Do you consider it to be unethical...

[Hitch]

Elfwreck wrote:

There's something horrifically wasteful about this approach, about insisting that all these powerful digitizing tools can't be used to *increase* access to knowledge; it has to stay a zero-sum game based on the amount of paper that's been paid for.

Oh, puhleeze. Please don't try to turn this discussion into an alleged argument about the "increased access to knowledge." The 'Net and digitization has opened up an entire world of knowledge for anyone who wants it. We're not talking about "knowledge," here; we're talking about entertainment. No one has a constitutional right to be entertained. And I hope that no one is desperate enough to come back with some nonsense about the pursuit of happiness.

There's really no point in continuing the discussion, at least, not on my part. Everyone here who bootlegs or downloads ebooks, whether by copying, scanning, handwriting them out, or lifting epubs or mobis or what-have-you, is taking money from an author. You can call it NOT theft all you want; you can try to justify it by saying it's a "contract violation with Amazon," or that it's "infringement," which you all continually, and incorrectly, claim is NOT a crime; or worst of all, you can rationalize by thinking that those freaking authors don't deserve the money, ANYWAY, but at the end of the day, you're taking something to which you are not entitled because you haven't paid for it.

Is there ANYONE here who is actually acquainted with the legal definition of "theft?" No? Then here you go:

"A popular name for larceny. The taking of property without the owner's consent. People v. Sims Ill.App.3d 815, 331 N.E.2d 178,179. The fraudulent taking of personal property belonging to another, from his possession, or from the possession of some person holding the same for him, without his consent, with intent to deprive the owner of the value of the same, and to appropriate it to the use or benefit of the person taking.

It is also said that theft is a wider term than larceny and that it includes swindling an embezzlement and that generally, one who obtains possession of property by lawful means and thereafter appropriates the property to the taker's own use is guilty of a "theft." Kidwell v. Paul Revere Fire Ins. Co., 294 Ky.833, 172 S.W.2d 639,640; People v. Pillsbury, 59 Cal.App 2d 107, 138 P.2d 320, 322.

Theft is any of the following acts done with intent to deprive the owner permanently of the possession, use or benefit of his property: (a) Obtaining or exerting unauthorized control over property; or (b) Obtaining by deception control over property; or (c) Obtaining by threat control over the property; or (d) Obtaining control over the stolen property by knowing the property to have been stolen by another."

Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Ed., p. 1324, reproduced here under Fair Use Doctrine. RED emphasis added.

So, you can all sit here and rationalize your THEFT by semantic dissembling all you wish; but without even making it a STRETCH, taking a copy of an ebook without paying for it is theft simply by means of the fact that you've a) taken it without the owner's consent; that you b) have intent of depriving the owner of the value of the same; that you've c) appropriated the book to your own use and benefit; OR d) you obtained the first copy lawfully, and then appropriated it by distributing it, which is also theft; OR e) you've intentionally deprived the owner of the benefit of his property by obtaining it without authorization or f) by obtaining it knowing that it was stolen by another. The whole, strained argument that it isn't "theft" rests entirely on the fact that we're discussing digital copies. If these were printed books, you all KNOW that taking one would be theft, and we wouldn't be having this discussion, now, would we?

There are a very, very few of you here who are what I would call "conscientious objectors." You few "CO's" genuinely oppose copyright law, having a communistic or Marxist view of property belonging to "everyone." Fine. When you give away all of your OWN stuff--your computer, your car, your house--to "everyone," I'll respect your viewpoint. Because until you do that, your whole argument is about how someone else's property magically belongs to YOU.

The rest of you: the bottom line is that you steal these books because you can. If you knew that the courts would actually start prosecuting you, under Federal statutes, and you would do 3-5 years for infringement, as is allowed under those selfsame statutes, you would not do it. You can dress it up in every fancy semantic argument you wish--but you are only committing the crime (and, yes, it's an actual CRIME, not a tort) because you can. Because you're too lazy to go hunt down someone's books second-hand (thereby driving up the price of the second-hand books and encouraging a publisher to reprint those OOP books) and actually pay for them. (Like the Charlaine Harris Lily Bard series, which got reprinted because used editions were bringing upwards of $15 on Ebay's Half.com).

Those OOP books have value to you, but you argue that the author isn't "entitled" to that value. Your argument is that you're entitled to the value of the entertainment by that book; but that author isn't entitled to be paid for your entertainment, sustaining that position with strained, specious arguments about whether you're committing a "tort" or "merely" contractual violations with your "contract" with Amazon, jumping through logistical hoops that don't survive parsing.

