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

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Goodness me. We agree again. It must be Christmas.

[AnotherCat]

Another take is:

A keen amateur cook called Wendy illicitly downloads a copy of The Jolly Roger Crew's Favorite Dishes by Captain Hook from getyourfree bookshere.xxx and so would be called a "thief" by those who use extravagant words to enhance their case.

Wendy goes along to her cooking circle with a sample of one of the recipes which all find to be delicious and ask where the recipe came from. She tells them the name of the book it came from and that it is full of wonderful recipes. As a result six of the cooking circle members go off and buy the book.

So, has the "thief" now become a "benefactor" to the author?

[Apache]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I have to ask - who is "stealing" from who?

Now note, this is a US centric issue, but also affects some other countries to a lesser extent.

Copyright is not property. Never has been. It is a limited monopoly for a set term.

And therein lies the rub. Copyright is a contract, between the creator and society (as represented by their government).

Can you unilaterally change the terms of a contract to favor you over the other party? Would you be happy if, say, a mortgage company decided they like the profits from your mortgage, and extended the payments for another 100 years, before clearing the mortgage?

Because, in the US, that is what has been happening.

From 1909 until 1976 (1978, if you prefer) the maximum term for a copyright was 56 years - maximum.

Everybody knew the term, and knew that their copyright would go away after 56 years. The object would go into public domain, free for anybody to use and/or copy. Nobody held a gun to their heads saying "create on these terms or die". Strictly voluntary.

So any extension of copyright beyond the terms in force at the time of creation, is every bit as much "theft" from the public as "pirating" a item under copyright is, every bit as much as if a bank unilaterally extended you mortgage to get more money from you.

So in the US, every copyrighted item created in the US should have been made PD from (currently) 1961, soon to be 1962, on back. And every dollar acquired from items that otherwise would have been in PD is literal theft of the public's money.

The same for extending Berne lengths from Life +50 to Life + 70. Those 20 years are theft from the public.

So remember, in copyright morality, the "theft" goes both ways.. .

A government can not steal. They just change the rules and make it legal.
Apache

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

Another take is:

A keen amateur cook called Wendy illicitly downloads a copy of The Jolly Roger Crew's Favorite Dishes by Captain Hook from getyourfree bookshere.xxx and so would be called a "thief" by those who use extravagant words to enhance their case.

Wendy goes along to her cooking circle with a sample of one of the recipes which all find to be delicious and ask where the recipe came from. She tells them the name of the book it came from and that it is full of wonderful recipes. As a result six of the cooking circle members go off and buy the book.

So, has the "thief" now become a "benefactor" to the author?

With all due respect, that's always the story. That somehow, the pirate is going to spread the word, creating WOM (word-of-mouth) enthusiasm, which will result in sales, right?

Anytime anyone here wants to see what business professionals really think of that, head on over to ClientsFromHell.com, and read the ubiquitous endless stories from designers, consultants, and other businesses, and their reactions to these constant pitches, from tightwads, who want the designer, et al, to do work for nothing or near-nothing, and, as part of the pitch, how the ensuing publicity or exposure is going to "make them famous," or how they'll get TONS of jobs from this tightwad's job.

Every person there that's fallen for that line once has learned better--all doing a job for nothing or near-nothing results in is lost and deserved income. I fail to see why the situation is ANY different for authors and their work.

Is it possible that ONE pirate MIGHT actually tell someone, who might buy the book in turn? Sure, it's possible. But given that the pirate felt justified in helping herself to the book for nothing, why on earth wouldn't she just send the file to her friends, who want it now? Why would she tell THEM to buy it, when she cavalierly didn't? Like all people who don't value something that she got for free, I don't understand the thought process that would indicate that she'd tell them to buy it, rather than just copying it over to these other would-be fans.

Isn't that, quite frankly, the more-likely outcome? That she'll tell her friends "oh, don't worry, I'll send you a copy"? And, in fact, further damage the publisher, as those sewing-circle acquaintances might otherwise have bought the book?

