I have found numerous pirated ebooks for free online. Please tell me the benefits of

[DiapDealer]

I agree that many people's definitions of "stealing" are too narrow. Nobody bats an eye at stealing time, or stealing a kiss, or stealing away, or stolen moments, or stealing ideas, or stealing hearts, or any other esoteric use of the word. But as soon as someone mentions stealing ebooks/IP, people want to get all stuffy and rigid with their definitions. It's quite tiresome, actually. People consuming something they're not entitled to consume without paying the person who is entitled to be paid for said consumption is theft by any reasonable societal standard. They may never be legally convicted of theft, but they have stolen something just the same.

[BookCat]

The guy in my example stole money: the income of the library owner, who could equate to an author or publishing house.

Why would the library owner bother establishing another library; why would the author who is not being paid royalties bother to write another book (except for love of writing)?

The thing which has been stolen is not the a physical item, like a book, but money and the means of earning it.

Seems to me that the law hasn't caught up with technology.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by BookCat

The guy in my example stole money: the income of the library owner, who could equate to an author or publishing house.

Why would the library owner bother establishing another library; why would the author who is not being paid royalties bother to write another book (except for love of writing)?

The thing which has been stolen is not the a physical item, like a book, but money and the means of earning it.

Seems to me that the law hasn't caught up with technology.

I agree. (When I say "you" In this post, BC, I'm not speaking to you, I'm speaking generally to anyone arguing that infringement is not "theft" or "stealing.")

The person who scanned the books has most certainly "stolen" something in the wider use of vernacular; he has stolen the Library owner's livelihood. Assuming that the library owner was possibly paying the authors a wee fee, each time the book was borrowed, in our fantasy library, the authors, too, are being deprived of income. (This scenario obviously is more relevant to self-pubbed authors selling online whose books are pirated...)

Arguably, the person who scanned the books might not be 'stealing.' He was violating copyright, by agreeing to solely BORROW a printed book from our Fantasy Library, but instead, helping himself to the book, via scanning. He has produced a second copy of the book, sans payment. You can wrap that up in all the nice legalities (like "copyright infringement") that you wish, but now, he can lend his copy of a book to a 3rd party, and not be deprived of his version, himself, unlike anyone who has a physical copy, or someone who has an ebook purchased through Amazon, etc. No matter how you slice it, another copy of each scanned book has come to exist, sans proper payment to the originators/publishers/authors. For each instance of the scanned book.

It really isn't more complicated than that. Another copy exists, and the publisher wasn't paid. It's worsened when that illicit 2nd copy then goes on to have another life of its own, all unpaid, whether it's one copy "to a friend" or 500 copies to your closest and best friends on Kim Dotcomm's latest file-sharing service.

If the Scanning-borrower had "only" kept the scanned copies for himself, it's unlikely that anyone would care. Still wrong, but...not remotely damaging to the publisher, in that instance.

But the moment that he offers them to others, either for free or very cheaply, he's depriving those who published those books of their rightful shekels.

Yes, I'm aware of the (endless) arguments that the downloader "wouldn't have bought the book anyway," thus, the author is being deprived of nothing. Fine--then the downloader should not get the VALUE of the book, the reading of it, because he didn't pay. It's that simple.

I do not understand the shruggery-argument that "oh, well, he wouldn't have paid anyway," as if that makes it okay. I mean, how is that different than, "well, this person would never have made enough money to buy a BMW, so it's okay that he stole it instead, and has the use of it"? Sure, you can argue that in the case of the books, the Fantasy Library still has their physical copies, whilst the victim in the stolen car case doesn't, but, morally, what's the difference? Why should the downloader be rewarded with getting the VALUE of the book, without paying for it?

To me, really, it's that simple. People get their knickers in a twist, because it's digital. Nobody would even blink at the "stealing" word, if instead of scanning books, the borrower simply KEPT the physical books. We'd all agree that was theft, and if he, in turn, scanned that book in print, produced his OWN print books, and sold them online for $1 each, instead of $14.99 or whatever, there'd be no argument. It would be infringement and more.

