I have found numerous pirated ebooks for free online. Please tell me the benefits of

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

As John Lennon said, "whatever gets you through the night."

Seriously?? Dude, why can't you just admit that saying "even in their own minds" was a bridge too far? It went from the realm of equal, experiential (even if anecdotal) evidence straight to downright fantasy. But whatever. Have fun. Peace out. Enjoy the "win."

[leebase]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I've bought a number of cheap audiobooks this way, but I can't say I've ever tried reading along, or go back and forth. It's just never really appealed to me.

Horses and courses, of course I prefer reading when at home and audiobooks when out walking, traveling etc. Having both means I don't have to switch books when I'm in one environment or another.

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Seriously?? Dude, why can't you just admit that saying "even in their own minds" was a bridge too far? It went from the realm of equal, experiential (even if anecdotal) evidence straight to downright fantasy. But whatever. Have fun. Peace out. Enjoy the "win."

I suppose it's because you have a habit of picking some little section of a sentence so that you can attack that (you can't read everyone's mind!), rather than following the larger point where you have made no progress (most people pirating content don't bother with justifications). It feels like you are the one going for a win in whatever way you can get it. You've done it before and I've learned at that point in the debate you aren't worth talking to anymore.

*shrug*

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by ZodWallop

You've done it before and I've learned at that point in the debate you aren't worth talking to anymore.

And yet, here you are, passing up several good opportunities to stop talking to me.

*shrug*

[darryl]

@DiapDealer. A very absolute point of view. But people are prepared to do wrong both in pursuit of their own interests and what they see as the public interest. Activists for all sorts of causes seem to have little compunction in breaking the law. Though they know they are themselves doing the wrong thing they argue that the wrong acts of the person they are harming justifies their own actions. They argue that the law concerned is an unjust one and must be disobeyed. These are very convenient rationalisations and of course often obscure the real personal reasons behind their actions. Unfortunately the current "rights holders" are far from angels, the current intellectual property system is far from equitable and in many cases does substantial harm. This does not of course justify copyright infringement on entertainment products, which are hardly essential. But is the issue as clear-cut when life-saving medicine is involved? Or scientific knowledge acquired with public funds is locked up in expensive private journals which consume huge amounts of the education budget? This is of course a debate not really suited to taking place on Mobileread. I don't even know if your absolute extends to these harder areas, and you certainly do not say that it does. But rationalisations can sometimes have some validity, despite the fact that they are rationalisations.

[DiapDealer]

I hold no "absolutes" when it comes to piracy/lawbreaking (moral or otherwise). There are countless shades of grey. I'm not making any value judgement, here (though I have my own clear values on the subject, and make no bones about it). I'm merely observing that all the people I've met who make a habit of downloading pirated versions of movies or books have all tried to rationalize away any wrong-doing on their part. That's it. That's my point. I'd actually love to meet one who said, "yeah, I know it's wrong. Don't care." I'd probably have a little more respect for that person.

[Thasaidon]

Originally Posted by darryl

But rationalisations can sometimes have some validity, despite the fact that they are rationalisations.

The use of the term rationalisations could be a little perjorative as what may be described as a rationalisation by one person could be a deeply held philosophical viewpoint by the person so described. You may not agree with this philosophical viewpoint but it is just as valid as the viewpoint of the person shouting "rationalisations".

[darryl]

Originally Posted by Thasaidon

The use of the term rationalisations could be a little perjorative as what may be described as a rationalisation by one person could be a deeply held philosophical viewpoint by the person so described. You may not agree with this philosophical viewpoint but it is just as valid as the viewpoint of the person shouting "rationalisations".

Very true. Describing someone as rationalising is seldom objective, depending as it does on your own subjective views and on your speculation as to the subjective views of the person allegedly rationalising. And yes, what to one person is rationalising can be a deeply held belief of the other person. Dismissing arguments as rationalisations is, I suppose, yet another method of avoiding a discussion of the merits of those arguments. This is what I was getting at, somewhat clumsily, with my statement you quoted. Just because someone dismisses an argument as an alleged rationalisation does not preclude some validity, whether or not it is in fact a rationalisation. And, of course, whether it is in fact a rationalisation depends on the state of mind of the person allegedly rationalising, not on the objective facts.

