Do you pirate books and why?

[Mujokan]

Originally Posted by tompe

It starts with something you agree on. So I do not see any problem here.

Well, one has to agree on the basis of why things are right or wrong to get anywhere. Lots of these discussions go on for ages, and really one side believes in "rules-based morality" and the other believes in "consequences of actions" morality, and so it doesn't matter if they talk forever. If both sides agree on the former, then they can decide if the action breaks the rules; or if the latter, they can work out what the consequences are. Otherwise people tend to talk at cross-purposes.

I think analogies are more helpful in the former case, for people who have rules based morality. If you have a black and white rule, "theft is always wrong", then you can try to come to a decision as to whether pirating fits the definition of "theft". One will try to define the essential characteristics of "theft" and see if piracy fits. But why does one have that rule? If it's not ultimately based on consequences, then it has to be based on religion or some other definitive "rulebook".

If it's based on consequences, in my opinion the best thing to do is look at statistics on piracy and see how much harm it does, and compare that to the benefits it provides. Ars Technica has done some articles in this vein.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Mujokan

Well, one has to agree on the basis of why things are right or wrong to get anywhere. Lots of these discussions go on for ages, and really one side believes in "rules-based morality" and the other believes in "consequences of actions" morality, and so it doesn't matter if they talk forever. If both sides agree on the former, then they can decide if the action breaks the rules; or if the latter, they can work out what the consequences are. Otherwise people tend to talk at cross-purposes.

I think analogies are more helpful in the former case, for people who have rules based morality. If you have a black and white rule, "theft is always wrong", then you can try to come to a decision as to whether pirating fits the definition of "theft". One will try to define the essential characteristics of "theft" and see if piracy fits. But why does one have that rule? If it's not ultimately based on consequences, then it has to be based on religion or some other definitive "rulebook".

If it's based on consequences, in my opinion the best thing to do is look at statistics on piracy and see how much harm it does, and compare that to the benefits it provides. Ars Technica has done some articles in this vein.

I agree with most of this. But sometimes you can do som reasoning that is independen on the basic principle. If X is wrong and you can show that Y is equivalent to X then people have to agree that Y is wrong also independent of the reason they think it is wrong. But I can agree with that this kind of situations are less common.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Mujokan

. . . really one side believes in "rules-based morality" and the other believes in "consequences of actions" morality

Really?

Really, I think everyone, on a board like this, believes that consequences of action are the number one factor.

Most people get to the point, on some issues, where they find consequences insufficient for coming up with livable standards, so rules aspects (and, I fear, self-interest) have to be thrown in at the margins.

Also mixing this up is that the correlation between being a theoretical consequences purist and a piracy apologist, although one exists, is weak.

in my opinion the best thing to do is look at statistics on piracy and see how much harm it does, and compare that to the benefits it provides. Ars Technica has done some articles in this vein.

They can do all the articles they want, but the usually surreptitious nature of piracy leads to focus on statistics of minimal importance, just because they are available.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Mujokan

One will try to define the essential characteristics of "theft" and see if piracy fits. But why does one have that rule?

Suppose that I shoplift a $10 book from Barnes and Noble and then put my $10 bill in the bucket of someone right outside the door collecting for cancer research. I haven't done it, but somebody has! The consequence of that theft was, I hope we both agree, good. Do you seriously think I should then be excused from all legal sanctions for my theft?

The donation should be a mitigating factor at sentencing. But if you agree with me that a little punishment -- a moderate fine without a criminal record -- makes sense here, we just made out our judgment based on a combination of consequences and rules.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Suppose that I shoplift a $10 book from Barnes and Noble and then put my $10 bill in the bucket of someone right outside the door collecting for cancer research. I haven't done it, but somebody has! The consequence of that theft was, I hope we both agree, good. Do you seriously think I should then be excused from all legal sanctions for my theft?

The donation should be a mitigating factor at sentencing. But if you agree with me that a little punishment -- a moderate fine without a criminal record -- makes sense here, we just made out our judgment based on a combination of consequences and rules.

But the donation is not a necessary consequence of the theft. It's an entirely separate action. So I'm not sure what point you're making.

[Mujokan]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Suppose that I shoplift a $10 book from Barnes and Noble and then put my $10 bill in the bucket of someone right outside the door collecting for cancer research. I haven't done it, but somebody has! The consequence of that theft was, I hope we both agree, good. Do you seriously think I should then be excused from all legal sanctions for my theft?

There's no point just making up what you think I would think about some completely different action. You've kind of captured one aspect of it, but all the external ramifications are different to pirating a $10 ebook. If you are interested in consequentialist moral theory it's probably better to go read about it directly rather than my getting involved in some baroque discussion about imaginary scenarios.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by Catlady

But the donation is not a necessary consequence of the theft. It's an entirely separate action.

The judge would listen to the story, and any witness, and decide if the story was plausible enough to influence sentencing.

