the sentiment. We don't advocate piracy here.

[latepaul]

"Copying is not theft"

Well, yes this is true but so what? It refutes a particular piece of anti-piracy rhetoric, where (usually big corporations) equate unauthorised copying with theft. But what it doesn't address is whether or not copyright - the law(s) under which copying can be legally restricted - is useful.

Actually I say it "refutes" the rhetoric but really what the "unauthorised copying is the same as theft" statement is saying is that there is harm associated with violating copyright. The fact that making a copy does not remove the original thing means that the statement may be technically false but it doesn't address the harm issue. It doesn't address the wider debate on whether copyright is a good thing per se and/or under what terms.

Which is a shame because that's the debate we need to have.

[arjaybe]

Nina Paley obviously finds copyright useful because she used it to give her the power to license her movie, Sita Sings the Blues, with the Creative Commons Attribution and Share-Alike license, which she later upgraded to CC0. In addition to finding it useful, she obviously also finds it to be too extreme. Granted, "Copying is not Theft" doesn't completely cover all aspects of the debate around copyright by itself, but a little simple research will soon show what Ms Paley thinks.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by latepaul

"Copying is not theft"

Well, yes this is true but so what? It refutes a particular piece of anti-piracy rhetoric, where (usually big corporations) equate unauthorised copying with theft. But what it doesn't address is whether or not copyright - the law(s) under which copying can be legally restricted - is useful.

Actually I say it "refutes" the rhetoric but really what the "unauthorised copying is the same as theft" statement is saying is that there is harm associated with violating copyright. The fact that making a copy does not remove the original thing means that the statement may be technically false but it doesn't address the harm issue. It doesn't address the wider debate on whether copyright is a good thing per se and/or under what terms.

Which is a shame because that's the debate we need to have.

I don't even see why we have to concede this point. Words have different meanings in different contexts. Chattel property and intellectual property are two different things, no matter how much people would like to conflate them, especially in regard to digital media. There's no reason why the word theft can't describe both physical taking in regard to chattels and unauthorized and uncompensated distribution in regard to intellectual property.

Not calling a thief a thief concedes much of the argument up front, in my opinion, and why let the thieves dictate the terms?

[shalym]

Originally Posted by issybird

I don't even see why we have to concede this point. Words have different meanings in different contexts. Chattel property and intellectual property are two different things, no matter how much people would like to conflate them, especially in regard to digital media. There's no reason why the word theft can't describe both physical taking in regard to chattels and unauthorized and uncompensated distribution in regard to intellectual property.

Not calling a thief a thief concedes much of the argument up front, in my opinion, and why let the thieves dictate the terms?

(emphasis mine)
Issybird, I'm sorry, and I don't want to make anyone think that I approve of copyright infringement, but there is a reason why it can't describe both. The reason is that words matter, and the definitions of words matter.

If you can find a definition in a recognized dictionary that allows the word "theft" to apply to intellectual property, I'll concede the point. I couldn't find one.

Shari

[jhowell]

The FBI considers it to be a real thing.

What We Investigate > White-Collar Crime > Intellectual Property Theft/Piracy

(Of course they are not a dictionary.)

[issybird]

Originally Posted by shalym

(emphasis mine)
Issybird, I'm sorry, and I don't want to make anyone think that I approve of copyright infringement, but there is a reason why it can't describe both. The reason is that words matter, and the definitions of words matter.

If you can find a definition in a recognized dictionary that allows the word "theft" to apply to intellectual property, I'll concede the point. I couldn't find one.

Shari

Here's what the FBI has to say:

https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/whit...iracy-ip-theft

ETA: jhowell beat me to it!

[ekbell]

Originally Posted by shalym

(emphasis mine)
Issybird, I'm sorry, and I don't want to make anyone think that I approve of copyright infringement, but there is a reason why it can't describe both. The reason is that words matter, and the definitions of words matter.

If you can find a definition in a recognized dictionary that allows the word "theft" to apply to intellectual property, I'll concede the point. I couldn't find one.

Shari

The dictionary readily available to me (Student's Oxford Canadian Dictionary 2nd edition) defines theft as 'the action or crime of stealing' and the first defination of steal as 'take illegally without right or permission'

Nothing in those definitions would keep illegal copying from being called theft unless someone was being very, very picky about the word 'take'

[ApK]

9

Originally Posted by shalym

If you can find a definition in a recognized dictionary that allows the word "theft" to apply to intellectual property, I'll concede the point. I couldn't find one.

