Confessions of a Book Pirate

[guyanonymous]

One thought that's popped into my head, and I'd like help refining...

An artists class only developed when society itself was strong enough with respect to provision of food/shelter/security to allow those people (artists) to NOT have to work on the farm/hunt/gather for the majority of their waking hours. Without society, artists could not exist in their current form.

Does this have any relevance to today's world?

[scveteran]

Originally Posted by ShellShock

I don't understand the justification for copyright extending beyond the death of the author, and I think there is a moral argument for being able to copy books where the author is no longer alive to be deprived of any royalties. It is not clear to me why an author's descendants should benefit from the sale of works which they had no hand in producing.

So you would disagree with me being able to leave my home to my kids when I die? After all, they had no part in paying for the home. I did that with the money I earned.

I see no difference between this and any other type of wealth or income that is passed down to heirs.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by guyanonymous

One thought that's popped into my head, and I'd like help refining...

An artists class only developed when society itself was strong enough with respect to provision of food/shelter/security to allow those people (artists) to NOT have to work on the farm/hunt/gather for the majority of their waking hours. Without society, artists could not exist in their current form.

Does this have any relevance to today's world?

The only ones that could exist without society are hunter gatherers and farmers. All other professions would be useless. What are you, hunter or farmer?

[scveteran]

Originally Posted by Ubikzz

I do not and never will recognise "Intellectual Property". The term "intellectual property" is a political coined term with the thought behind it that if it is being used by everybody and everywhere, people will start to link the two words together as being a truth. No mater how hard one tries, it is not true. Nobody can own an idea, a thought, a vision, ... The fact of being the first to express such intangible things does not make one the owner.

I do not give away the right to others to disallow me to have the same intangible brain processes as any other person. This is inherent in being human.

The only right a person has as such is not to express their ideas, words, ...

Every derived logic from this perceived ownership is thus void. Especially the right to financial compensation (as one of the many derivatives).


This misconception is a relative new thing: books, music, paintings have been copied (which leaves the original still to its owner) throughout the centuries but still painters, writers, musicians have been thriving (and they are even perceived as being creators of superior art), think of Breughel, Mozart, Homer and all alike.


On a personal note: this does not mean I do not give tokens of recognition (i.e. money), it only means that either I buy physical things (CD, book, painting) or I buy (pay for) the ease of usage (ebooks, mp3, JPG), but as I pay for ease of usage, the worth of it in my value system has usually a maximum of 2,- EUR.

I could not disagree more with your statement. I firmly believe that if your anarchist views become codified into laws, the world would suffer greatly. There would be almost no innovation.

[guyanonymous]

Whatever would keep me and mine fed.

[nekokami]

I've been considering running a poll for a while now. The idea would be to let everyone state their positions, see where everyone else's positions are, add a bit of elaboration if they feel they really must, and (possibly) move on. Here are the options I'm considering including, in a "check all that apply" format. Anyone want to suggest one that I've missed?

(This poll would not be for "scientific" purposes-- it would hopefully have the psychological purpose of allowing people to get opinions off their chests.)

Downloading a "darknet" copy of a book still in Copyright:
- Is taking food off author's plates
- Is theft
- Is cheap advertising
- Will discourage authors from writing new books
- Will result in new buyers as readers discover new authors
- Is harmless
- Is never morally acceptable
- Is always morally acceptable
- Is morally acceptable if the book is out of print
- Is morally acceptable if the commercial ebook is unavailable in your region
- Is morally acceptable if you can't afford to buy the book anyway
- Is morally acceptable if you own the book in another format (e.g. paper)
- Is morally acceptable if the author is dead, regardless of copyright term
- Is morally acceptable if there is no commercial ebook version available
- Is morally acceptable if the only commercial ebook version has DRM
- Is morally acceptable if the only commercial ebook version has DRM that won't work on your hardware
- Is morally acceptable if the only commercial ebook version has a higher price than the paper version
- Is morally acceptable if the book is more than 25 years old
- Is morally acceptable if the book is more than 50 years old
- Is going to be widespread whether it is morally acceptable or not
- Should be a civil offense
- Should be a criminal offense
- Should not be illegal at all
- Is legal where you live (or at least, not illegal)

[nekokami]

I've been considering running a poll for a while now. The idea would be to let everyone state their positions, see where everyone else's positions are, add a bit of elaboration if they feel they really must, and (possibly) move on. Here are the options I'm considering including, in a "check all that apply" format. Anyone want to suggest one that I've missed?

