Confessions of a Book Pirate - Page 17

Steven Lyle Jordan · 02-01-2010, 07:57 PM

Yes, MrBlueSky is advocating theft, and justifying it by saying "it's easy."

For the record, no author is demanding a consumer pay for their works "in perpetuity"... just a one-time payment. And suggestions to the contrary are simply ludicrous.

And so is justifying theft, without a rational basis for claiming the product you desire should be stolen, because it can be stolen. After all, a book is not a meal... you will not die without it. So what possible justifiable reason would there be to steal it? None... other than personal greed and selfishness.

I daresay few of us at MobileRead are impressed by personal greed and selfishness, MrBlueSky.

guyanonymous · 02-01-2010, 08:21 PM

I thought it had been established that in legal terms, breach of copyright wasn't theft, it was "breach of copyright"? Or did I miss something? They are two distinct concepts in legal terms.

What I took as the important part of MrBluesky's post wasn't justification so much as an explanation or rational behind WHY it happens. Just because you don't want something to happen doesn't negate the fact that there are reasons behind its occurrence.

I don't want someone to steal my bike again and again. I can keep putting my bike in the front yard and it will keep getting stolen (shoehorning the current business models into situations they no longer function properly). I can also change what I do (either keep my bike inside or perhaps help the thieves to deal with their underlying problem i.e., addiction and need to find money to feed that addiction) to better meet my needs - and perhaps those of others. Justification no - but understanding realities yes.

And I'm sure that's not a great analogy, but I'm also sure that it conveys a smidgen of meaning. If your system doesn't work any more, change it so that it does, because you can't control the behavior of others. Learn that you're not a monk or scribe with a monopoly on reading and writing and knowledge....develop a printing press and learn to read....or a new business model that works with reality, not what you wish it would be (rightly or wrongly).

kennyc · 02-01-2010, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guyanonymous

I thought it had been established that in legal terms, breach of copyright wasn't theft, it was "breach of copyright"? Or did I miss something? ..

Yep, you missed the part about morals and ethics and what is right vs what is wrong (and so did the blueguy). Laws are temporary, doing what is right is forever.

guyanonymous · 02-01-2010, 08:53 PM

Ah. Gotcha. You believe I'm immoral and unethical. Regardless, when terms such us "thief" are thrown around, you are using legal terms and those should be used correctly. EDIT: I want to note that you don't state that I fall into those categories, and I appreciate your careful wording.

And I agree - do what's right. Be open-minded. Don't throw around labels and names. Alas your definition of morality and that of others might be different.

Ethics and morality change with time as well. Hopefully, they are changing for the better. What was considered ethical and moral in the past, is not always considered ethical and moral in the present or will be in the future. Legal and social contracts are often based around current ethics and morality, but those often change with time as well.

Instead of simply saying things like, "You're wrong", "You're immoral", "You're a thief," etc., as many in this thread have done, I'd appreciate if people tried addressing points raised - that's the usual process in a debate. Otherwise it becomes a childish argument of "am not" "are too" and only doesn't change any minds.

guyanonymous · 02-01-2010, 09:03 PM

It's also important to not confuse the beliefs of people and their actions, unless explicitly stated. A lawyer defending his client for theft or copyright violation is not to be assumed a thief or a copyright violator as well (being distinct legal actions) or a politician arguing for a change in marijuana law should not be assumed to actually smoke the reefer herself.

kennyc · 02-01-2010, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guyanonymous

.. I'd appreciate if people tried addressing points raised - that's the usual process in a debate. Otherwise it becomes a childish argument of "am not" "are too" and only doesn't change any minds.

Well, see that's another mistake you've made. This is not a debate.

guyanonymous · 02-01-2010, 09:36 PM

What is it then?

Steven Lyle Jordan · 02-01-2010, 10:06 PM

Another piracy thread that's gone on for far too long and wasted quite a bit of time accomplishing absolutely nothing.

guyanonymous · 02-01-2010, 10:07 PM

If it changes one person's views (either direction), how could that be accomplishing nothing? Learning, on both sides, is always a good thing in my view.

Steven Lyle Jordan · 02-01-2010, 10:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guyanonymous

If it changes one person's views (either direction), how could that be accomplishing nothing? Learning, on both sides, is always a good thing in my view.

Okay, show of hands: Whose viewpoint has been changed by this thread?

guyanonymous · 02-01-2010, 10:15 PM

I've definitely gained new insight into both perspectives. That has allowed me to refine my own perspective.

Steven Lyle Jordan · 02-01-2010, 10:31 PM

And so, you're saying either that if you pirated e-books before, you won't do so ever again... or, if you didn't, that you will start pirating them now?

