Paul Coelho on Piracy and Publishing

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

In both cases, the person was punished for his illegal act. That is the morality.

Obviously, law (and enforcement) can be flexible... and yes, we all know about how powerful and influential people manage to bend the law to lenience in their case.

But that doesn't remove the morality of law... only its effectiveness.

To be clear, what we're really discussing here is the effectiveness of copyright law, because I don't really believe there are too many MR members here who believe that authors' works should be stolen.

Right?

[cjr72]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Paul R Allen received a 40 month sentence in part because he testified against Lee B. Farkas, the mastermind of the fraud scheme. Farkas received a 30 years in prison, twice as long as Roy Brown.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/roybrown.asp

[sbroome]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

meme posted

I'm not sure how you think what you posted disproves what I said. Again, not sure how you're reaching these conclusions. Are you confusing "misplaced" or "inadequate" morality with no morality whatsoever? That would be the only possible reason to post what you did, not to say that the law was unrelated to morality itself. There's a disconnect for me in how a lot of you folks on this forum articulate your positions, I'm trying really hard to understand what you think you're saying here.

[sbroome]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

In both cases, the person was punished for his illegal act. That is the morality.

Obviously, law (and enforcement) can be flexible... and yes, we all know about how powerful and influential people manage to bend the law to lenience in their case.

But that doesn't remove the morality of law... only its effectiveness.

To be clear, what we're really discussing here is the effectiveness of copyright law, because I don't really believe there are too many MR members here who believe that authors' works should be stolen.

Right?

I'm not sure that people see digital theft as actual theft because of the lack of physical goods. I'm just basing that on what I've seen from people who defend piracy (that and the "wouldn't have gotten it if it weren't available for free" thing).

[rhari79]

I maybe late in on this thread and i may even be digressing. Apologies if so..but on topic of piracy etc.,
I just noticed this in a few forums:
GoodEreader app store/site allows downloading mantano reader for free..
Crackberry is listing scores of android apps converted to bar files, and many say like IM+ are paid apps.
(I havent tried these apps, so am not sure if these are free/eval versions.)

Not that i am complaining about these..but just dont want pipa/sopa crap shutting down these great discussion forums.

Is it ok to post a small friendly alert..or will that make me a spoilsport?

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

In both cases, the person was punished for his illegal act. That is the morality.

Obviously, law (and enforcement) can be flexible... and yes, we all know about how powerful and influential people manage to bend the law to lenience in their case.

This flexibility is what makes the law immoral.

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

To be clear, what we're really discussing here is the effectiveness of copyright law, because I don't really believe there are too many MR members here who believe that authors' works should be stolen.

Copyright law began because publishers were taking advantage of authors. The law is flexible enough to allow publishers to keep taking advantage of authors.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by sbroome

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.

Not exactly, what I meant was that the promise of digital text distribution is access to all texts by everyone at all times. We will need to support the process of creation rather than the creation itself if this promise is to be fulfilled, this is what the end of copyright is going to mean.

[taosaur]

Originally Posted by sbroome

I'm not sure that people see digital theft as actual theft because of the lack of physical goods.

Or perhaps it's because of the lack of theft. Copyright infringement is copying something to which you lack the rights. Even in terms of physical goods, a knock-off Timex is not a stolen Timex. Attempts to equate file-sharing with theft are the kind of dishonest, bad-faith tactics consumers have come to expect from media industries. These tactics, including hobbling products with sanctioned malware (DRM), only promote disrespect for copyright.

The point is not whether "file-sharing bad" or "file-sharing good," but what are realistic steps to take to minimize file-sharing and full-blown counterfeiting/piracy, and more generally allow rights-owners to monetize their works more fully. Rights-owners don't have much control over pirates; they would be much better advised to address their own sales practices and their relationship with consumers. Throwing good money after bad with ineffective DRM that devalues your product and lobbying that further damages your reputation is not the answer.

[sbroome]

Originally Posted by taosaur

Or perhaps it's because of the lack of theft. Copyright infringement is copying something to which you lack the rights. Even in terms of physical goods, a knock-off Timex is not a stolen Timex. Attempts to equate file-sharing with theft are the kind of dishonest, bad-faith tactics consumers have come to expect from media industries. These tactics, including hobbling products with sanctioned malware (DRM), only promote disrespect for copyright.

I disagree in every way possible. I think people just get into cutesy lawyer mode when they refuse to acknowledge something pretty basic, which is that you're supposed to pay for consumption and instead choose to partake for free. Sneaking into a movie theater or amusement park is dishonest; whether there were seats that were going to be unused or not doesn't matter. If an item is up for sale and you and 20,000 other people get the free version via download you're not in any kind of gray area, it's just taking something that doesn't belong to you (belong in the ownership sense of purchasing).