(This poll would not be for "scientific" purposes-- it would hopefully have the psychological purpose of allowing people to get opinions off their chests.)

Downloading a "darknet" copy of a book still in Copyright:
- Is taking food off author's plates
- Is theft
- Is cheap advertising
- Will discourage authors from writing new books
- Will result in new buyers as readers discover new authors
- Is harmless
- Is never morally acceptable
- Is always morally acceptable
- Is morally acceptable if the book is out of print
- Is morally acceptable if the commercial ebook is unavailable in your region
- Is morally acceptable if you can't afford to buy the book anyway
- Is morally acceptable if you own the book in another format (e.g. paper)
- Is morally acceptable if the author is dead, regardless of copyright term
- Is morally acceptable if there is no commercial ebook version available
- Is morally acceptable if the only commercial ebook version has DRM
- Is morally acceptable if the only commercial ebook version has DRM that won't work on your hardware
- Is morally acceptable if the only commercial ebook version has a higher price than the paper version
- Is morally acceptable if the book is more than 25 years old
- Is morally acceptable if the book is more than 50 years old
- Is going to be widespread whether it is morally acceptable or not
- Should be a civil offense
- Should be a criminal offense
- Should not be illegal at all
- Is legal where you live (or at least, not illegal)

[guyanonymous]

Originally Posted by scveteran

I could not disagree more with your statement. I firmly believe that if your anarchist views become codified into laws, the world would suffer greatly. There would be almost no innovation.

Are creative people motivated by nothing more than money? I myself love passing on knowledge and sharing my art (photography). I've made a living at photography, and far prefer my current role now as an educator.

In photography there has been a massive shift and there continues to be controversy over who owns images that contain people - is it the portrait/wedding photographer, or the subject of the photos. Who has the right to make copies of images of them within?

In the years I spent shooting weddings and portraits, I charged for my services, not my materials. I provided negatives to clients upon request, while others did not perceiving their only "leverage" to make more money in owning the negatives and charging $40 for an $8x10 that cost them $0.50 if they printed in their own lab, or $8 at the pro-lab down the street. I heard of photographers in town getting into shouting matches in the middle of stores when they chanced to encounter each other because, usually, the old guard felt threatened by the business models of the new guard.

I chose a different approach to the status-quo in doing so, but guess where the major shift is now, especially with the advent of digital. The mode of thought has changed around the issue for many and continues to do so.

Is it so hard to believe that many of the computer generation see the world differently? I can understand being scared...but don't understand not wanting to learn more about what scares me.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

If I may parody Diana Darby...."You don't know your capitalism..."

Actually I know the reality of Capitalism quite well, having studied it at university level.

What I am not talking about is the idealised propaganda of the "free market" that is espoused by those who wish to continue blindly believing in the infallibility of the Capitialist system.

And note, I am not saying Capitalism is evil or wrong or anything. It simply is what it is.

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

What busts monopolies in Capitalism is new inventions. Karl Marx, bless his poor lil' heart, didn't figure that one out before he published. I can have the most perfect monopoly on buggy whips there is, but if the car makes buggy whips obsolete, my monopoly won't be worth anything. Monopolies inherently become profit maximizing organizations, leaving room for new technologies to undercut them. When they do, another monopoly bites the dust....

That is one way that monopolies die.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Ralph's right: You've got a really funny idea of capitalism.

I have a knowledge of what the mechanics of the Capitalist system must produce as an eventual outcome should those mechanics be left to run their natural course unfettered.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Capitalism allows for competing products to coexist today... there are plenty of examples. Products can compete, specifically because they are not all the same: Company A offers a square widget with a manual crank, while company B offers a round widget with a solar-charged crank, and consumers can choose which they want.