[Pizza_Cant_Read]

I like what Darryl said, because I rationalize doing illegal things every day. I rationalize using a VPN to access my Facebook within China for example. Sometimes this site doesn't load properly without it either. We recently had Reddit and Quora blocked too. I feel justified and those justifications are tied into deep philosophical convictions I hold. Copyright is the same. I do believe it is a gray area depending on numerous factors, some of which DiapDealer earlier stated.

It doesn't mean I believe that all morality is subjective, for certainly something can be legal and equally reprehensible. But to fall back on the earlier examples of using a VPN or 'format shifting' my books, though both are technically a crime and the latter falls into the realm of piracy, I would argue they are solidly in the subjective category. Is it a means of justification? Yes. Does that detract from any argument for their legitimate use? No

-
Didn't add anything new to the debate, just dancing through ;]

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by Pizza_Cant_Read

But to fall back on the earlier examples of using a VPN or 'format shifting' my books, though both are technically a crime and the latter falls into the realm of piracy, I would argue they are solidly in the subjective category.

Format shifting by itself does not automatically fall into the piracy category. To turn format shifting (a copyright infringement) into piracy requires distribution or intent to distribute (e.g. make available for download) with or without monetary gain. Format shifting may or may not even be copyright infringement depending on jurisdiction and use case.

@DiapDealer: There is no countless shades of gray, they counted them as exactly fifty.

[Pizza_Cant_Read]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

Format shifting by itself does not automatically fall into the piracy category. To turn format shifting (a copyright infringement) into piracy requires distribution or intent to distribute (e.g. make available for download) with or without monetary gain. Format shifting may or may not even be copyright infringement depending on jurisdiction and use case.

I have never heard of piracy being specifically tied to an intent to distribute, and really that is where my whole argument on these definitions hinge. If that is true then I learn something new. I consider half of my parent's VHS collection to be pirate booty. Vernacularly I use that term to simply mean 'unlawful reproduction'.

As you said it depends on local law and in that sense it becomes semantical. The unfortunate fact is any unintended use as dictated by the publisher or in Amazon's case, retailer, can qualify as unlawful reproduction under certain circumstances.

----

Gotta run but wanted to shoot off a quick reply Hopefully be back in 45 minutes wooohoo!

Edit

Returned almost 2.5 hours later...sad face. Fixed some things. I'm insecure about my writing and know I have a lot to improve!

[darryl]

I also have big problems with current intellectual property law. I have posted about these problems extensively. In a nutshell, whilst some protection is desirable, it has gone way overboard. Copyright in particular is far too long, and tends to serve the interests of mostly large corporate "rights-holders" to the disadvantage of creators and consumers. In some cases it works particularly against the public interest, such as the ridiculous situation in relation to academic journals. If I was to express my views on Elsevier and that situation on these forums I would be banned, so I will refrain from further discussion.

Yes, it is desirable to have intellectual property laws but the ones we have are outdated and too often operate capriciously and against the public interest they are meant to serve. I would discourage further discussion along these lines here. The rules don't allow it for understandable if regrettable reasons, and I don't want to see anyone suspended.

[DuckieTigger]

@Pizza_Cant_Read: In many countries you are allowed to make an audio recording from radio for personal use. Perfectly legal for personal use (most likely not in China). Now you share that recording, maybe you even went to the trouble of ripping a specific song from it. All of a sudden it became a pirate copy just by sharing it. Even if nobody downloaded it yet, the intent to distribute is still clear.

[issybird]

Originally Posted by darryl

I would discourage further discussion along these lines here. The rules don't allow it for understandable if regrettable reasons, and I don't want to see anyone suspended.

Let's leave moderation to the mods; especially please don't use the guidelines as a justification to have the last word.

[Thasaidon]

Originally Posted by issybird

Let's leave moderation to the mods; especially please don't use the guidelines as a justification to have the last word.

Then we need fuller and more detailed guidelines on what is and is not allowed to be discussed on this topic. I also think that moderators could step in and advise if the discussion is getting to close to the line.

The problem with the current situation is that people are self censoring, which is the worst form of censorship.