What are your views on illegal copying?

[Harmon]

Anyone remember the "aether?" From Wikipedia:

In the late 19th century, "luminiferous aether" (or "ether"), meaning light-bearing aether, was the term used to describe a medium for the propagation of light.[1] ...

Later theories including special relativity were formulated without the concept of aether. Today the idea of aether, what Albert Michelson called "one of the grandest generalizations of modern science", is regarded as a superseded scientific theory.

Aether made sense for a while:

In addition, Maxwell's equations required that all electromagnetic waves in vacuum propagate at a fixed speed, c. As this can only occur in one reference frame in Newtonian physics (see Galilean-Newtonian relativity), the aether was hypothesized as the absolute and unique frame of reference in which Maxwell's equations hold....

Nevertheless, by this point the mechanical qualities of the aether had become more and more magical: it had to be a fluid in order to fill space, but one that was millions of times more rigid than steel in order to support the high frequencies of light waves. It also had to be massless and without viscosity, otherwise it would visibly affect the orbits of planets. Additionally it appeared it had to be completely transparent, non-dispersive, incompressible, and continuous at a very small scale.[3]

Maxwell wrote in Encyclopedia Britannica:[4]

Aethers were invented for the planets to swim in, to constitute electric atmospheres and magnetic effluvia, to convey sensations from one part of our bodies to another, and so on, until all space had been filled three or four times over with aethers.... The only aether which has survived is that which was invented by Huygens to explain the propagation of light.

Contemporary scientists were aware of the problems, but aether theory was so entrenched in physical law by this point that it was simply assumed to exist. In 1908 Oliver Lodge gave a speech in behalf of Lord Rayleigh [5] to the Royal Institution on this topic, in which he outlined its physical properties, and then attempted to offer reasons why they were not impossible.

Intellectual Property is the aether of law. In time, IP will disappear. Meanwhile, it will be like Huygens aether, lingering in places while we struggle to develop a legal structure which will support an economic system to achieve our cultural and scientific objectives without trying to deny technological realities.

[kennyc]

Anyone remember "Gravity"

well there is no such thing, it's actually a curvature of space.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Anyone remember "Gravity"

well there is no such thing, it's actually a curvature of space.

A curvature of space-time, if we're being accurate. But so what - it's still "gravity"!

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by HarryT

A curvature of space-time, if we're being accurate. But so what - it's still "gravity"!

To be super-pedantic, we have a more recent model of the phenomena that we call gravity - where we model it as curvature of space-time - which fits known observations better than our previous models.

But to say that gravity is our current model is a mistake - the map is not the territory.

Having said that, Havnon's idea about laws being analagous to theories - perhaps theories about social engineering to reach the optimal outcome - is interesting. It leads to the idea that they should not be seen as sacrosanct, but rather our best attempt to date at regulating society's conflicting interests.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by HarryT

A curvature of space-time, if we're being accurate. But so what - it's still "gravity"!

This was in response to Harmon's Aether posting. Just to show it can go both ways -- sometimes the things we believe turn out to be false, sometimes true.

Intellectual Property is the curvature of space time.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

...

Having said that, Havnon's idea about laws being analagous to theories - perhaps theories about social engineering to reach the optimal outcome - is interesting. It leads to the idea that they should not be seen as sacrosanct, but rather our best attempt to date at regulating society's conflicting interests.

Which is exactly what I've been saying about "laws" all along.

They are the current best implementation of what a particular society thinks is right, they change, they are in flux. They have to change in response to their environment just like life responds through evolution. Just like scientific theories evolve when new information (damn! There's that word again!) is discovered.

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I've often wondered why publishers don't scour newsgroups & the torrent sites for bootleg ebooks, and then edit those by comparing with the print edition, instead of starting with scans and lousy OCR.

Don't know of any book publishers who have, but I do know of some authors who are putting their own e-books out who've used such files as a starting point.

I can't recall off-hand which computer game publisher, when they 'graciously' decided to remove the DRM from a couple of year old title, grabbed a No-CD patch from a torrent and published it as an official patch.

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by kazbates

Why do you believe that you are so deserving of something that you take it without giving compensation to the true owners?

Ask yourself that next time you buy a used book, check a book out of the library (in many countries), borrow a book from a friend, or even read a newspaper somebody discarded on a park bench, as in every case you are "taking it without giving compensation to the true owners". I'll be curious to hear your answer.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by kennyc

They are the current best implementation of what a particular society thinks is right, they change, they are in flux.

That doesn't give you the right to misuse words one step ahead of what they actually are. It just means you're misusing words.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Pardoz

Ask yourself that next time you buy a used book, check a book out of the library (in many countries), borrow a book from a friend, or even read a newspaper somebody discarded on a park bench, as in every case you are "taking it without giving compensation to the true owners". I'll be curious to hear your answer.

Not true. This is part of law as discussed above in the "First Sale Doctrine"

Illegal copying/Piracy often involves taking a copy from a source that never originally compensated the author and it does not nullify/destroy the original.