I find attempts to paint pirates as care-free Robin Hoods to be far more dishonest.

[CyGuy]

Originally Posted by taosaur

Or perhaps it's because of the lack of theft. Copyright infringement is copying something to which you lack the rights. Even in terms of physical goods, a knock-off Timex is not a stolen Timex. Attempts to equate file-sharing with theft are the kind of dishonest, bad-faith tactics consumers have come to expect from media industries. These tactics, including hobbling products with sanctioned malware (DRM), only promote disrespect for copyright.

I agree with this. I have even seen a public service announcement in a movie theater that was addressing copyright infringement with the statement "you wouldn't steal a car would you?". What is really sad is how many people fall for it, they begin to equate copyright infringement with stealing. People are gullible and are easy to take advantage of these days it would seem.

[anamardoll]

Yeah, the conflation of "file sharing" with "theft" has, in my opinion, been damaging to the IP cause. People (on the whole, at least in my face-space) are not stupid and they understand that, say, lending an ebook to a friend to read is not the same thing as jacking a car. I mean, c'mon.

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by taosaur

Or perhaps it's because of the lack of theft. Copyright infringement is copying something to which you lack the rights. Even in terms of physical goods, a knock-off Timex is not a stolen Timex. Attempts to equate file-sharing with theft are the kind of dishonest, bad-faith tactics consumers have come to expect from media industries. These tactics, including hobbling products with sanctioned malware (DRM), only promote disrespect for copyright.

The point is not whether "file-sharing bad" or "file-sharing good," but what are realistic steps to take to minimize file-sharing and full-blown counterfeiting/piracy, and more generally allow rights-owners to monetize their works more fully. Rights-owners don't have much control over pirates; they would be much better advised to address their own sales practices and their relationship with consumers. Throwing good money after bad with ineffective DRM that devalues your product and lobbying that further damages your reputation is not the answer.

Would you consider amending your opinion concerning file sharing? It seems to me that everything we do should work towards maximizing the sharing of files/texts in every way possible.

[teh603]

So am I the only one who sees an alterior motive to granting corporate America the ability to force the government to censor the internet? This isn't really about a few bootlegged .mkv or .iso files; its about them getting the ability to willfully and maliciously shut down the ebook presses and video sites that are legitimately eroding their profits.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by sbroome

I disagree in every way possible. I think people just get into cutesy lawyer mode when they refuse to acknowledge something pretty basic, which is that you're supposed to pay for consumption and instead choose to partake for free. Sneaking into a movie theater or amusement park is dishonest; whether there were seats that were going to be unused or not doesn't matter. If an item is up for sale and you and 20,000 other people get the free version via download you're not in any kind of gray area, it's just taking something that doesn't belong to you (belong in the ownership sense of purchasing).

I find attempts to paint pirates as care-free Robin Hoods to be far more dishonest.

You have a couple of things wrong. For one, paying for an ebook doesn't give you ownership. For another, Robin Hood was an actual thief, and while I agree that painting pirates as Robin Hoods is dishonest I don't think that it was your intent to insult yourself.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

This flexibility is what makes the law immoral.

No, lack of flexibility is what would make law immoral.

But there are a lot of differences between these crime, the largest one being that robbery is a *violent* crime and theft isn't. The amount doesn't matter; the law will punish someone who robs you of $2 at gunpoint more than someone who steals much more, but does it nonviolently.

It is a moral judgment that violent crimes deserve more punishment than nonviolent crimes.

Brown (the homeless man) had a significant criminal history. Allen (the CEO), was a first offender. It is a moral judgment that first offenders should be treated more leniently than people who have seven previous convictions (based on five separate episodes).

Allen's sentence was also lower because he wasn't the originator of the mortgage fraud and he cooperated in the investigation against the main fraudster. There is a moral judgment that people with reduced culpability deserve lower sentences than people with greater culpability. His sentence was also reduced because he cooperated with authorities in the investigation: society has also made the moral judgment that it is worth reducing the sentences of minor players to go after the big players. (While this is a moral judgment, it is different in kind from the other examples, which all focused on either: (1) the seriousness of the crime; or (2) the character of the offender. Reducing a cooperating witnesses sentence really has nothing to do with these issues - it is more about how the state can go after the most serious criminals.)

But all of these judgments are moral judgments. People are free to disagree with the particular judgments - but they would just be substituting other moral judgments. Like that the seriousness of the crime should be judged solely on the amount of money taken.