The $15 Boycott: Will you be participating?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

We've been over this before. Legally, illegal copying is not theft. Socially, it is not considered to be equivalent (witness the provision of blank media and equipment to facilitate various forms of copying, and the fact that most people do it). Morally, it depends on what your morals are.

I can only make sense of what your saying as either an assertion that they are in fact legally the same, or that people tend to view them as the same, or simply that you feel the same way about them.

If you find, say, the theft of CDs from a shop and the copying of a CD to give to a friend, equally repugnant, fair enough. It strikes me as an unusual point of view, but it's all that I can think you mean.

Yes, we have been over it and we'll probably go over it again from what I've seen. And yes I see taking someone's physical property the same level and type of criminal activity as taking their intellectual property and I will continue to state that until the law and society catches up.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Yes, we have been over it and we'll probably go over it again from what I've seen. And yes I see taking someone's physical property the same level and type of criminal activity as taking their intellectual property and I will continue to state that until the law and society catches up.

Well, if all you mean is that you don't like piracy as much as you don't like stealing, and that you don't see a difference morally then, of course, I don't have an issue with you saying that.

I doubt very much that society will "catch up" with this view, however, because this problem is not new, and history suggests that society will not implement laws that treat copying as theft. I don't think that laws of any kind are the answer.

As others have said, the answer to piracy is providing quality and convenience at a fair price. If the publishers addressed these issues, piracy would not be a problem.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

Well, if all you mean is that you don't like piracy as much as you don't like stealing, and that you don't see a difference morally then, of course, I don't have an issue with you saying that.

I doubt very much that society will "catch up" with this view, however, because this problem is not new, and history suggests that society will not implement laws that treat copying as theft. I don't think that laws of any kind are the answer.

As others have said, the answer to piracy is providing quality and convenience at a fair price. If the publishers addressed these issues, piracy would not be a problem.

I never said anything about laws. What about abstinence? What about people doing what is right? You can't blame criminal activity on the publishers or the pricing, that's just an excuse to support the criminal act.

[DawnFalcon]

...And of course, unauthorised copying is a civil and not a criminal act. Sorry, your point?

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I never said anything about laws. What about abstinence? What about people doing what is right? You can't blame criminal activity on the publishers or the pricing, that's just an excuse to support the criminal act.

I'm not blaming a criminal act on the publisher - it's not a criminal act!

I absolutely agree that people should do what is right - but I don't necessarily agree with you about what right is. Personally, I think its very wrong to go into a shop and steal something. I don't think it's very wrong, however, to make a copy of some music - especially if it's to see whether you like it. If I heard that the police were putting on extra patrols due to an increase in shoplifting in an area, I'd think it was fair enough. If I heard that they were raiding student's rooms looking for illegal copies of music (or ebooks!), I'd think that pretty sinister. Of course, they wouldn't do the latter because it's not criminal!

What I'm blaming the publishers for is for being greedy and stupid. If they produced high quality, convenient, fairly priced goods, people would buy them and everyone would be happy. But on the whole they are producing variable quality, awkward/klunky to obtain and use, over-priced ebooks, and they will fail as a result if they don't change.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I see taking someone's physical property the same level and type of criminal activity as taking their intellectual property and I will continue to state that until the law and society catches up.

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

I doubt very much that society will "catch up" with this view, however, because this problem is not new, and history suggests that society will not implement laws that treat copying as theft. I don't think that laws of any kind are the answer.

Originally Posted by kennyc

I never said anything about laws.

Need I say more?

[MrBlueSky]

Originally Posted by kennyc

... It's a matter of principles ...

Ahhh, now why did you not say so earlier?

Everybody has them, they're all different — and more people have died from trying to defend them than by other (non-biological) cause — and for so little reason.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by MrBlueSky

Ahhh, now why did you not say so earlier?

Everybody has them, they're all different — and more people have died from trying to defend them than by other (non-biological) cause — and for so little reason.

Priniciples, morals, ethics, doing what is right. I've said that all along and will continue to have to apparently cause no one want's to listen. They just want to argue semantics and make excuses to support criminal behavior.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Need I say more?

Probably should since it doesn't seem to be getting through. That's okay though. I'll be the lone voice crying in the night.

Clearly some people think if they follow the "letter of the law" rather than the intent of the law that's good enough. I can understand our corporations and leaders have taught us that that is okay. .....

