What are your views on illegal copying?

[kazbates]

Originally Posted by tompe

And here you are assuming it is ordinary property. Can you explain why it is OK to copy somebody else property (according to you terms) 70 years after his death? If it is his property what gives you the right to copy it? Why can he not give his property to somebody else before he die or in his will?

I'm not assuming anything. I don't know how you would define "ordinary property" and it is not a term I would use.

The law is the law. You can split hairs all you like, but the law clearly defines when a "published" document will enter the public domain. Trying to spin it doesn't change the law.

[troymc]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

If it doesn't retain relevance, it tends to only be of interest to academic scholars after a century or so

hmm, caught red-handed! I actually was thinking of ancient greek philosophical works when I responded...

Plato, Aristotle, et al. held no relevance for centuries and were nearly lost - but no one seriously doubts their greatness.

Without annotations we would not have a deep enough understanding to know whether the work held any relevance. "βασιλέως στοάν" - Porch of the King Archon's court? Oh! That's the highest court of ancient Greece - where you get tried for your life for crimes like treason or impiety. It doesn't get more serious than that! The beginning of Euthyphro is that much clearer now.

And being educated in U.S. public schools of the 70s/80s, I had no way of understanding the many English-isms in Alice.

"How queer it seems," Alice said to herself, "to be going messages for a rabbit!"

"Going messages?" Ok, I'm lost! Oh! That means "running errands" - thank you Martin Gardner!


So I guess I'm just a musty old scholar...


Troy

[DawnFalcon]

Relevance can come and go again

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by kazbates

Twisting a statement to suit your purposes has pretty much been the standard in this thread. There is no true justification for pirating someone else's property (whether digital or physical). The main excuses by those who do it is that they want it so they take it and since it's only a "copy" they aren't really hurting anyone. I think if you were the one who sweated heart and soul to produce something for which you would like compensation, you would feel quite differently.

There seems to be a misconception held by a number of people that it's necessary to be in favour of "pirating" in order to argue that it's not theft. It is not necessary. The legal position is quite clear, however, and doesn't require any twisting of statements.

Whether unauthorised copying should be treated as theft is another question (I would argue no, but others have argued it should).

Whether unauthorised copying is wrong, when the author has not been compensated (and it would have been practical to do so) is a further, different question (I would say that this is wrong).

I have put a lot of work into producing something (writing software as it happens) that I wanted compensation for - and for which I was compensated by the people who paid. But not everyone paid. I would not want those who copied my software to be branded as thieves. What would upset me would be someone else trying to profit by selling my work on (but that hasn't happened).

I think that the majority of people who are arguing that copying is not theft etc. are keen to see authors compensated, and have purchased plenty of ebooks. It's just that their view is more nuanced than "piracy is good" or "piracy is bad".

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

[SNIP]
I have several problems with IP:

1) if it's property, why does it revert to public domain after a time? It would make sense for it to stay a property and licence forever. It's said that it's not really a property, but it's called property. Bad naming.

[BIG SNIP]

With respect to this, you may find it instructive to look up the concept of a "leasehold." When you hold a long-term lease on a property—the 99-year ground-leases often found in Hawaii are a good example—you have the right to continue to occupy the property and to use it as though it were yours through the end of the lease... as long as you keep making the lease payments, of course. The interesting thing is that a leasehold is often treated as a time-limited property right. It can be sold to another person. It can be used as collateral on a bank loan. It can be treated as an asset under GAAP (that's Generally Accepted Accounting Principals, for those who may be having trouble with the alphabet soup).

A leasehold is a physical-world property right that is remarkably similar to Intellectual Property. It's only temporarily yours, and will eventually revert to the "real" owner. In my Hawaiian long-term ground lease example, that's most likely to be one of the old noble (or royal) families of Hawaii. For a copyright or patent, the "real owner" is... everyone. The people as a whole.

Xenophon

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by tompe

Well, I am reading it as they are saying that is is morally equivalent to theft and then also equivalent in the underlying reasons for why it is morally wrong. And then you have without discussion just assumed what you need to show and what I believe you cannot show to hold.

No, I have not been engaged in the discussion of whether it is morally equivalent to theft.

I am merely stating that it is not legally equivalent to theft. It is probably better understood in law as a breach of contract, or maybe, a tort. I dunno - haven't thought that through very deeply. Legally speaking, I know what it isn't, but I'm not sure what it is...

But now that you ask, no, on the whole, I not do think that copying a book is morally equivalent to theft.

