What are your views on illegal copying?

[Patricia]

May I remind members of our posting guidelines:
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/faq...ing_guidelines
particularky the first guideline about discussing things politely, avoiding provocation, and personal insults.

If the discussion becomes any more intemperate then we will have to close the thread.

[Scott Nicholson]

As a creator, I fully respect creators' rights to make a living. UI think in my life I have made two CD copies and gave them to friends, which I consider stealing. However, i have taped some CDs for my own personal use, which I don't consider stealing.

As an ebook author and digital publisher, I believe in respecting readers and consumers and leaving copy unprotected while leaving prices low. I wouldn't presume to judge the morality of others because I have enough flaws.

Scott Nicholson
Haunted Computer Books

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by Katti's Cat

...I voted for the first option because anything illegal is wrong....

I must chime in, just to disagree with the above.

If it was true, Katti might not even know how to write the above fallacy, because, you know, in some Godly places it's illegal to teach girls to read and write....

Otherwise, I believe that moral questions aside, if an ebook is priced right and is easy to buy and keep, the majority of potential purchasers will buy it, instead of wasting time scouring the darknet.

[Katti's Cat]

Originally Posted by Sonist

I must chime in, just to disagree with the above.

If it was true, Katti might not even know how to write the above fallacy, because, you know, in some places it's illegal to teach girls to read and write....

You might not like that it is illegal to teach girls to read and write - but as it is the law in those backward place to do so makes it illegal.

And although I might bend the law in some places I am overall a law abiding citizen. Which does not mean that I support backwards, outdated or wrong (in my eyes) laws but would try and change them through demonstrations, letters, support for those who want to change them through peaceful means.

Now if we talk about the morality of some laws - that's a total different song altogether.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by Katti's Cat

... but would try and change them through demonstrations, letters, support for those who want to change them through peaceful means. ...

You do realize that in many of these places "demonstrations, letters, support for those who want to change them" are also generally illegal....

[Katti's Cat]

Originally Posted by Sonist

You do realize that in many of these places "demonstrations, letters, support for those who want to change them" are also generally illegal....

Yep sure do. I did mention that I do bend the law in some cases??? And lucky for me, I do live and have never lived in a country where it's illegal.

[Krystian Galaj]

A few points I'd like to make after reading of this thread.

1. It's n-th incarnation of the same old thread about piracy that's been around here since long before I joined. But every time it's a bit different, and I like reading them like I like boxing matches on TV.

2. I don't see any connection between law of the community I happened to be born in to morality. I didn't have part in putting those laws into existence, I don't have part in fixing them (the thing about voting for the right people is really a cover, and never in my life a person I voted for won the election), I don't agree with most of them, and so I don't internalize them (if I even could, laws of EU count tens of thousands of tomes). I consider them in my actions, even though breaking them and penalties for it are defined more and more vaguely each year, and it's often impossible to find what the law has to say on some matter. So saying that what's illegal is wrong makes no sense to me.

3. Unauthorized copying isn't theft. Copyright violation isn't theft either.

4. One can't be an owner of a piece of information. An idea, a book, or any other piece of information having an owner is nonsense. One can be a creator, or discoverer of it, but everyone reached by this piece of information becomes a discoverer as well.

5. The copyright law is an utilitarian strategy aimed at making writing books profitable. It's long outdated, it's been bloated out of proportion by companies protecting their economic interests, and it does more damage than profit to the public now.

6. There exists a term "intellectual property", IP for short, which incorrectly implies that idea has an owner, and thus does much harm to public opinion on the matter of copyright. Not everyone has inclination to get to the source documents and find out what copyright really is, and naming it "property" makes people treat copyright as law protecting a property, and not just granting a monopoly to that which isn't really anyone's property.

7. I hope the idea of "intellectual property" and copyright will die out in time, and I see indications it will happen. Unfortunately, as the holders of those ideas rarely seem to change their minds, it'll have to be progress by funerals, and might take decades. Alternatively, if big companies make their moves right, it might become a fig leaf for corporate dictatorship across the world. Time will tell.

[Viper187]

I can't stand the way people compare "copyright infringement" with stealing. If I steal your car, you don't have it anymore. If I download a copy of something of yours, I'm not depriving you of anything. All these stats on what file sharing costs companies are complete BS, in my opinion. Just because someone downloaded something doesn't mean they would ever buy it. Plenty of people download things they either wouldn't spend the money on otherwise or can't afford to begin with. It doesn't equal lost sales because there would not have been sales had the free copy not been there.

I also despise the DRM and other security that these companies try to impose to control their content. The way things are right now, Amazon can strip books from your Kindle anytime they want for any reason. The DLC on current game consoles works the same way. When it's gone, it's gone. It's a hassle to transfer between devices if you even can without the company's help, and it's flat out unfriendly to consumers. I do NOT buy anything with DRM. If they can't offer it in a good, unencrypted format, I'm not buying it and I don't think anyone else should. DRM infested content pretty much deserves to get pirated. This also goes for content that you can't actually buy. It's like TV shows. I don't feel that the studios have any right to complain when people are downloading shows that aren't on DVD to begin with. I feel the same about out of print games. I also refuse to use any online activation on PC software/games that I buy. There's always a way to use it offline with no activation and no disc in the drive, whether the companies like it or not.

Another quick thought: I think any site that sells both hard copies and digital copies of books should provide the digital copy free when you buy the hard copy. You shouldn't have to choose between the two or buy both at full price. That's just stupid.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

A few points I'd like to make after reading of this thread.

.....