But, because a "book" is now a digital file, there's this greywater mindset that somehow, it's NOT a book. It doesn't have the same "value." It's something less than a book. But of course, it does have value. The value of a book, really, is in the reading of it. Yes, print books can be resold--an unavoidable difference, that gives them "more" value than an ebook--but hte value doesn't dissapear, just because the words are pixels, and not paper.

Perhaps the answer is to agree that print books have a resale value, that digital doesn't, and all agree to that. But that does not change a single thing, in terms of the idea that if you download a book from a pirate site, you're getting value for which you are quite simply not paying. It's not manna from heaven--when you don't pay, you are taking money from the author's pockets. Want to say that you wouldn't have paid, anyway? Fine--then don't read the book. Like anything else in life, you get what you pay for.
Don't pay? Don't read. Anything else is simply rationalization.

Spoiler:

Sorry, but this "oh, it's only a digital file" s**t really gets up my nose. It's the same mindset that people {authors} used, to STEAL from me, the first two years I was open, and stupidly allowed people to pay upon completion.

We had thefts of $10K and $12K, the first two years, because, hey, it's JUST a computer file, right? Nobody thinks about all the time, and work, and sweat that went into it, and feel perfectly justified in walking away with it unpaid-for. I put a stop to that, but I know all too well, first-hand, that when you TAKE a digital file, for which you have not paid, someone, somewhere, is paying for that, FOR YOU. You want to quibble about whether or not that's legally "theft," quibble on, but morally, there's no goddamned difference. Every single one of those a***oles thought it was just fine to put it up on Amazon, and sell it--to benefit, from OUR work, sans payment. Now...they were in for a rude surprise, when I informed Amazon that it was our work product--but the author of a pirated book doesn't have that remedy.

Hitch

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by BookCat

The guy in my example stole money: the income of the library owner, who could equate to an author or publishing house.

Why would the library owner bother establishing another library; why would the author who is not being paid royalties bother to write another book (except for love of writing)?

The thing which has been stolen is not the a physical item, like a book, but money and the means of earning it.

Seems to me that the law hasn't caught up with technology.

That's a bit like claiming that anyone who comes in a sets up a second store where only one had existed is stealing from the previous store. Your example is functionally no different that someone setting up a new ebook store and creating ebooks from books he purchased elsewhere. The loss for the first store owner is the same regardless of where the ebook store owner got the books. As the good lawyer said earlier, in your example, the ebook owner is guilty of copyright violation and contract violation, not theft.

[Thasaidon]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

That's a bit like claiming that anyone who comes in a sets up a second store where only one had existed is stealing from the previous store. Your example is functionally no different that someone setting up a new ebook store and creating ebooks from books he purchased elsewhere. The loss for the first store owner is the same regardless of where the ebook store owner got the books. As the good lawyer said earlier, in your example, the ebook owner is guilty of copyright violation and contract violation, not theft.

Nice point.

In fact I actually heard a shopkeeper complaining that a new shop which had opened up nearby was "'stealing' his trade and customers". I and other customers in the area did not agree with his description of the situation.

[barryem]

Originally Posted by BookCat

Under barryem and my friend's definition of 'theft' Joe didn't steal from the library owner. But I contend that in 'stealing' the content of the books he's deprived the library owner of his income, therefore has stolen money from him.

So despite the fact that none of the books from the library were permanently taken by Joe, the effect was the same.

barryem's and my friend's definition of stealing is too narrow, in my opinion.

This discussion went on for about two hours.

I think we can agree that Joe did something wrong; probably even criminal. I think "cheating" might describe it better than stealing. But stealing does carry more emotional weight so it's a more popular choice to describe something you hate.

A few weeks ago a bunch of us were talking over coffee here in my retirement home and someone mentioned abortion. I forget the reference. A woman sitting next to me exclaimed "But abortion is murder!" I explained that murder is a legal term that means the unlawful taking of a life and that since abortion is legal it's not murder. I even googled "murder" and pulled up the definition to show her. She finally agreed that it wasn't murder.