As for the "entirely separate action" standard, deciding what is, and is not, an entirely separate action is a constant issue if you have a purist consequences morality. Suppose that someone pirates an eBook at 1 PM and buys two different ones at 2 PM. Consequences purist apologists for piracy have, on this board, repeatedly suggested that those are NOT entirely separate actions.

Originally Posted by Catlady

So I'm not sure what point you're making.

This is just how I felt when I read #831! But as you did with me, I'm next going to take a shot at answering it anyway:

Originally Posted by Mujokan

If you are interested in consequentialist moral theory it's probably better to go read about it directly rather than my getting involved in some baroque discussion about imaginary scenarios.

I haven't read philosophy in a long time, but, googling, I found a seemingly reasonable title. I am going to try to borrow this book from the library (paper only and may take an interlibrary loan):

Utilitarianism: For and Against

Alternate suggestions are welcome, but keeping them short (the above is 155 pages) makes me more likely to read it, and if I think you aren't just recommending stuff you agree with, that's an even bigger

[Belfaborac]

Consequentialism and its Critics by Samuel Scheffler is a nice, concise introduction both to the pros and cons. It's 300 or so pages in all, but due to the way it is structured you can pick and choose from the chapters (check out the "Look Inside" feature.

I'm sure the Smart & Williams is equally good; I just mentioned this in case you'd find it useful to have the main arguments against in the same volume.

[WritePR]

Originally Posted by wgrimm

And also to realize that people get books for free at the library, and many do not understand why this is not wrong but piracy is.

Are you serious? Libraries PAY for every book they have available to check out, Pirates don't pay a dime. Libraries also have PERMISSION from the publishers to offer those books for lending. Pirates don't. That is why piracy is WRONG.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by WritePR

Are you serious? Libraries PAY for every book they have available to check out, Pirates don't pay a dime. Libraries also have PERMISSION from the publishers to offer those books for lending. Pirates don't. That is why piracy is WRONG.

No, libraries in the US do not have permission from the publishers.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

No, libraries in the US do not have permission from the publishers.

They do for e-books, and that's what's being discussed here. A library can't lend an e-book unless the publisher (or author) has signed up with one of the e-book library providers, like Overdrive.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

They do for e-books, and that's what's being discussed here. A library can't lend an e-book unless the publisher (or author) has signed up with one of the e-book library providers, like Overdrive.

The text I was commenting talked about paper books. So it was paper books that was discussed in the sub-thread that I commented.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by WritePR

Are you serious? Libraries PAY for every book they have available to check out, Pirates don't pay a dime. Libraries also have PERMISSION from the publishers to offer those books for lending. Pirates don't. That is why piracy is WRONG.

For pirated books, someone paid for it, just like the library. If the library acquired the book used--like, from a collector, or an archive elsewhere--that library didn't pay the publisher for use and loaning of the book.

Pirates, indeed, do not have permission, nor a legal right to share books.
Libraries do not have permission to loan pbooks; they are limited to those ebooks that publishers have specifically granted permission for, and those in the public domain. (I know of no libraries with public-domain/creative commons ebook lending systems.)

Knowing that a thing is illegal is not the same as knowing that it's wrong. (Women voting was illegal for a very long time. Child labor was legal for a long time. The US has changed its mind on the legality of these things, based on peoples' opinions of right and wrong.)

It's unclear why it's morally acceptable for libraries (and individuals) to loan pbooks but not ebooks.

It's clear (to those who think about it) that allowing rampant copying-and-distribution of ebooks would result in authors not being paid, and that would be A Bad Thing. However, allowing small-scale copying--the kind that equates to pbook loaning, "I won't open it as long as you've got the file" (which could be easily arranged technologically, by putting the file on a shared server and only allowing one copy to be open at a time)--doesn't strike many people as "wrong."

Until the law allows and legitimizes the kind of loaning that has always supported the book industries, piracy not only isn't going away, the public isn't going to be riled up to try to stop it.

"1 buyer should mean 1 reader" is never going to be an effective morality claim, any more than "1 buyer=1 listener" will work for music.

[gweeks]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

(I know of no libraries with public-domain/creative commons ebook lending systems.)

Overdrive has a specific section for Project Gutenberg works. They aren't in the regular catalog and I think the library doesn't have to take them.

This is my library's link:
http://acla.lib.overdrive.com/2FFCBF...Collection.htm

Greg Weeks

[Catlady]

You know, I still want someone who hollers that piracy is wrong to specify how exactly they define piracy.

Is it removing the DRM for personal use? Is it loading a de-DRMed Kindle book on a Nook? Is it making a couple of backup copies just in case? Is it loaning a copy to a friend? Is it downloading a book you can't legitimately buy because of geo restrictions? Is it downloading a book from MR that's still under copyright in your own country? Is it uploading to a file-sharing site?

Are all these actions piracy, to be condemned with the same vehemence? If not, where are the lines to be drawn?