Is there anyone else here who's had this change of heart?

guyanonymous · 02-01-2010, 10:34 PM

No, that's not what I'm saying (in either direction). I'm saying that I've a new appreciation for both sides of the argument, and that my own perspective has changed in some way. Not everything in life is black or white as you seem to imply.

schex86 · 02-01-2010, 10:37 PM

This forum and others like it have inspired me to seek out the underlying roots of the issue. I do not accept at face value, as other seem to insist I must, the concept of IP as a natural form of property. If its definition as such cannot be adequately defended, then the governmental constructs which provide that very definition must also be questioned, and changed to reflect reality and the will of society which that gov't serves.

Guya is right, if but one mind is freed from the propagandistic misconceptions foisted upon us by our creative "masters", then that is one step closer to bringing about the balance of interests so necessary in this social contract.

The claim that there is no debate is simply denial, and the attempt to secure a non-existent moral high ground. There are things that are naturally wrong, that are understood by all humanity, that are "forever", as someone here so eloquently put it. But to place self serving interests and the demand for control over Individual actions in conjunction with outmoded business models and antiquated concepts of "scarcity" and "hoarding" onto this lofty pedestal is a stretch in logic that must be extensively explained.

Certainly, the violation of an oath, or contract is one of the natural rights or wrongs, but how will you bind someone to an oath they never made? An oath which someone else made in proxy for them, but which they as an Individual would never have agreed to in the first place. That deception, for that is truly what it is, is also inherently wrong.

Correct it, and see for yourselves where right and truth will take us.

ardeegee · 02-01-2010, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kennyc

Yep, you missed the part about morals and ethics and what is right vs what is wrong (and so did the blueguy). Laws are temporary, doing what is right is forever.

You keep saying (ad nauseum) that "wrong is wrong" and "right is right" as if there were actually real things. But they aren't. They are subjective human concepts. What is real is physical matter and the properties of that matter-- you can measure the speed of light in a vacuum-- you can measure the weight of the proton. "Right"? "Wrong"? "Love"? "Hate"? Utterly subjective things that do not exist outside of the collective result of chemical processes and physical structures in the human brain known as the "mind". Unless you can show me how to measure "right" and "wrong" in a way that would not only be accepted as objectively true to any and all impartial human observers from any human society but also be accepted as objectively true to any hyperintelligent purple brain slug from exoplanet GJ758B, then I will continue to think you are pulling those concepts of absolutism out of your buttoxcal area.

02-01-2010, 08:53 PM	#244
guyanonymous Guru Posts: 692 Karma: 27532 Join Date: Dec 2007 Device: Ebookwise 1150 / 1200	Ah. Gotcha. You believe I'm immoral and unethical. Regardless, when terms such us "thief" are thrown around, you are using legal terms and those should be used correctly. EDIT: I want to note that you don't state that I fall into those categories, and I appreciate your careful wording. And I agree - do what's right. Be open-minded. Don't throw around labels and names. Alas your definition of morality and that of others might be different. Ethics and morality change with time as well. Hopefully, they are changing for the better. What was considered ethical and moral in the past, is not always considered ethical and moral in the present or will be in the future. Legal and social contracts are often based around current ethics and morality, but those often change with time as well. Instead of simply saying things like, "You're wrong", "You're immoral", "You're a thief," etc., as many in this thread have done, I'd appreciate if people tried addressing points raised - that's the usual process in a debate. Otherwise it becomes a childish argument of "am not" "are too" and only doesn't change any minds. Last edited by guyanonymous; 02-01-2010 at 08:56 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Confessions of a Shopaholic under a Buck!	koland	Deals and Resources (No Self-Promotion or Affiliate Links)	5	08-06-2010 08:27 AM
Confessions of an After-Article Reader....	taglines	News	2	02-02-2010 12:29 PM
Author Encourages Users to Pirate His Book	kennyc	Writers' Corner	8	10-18-2009 09:08 AM
Confessions of a Shopaholic	digitalzen	Lounge	0	12-03-2008 10:53 AM
Are you an e-book Pirate?	Alexander Turcic	News	15	05-14-2004 01:02 AM

02-01-2010, 07:57 PM	#241
Steven Lyle Jordan Grand Sorcerer Posts: 8,478 Karma: 5171130 Join Date: Jan 2006 Device: none	Yes, MrBlueSky is advocating theft, and justifying it by saying "it's easy." For the record, no author is demanding a consumer pay for their works "in perpetuity"... just a one-time payment. And suggestions to the contrary are simply ludicrous. And so is justifying theft, without a rational basis for claiming the product you desire should be stolen, because it can be stolen. After all, a book is not a meal... you will not die without it. So what possible justifiable reason would there be to steal it? None... other than personal greed and selfishness. I daresay few of us at MobileRead are impressed by personal greed and selfishness, MrBlueSky.