Now, copying a book certainly is not theft itself. Otherwise, we wouldn't have to use the word "equivalent." Nor have I in any way deprived the owner of the original book of his right to enjoy the book. He still has it & can read it whenever he'd like. So I don't see how, with respect to the owner, there is any equivalency.

So the equivalent "theft" must be taking place with respect to the author. What is being stolen must be his right to sell me a copy of his book. But that right is not unlimited.

He doesn't have the right, for example, to make me buy a copy of the book rather than borrow or buy the original book and read it myself.

Nor, once I own a copy of the book, does he have the right to make me buy another copy if I want to read it more than once.

Nor does he have the right to keep me from photocopying the book in order to read the photocopy.

But what about this: suppose my brother and I go halves on buying a copy of a book. We both own the book. How can making a copy be theft if, as the half-owner of the book, I have the right to make a copy for my own use?

Or this: suppose I offer to pay the my brother half the cost of the book after he bought it, then make my own copy to read? How can it make a difference when I "bought in" to the book?

I could go on & on with this. We all sort of think that the author has the right to the fruits of his labor, and that there ought to be a way to make sure he gets a fair deal, if only to keep the creativity coming. Yet when we try to express that right in moral terms, it seems to evaporate.

So I don't think that there is any moral equivalency involved here at all. The whole thing is a matter of what the law says, or does not say.

And the law does not say that copying is theft.

[MrBlueSky]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

It might as well be when it starts making sense.

I have several problems with IP:

1) if it's property, why does it revert to public domain after a time? It would make sense for it to stay a property and licence forever. It's said that it's not really a property, but it's called property. Bad naming.

With respect to Xenophon, leasehold in nothing like copyright. Leasehold is a rent paid to a freeholder (the owner of a property) for a fixed term. Copyright on the other hand is a licence granted by the government to an individual on the expression of an idea in a fixed format that gives that individual an exclusive right to exploit this expression (authorise the distribution of copies) for a limited time. A freeholder always owns the property, the copyright holder owns nothing.

In truth, everything enters the public domain at the instant it is created. The very moment an author puts the last full stop on his manuscript — it belongs to me (and you, and all of society). The author has only been granted a licence to exploit, but not any ownership rights at all. That makes sense logically, because if the work in question did not belong to you and me (society) in the first instance — then government does not have any ability to grant a monopoly sub-licence for something it does not own (on our behalf). I’m constantly amazed how authors can have so little grasp of the fundamentals of the mechanism by which they purport to make a living from. I sometimes thing that, if an author is unable to grasp such a simple concept — how trustworthy should I take what they actually do write about

That is why all this talk about intellectual property is just so much nonsense. It’s a fiction dreamed up by the monopoly hoarders in an attempt to justify their increasingly abuses of the copyright laws for their own benefit (copyright, patent and trademark). All they are trying to do is link the three distinct strands of monopoly practice into one idea so that they can use the different (and unique) qualities of each to mutually support their attempts at more and more restrictions on fair use rights (what they call loopholes in the current law). Any author who tries to claims ownership is a thief. THEY are the ones doing the stealing. They are fraudulently claiming something for themselves that does not belong to them. What they should be saying, is that the hold a monopoly licence to exploit a product for their sole benefit.

Ideas are not property — its ludicrous to suggest otherwise. A monopoly on distributing copies of the expression of an idea is in no way, shape or form anything like the ownership of a property. It’s just a simple licence, no more and no less. And, as we are all being constantly told, e-books are licensed copies only, WE do not OWN them! And THAT'S under the same precious copyright legislation that the copyright hoarders are now trying to claim ownership rights over the product they produce. Talk about double standards!

In a way, this is why so many copyright hoarders tie themselves in knots trying to justify their unnatural practices. Practically all the supporters of the existing status quo bend over backwards trying not to use the word INFRINGEMENT when talking about copying files or downloading them. The reason for that is because they would then have to explain exactly why I should have to pay an author for seventy years after they die, why I should have to pay for exactly the same product multiple times, and why I should not be able to make use of a product if it’s not actively being exploited by anybody.

It’s easier to deliberately mislead discussions by calling file-sharers thieves because it deflects the spotlight from their shady activities which, when the dust settles, are far far more morally and ethically unworthy than anything a file-sharer may get up to. They use language in an attempt to make others believe that they are the good guys and we are the bad ones, while all the time, it is they who are the weasel worded manipulators and mis-informers.
You can tell the people arguing from a morally bankrupt position by the language they use, and especially by the language they do NOT use

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Harmon

No, I have not been engaged in the discussion of whether it is morally equivalent to theft.

