The $15 Boycott: Will you be participating?

[Lemurion]

It's producing a book for sale without permission of the copyright holder that is illegal; not simply selling a book.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by kennyc

First and foremost I am not talking about law. I'm talking about morals and ethics and knowing what is right and wrong and still doing the wrong thing. I don't give a huff what the law says, I do care about people knowing and doing the right thing regardless of law. Exactly as I stated it.

I absolutely agree with this - i.e. that it's important to think about what is right and wrong, and to do the right thing. I'm interested in ethics (I even read books about it, most of which I didn't steal!). I'm not a "young person" with newfangled digital morals - I've got children and I want them to learn how to behave properly.

But despite all this, I get the impression from your posts (although I could of course be wrong) that various things that I would think are OK, you would class as criminal (i.e. very naughty even if legal).

In particular, would you think it morally repugnant to copy a book for which you own a physical copy? or one where the author was long dead (but in copyright) - say The House at Pooh Corner?

Surely, if we don't give a huff about the law, we should examine our moral compass in each case, and act accordingly, legal or not?

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by kennyc

First and foremost I am not talking about law. I'm talking about morals and ethics and knowing what is right and wrong and still doing the wrong thing. I don't give a huff what the law says, I do care about people knowing and doing the right thing regardless of law. Exactly as I stated it.

Your possession of my property without my authorization is immoral yes, it's wrong, you have stolen something from me.

There is only so much of this nonsense that I can stand.

As the copyright holder, you do not own the digital file that was copied. You own the copyright; that is not the same thing. Absent some legal chicanery to take the actual copyright away from you, you haven't had lost anything.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

There is only so much of this nonsense that I can stand.

As the copyright holder, you do not own the digital file that was copied. You own the copyright; that is not the same thing. Absent some legal chicanery to take the actual copyright away from you, you haven't had lost anything.

Nonsense, is that what you call it when thieves are stealing property that belongs to someone else?

Far from nonsense actually. It a matter of understanding the differences in the format is all. Most clearly do not understand.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Nonsense, is that what you call it when thieves are stealing property that belongs to someone else?

Far from nonsense actually. It a matter of understanding the differences in the format is all. Most clearly do not understand.

Again, so long as no one tries to take the actual copyright away from you, you have lost nothing.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

I absolutely agree with this - i.e. that it's important to think about what is right and wrong, and to do the right thing. I'm interested in ethics (I even read books about it, most of which I didn't steal!). I'm not a "young person" with newfangled digital morals - I've got children and I want them to learn how to behave properly.

But despite all this, I get the impression from your posts (although I could of course be wrong) that various things that I would think are OK, you would class as criminal (i.e. very naughty even if legal).

In particular, would you think it morally repugnant to copy a book for which you own a physical copy? or one where the author was long dead (but in copyright) - say The House at Pooh Corner?

Surely, if we don't give a huff about the law, we should examine our moral compass in each case, and act accordingly, legal or not?

Yes but not individual moral compasses the moral compass of doing what is right within society, not as an individual, that is what the point of intellectual property law (and it's basis) is about.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Again, so long as no one tries to take the actual copyright away from you, you have lost nothing.

Wrong. I have not authorized you to have my property or do anything with it, I have lost my rights. You can't say I have not been harmed. It is not your right to posses my property without my permission.

[DawnFalcon]

If it's too expensive or DRM-ridden, I'll keep on buying second hand. Wise up, publishers.

I'm certainly not going to condem a $15 price point per-se, I've paid more for technical manuals and I paid $15 for the eARC of Mission of Honor yesterday...

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by Pardoz

Well, except when it isn't. I'm not aware of any jurisdiction in which selling a book second-hand is illegal.

Older kids books, America, under the CPSIA.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Wrong. I have not authorized you to have my property or do anything with it, I have lost my rights. You can't say I have not been harmed. It is not your right to posses my property without my permission.

Again, the individual files do not belong to you. You own the copyright. So long as you still own the copyright, you have lost no property.

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Nonsense, is that what you call it when thieves are stealing property that belongs to someone else?

Buying a used book?

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Older kids books, America, under the CPSIA.

Cute corner case, I'll have to keep that one in mind

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Yes but not individual moral compasses the moral compass of doing what is right within society, not as an individual, that is what the point of intellectual property law (and it's basis) is about.

You said that you don't give a huff about the law, but care about what is right. But now, it seems that what is right is what is codified in law? Shome mistake, surely?

There is no single moral compass for society, even if there is a broad consensus on some issues such as murder being bad, for example. As I said, my view of the consensus on making copies for personal use is that it is not seen as a terrible thing - a bit naughty at worst. Theft, on the other hand, is seen in a completely different light.

Just look at the market for copying vinyl onto cassette. You could buy twin deck machines designed for copying on every high street - most hifi aimed at the mass market had twin cassettes as standard. Blank tapes were sold everywhere - often in blocks of 5 etc.

My point is that it was accepted as normal, even expected, that people would copy music and swap albums etc., and this was actively encouraged by making it easy to purchase the means to do so. So, I would claim that the social consensus was that such copying was not a terrible thing. This is completely different to the consensus on physical theft.

You can't have it all ways. Either it's a matter of the law, or it's a social consensus, or it's a personal issue. If it's "what is right within society", I'd contend that copying is largely socially acceptable.

[Tattncat]

Originally Posted by mollybo

I can wait until prices drop to a level I'm comfortable with. If I lose interest before an acceptable price, well, it's a lost sale then, isn't it? Too bad!

If we don't buy at an "acceptable" level, the publishers will never figure out at what price the consumer is willing to pay.

Ditto

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by cmdahler

I suppose, in the selfishness that is increasingly the hallmark of thought in this day and age, you never stopped to consider in the midst of your rationalization that the author might perhaps care about the lost royalties from this "it doesn't hurt anyone" scheme.

1) I didn't say it "doesn't hurt anyone;" I said that an unauthorized copy doesn't remove an authorized one from anyone's possession. I didn't say "torrenting is okay;" I said it's not theft.

2) Authors don't get royalties for most of what I read in print, which tends heavily towards second-hand books. Are you claiming I'm immoral for having those?

You are focusing on the reading public, as though they are the ones who even matter, as though, when an author spends months or years creating a work, that the public has some kind of God-given right to read it. That's complete and utter horse manure.

Agreed.

However, the author has no Gods-given right to be paid for my reading, either. There are several legal ways to read that don't involve the possibility of royalties.

If I write a book and you want to read it, you can pay me what I want for it or you can do without.

Or I can borrow it from someone else. Or buy it at a yard sale. Or find it in a box of free books near my mailbox (my apartment complex often has freebies near the mailboxes). I don't have to pay *you* to read your book, unless I'm strongly inclined to read it in the first few weeks after it's published.

you had no intention of paying me for the privilege of reading my work and instead would just go illegally copy it from someone else.

How about if I legally borrow it from someone else? You're still out a royalty payment for my reading. Am I still stealing?