Open Source culture to blame for e-book piracy!

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Theft requires deprivation. Copying an ebook does not deprive. It's not theft, it's not piracy, it's unauthorised copying. It's a civil offence.

Why is it "not piracy", DF? According to my copy of the "Concise Oxford Dictionary", one definition of a "pirate" is "one who infringes another's copyright or other business rights". This would seem to fit that definition.

[cian]

<i>Only in a strictly legal sense as currently defined.</i>

Well there are only two senses in which theft can be defined. The social sense (something that is generally accepted as "theft") and the legal sense.

<i>It is theft, it is theft of intellectual property.</i>

But you can't just state this as if its a given, or obvious. It isn't. Intellectual property is pretty nebulous, requiring a huge legal framework to define and the legal definitions do not have a particularly strong social basis (people informally infringe IP all the time, and don't see anything wrong with doing so), which is partly why the complex legal definitions are needed. If I download a book you wrote and read it, what have you lost? The revenue? Well I haven't taken it from you, its simply that you've been deprived of a potential revenue (and only if I downloaded it with no intention of paying you). Nothing tangible has been taken, only something nebulous. And it is no different in practice to if I had borrowed the book from my dad, or the university library, or bought it from Oxfam. Your IP has been used and you haven't benefitted.

It is wrong, it's a crime, and immoral as well depending on the specifics.

So's murder, but its not generally seen as theft, though there's probably a stronger case for it to be defined as such (the theft of another person's life, though its hard to hang onto it once taken).
And incidentally, while stating that its immoral lets other know where you stand, it is not really an argument. Lots of people think abortion is immoral, but simply stating it is unlikely to convince those who don't. And defining why it is immoral is going to be tricky. Is it immoral to download a book by somebody who is dead, but whose heirs (that he never met and never knew) own the copyright? Why is it immoral to download something 21 years after it was written, when a hundred years ago that would have been perfectly legal in some places. If you want to define it as some kind of universal bad, well its tricky.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by cian

You know, I'm yet to meet, read about, hear about or in any other way come to know about any author who writes a book soley for a financial incentive. I know about many who hope and dream and attempt to gain financially from their writing but none who write solely for financial gain. Do you see the difference?

And yet, even it there is one,(and if you know of one could you please point them out for the sake of the argument) that is their prerogative. If it goes so against your beliefs for them to do that then by all means don't buy their book.

I'm not sure this is the killer argument that you think it is. Author's wishes for their works are overriden all the time.

Not sure what you mean by killer argument. I was not attempting to kill the discussion at all. Nor was I trying to prove my correctness or anything like that, which could conceivably require "killing" schex86's argument.

May I ask, did you actually read and understand my comment and its context or merely quote and respond?

I did not remark upon an authors wishes for their work.

I commented upon the reason why an author may write the work in the first place.

Do you see the difference?

As your point doesn't address mine in any way I don't see any reason to respond futher to yours.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

PKFFW - No, again, there are less than 30 countries with any form of "public lending right". In the vast majority of countries, it's a plain loss, and most PLR's are heavily capped and only pay authors with citizenship in that country.

In order to make sure I understand this correctly.......

The PLR is the part that says an author will get some sort of compensation for each lending? Or is the PLR the act that says something like "all books must be made available for lending from public libraries"?

As I said in my post, regardless of compensation, there is an agreement between authors and the country that their books must be available for lending from the libraries. This agreement takes the form of legislation and when the author makes their work available in that country, he/she must accept that their work will be availabe for lending in the library.

So if the PLR is the part that gives compensation then it is not relevant if it is capped, only gives citizenship or anything else. The relevant part is that legislation requires the author to allow thier work to be made available for lending. That is the agreement and that is what makes borrowing from a library different from downloading an infringing copy from the internet.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[jasonkchapman]

Originally Posted by cian

For the side against "piracy", calling it theft devalues their argument as an awful lot of people don't see it as theft unless somebody is deprived of something, that the thief gained.

A lot of people also don't see taking goods, money, or services from someone else as theft if the person can readily afford it, either. They see shoplifting as victimless, but would never dream of snatching someone's purse and running off with it. Go figure.

[DawnFalcon]

The PLR is the right to get recompensed (if you're a citizen, if you have more than x lendings, subject to a cap etc. etc.) for library borrowing . It's not the same as the exemption in copyright law for libraries, at least in UK, Canadian and the proposed European laws.

There is no actual explicit law relating to libraries ability to buy books, beyond the copies which are sent under Legal Deposit - remembering that the libraries involved there are not lending libraries.

So no, you can't draw a line like that. Especially since, again, there are many countries where a PLR simply does not exist.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by jasonkchapman

A lot of people also don't see taking goods, money, or services from someone else as theft if the person can readily afford it, either. They see shoplifting as victimless, but would never dream of snatching someone's purse and running off with it. Go figure.

