Piracy Experiment

[Xanthe]

"Pirates"

"Scum"

"Lammer/lamer"

"Hoarding pirate"

"Intellectually dishonest"

"Book stealers"

"Selfish"

Interesting to see the judgements some here are passing on their fellow members. Apparently it's very unsettling to come into contact with people whose lives have developed differing moral and ethical codes, and who feel that their codes are just as valid as that of those passing judgement.

Why, it must be The-End-Of-The-World-As-We-Know-It.

[Maggie Leung]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Yes, and then they can't violate you again. Isn't that better than just being violated continuously? (Assuming you mind being violated, of course). I know of a few writers who take this choice, and also others who choose not to because they see benefits to people reading their work whether they pay for it or not. What would be your alternative? Deny the writers who don't care the chance of being read?

You're now adding strawman arguments. Try to focus on my only point on this thread so far:

If someone else posts an author's work without permission, the author has no choice.

Requesting removal doesn't restore the author's choice. And it's a joke to think you can scrub anything once it's hit the Internet, especially the darknet.

No one is arguing that authors can't give away whatever they want. The point is that when someone else does it, they've deprived the author of his choice on how to distribute his work. No matter how (in)effective an author's choice on distributing work, it should be his choice.

That's a value judgment, and I see no point in trying to foist my values on strangers. The (il)logical debate interests me, though.

[silasgreenback]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Yes, and then they can't violate you again. Isn't that better than just being violated continuously? (Assuming you mind being violated, of course). I know of a few writers who take this choice, and also others who choose not to because they see benefits to people reading their work whether they pay for it or not. What would be your alternative? Deny the writers who don't care the chance of being read?

Those authors that do see the benefits are to be credited. They seem to realize that some people are next to impossible to reach through standard advertising.

After all, any publicity is good publicity.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Xanthe

Interesting to see the judgements some here are passing on their fellow members. Apparently it's very unsettling to come into contact with people whose lives have developed differing moral and ethical codes, and who feel that their codes are just as valid as that of those passing judgement.

On a site dedicated to reading and book readers, it's hardly surprising that many people do not feel charitably disposed towards those who show disdain for the efforts of authors, and deny them their income.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by bucsie

I won't argue that downloading ebooks from the dark net is not stealing. I do feel for the authors and the publishers that lose money because of that. But I doubt that the percentage of dark-net readers influence the sales figures of any author to the extent that that writer is or is not signed for new contracts because of piracy.

Having said that, there is a cultural component to this whole darknet piracy. People who would not steal a candy have no qualms when it comes to mp3s. There is little tangibility to a file, it just doesn't feel like stealing.
Culturally speaking, being from an Eastern country where less that 5% of home users have even a legal OS - getting ebooks off the net is really not such a big deal. Everybody does it, nobody cares. Companies like Microsoft, Adobe are bleeding money if one compares software sales to actual users. I got laughed at for buying Vista last year, because I wanted to be legit. But the same people don't steal cars or food or clothes. It's just how they grew up.
So I can see and understand your outrage, but I doubt that you can understand my lack of shame.

I'm not outraged at all, to be honest. I'm just horribly surprised that people can take items and then pretend that what they did isn’t wrong. I’m not concerned that they did it, I’m not even telling them not to do it. But I am saying that if you claim – like most of us do here – that you love books (and therefore authors) and you decide that the best way for you to obtain books (for whatever reason) is to take them via the darknet – then drop a dollar in the tip jar.

What is super annoying is when people start to manufacture reasons as to why they can’t do even that little piddly amount. If you aren’t paying for your entertainment because you just like to take things, just admit it. No reason to make up stories. And I’m not even talking about file hoarders who never read the books they take, I’m talking about the files you actually do read. It really is the least you can do.

I completely understand your lack of shame, it’s based upon a theory called Dumbar’s number - you can find a much more humorous explanation here (in short: You don’t see the authors as real people so it is easy to dismiss any repercussions that may fall on them because of your actions). The reality is that no man is an island living unto himself. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

That being said – this is a conversation about piracy. We have different viewpoints. Just because I don’t agree with your actions doesn’t mean I don’t like you – I dislike your actions. It also doesn’t mean I don’t understand, I just don’t agree. We are not “arguing,” we are disagreeing and this is the place where we have chosen to do it.

[Xanthe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Do you seriously believe that nobody illegally download books simply because they want to get something for free, rather than pay for it?

I'm sure there are, just as there are people in every walk of life who try to get something for nothing rather than pay for it. It's common human behavior. The fact that those type of people are also on the Dark Net shouldn't come as any surprise.