Here's the truth: like most humans, you do what's easy. People like to tell themselves, and OTHERS, that they are doing the right thing, but in general, people do what's easiest, obeying the laws of physics, and then either coming up with rationalizations as to why it was the "right" thing all along, or finding other people who agree with what they did to reinforce their justification for having done the easy thing (like the group of pirates here.). It requires the least amount of effort (work) to download a stolen copy. You don't have to make the effort to earn the money; you likely won't be caught or prosecuted; so you click a button and download a copy. If you had to walk into a STORE, and shoplift that copy, you would not do it. Go ahead, try to reconcile THOSE two positions--that it's okay for you to "take" a digital copy, but that you wouldn't take it in print. It all comes down to YOU being prosecuted; to YOU being CAUGHT, doesn't it?

It's easy to be a bobblehead. Doing the right thing? Harder. Developing the ability to think for yourself, not regurgitating a bunch of drivel that someone else fed you, and learning to employ an actual set of morals? Priceless.

I'm done here.

[HamsterRage]

Surely, if copyright infringement was actually "theft", according to the legal definition of "theft" then there would be some instance of someone, somewhere being convicted of "theft" for copyright infringement.

Calling it "theft" just to be inflammatory doesn't move us one step closer to finding any agreement, or even common ground.

...but at the end of the day, you're taking something to which you are not entitled because you haven't paid for it.

But the question, at least in the case of OOP books, is whether or not you should have to pay for it. It's not black and white. I mean, we're on page 12 of this thread, it's clearly not black and white.

(thereby driving up the price of the second-hand books and encouraging a publisher to reprint those OOP books)

I remain unconvinced that this ever happens.

[Strolls]

Originally Posted by HamsterRage

I remain unconvinced that this ever happens.

Be fair, the dude cited an example right after that, it was a bit unfair of you to snip it, lost as it was in his big rage of text.

[HamsterRage]

Originally Posted by Strolls

Be fair, the dude cited an example right after that, it was a bit unfair of you to snip it, lost as it was in his big rage of text.

Darn! I missed that.

Maybe Charlaine's books went back into print because she hit it big with the Sookie books. Do we know that the publisher was responding to eBay prices, or was it just a no-brainer given the success of the vampire stuff?

[Strolls]

Another example might be the Commando series of comics. They've been printed since the 60s, but they now have a reprint issue alongside the new issue each week.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by HamsterRage

Surely, if copyright infringement was actually "theft", according to the legal definition of "theft" then there would be some instance of someone, somewhere being convicted of "theft" for copyright infringement.

Calling it "theft" just to be inflammatory doesn't move us one step closer to finding any agreement, or even common ground.

I posted the legal definition of THEFT. I clearly went through the arguments immediately thereafter. I'm not calling it theft to be inflammatory. I'm calling it theft because that's what it is, under numerous aspects of that legal definition. Calling it "infringement" is an attempt to decriminalize the thought process around the topic; it's SPIN. It's obfuscatory prestidigitation. "Don't look at my right hand doing the theft, ladies and gentlemen; look at my left hand, which is "only" infringing, which I will then also incorrectly tell you isn't a crime."

Originally Posted by HamsterRage

But the question, at least in the case of OOP books, is whether or not you should have to pay for it. It's not black and white. I mean, we're on page 12 of this thread, it's clearly not black and white.

I remain unconvinced that this ever happens.

Are you seriously arguing that midlist OOP authors--the guys who are THRILLED to get $5,000 advances--are the authors who should be penalized the MOST by this? These are the books that someone is arguing you shouldn't HAVE to pay for?

Because those are the guys and women who are getting hosed. It's not the Dan Browns of the world getting stuffed; their books get printed and reprinted and reprinted yet again until you can buy 2nd-hand copies on Amazon for a penny. It's the midlisters of the world who are getting killed by this; the guys who sell just enough to get another contract, but not enough to get a second printing. The guy whose next book contract is always "in review" in the publisher's committee because maybe he doesn't have quite enough sales; that he's always on the cusp. So THIS is the guy you want to penalize? The guy who spent a year of his life writing a book for which he was lucky to get Five Grand, and now won't get ongoing royalties (like they used to when the midlist got printed and reprinted for years, for libraries and such) because the midlist is dying? This is the guy whose OOP book--the one he can do nothing about, because the publisher still has the rights, but isn't printing it--THIS is the guy whose books you don't think you "should" have to pay for, and therefore tell the freaking publisher that a second printing IS warranted.

I told you it happened. Feel free to contact the publishers. They reprinted "Shakespeare's Christmas" in Harris' Lily Bard series due to 2nd-hand demand.