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

.... Personally, I think its very wrong to go into a shop and steal something. I don't think it's very wrong, however, to make a copy of some music - ....

Why not? What do you see as the difference? Do you feel it's okay to take apples from your neighbors tree? What if the apples fall into your yard?

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Why not? What do you see as the difference? Do you feel it's okay to take apples from your neighbors tree? What if the apples fall into your yard?

My examples were the difference between stealing physical goods (e.g. a CD), and making an illegal copy (e.g. copying a CD). I don't feel that the latter is the same kind of thing, or nearly as bad, as the former. Stealing an apple from a neighbour is stealing physical goods, so I see that as a form of stealing, albeit one that I don't think is a particularly bad one because apples tend to be low value, there are usually more than you need etc. If someone stole apples from my apples trees, I would be more annoyed because they didn't ask nicely, than bothered about the apples.

Morality is essentially based on "how would you like it?" - which is typically how we teach it to children. How would I like it if I ran a shop and someone stole the goods in it? I wouldn't like it at all - and this is what makes me see it as bad. How would I like it if I created something and people copied it without paying me? It wouldn't be nearly as bad. I've experienced both, so I feel pretty confident about that!

When I do create something of value, I think hard about how to make it high quality, convenient to buy and use, and how to price it so that people will feel that it's fair to pay for it.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

My examples were the difference between stealing physical goods (e.g. a CD), and making an illegal copy (e.g. copying a CD). I don't feel that the latter is the same kind of thing, or nearly as bad, as the former. Stealing an apple from a neighbour is stealing physical goods, so I see that as a form of stealing, albeit one that I don't think is a particularly bad one because apples tend to be low value,....

Ah, so it's dependent your determination of value.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Priniciples, morals, ethics, doing what is right. I've said that all along and will continue to have to apparently cause no one want's to listen. They just want to argue semantics and make excuses to support criminal behavior.

No, you're simply insistant that the darknet's supporters will win, and you're managing that quite nicely by coming off as a shill for publisher's interests.

I work in an IP-dependent industry, and have a direct stake in this. And I strongly oppose your stance on this. Calling things by their correct names - and it's still a civil and not a criminal offence - is an important part of that.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Kolenka

If we agree with the original intention of copyright, then how can we justify violating the original intention just because "the other side" commits a wrong? The behavior helps to discredit individuals who do want shorter copyright durations (why adjust copyright at the request of those who won't even honor the adjusted terms?).

That's not his argument. What he is saying is that what we have in the current state of the law is not an agreement, but the result of the application of illegitimate power.

The other side has not "committed a wrong." They have altered the terms of the agreement in a fashion that renders the original agreement totally irrelevant, even though it appears to be still on the books.

The "social contract" works when all parties agree that each of them have legitimate interests that should be protected as much as possible. It stops working when one side disregards the interests of the other.

And that's what's happened in copyright law in the digital world. One side has managed to extend copyright to the point where the other side's interests are meaningless because for all practical purposes they have been abolished.

When that happens, there is no longer a moral argument that can be made to support the side that has seized all power.

Things get a little confusing because the people who have seized power are not, in fact, the people that copyright was supposed to protect - i.e. the creators and the consumers. The middlemen have seized all the power from both.

If you say that the answer to this is to not buy books, and to not pirate books, you are missing the point. The point is that the copyright system was intended to create a system in which books could be sold, by protecting the economic and cultural interests of everyone.

It's a little easier to see the situation by looking at Disney. The point of copyright was to secure an economic incentive for someone to create Mickey Mouse, so that after a reasonable period of time, someone who never had anything to do with creating Mickey Mouse could nevertheless use Mickey Mouse in a new cartoon.

The man who created Mickey Mouse is dead. Yet a corporate entity continues to control the cultural uses of Mickey Mouse to the point where no one who is alive today can ever make a Mickey Mouse cartoon.

That wasn't the agreement.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Ah, so it's dependent your determination of value.

Whether something is stealing or not is not value dependant. How bad that stealing is, is value dependant. I was only saying that stealing an apple is not such a bad thing in my book. And I say that as an apple-owner

My point is to distinguish stealing from copying, your example of stealing an apple was a poor one - we are both agreed that this is stealing. We may differ in how morally repugnant we find that example of stealing, but such it is.

A better example, if you want to persuade people that copying is bad, would be an example of copying that harms people. I can't think of a very plausible one off-hand.