eBook piracy, how common is it?

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

OTOH, if you know the other side isn't listening anyway, why bother arguing.

How do you know the other side isn't listening unless you first ask them a question?

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Not a "saying" (well, not in this form; i'm sure someone's made a saying out of it though. would it help if I looked one up?), but much more true than "gee, you couldn't be bothered responding. I win. woohoo."

Not saying I win. Just interesting that only one of the righteous "file sharers" seemed to want to respond to the question.

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

perhaps look up "quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur"?

Hence why I didn't say it in latin.

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Sorry, but there are no moral absolutes. They were abolished right about when god died.

Of course there are! Our modern society just doesn't want to acknowledge them because they tend to infringe upon what many of us want to do and we don't like that as we are programmed to believe the rights of the individual(at least in respect to ourselves but rarely in respect to all others) are paramount and all else is secondary. So instead we convicne ourselves of the greyness of everything in the hopes it will comfort us and make us feel better about what we choose to do.

If you truly think there are no moral absolutes try this..........think of something you would really really not like to happen to you. I'd suggest being murdered in cold blood, for no reason whatsoever, as a good example. Now try to think up a rationalisation or reason as to why that would not be considered wrong. Try to convince yourself that someone else has the right to do that. Really try to convince yourself that if someone did that to you they would not have done something "wrong". Then, just to be fair, try to convince yourself of any sort of reason as to why you would have the right to do that to someone else and if you did do it, you would not have done something wrong.

If you can't truly convince yourself then you've found your first moral absolute. If you can, then you are the classic definition of a psychopath.

And no, I'm not comparing "file sharing" to murder.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Again, you're wrong, especially in the realm of Bittorrent - you ARE sharing, because as you download, you upload at the same time. It's not a straight one-to-one copy. File sharing is a description of the most popular process, which is Bittorrent. P2P is the blanket definition, or Person to Person, which covers other methods that are more traditionally seen as 'copying'... Limewire etc.

Ok, I'm confused.

You have something on your computer, a little bit or byte or whatever it's called.........you send that something to someone elses computer right? In fact you send it to many other peoples computers.

Now, is that bit of stuff still on your computer and now also on the other persons computer? Or has it left your computer(no longer there) and gone to the other persons computer?

I'm pretty sure in anyones language if that little bit of information is on your computer still and is now also on the other persons computer, then it has been copied. Right? Or am I missing something?

The fact you are copying it to many other peoples computer at the same time rather than to only one other persons computer doesn't mean you are not copying the thing.

Simple logic dictates that if it is still on your computer and now also on another computer or many other computers then it has been copied. It's the only possible explanation.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

What I'm saying is that although I personally don't share any artist's work when I find them reasonable in their approach (that's a holdout because of the generation in which I was raised), I don't see anything wrong with other people sharing their works. In fact, I see only benefits, born out by the example I posted of Paul Cohelo, and there are plenty more if you would like them listed.

It's not "MY WAY" it's the way that is most respected and most tolerated by the growing audience that is out there. Creative Commons has become the defacto standard of authors and creatives who wish to gain an audience and promote culture. It allows you to craft an agreement with the audience that is fair and balanced (unlike earlier copyright).

The old copyright agreement is basically THIS IS MY WORK = PAY ME TO GAIN ACCESS

The creative commons (at least the one I use is this)

THIS IS MY WORK > PLEASE ENJOY AND SHARE IT FREELY > MAYBE YOU'D LIKE TO PATRONISE ME WITH YOUR READERSHIP OR SOME FORM OF MONETARY RECOMPENSE IN THE FUTURE?

That is all well and good but what you are basically saying is that if the author chooses to do business in a way that is different to how you choose to do it then you believe you have the moral right to circumvent giving him/her fair recompense.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

That is all well and good but what you are basically saying is that if the author chooses to do business in a way that is different to how you choose to do it then you believe you have the moral right to circumvent giving him/her fair recompense.

Cheers,
PKFFW

You're putting words into my mouth with that. And it's not about "business" it's about culture in the first instance. A culture freed from ridiculous copyright that stifles innovation and benefits only the corporations, not the creatives. What I'm saying, and I feel like I'm repeating myself here, is that I have no qualms about others sharing these works because I see the benefits of such sharing (as I've pointed out ad infinitum) both in cultural terms and monetary terms. For me there is no downside to this sharing.

These authors can choose to ignore the way the world is moving, but it's to their own detriment. They're part of an old system that is on shaky ground, a system that no matter how much legislation, how much enforcement you place upon it, is not sustainable in the face of the digital era. Creative Commons addresses that imbalance and levels the creator/audience relationship.

