Declaration of Independence

[doreenjoy]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Now can we correct it to stop using the "steal" and "theft" nonsense?

Those are the very words used in the original post, so no correction seems necessary IMO.

[Sparrow]

From a reader's point of view; it's curious that we can get Dickens for free, but have to pay if we want to read Rowling.

There aren't many other markets I can think of where cost and value are so loosely connected.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Do you feel you are entitled to someone elses work because it can be copied as easily as the drag of a mouse?

I never said that. But "stealing" and "theft" are the wrong words to use to describe it. It's not just semantics, they are completely different things.

But, that's been discussed on here a thousand times. The people who keep using those words are either clueless, or they are doing so intentionally because those incorrect (but more intimidating) words serve their agenda better than "infringement".

[Hellmark]

Yeah, theft is taking the property of others without permission. Yes, it is their intellectual property, and you don't have permission, but the difference comes in with the "taking". You are receiving a duplicate, where as if you were taking it, their original would be in your possession, not theirs.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by doreenjoy

Those are the very words used in the original post, so no correction seems necessary IMO.

The original post was wrong too.

[Hellmark]

Plenty of people have complained about the original post.

While many of us can agree with some of the points, overall seems rather hamfisted, and illogical at times.

[kazbates]

I think it's fairly ironic that the original poster named this thread "Declaration of Independence", one of the USA's most treasured documents and the foundation of our government, when he clearly has a great deal of animosity towards the United States of America.

I don't agree with Digital Rights Management (DRM), but I do feel that the authors, publishers and booksellers have a right to collect remuneration for the goods and services that they provide. Downloading an pirated ebook is no different than going to a furniture store, picking up a chair from the showroom and taking it home for your own personal use without paying the store. The purchase price of the chair is distributed to the store owner, the manufacturing company, designer, shipping company, and so on. This could be applied to almost all goods and services.

[imabuddha]

Originally Posted by kazbates

Downloading an pirated ebook is no different than going to a furniture store, picking up a chair from the showroom and taking it home for your own personal use without paying the store.

Except for the (crucially important) difference that the furniture store would be missing a chair, while the publisher would still have the ebook. This is why it's copyright infringement and not theft.

I'm not advocating copyright infringement, just pointing out that the two things are not equivalent.

[Jack Tingle]

Originally Posted by bill the smith

Declaration of Independence

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that books are knowledge and that knowledge is forever free".

I am totally opposed to:
1. DMR on books.
[snip rest of list]

Is anyone else on board?

Nope. By the way, what do you have against the Department of Marine Resources?

I do think that excessive copyright terms, intrusive DRM, and geographical restrictions on ebooks are unwise business practices, but you're allowed to be dumb.

Regards,
Jack Tingle

[kazbates]

Originally Posted by imabuddha

Except for the (crucially important) difference that the furniture store would be missing a chair, while the publisher would still have the ebook. This is why it's copyright infringement and not theft.

I'm not advocating copyright infringement, just pointing out that the two things are not equivalent.

The publisher has the book's "blueprint" just as the manufacturer has the chair's "blueprint". The furniture maker can make a duplicate copy of the chair, just as the publisher can make a duplicate copy of the book.

[Hellmark]

With theft, you have one less thing you can sell, when someone takes it, where as with piracy, you still have something to sell a customer. Also, you have to think about how many people would buy the item, if piracy was not an option. Most of the people I know pirate only things they wouldn't buy, and many if they do pirate something and end up liking it more than they thought they would, fork over the cash for it.

Also, with the theft of a physical object, they are out money for materials. Piracy has no such loss.

[imabuddha]

Originally Posted by kazbates

The publisher has the book's "blueprint" just as the manufacturer has the chair's "blueprint". The furniture maker can make a duplicate copy of the chair, just as the publisher can make a duplicate copy of the book.

But that's not the comparison made in your prior post. Merely possessing a blueprint doesn't automatically grant the right to produce the object(s) described therein.

As noted by many people in similar discussions on the 'net, the cost of duplicating digital bits approaches $0, while such isn't the case for tangible goods such as a chair. Please note I'm not saying unauthorized duplication is morally OK or justifiable.

[kazbates]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

With theft, you have one less thing you can sell, when someone takes it, where as with piracy, you still have something to sell a customer. Also, you have to think about how many people would buy the item, if piracy was not an option. Most of the people I know pirate only things they wouldn't buy, and many if they do pirate something and end up liking it more than they thought they would, fork over the cash for it.

Also, with the theft of a physical object, they are out money for materials. Piracy has no such loss.

You're splitting hairs and trying to justify their behavior. I could say the same thing about my chair analogy. I probably wouldn't have bought the chair, so taking it is okay. I know that once I've sat on the chair for awhile and find out that it's the perfect resting place for my tushy, I will more than likely send the purchase price to the store. I'm sorry, I just can't buy that (pun intended ).

[kaan]

This is how the world is from my point of view:

I find a new ebook that I want to read.
I search for a place of purchase.
Most likely it will be for sale through Amazon or Sony.

This leaves me with the choice of either piracy, or passing myself off as a US citizen.

Piracy is a copyright infringement, with a monetary penalty in civil court.

Passing myself off as a US citizen is fraud, witch will earn me a jail sentence in criminal court.

The legal thing to do would be to not get the ebook at all.
But I am bad at denying myself the things I want.
So what do I do?

[Hellmark]

Splitting hairs? I'm just using the legal argument as to why the two are different, and what happens. No justification. Both are still wrong.