Yes, there is room for competing products. Hence why I did not say anything about the eventual outcome being that there would be only one product for each industry or use or whatever. I said that there would be only one company. Or to put it another way, only one producer of each product or service.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Monopolies are not inevitable products of capitalism, nor are they intended goals of capitalism; they are aberrations, a sort of capitalist cancer, that ultimately damages the concept and process of capitalism... that is why there are laws to prevent them, just as there are laws to prevent other undesirable aberrations that can damage a capitalist system, such as unfair labor practices, false advertising, unsafe products and price-gouging.

Monopolies are not the "intended goal of Capitalism" just like the concentration of wealth from the poor to the rich is not the "intended goal". Yes, in the purported ideal utopia of pure Capitalism, neither is the intended goal. Both just happen to be the actual result when Capitalism is enacted in reality though.

They are not cancers or aberrations. They are the natural end product of the mechanics of Capitalism.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[scveteran]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

*sigh*

You may as well have just written 'Please don't read my works because I consider most of you thieves. Please, please, target audience, please note my name and make sure that you never, ever read my stuff again.' You may have consulted lawyers, you may be able to write a thousand books on the subject, but you really don't get what's happening at all.

I think you are way over reacting to his post. He said nothing that would make most people feel the way you do.

[scveteran]

Originally Posted by guyanonymous

Are creative people motivated by nothing more than money? I myself love passing on knowledge and sharing my art (photography). I've made a living at photography, and far prefer my current role now as an educator.

In photography there has been a massive shift and there continues to be controversy over who owns images that contain people - is it the portrait/wedding photographer, or the subject of the photos. Who has the right to make copies of images of them within?

In the years I spent shooting weddings and portraits, I charged for my services, not my materials. I provided negatives to clients upon request, while others did not perceiving their only "leverage" to make more money in owning the negatives and charging $40 for an $8x10 that cost them $0.50 if they printed in their own lab, or $8 at the pro-lab down the street. I heard of photographers in town getting into shouting matches in the middle of stores when they chanced to encounter each other because, usually, the old guard felt threatened by the business models of the new guard.

I chose a different approach to the status-quo in doing so, but guess where the major shift is now, especially with the advent of digital. The mode of thought has changed around the issue for many and continues to do so.

Is it so hard to believe that many of the computer generation see the world differently? I can understand being scared...but don't understand not wanting to learn more about what scares me.

First, I said almost no innovation. Not none. There is a difference.

Yes, there are some people who would still be creative even if there were no financial rewards. However when those rewards are taken away, there will be a huge decline in new material. Part of it is simply because people would no longer have the time to do as much creative work as they could if they were paid well for their works.

As far as the stuff about being scared or not wanting to learn, I think you are way off course. This has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by guyanonymous

I thought it had been established that in legal terms, breach of copyright wasn't theft, it was "breach of copyright"? Or did I miss something? They are two distinct concepts in legal terms.

Yes, it has. But some people here continue for some strange reason to wrongly use the term theft (maybe for propaganda purpose) and this purposeful misuse destroys all threads were it occur.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by ardeegee

You keep saying (ad nauseum) that "wrong is wrong" and "right is right" as if there were actually real things. But they aren't. They are subjective human concepts. What is real is physical matter and the properties of that matter-- you can measure the speed of light in a vacuum-- you can measure the weight of the proton. "Right"? "Wrong"? "Love"? "Hate"? Utterly subjective things that do not exist outside of the collective result of chemical processes and physical structures in the human brain known as the "mind". Unless you can show me how to measure "right" and "wrong" in a way that would not only be accepted as objectively true to any and all impartial human observers from any human society but also be accepted as objectively true to any hyperintelligent purple brain slug from exoplanet GJ758B, then I will continue to think you are pulling those concepts of absolutism out of your buttoxcal area.

That's only if you are realist and don't believe in information.

If you take something of mine, without my permission you are a thief.

It's really quite simple as I've said (and you indicate) over and over in these threads.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by guyanonymous

One thought that's popped into my head, and I'd like help refining...

An artists class only developed when society itself was strong enough with respect to provision of food/shelter/security to allow those people (artists) to NOT have to work on the farm/hunt/gather for the majority of their waking hours. Without society, artists could not exist in their current form.

Does this have any relevance to today's world?

Many here argue otherwise. They claim artist will always create art regardless of whether they do it for money etc. and that even without the protection of art afforded by our current laws we'd still have great literature and art.