Hitch

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by Hitch

With all due respect, that's always the story. That somehow, the pirate is going to spread the word, creating WOM (word-of-mouth) enthusiasm, which will result in sales, right?

Anytime anyone here wants to see what business professionals really think of that, head on over to ClientsFromHell.com, and read the ubiquitous endless stories from designers, consultants, and other businesses, and their reactions to these constant pitches, from tightwads, who want the designer, et al, to do work for nothing or near-nothing, and, as part of the pitch, how the ensuing publicity or exposure is going to "make them famous," or how they'll get TONS of jobs from this tightwad's job.

Every person there that's fallen for that line once has learned better--all doing a job for nothing or near-nothing results in is lost and deserved income. I fail to see why the situation is ANY different for authors and their work.

Is it possible that ONE pirate MIGHT actually tell someone, who might buy the book in turn? Sure, it's possible. But given that the pirate felt justified in helping herself to the book for nothing, why on earth wouldn't she just send the file to her friends, who want it now? Why would she tell THEM to buy it, when she cavalierly didn't? Like all people who don't value something that she got for free, I don't understand the thought process that would indicate that she'd tell them to buy it, rather than just copying it over to these other would-be fans.

Isn't that, quite frankly, the more-likely outcome? That she'll tell her friends "oh, don't worry, I'll send you a copy"? And, in fact, further damage the publisher, as those sewing-circle acquaintances might otherwise have bought the book?

Hitch

Is that so? I actually just asked if the person did what I described would they become a "benefactor" and that question you did not answer - I made no claims whatsoever about how frequently such a case would arise that would warrant your response.

But I see where you are coming from as you apparently have a vested interest in the copyright trough so very defensive it seems to me.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Apache

A government can not steal. They just change the rules and make it legal.
Apache

A government does nothing else but steal. . . .

[barryem]

Originally Posted by Hitch

With all due respect, that's always the story. That somehow, the pirate is going to spread the word, creating WOM (word-of-mouth) enthusiasm, which will result in sales, right?

If the pirate downloader spreads the word and increases the sales for the copyright holder that doesn't change the fact that the downloader infringed the copyright. Whether it helps the author/publisher or not it's still an immoral act.

I think we need to decide whether we're talking about morals or legalities. It's hard to talk about both at the same time and get anywhere.

As someone said earlier, a copyright is a contract with a rights holder, enforced by the government. It's perfectly possible to believe, as I do, that that agreement has been stretched way beyond reasonable limits, and still believe that contracts should be respected. I don't like copyright law as it stands. But it's what we've got and if society ignores laws it's always worse off.

My brother in law, Charlie, had a father who, decades ago, had a best friend who, when he found white gravel on Charlie's father's farm, offered him $100 a year for the right to quarry it. Soon he developed that into a multi-million dollar business. Charlie's father took his friend to court and the judge ruled that there's no provision in law that says the contract has to be fair. These are my words as i remember them. I don't remember the exact words the judge used but basically they meant that. Charlie's father got $100 a year for the rest of his life while his friend became wealthy. If you see white rock decorative gravel in a store that's where it comes from.

Copyright stopped being fair long ago. But it's what we have.

Barry

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

Another take is:

A keen amateur cook called Wendy illicitly downloads a copy of The Jolly Roger Crew's Favorite Dishes by Captain Hook from getyourfree bookshere.xxx and so would be called a "thief" by those who use extravagant words to enhance their case.

The word thief is not "extravagant," nor does it enhance anyone's case. It's a simple word, and it doesn't spark any more emotion (in my opinion) than "cheater" or "illegal downloader" or "pirate." They are all morally and emotionally equivalent. I understand the technical beef with using "thief" (though I still find that particular beef to be overly semantic and dogmatic), but find it completely baffling that someone would object to the use of the word thief based solely on the notion that it's somehow more emotionally charged than other synonymous descriptors that people have mentioned as substitutes.