If you really, truly cared about the author's getting fair recompense your annoyance wouldn't be targeted toward file-sharers and instead go toward the mega-corp publishing houses that pay their authors miniscule advances and terribly low percentages on the sales thereafter. If you want to talk about morals, then maybe we should talk about the morals of the companies who treat their authors as nothing more than chattel?

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Ok, I'm confused.

You have something on your computer, a little bit or byte or whatever it's called.........you send that something to someone elses computer right? In fact you send it to many other peoples computers.

Now, is that bit of stuff still on your computer and now also on the other persons computer? Or has it left your computer(no longer there) and gone to the other persons computer?

I'm pretty sure in anyones language if that little bit of information is on your computer still and is now also on the other persons computer, then it has been copied. Right? Or am I missing something?

The fact you are copying it to many other peoples computer at the same time rather than to only one other persons computer doesn't mean you are not copying the thing.

Simple logic dictates that if it is still on your computer and now also on another computer or many other computers then it has been copied. It's the only possible explanation.

Cheers,
PKFFW

What may be logical to you, is not born out by how the world and the protocol actually works. Bittorrent is described as a peer-to-peer file sharing application. Not as a peer-to-peer file copying application. The word describes the process, as agreed upon by those who use it and those who describe it in articles that describe the process.


What I'd actually like to know, and this goes for all those arguing for the old copyright and against file-sharing, is have you actually used it for any purpose? Can you not see the benefits of file sharing and the cultural revolution it's creating?

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

How do you know the other side isn't listening unless you first ask them a question?

Hm, I am not sure you still know, since you either can't hear, or understand, the answer.

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Not saying I win. Just interesting that only one of the righteous "file sharers" seemed to want to respond to the question....

You seem to be having trouble making a logical argument without the help of a few straw-men. What exactly in my answer gave you the idea, that I am a "righteous file sharer?"

Try reading my answer again, you might actually get the point.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

You're putting words into my mouth with that. And it's not about "business" it's about culture in the first instance. A culture freed from ridiculous copyright that stifles innovation and benefits only the corporations, not the creatives. What I'm saying, and I feel like I'm repeating myself here, is that I have no qualms about others sharing these works because I see the benefits of such sharing (as I've pointed out ad infinitum) both in cultural terms and monetary terms. For me there is no downside to this sharing.

Still not entirely sure how this is any different to saying "I see this other way as being better therefore if you continue to use the old way(as is your right and your choice) then I have no problem with obtaining a copy of your work without compensating you for it".(or others can gain a copy without compensation)

Originally Posted by Moejoe

These authors can choose to ignore the way the world is moving, but it's to their own detriment. They're part of an old system that is on shaky ground, a system that no matter how much legislation, how much enforcement you place upon it, is not sustainable in the face of the digital era. Creative Commons addresses that imbalance and levels the creator/audience relationship.

Agreed, but it is the ground that they choose to be on. So, sorry to say it, I again don't see how an author making a choice to be on this shaky ground should give anyone the right to obtain a copy of their work without compensating them for it.(right as in it is not in any way wrong for them do this)

Originally Posted by Moejoe

If you really, truly cared about the author's getting fair recompense your annoyance wouldn't be targeted toward file-sharers and instead go toward the mega-corp publishing houses that pay their authors miniscule advances and terribly low percentages on the sales thereafter. If you want to talk about morals, then maybe we should talk about the morals of the companies who treat their authors as nothing more than chattel?

Abolutely, but two wrongs don't really make a right do they?

Maybe we are both repeating ourselves because I keep coming back to the fact that if this is how an author chooses to go about his/her business, how does that choice give anyone the right to obtain a copy of their work without compensating them for it?

And anyway, I really only came back into this thread in order to ask the question I have already asked, in order to try to get an answer as to whether people really felt "file sharing" was wrong or simply justified. It is clear to me from the continued responses(and in some cases lack of responses) that people know it to be wrong but feel it is justified for a variety of reasons.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

What may be logical to you, is not born out by how the world and the protocol actually works. Bittorrent is described as a peer-to-peer file sharing application. Not as a peer-to-peer file copying application. The word describes the process, as agreed upon by those who use it and those who describe it in articles that describe the process.

Your own picture states that "file sharing" copies the files for goodness sake!

If you and I agree to describe milk as being water does that mean that milk is water? I would say not.

The only way you can "share" the file that is on your computer with someone else and still retain the orginial file on your computer is to copy it. No amount of agreeing by you and anyone else that you have shared but not copied the file makes any difference to the actual process that has occurred.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

What I'd actually like to know, and this goes for all those arguing for the old copyright and against file-sharing, is have you actually used it for any purpose? Can you not see the benefits of file sharing and the cultural revolution it's creating?