3. Unauthorized copying isn't theft. Copyright violation isn't theft either.

4. One can't be an owner of a piece of information. An idea, a book, or any other piece of information having an owner is nonsense. One can be a creator, or discoverer of it, but everyone reached by this piece of information becomes a discoverer as well.

5. The copyright law .it's been bloated out of proportion by companies protecting their economic interests, and it does more damage than profit to the public now.

6. There exists a term "intellectual property", IP for short, which incorrectly implies that idea has an owner, and thus does much harm to public opinion on the matter of copyright. .....

....

#3 depends on how the others are defined, so it's null and void.

#4 you are wrong. You are using an outdated understanding of information. In this day and age information has become property whether you agree or not. The laws are moving ever forward in that direction.

#5 yes the copyright laws need to change to match our new definitions, products and properties.

#6 see # 4.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Viper187

I can't stand the way people compare "copyright infringement" with stealing. ...

I'm not "comparing" anything.

I'm saying flat out that taking my property without my permission is theft.

[Krystian Galaj]

Originally Posted by kennyc

#3 depends on how the others are defined, so it's null and void.

I'm not trying to reason with you here. It's been done in other threads. You simply say those are theft, I say they are not. As many times as neccessary, I suppose.

Originally Posted by kennyc

#4 you are wrong. You are using an outdated understanding of information. In this day and age information has become property whether you agree or not. The laws are moving ever forward in that direction.

#5 yes the copyright laws need to change to match our new definitions, products and properties.

#6 see # 4.

You're quite right. The current state of laws makes everyone, or nearly everyone, a criminal, and you can be sure a law can be found to jail you, should the authorities desire so. And since the public understanding of the world moves in different direction than the law, the law will have to be readjusted in time. Hopefully not as violently as in French Revolution.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

I'm not trying to reason with you here. It's been done in other threads. You simply say those are theft, I say they are not. As many times as neccessary, I suppose.
..

I'm just working logically from your enumerated items.

[Krystian Galaj]

Originally Posted by kennyc

#4 you are wrong. You are using an outdated understanding of information. In this day and age information has become property whether you agree or not. The laws are moving ever forward in that direction.

I thought I should further clarify my statement. It's true that it's a long time since this understanding of information was plain in public view, not disfigured by interpretations, and not obscured by law. And it's true that the lawmakers are pushing laws further in this direction. However I still believe that this is the understanding that should prevail, and I don't agree with the idea that it's property (thought it's surely convenient to those who claim ownership of it).

[Krystian Galaj]

I'm sorry; yet another thought has occurred to me.

All I said above might lead you to believe I'm all for anarchy, and authors not getting a cent for what they've endeavoured to create. I'm not - I'm only for having the ideas I outlined clear in public perception. At the same time I hope the technological advancements will lend a hand to the process of publishing, and at some point in the future the official, original release of author's work will be available to the public at one click of a button, professionally edited, free of DRM and geographical restrictions and readable on all or nearly all devices used for reading. I hope that the psychological problem that caused micropayments to fail - that people irrationally stop when it comes to the act of paying anything - will be overcome, and the issues involved with security of payments that make you click through pages of things now will be simplified to one click. Then buying the book will really become much easier than downloading it from the darknet, and the majority of people will do just that. There will always be hoarders of stuff, and sharers of terabytes of it, but those are minorities, and the real customers who don't have time for that stuff, or even learning there is darknet, will choose to buy. It'll be just like going to a bookstore instead of browsing used bookstores, only on the Net.

Because all laws aside, people will want to repay the author for the effort as well.

The sooner the bookstore owners stop trying to outlaw used books trade and make their stores shiny, comfortable, easy to buy in, with polished shelves and cafes inside, and no long chains labelled DRM on the books, the sooner that will happen.

[troymc]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

A few points I'd like to make after reading of this thread.

1. It's n-th incarnation of the same old thread about piracy that's been around here since long before I joined. But every time it's a bit different, and I like reading them like I like boxing matches on TV.

2. I don't see any connection between law of the community I happened to be born in to morality. I didn't have part in putting those laws into existence, I don't have part in fixing them (the thing about voting for the right people is really a cover, and never in my life a person I voted for won the election), I don't agree with most of them, and so I don't internalize them (if I even could, laws of EU count tens of thousands of tomes). I consider them in my actions, even though breaking them and penalties for it are defined more and more vaguely each year, and it's often impossible to find what the law has to say on some matter. So saying that what's illegal is wrong makes no sense to me.

3. Unauthorized copying isn't theft. Copyright violation isn't theft either.

4. One can't be an owner of a piece of information. An idea, a book, or any other piece of information having an owner is nonsense. One can be a creator, or discoverer of it, but everyone reached by this piece of information becomes a discoverer as well.

5. The copyright law is an utilitarian strategy aimed at making writing books profitable. It's long outdated, it's been bloated out of proportion by companies protecting their economic interests, and it does more damage than profit to the public now.

6. There exists a term "intellectual property", IP for short, which incorrectly implies that idea has an owner, and thus does much harm to public opinion on the matter of copyright. Not everyone has inclination to get to the source documents and find out what copyright really is, and naming it "property" makes people treat copyright as law protecting a property, and not just granting a monopoly to that which isn't really anyone's property.

7. I hope the idea of "intellectual property" and copyright will die out in time, and I see indications it will happen. Unfortunately, as the holders of those ideas rarely seem to change their minds, it'll have to be progress by funerals, and might take decades. Alternatively, if big companies make their moves right, it might become a fig leaf for corporate dictatorship across the world. Time will tell.

Well said! I could not agree more!


Troy