Everyone here seems to have pretty much agreed that its "wrong," and that people shouldn't do it. So I fail to see why some wish to attach a label to it that somehow carries less (or no) moral stigma.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

The word thief is not "extravagant," nor does it enhance anyone's case. It's a simple word, and it doesn't spark any more emotion (in my opinion) than "cheater" or "illegal downloader" or "pirate." They are all morally and emotionally equivalent. I understand the technical beef with using "thief" (though I still find that particular beef to be overly semantic and dogmatic), but find it completely baffling that someone would object to the use of the word thief based solely on the notion that it's somehow more emotionally charged than other synonymous descriptors that people have mentioned as substitutes.

Everyone here seems to have pretty much agreed that its "wrong," and that people shouldn't do it. So I fail to see why some wish to attach a label to it that somehow carries less (or no) moral stigma.

Whether it is emotive or not I think has been well thrashed over and I am not interested in furthering any general argument on the matter.

But it is the case that I can regard the word in whatever light I care for, and that I make a point of using it in the correct legal sense when discussing matters to do with the law (so that includes copyright legislation). You are welcome to use the word in as loose terms as you want.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

Is that so? I actually just asked if the person did what I described would they become a "benefactor" and that question you did not answer - I made no claims whatsoever about how frequently such a case would arise that would warrant your response.

And--what? If I said, sure, in this hypothetical situation, the pirate whose friends run out and buy it, "benefitted" the author, as a benefactor, what's the response to that? So what? What would you then say? That it's likely that all the pirates are doing just that? That some percentage are? Etc.? So that we should not consider pirates to be bad, or morally compromised, but instead, unpaid Street Teams, for self-publishers?

This is the Robin Hood thing--that it's okay to "steal from the rich" and give to the poor. Same exact mindset, if you think about it, that doing something "good" with stolen property negates the initial bad act, right?.

It's "alright" for the pirate to take the book, because by using it, s/he "benefits" the author, because others buy it. How's that different from saying that it's okay for Roger to steal cash from the bank, and give the money to the local Priest, to buy a bus for the parish. The priest then uses the bus, to take poor parishioners to the bank, wherein they deposit their money--benefitting the bank.

Is Roger now a benefactor of the bank, because the poor parishioners are getting to the bank in the bus paid for with the stolen funds? Will the jury that sits on Roger's trial, let him walk free, nullifying his deed, because the bank is now making "more" money, from the poor parishioners? And if that's not okay--if Roger should still be held accountable, for his bad acts--why should the pirate be treated differently?

But I see where you are coming from as you apparently have a vested interest in the copyright trough so very defensive it seems to me.

I felt this way long before I had a business that works in publishing. It's hardly rocket science to know that people don't write books and publish them, for love. They do it for MONEY. Sure, lots of artists wax eloquent about how they create their art for love--but they sell it for money. Those 5-6 million self-publishers on Amazon might claim that they published for love, but if that were true, they'd put their books up for free on Wattpad or Smashwords. They hope and expect money, not "only" accolades. Publishing is a BUSINESS, like any other.

Publishers--the businesses that bring books to the buying public--take enormous risks, and publish a lot of books that will never earn out--never earn back their costs, much less profits. Of course, they want a longer period, by which to try to earn that money. And I'd point out that there are vastly more mid-listers, authors that desperately need those years, to try to earn money on a given book, because they're NOT getting 6-digit signing bonuses or advances, but instead, more like $1,000 or $5,000, for assigning the rights to a book.

I'll never understand this mad hostility toward the very people that write the books that other people wish to read, nor the publishers (and other companies) that make it happen.

Hitch

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by Hitch

And--what? If I said, sure, in this hypothetical situation, the pirate whose friends run out and buy it, "benefitted" the author, as a benefactor, what's the response to that? So what? What would you then say? That it's likely that all the pirates are doing just that? That some percentage are? Etc.? So that we should not consider pirates to be bad, or morally compromised, but instead, unpaid Street Teams, for self-publishers?

This is the Robin Hood thing--that it's okay to "steal from the rich" and give to the poor. Same exact mindset, if you think about it, that doing something "good" with stolen property negates the initial bad act, right?...

