Piracy Experiment

[Anke Wehner]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

But sometimes that say it's not legal if it doesn't have a cover and most of those that have that message do not acually have a proper cover. So are they illegal eBooks?

I'd suspect those are just a sign that the publishing house was too lazy to do a proper job of the ebook, and left in boilerplate text that makes only sense for print books...

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Catlady

But I do have trouble understanding in my own head why an act is moral if done once or twice, but immoral if done "many" times, however "many" is defined.

I think this is a variant on the sorites paradox. When does a heap of sand stop being a heap of sand?

When does eating chocolates cross the line from eating to gluttony? Surely not after one chocolate. Two? Three? A box? Two boxes? Ten boxes?

Those who consider gluttony to be immoral would probably class eating ten boxes of chocolates in one sitting as gluttony and therefore immmoral. Few would consider eating one chocolate to be gluttony, and therefore is probably moral.

So. Eating a single chocolate is moral, but eating 10 boxes of chocolates is immoral.

Any help?

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Xanthe

That is, of course, only if you see the original purchaser retaining a copy of a data file as somehow "wrong".

IMO, the only way to see giving an in-copyright ebook away to 100,000 other people without permission as not being wrong is if you think the whole idea of author remuneration through copyright is itself wrong.

[queentess]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

I recently read Rendezvous with Rama and it was a painful experience.

Aww, it wasn't that bad. It's very third person though, you don't feel like you're in the story. I did recently read Childhood's End (which came highly recommended) and it was blah. I don't see what all the fuss is about. And the sequel to Rama? Oh my was it awful. In one of my personal reviews for a Clarke book I wrote: "His books are far too sterile for my tastes, though intriguing ideas usually surface."

Originally Posted by starrigger

Ooh, sorry to hear that. My most painful Golden Age reread was Asimov's "Nightfall." I didn't do much better with Foundation, which I loved as a kid. On the other hand, I can with pleasure reread the old Tom Corbett Space Cadet books, and a few of my favorite old Winston SF juveniles. I'm not sure what the difference is, since the writing is pretty clunky in all of them.

Nightfall is another I read very recently for the first time, and I didn't get what was so "revolutionary" about it either. Foundation, on the other hand, I love Space opera all the way!

Originally Posted by jhempel24

Really??? We have a store called Half Price Books where the hardcovers are $7.99, they are NOT book club, and they are most definitely NOT library, they do not accept library.

Those are from people like me who cleaned out all their bookshelves when they went digital I do not miss hardbacks!

[Xanthe]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

IMO, the only way to see giving an in-copyright ebook away to 100,000 other people without permission as not being wrong is if you think the whole idea of author remuneration through copyright is itself wrong.

But then that restarts the whole argument of "would any of those 100,000 people have actually bought the book in the first place"?

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Xanthe

But then that restarts the whole argument of "would any of those 100,000 people have actually bought the book in the first place"?

And what about books that are out-of-print, but not out of copyright? No one was going to earn any money for those anyway.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I think this is a variant on the sorites paradox. When does a heap of sand stop being a heap of sand?

When does eating chocolates cross the line from eating to gluttony? Surely not after one chocolate. Two? Three? A box? Two boxes? Ten boxes?

Those who consider gluttony to be immoral would probably class eating ten boxes of chocolates in one sitting as gluttony and therefore immmoral. Few would consider eating one chocolate to be gluttony, and therefore is probably moral.

So. Eating a single chocolate is moral, but eating 10 boxes of chocolates is immoral.

Any help?

Not really. I think eating becomes gluttony when it adversely affects the health and well-being of the person doing the eating. I don't know what effect would be analogous for someone who is either uploading or downloading files--a deterioration of one's personal moral health? How do you measure that? By how many file sharers become shoplifters or burglars?

[Namekuseijin]

Originally Posted by rhari79

Maybe someone has already pointed this out:

Paucity is the father of all Law Breaking.

If something is not available somewhere, in abundance, then people will take efforts to get it through whatever means possible.
Make abundance a rule globally and Piracy goes out.

nope, not anymore: it's a culture in itself, regardless of money. People prefer to simply find a free download than to pay 99 cents for some digital content. That's why content producers should make deals with data flow providers such as telephone companies and ISPs... if you can't control theft, just tax for road usage...

I see my coworkers renting DVDs and ripping them. What for? Do these people even enjoy watching them the first time around to warrant a second peek among their thousand of other rips? It's something like consumption greed, you just have to have it. I see it as a symptom...