Even the writer of Proverbs 6:30-31 had a soft spot for people in need who steal to meet the necessities of life:

Proverbs 6:30:
Men do not despise a thief, if he steal to satisfy his soul when he is hungry;

But even in this case there is no carte blanche given:

Proverbs 6:31:
But if he be found, he shall restore sevenfold; he shall give all the substance of his house.

(As to how someone who can't afford food can be expected to pay such a fine is another discussion altogether.)

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

The PLR is the right to get recompensed (if you're a citizen, if you have more than x lendings, subject to a cap etc. etc.) for library borrowing . It's not the same as the exemption in copyright law for libraries, at least in UK, Canadian and the proposed European laws.

There is no actual explicit law relating to libraries ability to buy books, beyond the copies which are sent under Legal Deposit - remembering that the libraries involved there are not lending libraries.

So no, you can't draw a line like that. Especially since, again, there are many countries where a PLR simply does not exist.

Ok, so the PLR is essentially the right to get recompensed. Though, as I said in my original post........"regardless of compensation"..........

Now, you say there is no actual law relating to libraries ability to buy books. It is my understanding that here in Australia at any rate(and I thought it to be the case in the USA and UK) that any book published in Australia must be made available to libraries for lending.

This is what I'm talking about. As I said in my original post, regardless of compensation there are rules and regulations in place regarding libraries. In effect, if an author wants to sell their book here in Australia they must also accept that it must be made available for lending from libraries.(whether or not every single library acquires a copy for lending) In essense it is an agreement between government and author. The author can agree to not have it available for lending by simply not making it available for sale at all. If it is not the same in the UK then my apologies for assuming such and of course my point is not valid there. So be it.

These rules and regulations is what makes borrowing from a library different to acquiring a copyright infringing copy from the internet.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[cian]

Originally Posted by jasonkchapman

A lot of people also don't see taking goods, money, or services from someone else as theft if the person can readily afford it, either. They see shoplifting as victimless, but would never dream of snatching someone's purse and running off with it. Go figure.

Well no, I don't think there's much argument about whether its theft. Its just a minority see it as acceptable in certain circumstances, or at least not as bad as some other kinds of crimes. I suppose you might meet the odd person who didn't think it was technically theft, but they'd be pretty unusual..

[cian]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Not sure what you mean by killer argument. I was not attempting to kill the discussion at all. Nor was I trying to prove my correctness or anything like that, which could conceivably require "killing" schex86's argument.

May I ask, did you actually read and understand my comment and its context or merely quote and respond?

I did not remark upon an authors wishes for their work.

I commented upon the reason why an author may write the work in the first place.

Do you see the difference?

As your point doesn't address mine in any way I don't see any reason to respond futher to yours.

Cheers,
PKFFW

I commented upon the reason why an author may write the work in the first place.

Do you see the difference?

Well yes, but so what? I don't see how that argument applies to the point being made by the person you were responding to [tortured sentence, I know], which is why I interpreted it the way I did. Once the work is released to the public, it exists independently of the author. Readers may read something completely different to what was intended to the author. It may be parodied in ways incredibly distasteful to the author, and indeed counter to the reasons he wrote it.

The author (or his heirs) are paid because of the ways the copyright laws are written. If written differently he might not be compensated, or compensated as well, or compensated differently.

I have no problems with authors being compensated for their work, but there's no natural right to this. Its an artificial legal right which was created (at least in the US) because it was felt this would encourage the production of more creative works. An "evil" (monopoly/restriction) would be compensated for by a good (more IP). It was seen as a tradeoff.

Or am I still missing some aspect of your argument?

[cian]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

These rules and regulations is what makes borrowing from a library different to acquiring a copyright infringing copy from the internet.

But those rules and regulations (at least in the UK and US) came after the existence of libraries was an established fact. And in a sense, you're only really arguing that the problem with filesharing on the internet is that its not regulated/legal. Well one solution would be simply to make filesharing legal, which would deal with the substance of your objection. I'm guessing you wouldn't see that as acceptable, but you haven't really made a case for why you think that.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by cian

Well one solution would be simply to make filesharing legal, which would deal with the substance of your objection. I'm guessing you wouldn't see that as acceptable, but you haven't really made a case for why you think that.

No not a solution. The point of copyright and other intellectual property laws is to allow the creator to profit from their work while improving society by making it available.

If you destroy the incentive to create new works there will be none.

[Greg Anos]

Give 'em a goat...

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Give 'em a goat...

Long as it all works out. Fine by me.

I was about to go into a long spiel about entitlement mindset and if all needs were met for all people.....but thought better of it.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Long as it all works out. Fine by me.

I was about to go into a long spiel about entitlement mindset and if all needs were met for all people.....but thought better of it.

Back in ancient Greece, plays were shown at an annual festival. The winning playwright was awarded a goat. Plays got the nickname "goat song".....

(Just another one of Pinky Carruthers 47,000 bits of useless information....)