All I have done is ask a specific question, I have made no other posts in this thread that might confuse my intentions. It seems that you are unwilling to nominate whether the "thief" has become "benefactor" or not. I think you have said "So what?" as you answer?

It seems to me that requires just a "Yes" or "No" answer not a lengthy lesson about Robin Hood, and priests and parishioners, etc., nor pointing out that publishing is a business, etc., nor winding up with references to mad hostility towards authors. I have not said anything that should raise assumptions about what my stance on copyright in general is but you seem awfully defensive about my asking a simple question.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Hitch

And--what? If I said, sure, in this hypothetical situation, the pirate whose friends run out and buy it, "benefitted" the author, as a benefactor, what's the response to that? So what? What would you then say? That it's likely that all the pirates are doing just that? That some percentage are? Etc.? So that we should not consider pirates to be bad, or morally compromised, but instead, unpaid Street Teams, for self-publishers?

This is the Robin Hood thing--that it's okay to "steal from the rich" and give to the poor. Same exact mindset, if you think about it, that doing something "good" with stolen property negates the initial bad act, right?.

It's "alright" for the pirate to take the book, because by using it, s/he "benefits" the author, because others buy it. How's that different from saying that it's okay for Roger to steal cash from the bank, and give the money to the local Priest, to buy a bus for the parish. The priest then uses the bus, to take poor parishioners to the bank, wherein they deposit their money--benefitting the bank.

Is Roger now a benefactor of the bank, because the poor parishioners are getting to the bank in the bus paid for with the stolen funds? Will the jury that sits on Roger's trial, let him walk free, nullifying his deed, because the bank is now making "more" money, from the poor parishioners? And if that's not okay--if Roger should still be held accountable, for his bad acts--why should the pirate be treated differently?



I felt this way long before I had a business that works in publishing. It's hardly rocket science to know that people don't write books and publish them, for love. They do it for MONEY. Sure, lots of artists wax eloquent about how they create their art for love--but they sell it for money. Those 5-6 million self-publishers on Amazon might claim that they published for love, but if that were true, they'd put their books up for free on Wattpad or Smashwords. They hope and expect money, not "only" accolades. Publishing is a BUSINESS, like any other.

Publishers--the businesses that bring books to the buying public--take enormous risks, and publish a lot of books that will never earn out--never earn back their costs, much less profits. Of course, they want a longer period, by which to try to earn that money. And I'd point out that there are vastly more mid-listers, authors that desperately need those years, to try to earn money on a given book, because they're NOT getting 6-digit signing bonuses or advances, but instead, more like $1,000 or $5,000, for assigning the rights to a book.

I'll never understand this mad hostility toward the very people that write the books that other people wish to read, nor the publishers (and other companies) that make it happen.

Hitch

Using the government to set the rules so that you make money is called rent seeking in economic terms. A whole lot of people do this, but it doesn't exactly make them noble. To a great extent, you are using the red herring argument. The issue isn't letting authors make money for their works, no one here has advocated abolishing copyright. The issue at hand is the extremely long copyright period that rich authors (Victor Hugo, who sired the Berne Convention was very wealthy) and corporations (i.e Disney) have pushed. Copyright is a bargain between society and artists, not a one way street. There has to be balance.

[Greg Anos]

I wrote a monograph on the subject, back in 2010.

https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sh...ad.php?t=38392

It's still relevant.

[barryem]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

(though I still find that particular beef to be overly semantic and dogmatic)

Semantic and dogmatic are almost opposites and, I think, are mutually exclusive. Semantic concerns the meaning of words. Dogmatic is more about ignoring meaning.

Barry

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by barryem

Semantic and dogmatic are almost opposites and, I think, are mutually exclusive. Semantic concerns the meaning of words. Dogmatic is more about ignoring meaning.

Barry

It would seem you use a much different dictionary than me RE dogmatic. But if it makes you feel any better, then simply pretend I said "pedantic" instead (though I stick by my use of dogmatic). *shrug*