Don't believe me about what's going on with the midlist? Check with Holly Lisle, who's been a fantasy midlister for years. She's had a series killed off. It's OOP, through no fault of her own. Publisher still has the rights, though, so she can't digitize it and monetize it herself. Or how about Norman Spinrad? There are THOUSANDS--not hundreds, THOUSANDS of authors in this position, and THOSE are the authors you're talking about hurting, particularly in the fantasy and sci-fi markets. Just so you know. John Grisham and Dan Brown and Stephenie Meyers aren't the authors getting gutted by this. It's the authors who still have their dayjobs that are the ones that get hurt.

To respond to your second about Charlaine Harris: No, it was a publisher respond to demand before "True Blood" hit it big on HBO...it was in process for over a year, and much discussed. Prices for Shakespeare's Christmas had gone through the roof in 2nd-hand bookstores. Did people discover the Lily Bards through the Sookies? Yes, probably..but it was a book-specific demand.

[Barcey]

Well we already have laws for theft, so if it's theft I guess we don't need copyright laws.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Is there ANYONE here who is actually acquainted with the legal definition of "theft?" No?

Actually yes. Me. I'm a lawyer.

It's not the legal definition of "theft" that is in issue here. It's the legal definition of "property." What everyone calls "intellectual property" is NOT actually property. As a legal matter, it cannot be stolen (unless, of course, there is some other law specifically establishing some form of intellectual property as "property" for purposes of the statutes against theft. I believe that there are some concerning trade secrets. But in the case of copyright, there are none that I am aware of.)

That's why we have copyright laws. If your misunderstanding of the law of theft and property were correct, we would not need to have any copyright law. The very existence of copyright law demonstrates that "theft" doesn't do the trick. Otherwise, we'd simply bring prosecutions for theft.

My advice is to keep the law out of this discussion. It won't help you that, for example, it is not a violation of copyright law (in the US) to download a book from a pirate site for free, if all you are going to do is read it yourself. Nor is it a violation to strip DRM from a Kindle ebook in order to read the ebook on your Sony.

It MAY be unethical, in your view. But that's a different matter.

[carld]

Originally Posted by Harmon

it is not a violation of copyright law (in the US) to download a book from a pirate site for free, if all you are going to do is read it yourself.

Really? Then it's not illegal to download copyright movies or music if it's only for your own use?

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Actually yes. Me. I'm a lawyer.

It's not the legal definition of "theft" that is in issue here. It's the legal definition of "property." What everyone calls "intellectual property" is NOT actually property. As a legal matter, it cannot be stolen (unless, of course, there is some other law specifically establishing some form of intellectual property as "property" for purposes of the statutes against theft. I believe that there are some concerning trade secrets. But in the case of copyright, there are none that I am aware of.)

That's why we have copyright laws. If your misunderstanding of the law of theft and property were correct, we would not need to have any copyright law. The very existence of copyright law demonstrates that "theft" doesn't do the trick. Otherwise, we'd simply bring prosecutions for theft.

My advice is to keep the law out of this discussion. It won't help you that, for example, it is not a violation of copyright law (in the US) to download a book from a pirate site for free, if all you are going to do is read it yourself. Nor is it a violation to strip DRM from a Kindle ebook in order to read the ebook on your Sony.

It MAY be unethical, in your view. But that's a different matter.

Many thanks for your input on this - at least as far as the US is concerned the difference between theft and copyright infringement is now very clear. There may be other jurisdictions of course where things are different, but it is good to have it from the horses mouth - or maybe that should be the gorillas mouth

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

My rubbish summary was of Jonathan Haidt's work, which is more subtle than I suggested. And quite entertaining

Great talk. Thank you!

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by TGS

Many thanks for your input on this - at least as far as the US is concerned the difference between theft and copyright infringement is now very clear. There may be other jurisdictions of course where things are different, but it is good to have it from the horses mouth - or maybe that should be the gorillas mouth

Yes....but....there's way more to this whole issue than Legal Definitions.

This thread was started by asking the question "is it UNETHICAL..."
that has little to do with official legal definitions.

[Jadon]

Originally Posted by HamsterRage

Calling it "theft" just to be inflammatory doesn't move us one step closer to finding any agreement, or even common ground.

Surely not even the most naive of us believe anyone changes their mind on this perpetual topic? This topic, in the many threads it pops up in, exists only for people to talk past each other, since each side is fundamentally incapable of thinking the way the other does. The closest anyone has ever come to changing their mind is when an author has said "I used to obsess about piracy, but now I've learned to live with it." Which is not to say that they think it ethical, merely that it's inescapable. Worrying about the inevitable is as pointless as discussing it.

[GA Russell]

Originally Posted by Harmon

...it is not a violation of copyright law (in the US) to download a book from a pirate site for free, if all you are going to do is read it yourself...

I didn't know that! And I'm surprised.

[GA Russell]

I wonder to what extent it is the case that those who say that out of print books are fair game are thinking of instances where the author is dead; and those who say it is unethical are thinking of instances where the author is alive.