"The book industry is gonna get Napstered..."

[carld]

Originally Posted by ahi

No. "De-DRMing and sharing = stealing" is soviet style propaganda.*

I'm finished wasting my time discussing this particular point of BS any further.

- Ahi

* Albeit of corporation's, not the state's, making.

You're the one spouting BS. File sharing is stealing, plain and simple. You're taking or giving things away that you have no right to. If anyone has a poor sense of morality it's you.

[HansTWN]

I have yet to meet anyone who didn't say he was underpaid. I was just suggesting you do what you think authors should do... Sounds only fair to me.

No, the original file is not lost with sharing. But the person who receives the file without consent has taken something that doesn't belong to him without the owner agreeing to it. Since you are into real world examples let me give you two. Say I know that you won't be going out today. So I steal your car, drive it for one day, and return it in good condition tomorrow. Have I a committed a crime? Second example, you spend years breeding the perfect orchid, at great expense to you. Now I take one of the seeds and produce them by the thousands -- you have no problem with that??

Don't you see that by sharing you have greatly reduced the value of that original piece?

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by carld

You're the one spouting BS. File sharing is stealing, plain and simple. You're taking or giving things away that you have no right to. If anyone has a poor sense of morality it's you.

No. File sharing is copyright infringement, which is a very different crime from theft. Most of the time it's not even a crime.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

No. File sharing is copyright infringement, which is a very different crime from theft. Most of the time it's not even a crime.

Morally it is theft, unless the copyright holder gave you the rights to distribute it. You are causing someone financial harm. If it is not a crime in some places/cases then it definitely should be. I want you to work in my garden for free, too. But I won't put a gun to your head and just make you do it.

[carld]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

No. File sharing is copyright infringement, which is a very different crime from theft. Most of the time it's not even a crime.

If you Copyright Infringe a DVD, as per FBI warning, they can nab you for five years and $250,000 for your non-crime.

[Jaime_Astorga]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

So many here have argued that the "old ways" aren't going to work in this new digital age. I find it odd then that these same people continue to use an "old model" way of assigning value to something. That is they keep using the idea of supply and demand to suggest that since digital media has limitless supply then it has no value.

Well if we are looking to throw out the old ways, lets throw them all out. Lets stop playing semantics and admit that digital media does have a value. It's value is in being the medium by which the content is accessed. Lets try to work out a way to assigning a fair value to this rather than sticking to the old ways when it comes to value because they support our desire for free content.

Why should all things be thrown out? The principles of economics do not change; all that has changed, in this digital era, is that the supply of a work is insanely abundant once the original has been created. Try as people might to enforce artificial scarcity with such things as DRM, those can and will be defeated by individuals of enough inclination and/or skill, who then proceed to distribute the "unlocked" work to everyone else.

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Morally it is theft, unless the copyright holder gave you the rights to distribute it. You are causing someone financial harm.

But that is only the case because there was a system imposed so they could make financial gains from something that wouldn't happen otherwise! Your argument is like saying abolishing slavery is immoral, because it causes slave owners financial harm. Yes, it does cause financial harm, in both situations, but that "harm" is only there because government laws made things such that they could profit from them.

[carld]

Originally Posted by Jaime_Astorga

But that is only the case because there was a system imposed so they could make financial gains from something that wouldn't happen otherwise! Your argument is like saying abolishing slavery is immoral, because it causes slave owners financial harm. Yes, it does cause financial harm, in both situations, but that "harm" is only there because government laws made things such that they could profit from them.

Yeah, because that's the way commerce works. I have something, someone else wants it, they give me money for it. The government also made laws saying someone can't just klunk me over the head and take my stuff because they don't want to pay for it. I like those laws.

[HansTWN]

Jaime, you are getting confused -- it is you who suggests that authors should work as slaves. May I suggest you work for free? If authors should, why not you?

[carld]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

You are getting confused -- it is you who suggests that authors should work as slaves. May I suggest you work for free? If authors should, why not you?

Sorry, thought you were responding to me.

[Jaime_Astorga]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Jaime, you are getting confused -- it is you who suggests that authors should work as slaves. May I suggest you work for free? If authors should, why not you?

I never suggested anything of the sort. Authors who don't wish to write without the ability to hold their works ransom for money are perfectly entitled to not write, if they don't consider it worth their time. But when someone makes a work public to the eyes of the people and then tries to prevent them from copying and spreading that work unless a fee is paid, that is barbaric.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by carld

Sorry, thought you were responding to me.

well, by the time I had finished my reply to Jaime your post appeared. That is why I edited my post. Given how quickly things move here in the forums I will always quote the post I am responding to in the future, even if was is directly above mine when I started writing.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Jaime_Astorga

I never suggested anything of the sort. Authors who don't wish to write without the ability to hold their works ransom for money are perfectly entitled to not write, if they don't consider it worth their time. But when someone makes a work public to the eyes of the people and then tries to prevent them from copying and spreading that work unless a fee is paid, that is barbaric.

I hope we can soon breed a new species of authors. Ones that do not need to spend any money on food, housing, clothes and other things. Besides, you still haven't answered my question. Do you hold your boss ransom by refusing to work when you won't get paid? Wouldn't that be barbaric!

[carld]

Originally Posted by Jaime_Astorga

I never suggested anything of the sort. Authors who don't wish to write without the ability to hold their works ransom for money are perfectly entitled to not write, if they don't consider it worth their time. But when someone makes a work public to the eyes of the people and then tries to prevent them from copying and spreading that work unless a fee is paid, that is barbaric.

Sounds to me that slavery is exactly what you're suggesting. Authors can write if they want to, but they have to give their work away, that's what's barbaric.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by carld

Writing is work, for which the authors deserve to be paid, unless you want to return to the days when the only things published were royal edicts, religious tracts, and political manifestos.

That time would be before ancient Greece.

Yawn.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Morally it is theft, unless the copyright holder gave you the rights to distribute it. You are causing someone financial harm. If it is not a crime in some places/cases then it definitely should be. I want you to work in my garden for free, too. But I won't put a gun to your head and just make you do it.

Can you prove it is theft? I ask because if you can't you're arguing by definition.