Paul Coelho on Piracy and Publishing

[karunaji]

Originally Posted by sbroome

Yes I'm sure it's different in many places like that, unfortunately you aren't OWED access to entertainment. This isn't a civil right. The point can't be more basic.

It is just a universal human urge to explore the world, especially its different cultural aspects. Georestrictions, in essence are not much different than the Soviet control of information. But even the Soviets couldn't stop samizdat.

The people who risked their career and lives to distribute western books or videofilms today are considered brave but 30 years ago they were publicly condemned. In reality most of them were small opportunists who smuggled things to earn some illegal money. Not much different from current content pirates today.

[azazel1024]

Originally Posted by sbroome

Technology shouldn't dictate people's morality. I find that with technology (aka price aggregators and websites where you can buy stuff on sale constantly) it's very easy to legally purchase entertainment. If anything the internet is a reason NOT to engage in piracy. One of the sites I follow notified me when the entire run of BSG was available on blu-ray for 80 bucks. What more do people want exactly? After all the cute semantics the reality is that people just want a bunch of free stuff, this isn't a civil rights movement.

I don't disagree with you.

However, how about if you own the work already in printed form? What is the moral direction on that one getting a "pirated" electronic copy? Its perfectly legal if you were to scan your own paper copy, but not to download the pirated electronic copy. Yes you can argue that there is "value added" in the conversion process, possibly a table of contents added that is linked internally.

However, a lot of the ebook pirated versions are OCR scanned, and occasionally, user corrected for any scanning mistakes. So it isn't value added by the rights holder.

Or even a step futher, what if you already own the printed work, and the publisher/author has not made an electronic version available for sale, but there is a pirated version available?

In either case it is not direct theft. They may lose a(nother) sale in the case of pirating the work electronically whilest already owning the printed work. In the case of not making it available, they don't even lose a sale. You've already paid the rights holder for their work.

I truely am just wondering your thoughts on the morality of either scenario (not the legality, that has been established).

[sbroome]

Originally Posted by azazel1024

I don't disagree with you.

However, how about if you own the work already in printed form? What is the moral direction on that one getting a "pirated" electronic copy? Its perfectly legal if you were to scan your own paper copy, but not to download the pirated electronic copy. Yes you can argue that there is "value added" in the conversion process, possibly a table of contents added that is linked internally.

However, a lot of the ebook pirated versions are OCR scanned, and occasionally, user corrected for any scanning mistakes. So it isn't value added by the rights holder.

Or even a step futher, what if you already own the printed work, and the publisher/author has not made an electronic version available for sale, but there is a pirated version available?

In either case it is not direct theft. They may lose a(nother) sale in the case of pirating the work electronically whilest already owning the printed work. In the case of not making it available, they don't even lose a sale. You've already paid the rights holder for their work.

I truely am just wondering your thoughts on the morality of either scenario (not the legality, that has been established).

I absolutely think that once you have paid for the ownership of a property in one form you should get it in all of them. What matters is paying to support the creation, not the actual format. I hate the way big media companies bilk customers with re-releases and remasters and all that other nonsense. I also think anybody should be able to make a digital copy of whatever they've bought so they don't have to take things out one at a time whenever they want to use/view/listen to something. My own work is available DRM free and available for lending b/c I do believe in being reasonable about this.

[Giggleton]

But once something exists how would it even be possible to support its creation, what we can do is support future creations from the same creator, but that is slightly different...

[sbroome]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

But once something exists how would it even be possible to support its creation, what we can do is support future creations from the same creator, but that is slightly different...

I said support "the creation" which obviously in this context means "the created work", not "the process of creation". In the attempt to find some kind of meaningless semantic to argue you're completely misreading what I said.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by taosaur

Neither should law or corporate fiat.

Actually, law is designed to dictate and enforce morality. It is generally created once a society decides on a moral issue, and needs a mechanism to make sure all of society abides by it. And the law is used as a guide to enforcing the desired morality fairly.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by sbroome

In the attempt to find some kind of meaningless semantic to argue you're completely misreading what I said.

He's good at that.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Actually, law is designed to dictate and enforce morality. It is generally created once a society decides on a moral issue, and needs a mechanism to make sure all of society abides by it. And the law is used as a guide to enforcing the desired morality fairly.

Is that your own theory of jurisprudence or are you citing someone?

[taosaur]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Actually, law is designed to dictate and enforce morality. It is generally created once a society decides on a moral issue, and needs a mechanism to make sure all of society abides by it. And the law is used as a guide to enforcing the desired morality fairly.

The law is designed to enforce contracts, including the social contract. It's helpful if it's produced ethically, without imbalanced influence from one or more parties in a given contract, but there is no such thing as "enforcing... morality."

[SilverBear]

Actually, Common Law traditionally has one of its bases in exactly what Mr. Jordan is saying. It's based on traditional social values and mores, and on the precedents that have been set for adjudicating disputes of a similar nature.

I think that the problem arises when the more powerful classes in a society take it upon themselves to redefine morality to solidify/enhance their power -- and then seek to enforce their notions with the police powers of the state.

[SilverBear]

Originally Posted by Giggleton

But once something exists how would it even be possible to support its creation, what we can do is support future creations from the same creator, but that is slightly different...

I think I see what you're saying. Let me recast it in a scenario, and tell me if I've got it or no.

We sit around the fire after it gets too dark to hunt or dig tubers. Some of us tell stories. Sometimes the stories are ones we make up --whether they really "happened" or not. Sometimes we repeat "good ones" that we've heard.

If Giggleton tells a story he originally heard from me, nobody gives me a drink tonight. But if taosaur (say) remembers that I've told some good ones, he might invite me to supper in his hut, expecting to hear my new thriller about killing an elephant in my pyjamas.

In the first case, Giggleton is reproducing a story in the public domain. In the second, tausaur is supporting the creation of a new story.

[Any names used in this Episode are strictly co-incidental and do not portray the actions of any real person, living or dead.]

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Actually, law is designed to dictate and enforce morality. It is generally created once a society decides on a moral issue, and needs a mechanism to make sure all of society abides by it. And the law is used as a guide to enforcing the desired morality fairly.

Law has nothing to do with morality.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Law has nothing to do with morality.

I am as unconvinced that morality has nothing to do with morality as I am that the law is designed to dictate and enforce morality. The law against murdering people would seem to have something to do with the moral prohibition on killing innocent people, whilst the possession of small amounts of cannabis is, in some jurisdictions, illegal but would seem to have no moral component - not everything that is immoral is illegal and not everything that is illegal is immoral and not everything that is moral is legal.

[sbroome]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Law has nothing to do with morality.

I don't understand how you can possibly say that laws don't reflect morality. It seems like an impossible conclusion to reach.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by sbroome

I don't understand how you can possibly say that laws don't reflect morality. It seems like an impossible conclusion to reach.