A few days later someone else mentioned abortion and again she exclaimed that abortion is murder. This time I kept my mouth shut.

I looked up definitions of "stealing" to back up my claim but they're pretty vague and numerous and varied. So I looked up "theft", hoping to make my point with it's clearer definition: "the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it"

Please keep in mind that I'm not arguing that piracy is okay. It's not! I just think stealing is the wrong word to describe it. It does stir up feelings if that's your intention but I don't think it's very accurate.

My neighbor calls abortion murder even though she now knows it's not because she wants to make sure everyone feels about abortion as she does. That could easily lead to a discussion of whether she's lying. Shall I look up lying?

My brother, a real estate guy and a former used car salesman, and I have been having a friendly argument for decades about whether lying is saying untrue words or using true words to convince someone of an untruth. For example, a used car dealer gets in a very nice looking used car that's in very poor mechanical condition. He calls his grandmother to come by his lot and drive that car to the grocery store. Later that day he's showing it to a young couple and he tells them that it was driven by a little old lady to buy groceries. They buy the car. Has he lied to them? I say yes. My brother says no. God won't settle this so we just keep arguing about it. God probably won't tell us whether piracy is stealing, either, but I bet a judge would say it's not. He might send the pirate to jail but he wouldn't call it stealing.

Barry

[barryem]

Originally Posted by stuartjmz

"Corrupted" is a judgment call. The meanings of both words have expanded and shifted, as with words like "nice" and "silly", but to say the meanings have been "corrupted" is a moral judgment. Which is apt in this case, since "enormity" was once reserved for describing things considered to be enormously wicked, bad, immoral, etc. Whether the inevitability of linguistic and semantic shift is in itself an enormity of that sort, or simply enormous, is for each user to decide.

I wasn't objecting to you're use of "corrupted". I was asking about the meaning of "enormity" that you were referring to. I'm not aware of that other meaning and I'm curious.

Barry

[barryem]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I agree that many people's definitions of "stealing" are too narrow. Nobody bats an eye at stealing time, or stealing a kiss, or stealing away, or stolen moments, or stealing ideas, or stealing hearts, or any other esoteric use of the word. But as soon as someone mentions stealing ebooks/IP, people want to get all stuffy and rigid with their definitions. It's quite tiresome, actually. People consuming something they're not entitled to consume without paying the person who is entitled to be paid for said consumption is theft by any reasonable societal standard. They may never be legally convicted of theft, but they have stolen something just the same.

I think that if you want to call a pirate a thief you're certainly entitled to, just as you're entitled to call an apple an orange. But in a serious discussion among literate people where words are taken seriously it seems kind of out of place.

I also feel that I'm as entitled to be stuffy and rigid and tiresome as you are to use words incorrectly.

I do like your mention of stolen hearts, etc. That was clever.

Barry

[barryem]

Originally Posted by BookCat

The guy in my example stole money: the income of the library owner, who could equate to an author or publishing house.

Since he cheated the owner out of his way of earning an income he obviously didn't steal his income since he no longer had an income to steal.

He sure did cheat him though.

Barry

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by barryem

I think that if you want to call a pirate a thief you're certainly entitled to, just as you're entitled to call an apple an orange. But in a serious discussion among literate people where words are taken seriously it seems kind of out of place.

I think it's quite the opposite, really. It seems out of place to me for literate people in a serious discussion to be overly dogmatic about the use of a word that adequately describes what everyone understands the other party is referring to. And to suggest it's apples and oranges is disingenuous at best.

If it makes you feel better to believe that the word "thief" is inextricably tied to physical property only, by all means, have at it.

[Philippe D.]

Or, you could all agree that, with the change in technologies, some old words and definitions just don't work as well anymore. Different definitions for a given word, that used to be equivalent, are not equivalent anymore. Some words have to change their meanings, either to correspond to broader definitions, or to make up for holes in pre-existing definitions, by adopting new words.

But one person doing it on their own is not going to cut it. Especially not in an international forum.