02-01-2010, 08:21 PM	#242
guyanonymous Guru Posts: 692 Karma: 27532 Join Date: Dec 2007 Device: Ebookwise 1150 / 1200	I thought it had been established that in legal terms, breach of copyright wasn't theft, it was "breach of copyright"? Or did I miss something? They are two distinct concepts in legal terms. What I took as the important part of MrBluesky's post wasn't justification so much as an explanation or rational behind WHY it happens. Just because you don't want something to happen doesn't negate the fact that there are reasons behind its occurrence. I don't want someone to steal my bike again and again. I can keep putting my bike in the front yard and it will keep getting stolen (shoehorning the current business models into situations they no longer function properly). I can also change what I do (either keep my bike inside or perhaps help the thieves to deal with their underlying problem i.e., addiction and need to find money to feed that addiction) to better meet my needs - and perhaps those of others. Justification no - but understanding realities yes. And I'm sure that's not a great analogy, but I'm also sure that it conveys a smidgen of meaning. If your system doesn't work any more, change it so that it does, because you can't control the behavior of others. Learn that you're not a monk or scribe with a monopoly on reading and writing and knowledge....develop a printing press and learn to read....or a new business model that works with reality, not what you wish it would be (rightly or wrongly).

02-01-2010, 09:03 PM	#245
guyanonymous Guru Posts: 692 Karma: 27532 Join Date: Dec 2007 Device: Ebookwise 1150 / 1200	It's also important to not confuse the beliefs of people and their actions, unless explicitly stated. A lawyer defending his client for theft or copyright violation is not to be assumed a thief or a copyright violator as well (being distinct legal actions) or a politician arguing for a change in marijuana law should not be assumed to actually smoke the reefer herself.

02-01-2010, 09:36 PM	#247
guyanonymous Guru Posts: 692 Karma: 27532 Join Date: Dec 2007 Device: Ebookwise 1150 / 1200	What is it then?

02-01-2010, 10:06 PM	#248
Steven Lyle Jordan Grand Sorcerer Posts: 8,478 Karma: 5171130 Join Date: Jan 2006 Device: none	Another piracy thread that's gone on for far too long and wasted quite a bit of time accomplishing absolutely nothing.

02-01-2010, 10:07 PM	#249
guyanonymous Guru Posts: 692 Karma: 27532 Join Date: Dec 2007 Device: Ebookwise 1150 / 1200	If it changes one person's views (either direction), how could that be accomplishing nothing? Learning, on both sides, is always a good thing in my view.

02-01-2010, 10:15 PM	#251
guyanonymous Guru Posts: 692 Karma: 27532 Join Date: Dec 2007 Device: Ebookwise 1150 / 1200	I've definitely gained new insight into both perspectives. That has allowed me to refine my own perspective.

02-01-2010, 10:31 PM	#252
Steven Lyle Jordan Grand Sorcerer Posts: 8,478 Karma: 5171130 Join Date: Jan 2006 Device: none	And so, you're saying either that if you pirated e-books before, you won't do so ever again... or, if you didn't, that you will start pirating them now? Is there anyone else here who's had this change of heart?

02-01-2010, 10:34 PM	#253
guyanonymous Guru Posts: 692 Karma: 27532 Join Date: Dec 2007 Device: Ebookwise 1150 / 1200	No, that's not what I'm saying (in either direction). I'm saying that I've a new appreciation for both sides of the argument, and that my own perspective has changed in some way. Not everything in life is black or white as you seem to imply.

02-01-2010, 10:37 PM	#254
schex86 Enthusiast Posts: 48 Karma: 766 Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Alaska Device: Kindle 2, Blackberry Mobipocket Reader	This forum and others like it have inspired me to seek out the underlying roots of the issue. I do not accept at face value, as other seem to insist I must, the concept of IP as a natural form of property. If its definition as such cannot be adequately defended, then the governmental constructs which provide that very definition must also be questioned, and changed to reflect reality and the will of society which that gov't serves. Guya is right, if but one mind is freed from the propagandistic misconceptions foisted upon us by our creative "masters", then that is one step closer to bringing about the balance of interests so necessary in this social contract. The claim that there is no debate is simply denial, and the attempt to secure a non-existent moral high ground. There are things that are naturally wrong, that are understood by all humanity, that are "forever", as someone here so eloquently put it. But to place self serving interests and the demand for control over Individual actions in conjunction with outmoded business models and antiquated concepts of "scarcity" and "hoarding" onto this lofty pedestal is a stretch in logic that must be extensively explained. Certainly, the violation of an oath, or contract is one of the natural rights or wrongs, but how will you bind someone to an oath they never made? An oath which someone else made in proxy for them, but which they as an Individual would never have agreed to in the first place. That deception, for that is truly what it is, is also inherently wrong. Correct it, and see for yourselves where right and truth will take us.

Advert

Advert