I'm sending a message to publishers.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

In other words, people's hackles get raised when you talk about stealing. They don't when you talk about intellectual "property" violations.

But they both should raise people's hackles and I hate that they don't. I have no respect for people who support breaking copyright, violating intellectual property violations etc. I'm fully with the content creators and publishers on that front.

To the OP, go ahead and send the check. I'll laugh happily if they find a way to send you a fine for admitting violating copyright laws. Very, very unlikely that they'd bother though.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore

Confusing the two does nothing but confuse the relevant ethical discourse to the benefit of the entrenched powers.

In many cases, those who confuse the two are intentionally doing so for exactly that reason.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Do you take other things without paying for them if you think that they are too expensive?

All the time... it's called a library.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

To the OP, go ahead and send the check. I'll laugh happily if they find a way to send you a fine for admitting violating copyright laws. Very, very unlikely that they'd bother though.

How exactly is a private business going to legally send you a fine?

The most they could do is try to take you to court, but as you say it's doubtful they would even care, and extremely unlikely they'd win. I don't think they can find you guilty of something just because you claimed to have done it, with no other proof/evidence.

[dmaul1114]

Yeah, like I said no way they could do it.

In criminal court, a written confession would be enough--not sure about civil court. In a criminal case the challenge would be proving the letter and check were sent by the person in question. Not hard to do as even if the letter is typed, the check will have a signature and they could get a handwriting expert to confirm it was their signature etc.

No publisher is going to go to that kind of trouble to try to win a law suit over an illegally obtained book, but I'd laugh at the OP if he tried for being willing to admit breaking a civil law to make a silly point.

Vs. doing the moral thing and just doing without the book (or getting it from the library) and sending a letter explaining why they weren't purchasing the e-book.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

In criminal court, a written confession would be enough

If they can prove that a crime actually existed.

I don't think someone can confess to something that never happened, and end up getting convicted for it. If they try to use the letter against you, just claim "oh, I just made that up to make a point, I didn't really download anything". They wouldn't have a leg to stand on unless they could show that the offense actually occurred.

[dmaul1114]

Yeah, it gets into who's word they believe. In the criminal case the first step for the prosecution/police would be to get a search warrant and seize the person's computer and e-reader to prove that they have the copy of the file. Then they have that along with the written confession, signed check etc.

Again, WAY too much effort for them to bother, especially with one book. That's the problem with enforcing copyright violations, it's so much effort to detect and gather evidence to prove. So there left only going after major offenders who are downloading and sharing tons of content on p2p, torrents etc.

At least with physical goods, shoplifting can be enforced. When it comes to getting digital content without paying for it, they basically have no way to go after the small timers so there's very little deterrence.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

Yeah, it gets into who's word they believe. In the criminal case the first step for the prosecution/police would be to get a search warrant and seize the person's computer and e-reader to prove that they have the copy of the file. Then they have that along with the written confession, signed check etc.

Even that wouldn't matter. Proving they have a copy of the file does not prove HOW they got that copy. Possession of a file has nothing to do with copyright infringement.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Even that wouldn't matter. Proving they have a copy of the file does not prove HOW they got that copy. Possession of a file has nothing to do with copyright infringement.

Yes, but remember in this scenario they'd have a letter saying he pirated it, and a signed check that can verify that it was him who mailed the letter and check.

Having that admission AND the file on their systems would be enough for most judge's/jury's in my experience. As they have the admission, and proof that they did have a copy of the file in question. Many people are found guilty on circumstantial evidence a lot weaker than that.

Now again, this would be a civil suit, and I'm not as familiar with the civil system--but at the same time the burden of proof is lower there--preponderance of the evidence instead of beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

Yes, but remember in this scenario they'd have a letter saying he pirated it, and a signed check that can verify that it was him who mailed the letter and check.

But zero evidence that there was an actual crime. There's a big difference between having a letter from somebody claiming to have committed a crime without any evidence that it actually happened, versus finding a particular person guilty of a known crime based on a confession to that crime.

Many people are found guilty on circumstantial evidence a lot weaker than that.

You're talking about circumstantial evidence that links them to the crime... not circumstantial evidence that the crime itself existed.

[dmaul1114]

I think that would hold up in court. Having a written statement saying they committed a crime, and then finding the file would probably be enough in most courtrooms based on my experience. Would vary by judge/jury, but that would be enough for most IMO.

They said they downloaded it illegally, are tied to that statement by the signature on the check, and a search proved that they did have a copy of the file.

That's going to be enough to sway most judges/juries that they did obtain a copy of the file illegally.

Plus, if the OP isn't a wimp, he'd stick to his story that he downloaded it illegally to protest the pricing, even in threat of legal action.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

I think that would hold up in court.

I certainly hope that a legal system wouldn't convict people for crimes that never existed. This is different from convicting the wrong person of a crime, but is more like convicting someone of an imaginary crime. We're both just speculating though.

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Perhaps you'd be good enough to point out where I said that it was?

You asked him if he took other things without paying if he thought the price was too high. To take something (i.e. to take for one's own use while depriving another person of that use) with out permission or compensation is a reasonable definition of stealing. He has not taken something in the sense that he as denied another person the use of that thing; he made an unauthorized copy. You are right, you did not directly say that he was stealing. The rhetorical weight of your statement lies in the equivocal use of the word "take." Taking a file (i.e. making a copy) is not the same thing as taking a CD. Your statement implies that it is. If that is not your meaning, however, I apologize for my misreading.

Luqman

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

I certainly hope that a legal system wouldn't convict people for crimes that never existed. This is different from convicting the wrong person of a crime, but is more like convicting someone of an imaginary crime. We're both just speculating though.

Yeah, just speculating.

But when the case is:

1. A person has a written statement saying they broke the law/regulation
2. A signature that can be verified as theirs that proves the confession was theres.
3. A copy of the file they say the illegally downloaded.


I think that's enough for most judges/jury's to believe a law was broken and the person did committed it.

And perhaps there could be more evidence if they really wanted to dig into it (which again they wouldn't). Records from the ISP that show the file was downloaded and from what site/torrent etc.

[luqmaninbmore]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

But they both should raise people's hackles and I hate that they don't. I have no respect for people who support breaking copyright, violating intellectual property violations etc. I'm fully with the content creators and publishers on that front.

Why? Why does it "raise your hackles"? Why does copying files elicit an emotional response? I think what the original poster did was not only ethical (although, a case could be made that he should have sent something to the publishers for their editorial and PR efforts) but also a liberating gesture: a concrete step to re-implementing the gift culture which can liberate the arts from the oppressive heel of Capitalism. Heck, even a return to the patronage system may be preferable. It would certainly serve to filter out crap and it has been applied viably to digital artwork.

Luqman