Sorry if I was unclear. I was not referring to what you had written. I was guessing about some peoples intention with the theft misnomer. If they just wanted to say it was morally wrong they could call it murder or fraud or some other crime.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by tompe

Sorry if I was unclear. I was not referring to what you had written. I was guessing about some peoples intention with the theft misnomer. If they just wanted to say it was morally wrong they could call it murder or fraud or some other crime.

In the context of this forum, it probably would be more clear if they did something along the line you suggest. But murder or even fraud overstates it. Maybe...I dunno...ticket scalping?

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Harmon

There are all sorts of legal concepts that disappear, or are replaced by new ones as times change. The oath of fealty is an example. Made sense under feudalism. Not very useful for democracy, but in some sense has been replaced by citizenship - and citizenship itself is changing and might seem quaint in a hundred years or so. I think that IP is going down the same road. Some vestige of the concept will linger, like the Cheshire Cat's smile, even where physical products have been supplanted by digital ones, but eventually, the whole cat will be gone.

There's one caveat, though. It might be that the political and economic power of corporate entities intent on maintaining the concept of IP in the areas of patent and trademark will prevail to such an extent that the concept of IP in the area of copyright will continue to exist.

I could make an analogy to slavery in the US, which continued to exist despite being a vestige of a pre-industrial economy, because of the political power of the southern states, coupled with the economic interests in the slaveholding economy. It took a war to change the law.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Harmon

There's one caveat, though. It might be that the political and economic power of corporate entities intent on maintaining the concept of IP in the areas of patent and trademark will prevail to such an extent that the concept of IP in the area of copyright will continue to exist.

I could make an analogy to slavery in the US, which continued to exist despite being a vestige of a pre-industrial economy, because of the political power of the southern states, coupled with the economic interests in the slaveholding economy. It took a war to change the law.

The changes you envision would make the authors and publishers slaves. They would work for free without payments. Admittedly, in a way illegal copying is not exactly equivalent to theft since the original still remains with the owner (though what you are actually stealing is the exclusive right to make copies) it is equivalent to rape. You violate another persons right, without actually taking something physical from them. And yes, I am fully in favor of all normal exceptions for private use.

[kazbates]

Originally Posted by Harmon

In the context of this forum, it probably would be more clear if they did something along the line you suggest. But murder or even fraud overstates it. Maybe...I dunno...ticket scalping?

How about keeping it simple and to the point, "infringers".

A word, is a word, is a word, is a word. Quibbling over and taking umbrage with a noun diminishes the discussion.

[HansTWN]

And "ticket scalping" is the least appropriate of all. Printing your own tickets, that would actually fit the bill.

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by kazbates

TI do know, however, what the law states and pirating something for your own use without the consent of the owner is . . . wait for it . . . illegal.

Hmm...so now the test is 'consent of the owner of the book'? Poor authors, kicked to the curb again.

If ownership is the standard, then if I indicate my consent to allow anyone who wishes to to read the book I just bought by uploading it to a dozen torrent sites, that's fine, since anybody reading it has the consent of the owner of that book.

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

Whether unauthorised copying is wrong, when the author has not been compensated (and it would have been practical to do so) is a further, different question (I would say that this is wrong).

The bolded bit is important. I used to buy a lot of paper books (I'm trying to quit the habit - so far I've been clean for almost a year). As a general rule, I bought my books new, but if the book wasn't in print, I bought it used, knowing perfectly well the author wasn't getting a penny of the sale price. If there'd been a practical means to compensate the author(s) I certainly would have done so.

What would upset me would be someone else trying to profit by selling my work on (but that hasn't happened).

Doesn't happen much, at least on a retail level, in the Industrial North-West, but is not uncommon in other parts of the world. I used to live in Chile, and one year the year's top selling book wasn't available for legal sale - it got slapped with an injunction about a day after it was published and pulled from all the bookstores (life lesson: if you're going to accuse lawyers, by name, of corruption, make sure they aren't best friends with high court judges), so the 'pirate publishers' began cranking out massive unauthorized print runs, and within a day the book was for sale in every market and every other street-corner. Same thing happened to other best-sellers, which were sometimes available on the street months before they were for sale in the stores (generally somebody would import a copy from Spain and use that to create new copies).