A very different situation.

[kazbates]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

In the UK it's quite common these days to see parents giving their children food off the shelves in supermarkets without paying for it. The children eat the stuff as they wander round, and the supermarkets don't seem to care.

'Stealing' is a part of our culture now.

I've seen that happen, too. It didn't used to be that way and if that is the trend, I believe it shows how much our society has digressed.

When I was young, our local grocery store had big bins of candy that you could bag up and have weighed at the cash register at check-out. When my mother's back was turned, my brothers and I each took a piece of candy and ate it. When my mother realized what we had done. She marched us to the store manager and made us apologize. She added 3 pieces of candy to the bag, had the cashier weigh it and then removed them from the original bag and gave them back to the cashier. When we got home, we had to pay for the candy from our piggy banks and then were punished for the transgression.

I thank my mother every day for instilling good values in me and I hope I've done the same with my own children. Laws and moral values are important to sustain a functioning society.

Originally Posted by GhostHawk

You want an honest answer Kazbates, I'll give you one.

<SNIP>

It seems to me that you have a lot of anger towards your current situation which you are using to justify illegal behaviour. I'm truly sorry for your troubles and hope that things will improve for you.

Originally Posted by Jack Tingle

What part of "illegal" is giving people problems?

You can work towards changing a law. You can militate for publishers to change the way they do business. You can even start your own business and run it your way. Breaking the law is still wrong. You may do like Thoreau and Ghandi, and break it, go to jail, pay the penalty and use that as a bully pulpit, but it's still wrong, even in a good cause.

Now, where the law is currently unclear is what is "illegal". If you get an ebook and put it into a torrent for all the world to read, that's clearly illegal. It's less clearly illegal if you sell an ebook you paid for to someone and erase all of your copies. It's very unclear whether you're allowed to format shift a book you paid for.

Don't you love simple answers?

Regards,
Jack Tingle

Very well said.

It seems to me many of the posters have a problem with the words "theft" and "stealing". I tried not to use them in my posting but I can only assume they were derived from my statement. Don't get hung up on the semantics. Look at the laws. Whether you agree with them or not, they are still there. The problem is that, as I stated before, they are not clearly defined for our digital age. I also already explained that the same arguments you find here are those that were made for copying music and movies. If you make a copy it is not "gone" as a candy bar would be that's obvious. However, you still now own something that the law required you to make compensation to the seller for your right to own. Making a illegal copy is no different than walking into BestBuy, taking a DVD of the shelf and walking out without paying. You might not like the comparison, but it is accurate.

If you don't like the current copyright infringement laws, work to change them.

Originally Posted by Pardoz

Ask yourself that next time you buy a used book, check a book out of the library (in many countries), borrow a book from a friend, or even read a newspaper somebody discarded on a park bench, as in every case you are "taking it without giving compensation to the true owners". I'll be curious to hear your answer.

I've already brought up the question of a second-hand book in a previous posting so won't address that here. I pay property taxes in my country which are used to support our local library. The library purchases the books and (although I honestly don't know how it works) makes some compensation to the publishing company and thus the author. I don't borrow books, I purchase them because I am a pack rat and like to have my own things, but if I did, it is legal to do so in the US. I don't pick up discarded newspapers and read them. With the exception of your last "newspaper" point, the law clearly defines legal usage.

I follow the law. That's my answer.

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Illegal copying/Piracy often involves taking a copy from a source that never originally compensated the author and it does not nullify/destroy the original.

Well, in the first case I guess it's possible if you bought a used book and scanned it, but the original "theft" there took place when you bought the used book, not when you scanned it. And since when do you care what the law says? I thought it was all about a moral position, regardless of the legal realities?

Did you steal the "It's theft because nobody took it from me, but if somebody takes it from me it isn't theft" argument from the Rev. Dodgson?

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by kazbates

It seems to me many of the posters have a problem with the words "theft" and "stealing". I tried not to use them in my posting but I can only assume they were derived from my statement. Don't get hung up on the semantics. Look at the laws. Whether you agree with them or not, they are still there.

The discussion preceded your post. The point, though, is that according to the law, copying is not theft. That's the point - look at the laws indeed.

I follow the law. That's my answer.

You are Judge Dredd and I claim my £5.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by kazbates

...

I thank my mother every day for instilling good values in me and I hope I've done the same with my own children. Laws and moral values are important to sustain a functioning society.


.....

Agreed. And the current lack of such in our leaders, both political and business is very disturbing.

[kazbates]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

The discussion preceded your post. The point, though, is that according to the law, copying is not theft. That's the point - look at the laws indeed.

You are Judge Dredd and I claim my £5.

You completely missed my point. I have not called it theft, etc., I called it illegal, which it is.

To be honest, I had no idea who Judge Dredd is until I googled it and still have no clue as to your reference.

Originally Posted by kennyc

Agreed. And the current lack of such in our leaders, both political and business is very disturbing.

Amen!!!