Shari

Perhaps you're not familiar with how most dictionaries work, and how new words and meanings tend become included.
I'm not saying you shouldn't resist changes and extensions in meaning that you disagree with. I do it all the time ('literally' does not mean 'figuratively' for goodness sake!) but I disagree with your objection in this case for the reasons Issybird mentioned, and for similar reasons, coincidentally, I object for you argument about agreeing if you found a suitable dictionary entry.

'Theft of intellectual property' is every bit as appropriate a use of words as 'reading an audio book.'

[ratinox]

Originally Posted by ekbell

The dictionary readily available

English language dictionaries are not prescriptive. They're descriptive.

[ratinox]

Originally Posted by shalym

If you can find a definition in a recognized dictionary that allows the word "theft" to apply to intellectual property, I'll concede the point. I couldn't find one.

Despite having already pointed out that English language dictionaries are descriptive, not prescriptive, I'll still bite:

From Merriam-Webster:
Definition of copyright
: the exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, sell, or distribute the matter and form of something (as a literary, musical, or artistic work)

Pretty clear-cut definition here: exclusive legal right to reproduce, publish, sell or distribute creative works. So, what is theft?

Definition of theft
1
a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it
b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property

Also pretty clear-cut definition: the unlawful taking of property. So, what is property?

Definition of property
2
a : something owned or possessed; specifically : a piece of real estate
b : the exclusive right to possess, enjoy, and dispose of a thing : ownership
c : something to which a person or business has a legal title
d : one (as a performer) who is under contract and whose work is especially valuable
e : a book or script purchased for publication or production

While 2b or 2e might seem most applicable, it's actually 2c that glues it together. Because...

Definition of title
3
a : something that justifies or substantiates a claim
b : an alleged or recognized right

3b seals the deal: copyright is the recognized right of ownership of a creative work. It's a title, which makes the copyrighted work property, and taking that property without permission is theft.

QED.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by elenderg

"Copying is not theft" is such a bullpucky argument. You are taking something that has a cost associated with it and are receiving it at no cost, using nefarious means. That is theft.

Arguments like the one mentioned in the video merely make the thieves feel better about what they are doing.

If you are going to swipe books, music, etc, do what you need to do. But be honest about it. At least with yourself.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

You are taking something that has a cost associated with it and are receiving it at no cost, using nefarious means. That is theft.

The same people who argue against "theft" will argue against "cost."

My position (which, honestly, I feel to be so self-evident that having to explain it is pointless, since anyone arguing against it surely knows they are wrong, and is merely rationalizing, or worse, actually believes that their personal whims and desires are always more important than community, society, or democracy...) is that we are a society of law, and we made laws enshrining a concept of "intellectual property" and gave people certain rights to control their intellectual property. Infringing on those rights is itself harm to that person and to society--that is the only "cost" that need be involved. Monetary cost is often a part of it, but is not at all required. Since we named the concept of intellectual property in analog to physical property, it is perfect reasonable and proper to maintain the convention, and name other aspects by the same analogy, like calling infringement of intellectual properly right "theft." It's not exactly the same as physical property rights, and the laws don't claim it is, and there is no reason it should be exactly the same, but that doesn't change anything or make it wrong to use the terms.

Now, one might (and I do) think the current state of some intellectual property law is unfair and should be changed, but that doesn't justify breaking the law, infringing on someone else's rights, or rationalizing, by changing the wording, that you are not doing anything wrong, anymore than an objection to someone having something you can't afford justifies you breaking the law and violating their physical property rights by stealing it, or an objection to their political position allows you to infringe on their right of free speech, or their right to vote.
We have effective and legal means of changing laws. At least in my country. It's not fast, it's not often easy, and it doesn't let every individual force his personal viewpoint on all of society, but it's a pretty darn good system, and rarely calls for acts of civil disobedience to get things done.

ApK

[MikeB1972]

Originally Posted by shalym

(emphasis mine)
Issybird, I'm sorry, and I don't want to make anyone think that I approve of copyright infringement, but there is a reason why it can't describe both. The reason is that words matter, and the definitions of words matter.

If you can find a definition in a recognized dictionary that allows the word "theft" to apply to intellectual property, I'll concede the point. I couldn't find one.

Shari

Can you find a definition in a recognised dictionary where Bad, Ill, Sick & Ridiculous all mean good?
Just because it isn't in the dictionary doesn't mean it can't be used.