Yes, I have used bittorrent. I even stated right at the start that I have used it to obtain copies of books that I did not wish to pay for. I have said repeatedly that I agree there can be benefits. I do see that it has had a widespread effect on our culture.

What I don't understand is why so many people feel the need to rationalise to themselves that what they are doing isn't wrong on some level. That obtaining another persons work without compensating them for it is some how their right. I find that sort of mindset interesting.

That is all.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Sonist

Hm, I am not sure you still know, since you either can't hear, or understand, the answer.

You seem to be having trouble making a logical argument without the help of a few straw-men. What exactly in my answer gave you the idea, that I am a "righteous file sharer?"

I never meant to suggest you personally were. You gave an answer in direct response to my question regarding file sharing and I responded to your answer.

Secondly I have not made any straw men arguments at all.

Originally Posted by Sonist

Try reading my answer again, you might actually get the point.

Ok...........

Originally Posted by Sonist

Yes, it would be wrong.

Ok, this part seems to be saying that you believe that in my example "file sharing" would be wrong. Is that correct? If not, could you clarify what you mean by "Yes, it would be wrong" as it seems pretty straight forward to me.

Originally Posted by Sonist

But more importantly for the author, he or she will capture a considerably larger portion of paying readers, and make more $$$$$$. Piracy will still be there, but most will pay.

Think of it this way: if bread cost $300 per loaf, most will start baking at home, and you'll start seeing bread-van robberies.

This is the part where you reason that it is justified due to the reasons you give. It is also the part where you use some of the usual arguments that I specifically stated in my example I would like to try to set aside as I was not trying to determine if people felt it was justified but if they felt the act itself would be wrong if those arguments were no longer relevent.

So, if you still feel I have misunderstood your point, then please clarify it and I'd be happy to respond to your clarification.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[tompe]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

If you truly think there are no moral absolutes try this..........think of something you would really really not like to happen to you. I'd suggest being murdered in cold blood, for no reason whatsoever, as a good example. Now try to think up a rationalisation or reason as to why that would not be considered wrong. Try to convince yourself that someone else has the right to do that. Really try to convince yourself that if someone did that to you they would not have done something "wrong". Then, just to be fair, try to convince yourself of any sort of reason as to why you would have the right to do that to someone else and if you did do it, you would not have done something wrong.

If you can't truly convince yourself then you've found your first moral absolute. If you can, then you are the classic definition of a psychopath.

You are confusing philosophy and psychology. That you are morally obliged to do something does not imply that you have to have some beliefs.

If you are a utilitarianist of some kind you always looks at the consequence of actions to decide if they are morally right or not. There are no absolutes. And that is a perfectly sensible opinion. And from this standpoint your questions previously in the thread is answered by "you look at the utility and try to maximize it" and that can lead to you doing an action that lead to copyright infringement.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by tompe

You are confusing philosophy and psychology. That you are morally obliged to do something does not imply that you have to have some beliefs.

I did not say anything about beliefs or not.

Originally Posted by tompe

If you are a utilitarianist of some kind you always looks at the consequence of actions to decide if they are morally right or not. There are no absolutes. And that is a perfectly sensible opinion. And from this standpoint your questions previously in the thread is answered by "you look at the utility and try to maximize it" and that can lead to you doing an action that lead to copyright infringement.

I'm not sure I understand your point here.

Are you saying that to determine if something is wrong or not your look at the consequences of the action?

So for example, if you could determine with certainty that there would be no adverse consequences to yourself if you murdered someone in cold blood then this lack of consequences would mean that committing the murder is not wrong?

I'm also not sure what you mean by "you look at the utility and try to maximise it".

Are you sugessting that if you can maximise the utility(benefit??) of your actions then this negates the wrongness of those actions?

So in this example if the person you were murdering had something you could use and really wanted, and murdering him would give you that thing therefore maximising the utility of the murder, then this makes the murder ok?

I can't help but think that I am have totally missed your point here. Either that or we have diametrically opposed definitions of wrong and right.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[PKFFW]

My apologies but I forgot about this response in my previous post to you.......

Originally Posted by Sonist

You live in strange world of absolutes.

And, I did answer your question. It's just that you refuse to accept it as an answer, since it's not black and white.

To be sure I understand you correctly.........

1: You believe a world of absolutes is strange and that this is the world I inhabit.

2: You state your opinion that I refuse to accept your answer because it is not black and white.

Have I misunderstood? Again, if I have misunderstood feel free to clarify your response and I will be happy to reply.