[Anke Wehner]

Some people do.

Other people would LOVE to buy ebooks, but run into "this is only available in print", or "this may only be sold to Americans"...

[silasgreenback]

Originally Posted by Catlady

And what about books that are out-of-print, but not out of copyright? No one was going to earn any money for those anyway.

As far as that, I see it as being akin to abandonware, which is still under copyright, but no longer supported.

Home of the Underdogs

If it's out of print and there's no way the author will see a dime, expecting me to care about the morality of downloading it is way too much to ask.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Not really. I think eating becomes gluttony when it adversely affects the health and well-being of the person doing the eating. I don't know what effect would be analogous for someone who is either uploading or downloading files--a deterioration of one's personal moral health? How do you measure that? By how many file sharers become shoplifters or burglars?

So eating is not immoral, until it affects someone adversely?

In which case file sharing of copyright ebooks is not immoral, until it affects someone adversely.

I claim that sharing every ebook you buy with one friend is likely to adversely affect at least one of the authors of those ebooks.

I claim that sharing one ebook with 100,000 other people is likely to adversely affect sales of that ebook, and thus adversely affect the publisher of that ebook.

[sircastor]

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

nope, not anymore: it's a culture in itself, regardless of money. People prefer to simply find a free download than to pay 99 cents for some digital content. That's why content producers should make deals with data flow providers such as telephone companies and ISPs... if you can't control theft, just tax for road usage...

I see my coworkers renting DVDs and ripping them. What for? Do these people even enjoy watching them the first time around to warrant a second peek among their thousand of other rips? It's something like consumption greed, you just have to have it. I see it as a symptom...

I think this depends greatly on the media. Most music can be listened to in a few minutes. Most films can be viewed in a couple of hours. This is not the case with most books. Most books are long-term investments in terms of time. The culture you're referring to is about consumption. Because books can't be consumed quickly, it doesn't hold the same value.

If the value is placed on possessing the media rather than actually consuming it, then who cares? There's definitely no monetary loss for a person who copies a digital book and doesn't read it, or a movie and doesn't watch it. In fact, in a practical accounting of that situation the copied ebook/movie/song is costing the thief more than it's costing the producer of the media in terms of storage.

As for a content tax: It gets really messy, and you inevitably end up charging people who don't use the "road" and not charging people who do. Whether it's a public tax (ugh) or something that content providers setup privately with access providers, it's trouble.

[Xanthe]

Originally Posted by Catlady

I don't know what effect would be analogous for someone who is either uploading or downloading files--a deterioration of one's personal moral health? How do you measure that? By how many file sharers become shoplifters or burglars?

LOL! Good one!

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

So eating is not immoral, until it affects someone adversely?.

The "someone" being the person who overeats.

In which case file sharing of copyright ebooks is not immoral, until it affects someone adversely.

No, the point I was sarcastically trying to make is that the situations are not analagous. There is a point at which you can say pretty much objectively that eating becomes gluttony. There is no similar point at which you can say that sharing books changes from good to bad.

I claim that sharing every ebook you buy with one friend is likely to adversely affect at least one of the authors of those ebooks.

Suppose I buy only five books and share all of them? Suppose I buy fifty books and share forty-nine? And who is the "bad" person? The one who's sharing the books, or the one who's getting them for free?

I claim that sharing one ebook with 100,000 other people is likely to adversely affect sales of that ebook, and thus adversely affect the publisher of that ebook

Suppose it's a public library that's sharing one ebook with thousands of people? I suspect that might adversely affect sales too.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Catlady

No, the point I was sarcastically trying to make is that the situations are not analagous. There is a point at which you can say pretty much objectively that eating becomes gluttony. There is no similar point at which you can say that sharing books changes from good to bad.

Then here is a point where we disagree and can agree about what we disagree about

I think it's a perfect analogy. There is certainly a point at which eating becomes gluttony.

But tell me, is it eating four chocolates a day or five? Ten or eleven? Twenty or twenty-one?

If you say it's eating 500 a day, does that mean eating 499 isn't gluttony? How about 498?



Back to ebooks:

I say that sharing a library of 10,000 commercial in-copyright ebooks against the copyright holders wishes with 10,000,000 people isn't merely illegal, it's also immoral.

I say that sharing 1 ebook with 1 friend is illegal, but isn't immoral.

Since you're arguing that quantity doesn't matter in cases of morality, which which of these two assertions do you disagree?