Personally, I don't think that the Dark Net has any great effect on the sales of books. Those people who like to buy books are still buying books. Those people who never buy books are still not buying books. I think that more fuss is being made by those people who are morally outraged over the whole concept of someone else getting something for nothing, than by the actual effect on sales figures. As is clear in this thread, it has become an "Us vs. Them" argument, with a strong element of "If you're not with us, you're against us" applied.

It is a no-win argument. Those who use the Dark Net do so for reasons that are perfectly valid to them. Those who don't use it, ditto. The problem is occurring, IMO, because ebook file sharing is a completely different kettle of fish due to a cultural history of book sharing, libraries and used book sales. That's why those who use the arguments of car stealing and house breaking are having their words dismissed; those are square-peg/round-hole arguments.

I don't think that there is a clear right-wrong in this argument. Some will respond in exasperation, "but it is STEALING!" But the problem is, we can't even legally define what it is at this point. Is it theft? Is it copyright infringement? Does the legal code even adequately address the current situation or is it out-dated? When is sharing books allowed and when isn't it? Who is authorized to make that decision - the individual or the government? Why is it somehow okay to share a book with a few people but not a few hundred (or a few thousand)? Do we actually own what we buy and have the freedom to do what we will with it? Are publisher-imposed restrictions on books actually legal? Are they morally right? Would any of those people who file share the book have actually bought it; is the "lost sale" argument even valid? And that's not even taking into account the artificial geographical restrictions on book sales. Not to mention that we each have our own moral and ethical code, and that just because, for example, mine might differ from yours and vice versa, that doesn't make either of us morally superior to the other within the context of our lives.

[bucsie]

Originally Posted by MrsJoseph

– then drop a dollar in the tip jar.

But where is the tip jar?Say, hypothetically I got Lee Child's Jack Reacher series from the net. Where would I drop my dollar?

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by Ravensknight

Ok, let me write again, simply. I AGREE with you that piracy is morally wrong. I said that the first time. So why do you go off attacking me?



Moral and legal are NOT the same thing. Just remember slavery. As new situations arise, the legality must change, even if the moral underpinning is the same.



Back on topic. I used the word hubristic because you are setting yourself up in judgement over everyone else on an issue where the legal has not been well defined yet, because the moral hasn't been dealt with. I am not saying you are hubristic for saying that stealing is wrong. I am saying it is because you are calling anyone who disagrees with you on this subject selfish.

No one is attacking you, I’m attacking your statement, there is a difference. Often we agree, in this case we do not.

Morality – we both agree that taking something without permission is wrong. Not illegal. Wrong. Legally - how do you feel if someone takes something from you without your permission? Let’s say – your ereader. I take your ereader without your permission. How do you feel about this action? Most people are angered when someone takes something from them without permission. Typically, most people feel they deserve [some] type of compensation for this as well. Why not the author? What are you doing to compensate the author for the work that you just enjoyed? (Please note: this does not include library lending or any other activity in which you do not keep a copy of the work).

There are all types of words that DO FIT that I could have used instead of selfish for this action. Just because you don’t like to hear them doesn’t mean they are not true nor does it mean that I am now obligated to co-sign your activity.

In reality, we do agree. We both agree that stealing is wrong and that authors should be compensated for their hard work IF the work is being read. What we don’t agree about are the actions taking place.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by bucsie

But where is the tip jar?Say, hypothetically I got Lee Child's Jack Reacher series from the net. Where would I drop my dollar?

Send Mr. Child a cheque, care of his publisher, with a covering note saying you have downloaded his book illegally, but you wish to pay him for it.

[Maggie Leung]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Send Mr. Child a cheque, care of his publisher, with a covering note saying you have downloaded his book illegally, but you wish to pay him for it.

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Send Mr. Child a cheque, care of his publisher, with a covering note saying you have downloaded his book illegally, but you wish to pay him for it.

[HarryT]

What's the problem with doing that? The people who have (theoretically, of course) downloaded the book illegally say that they have no problem with their (theoretical) actions, so why not be open about it with the publisher?

[Maggie Leung]

Originally Posted by HarryT

What's the problem with doing that? The people who have (theoretically, of course) downloaded the book illegally say that they have no problem with their (theoretical) actions, so why not be open about it with the publisher?

I don't think anyone who has committed copyright violation will send name, address and admission of violation to a publisher.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Maggie Leung

I don't think anyone who has committed copyright violation will send name, address and admission of violation to a publisher.

Everyone keeps saying that they don't think they're doing anything wrong. If they honestly and truly believe this to be so, they should have no problem with my suggested action.

[Maggie Leung]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Everyone keeps saying that they don't think they're doing anything wrong. If they honestly and truly believe this to be so, they should have no problem with my suggested action.

I think they're saying it's ethically / morally OK. I don't think they're saying it's not something that could land you in legal trouble. But I think you know that, lol.