I did not respond to this post previously as it is a simple statement of your opinion about me as a person and added nothing to the discussion at hand. Generally speaking I choose not to respond to posts of a personal nature, assuming they are not intentionally rude or malicious which I did not think yours to be.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[zerospinboson]

Generally speaking I choose not to respond to posts of a personal nature, assuming they are not intentionally rude or malicious which I did not think yours to be.

This statement really makes no sense. You reply to people who insult you but not to those who describe you?

Originally Posted by PKFFW

If you truly think there are no moral absolutes try this..........think of something you would really really not like to happen to you. I'd suggest being murdered in cold blood, for no reason whatsoever, as a good example. Now try to think up a rationalisation or reason as to why that would not be considered wrong. Try to convince yourself that someone else has the right to do that. Really try to convince yourself that if someone did that to you they would not have done something "wrong". Then, just to be fair, try to convince yourself of any sort of reason as to why you would have the right to do that to someone else and if you did do it, you would not have done something wrong.

If you can't truly convince yourself then you've found your first moral absolute. If you can, then you are the classic definition of a psychopath.

I love how you stack all the "Try to"'s in order to make your example seem more dramatic.
So, you aren't allowed to be "personal" but you are allowed to give silly dichotomies like this in order to force me to choose the former? Kudos.

Anyway, first off, don't be silly: "murder" isn't an act that can be established, unless someone freely confesses to it (and you're certain he/she isn't covering for a spouse/sibling/child etc.) The term is already loaded with preconceptions about the reason why someone did it. (ie. for no good/selfish reason)
"murder in cold blood" is a statement lawyers use to convince juries; it's not descriptive of anything, apart from an accusation as to the psychological state of the person who acted it out. Which is, again, an accusation society makes in order to chastise the killer, or an accusation one person in society makes to convince the rest of the irredeemability of that person. It is, in itself, not an argument.
Similarly, "murder is wrong" is also as redundant as can be, and when used as an argument, circular. "Murder" already means "wrongful killing". Luckily, however, there is a legal system that forces the accuser to prove that the accused indeed had the intention, rather than just ascribing it to someone and hanging them before they can respond.

Killing, on the other hand, is what you should be talking about. And "killing" is considered justifiable in so many scenarios. There's self-defense, there's just war, there's even "preemptive war", there's crimes of passion, etc. So yes, I can think of examples where killing would be justified, without being one of those scary psychopaths.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

The old copyright agreement is basically THIS IS MY WORK = PAY ME TO GAIN ACCESS

The creative commons (at least the one I use is this)

THIS IS MY WORK > PLEASE ENJOY AND SHARE IT FREELY > MAYBE YOU'D LIKE TO PATRONISE ME WITH YOUR READERSHIP OR SOME FORM OF MONETARY RECOMPENSE IN THE FUTURE?

But, with the very greatest respect, Moejoe, the author is the only one who has the right to decide which of those distribution models he or she wishes to use. You may have a view on what the author "should" be doing, but that does not give you the right - either morally or legally - to redistribute the author's work without their permission should he or she wish to stick to your option 1 above.

[Patricia]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Are you saying that to determine if something is wrong or not your look at the consequences of the action?

So for example, if you could determine with certainty that there would be no adverse consequences to yourself if you murdered someone in cold blood then this lack of consequences would mean that committing the murder is not wrong?

I'm also not sure what you mean by "you look at the utility and try to maximise it".

Are you sugessting that if you can maximise the utility(benefit??) of your actions then this negates the wrongness of those actions?

So in this example if the person you were murdering had something you could use and really wanted, and murdering him would give you that thing therefore maximising the utility of the murder, then this makes the murder ok?

I can't help but think that I am have totally missed your point here. Either that or we have diametrically opposed definitions of wrong and right.

Cheers,
PKFFW

In classical Utilitarian theory, utility is defined as that which brings the greatest happiness to the greatest number. It is essential to consider the well-being of everyone potentially affected by the proposed action.

Your murder example would not meet with the approval of a utilitarian. Firstly, murder causes immense distress to the victim's family and friends. Secondly, it causes fear and unease in wider society and people value security very highly. Thirdly, most later versions of utilitarianism also value individual autonomy which, of course, is is permanently violated by murder. (I am thinking of the theories of R M Hare, Peter Singer and Jonathan Glover).

I'm not particularly interested in defending the theory. However, there are troublesome cases where killing may be the right thing to do. The classic example is the trolley problem.

A madman has tied five people to a railway line. There is a runaway trolley hurtling towards them. The madman has also tied another person to an adjacent line. You are standing beside the points. You have a choice.

1. Do nothing. Five people die. But you didn't kill them. You didn't save them either.
2. Switch the point. One person dies. Five are saved. But you have killed a person and saved five lives.

Take your pick.