[barryem]

My problem with calling a pirate a thief is that it says nothing about the pirate. It describes your own feelings. It's an emotional exclamation, not a description. Nothing is gained.

It's similar to the example given in S. I. Hayakawa's book "Language In Thought and Action" where a man see's a woman and exclaims that she's the most beautiful girl in the world. Hayakawa explains that he's said nothing at all about the woman. His statement only describes his own feelings.

I suggest if you'd like to say something about a pirate, you should. Stop talking about yourself so much.

Barry

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by barryem

My problem with calling a pirate a thief is that it says nothing about the pirate.

That's funny, actually. I think it says everything about the pirate. And it's not as if your feelings aren't being expressed by not wanting to call a pirate a thief.

[BookCat]

Originally Posted by barryem

My problem with calling a pirate a thief is that it says nothing about the pirate. It describes your own feelings. It's an emotional exclamation, not a description. Nothing is gained.

It's similar to the example given in S. I. Hayakawa's book "Language In Thought and Action" where a man see's a woman and exclaims that she's the most beautiful girl in the world. Hayakawa explains that he's said nothing at all about the woman. His statement only describes his own feelings.

I suggest if you'd like to say something about a pirate, you should. Stop talking about yourself so much.

Barry

Who has been talking about themselves?
I thought it telling that you brought the highly emotive issue of abortion into the discussion, which you know could have led to the thread going off topic.

Also the term "cheated" as in:

Since he cheated the owner out of his way of earning an income he obviously didn't steal his income since he no longer had an income to steal.

He sure did cheat him though

is highly waffly. To me, it's only possible to 'cheat' in gaming. The use of the term to refer to infidelity or outright theft is surely inaccurate. The words which more accurately apply here are 'infidelity' or maybe 'betrayal' and in the second instance 'theft' or 'commercial corruption' maybe.

Interestingly, the friend I had the discussion with maintained that two things were necessary for theft: firstly, that there was only ONE physical item which could be in the possession of Fred or Lenny, but not both; and second that Fred needed to deprive Lenny of the use of the item. He maintained that this doesn't happen in piracy, because if Fred illegally downloads a digital copy of a book written by Lenny, Lenny still has the digital book.
He would not concede that Fred had stolen Lenny's income from the book. (Then in walked the "but he wouldn't have bought it" argument, which is so tiring. There are plenty of Scrooges with lots of money who would rather hoard the money and steal the book if a pirate copy is available, but they would pay for it otherwise.)

He also maintained that if Fred burned down Lenny's house, Fred has committed arson, but not theft. Although he has denied Lenny the use of the house, Fred has not gained the house or it's use.

I disagree with all of this and think that bringing in arguments regarding pyromania fudges the issue in the attempt to prove that depriving someone of something you don't gain the use of is the equivalent to taking something, gaining the use of it without depriving someone else of its use or possession.

Modern technology has brought in the concept of digital theft; the law needs to change to meet this challenge.

I think most of the members of this forum know the difference between telling and showing (the beautiful girl).

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by BookCat

There are plenty of Scrooges with lots of money who would rather hoard the money and steal the book if a pirate copy is available, but they would pay for it otherwise.

Now you are disapproving of wealthy people? All wealthy people are wealthy by choice, not by how much income they have availlable. Same with poor people, most poor people are poor by choice. The only difference between a poor and a wealthy person is the ability of the wealthy to stay within their means when it comes to spending money. So I highly doubt that a wealthy person would download pirate copies even though they would and could have easily paid for them. The decision is a moral choice, not a financial choice.

When it comes to movie streaming, I heard a really good explanation from a co worker last week that is hard to argue against. He tried to convince me to jailbreak a fire stick so I could stream movies and live tv for free. And I kept asking why I would want to do that? Because it is free. But it is illegal. No it is not illegal, it is in a grey zone. Downloading is maybe illegal in some cases, but streaming itself is technically not illegal (in the US as of right now). So even if you get caught, there is no legal repercussion (criminal or civil). So that is how they justify it. And who am I to tell him off? All I can do is make the conscious decision not to enter the grey zone myself.