What are your views on illegal copying?

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

You CANNOT make a copy--legally or illegally--of something you don't already have a copy of. If you download something you do not own, you are not making a copy.

The person that put the file online illegally made a copy. You did not. You obtained something without paying for it, which is theft in my book.

Is this some technical use of the word copy? Surely, if there is a file on a server, and I download it, the file stays there, and I now have a copy on my computer - I've copied it. I've copied their copy.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

Is this some technical use of the word copy? Surely, if there is a file on a server, and I download it, the file stays there, and I now have a copy on my computer - I've copied it. I've copied their copy.

That's an awfully round about way to put a label on the behavior that doesn't sound/feel wrong/illegal. Fits right in with Sykes and Matza's theory about techniques of neutralization that criminals use to justify their behavior.

Going online and downloading something you didn't pay for is more more analogous to finding a way to steal the physical copy than it is say borrowing a CD from a friend and burning a copy or ripping it to MP3s IMO.

But again, it's just an agree to disagree thing.

I think the move to digital content has been a terrible thing. I'd hate it if I was an author, musician, movie director/producer etc., and the ease of having my property stolen in this era and eating into my profits would keep me from ever wanting to get involved in one of those fields.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by LCF

...

There is also one more thing I wish to add:

Well yes, but sometimes trolls are in the eye to the beholder as well, just like pirates, thieves or file copiers...

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

Is this some technical use of the word copy? Surely, if there is a file on a server, and I download it, the file stays there, and I now have a copy on my computer - I've copied it. I've copied their copy.

Once more you are just trying to justify theft by calling it something else. It's the concept that matters, not the words.

If you take something that is not yours without permission of the owner you have stolen something.

Just because it is easy, doesn't change the concept.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

But again, it's just an agree to disagree thing

I don't think that we are disagreeing about what is right and wrong (although there is a range of opinion on the forum as the poll shows).

We also agree that the law needs to change - and I agree with your points about changing the focus away from punishment etc.

Our only significant disagreement, it seems to me, is that while we agree that most people do or have engaged in unauthorised copying of one form or another, you want to call it theft and I don't.

You have said that you want to reduce the social stigma - in which case I'd recommend not using a word that has a whole lot of social stigma attached to it.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Once more you are just trying to justify theft by calling it something else. It's the concept that matters, not the words.

If you take something that is not yours without permission of the owner you have stolen something.

Just because it is easy, doesn't change the concept.

Now Kenny - that's not right.

I am not trying to justify taking things that are not yours without permission. I've stated what I think is right and wrong - the only area where we might disagree is what counts as "mine". In my view it's morally OK if I've paid for format A to get a copy in format B without paying again.

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by dsvick

If you do not get the right to make a copy through legal means then copying it is wrong.

Or the law is in dire need of changing. I refuse to equate laws and morality, as that way lies madness.

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by amjbrown

- if it's public domain somewhere, then I'm fine; how can it be PD in country X but not country Y?

Which would make life+20 or so your cut-off? Or would it be "anything" - some countries, after all, have no copyright law. Not just no enforcement - no copyright law at all.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

Now Kenny - that's not right.

I am not trying to justify taking things that are not yours without permission. I've stated what I think is right and wrong - the only area where we might disagree is what counts as "mine". In my view it's morally OK if I've paid for format A to get a copy in format B without paying again.

Now Ben. You have your view, I have mine and other have theirs. You ARE justifying it. You say in your view it's okay, but that doesn't mean it is to the owner.

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

I don't get why people think that stealing a book, movie, album etc. electronically is really any different than stealing a physical book, DVD or CD. It's still a lost sale for the company, and you still got to experience the content without paying for it.

I don't get why people think that copying a book is really any different than buying a used copy. It's still a lost sale for the publisher, and you still get to experience the content without paying the author.

[Bilbo1967]

Originally Posted by Pardoz

I don't get why people think that copying a book is really any different than buying a used copy. It's still a lost sale for the publisher, and you still get to experience the content without paying the author.

That's a very good point. Why are publishers not prosecuting second-hand book shops?

[kazbates]

Originally Posted by Pardoz

Or the law is in dire need of changing. I refuse to equate laws and morality, as that way lies madness.

The copyright laws are definitely in dire need of changing but they need to be fair to all concerned not just to those who have the most money to pay the lobbyists (at least here in the US). The movie industry had a ton of money committed to making sure the copyright laws were made in their favor. The music industry wasn't quite so lucky.

Personally, I think one ebook format that would work on all devices would solve the problem. I don't mind copyright restrictions as long as it doesn't adversely effect my fair usage. I have recently started scanning books in my personal collection that I purchased, usually at the full paperback price. I am doing this so that I can read them on my digital reader. To me, that is fair use based on the music industry model, particularly since I deconstruct the paper book in the scanning process rendering it difficult to read.

Of course, I also drive 4 miles over the speed limit because I know the police will not ticket me for such a minimal infraction so I don't consider it breaking the law. Even though it is.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by kennyc

You ARE justifying it. You say in your view it's okay, but that doesn't mean it is to the owner.

No, I've said that it's wrong - i.e. not OK. I've just said that it's not theft.

Where did I say that it's OK to take something that you don't own?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Pardoz

I don't get why people think that copying a book is really any different than buying a used copy. It's still a lost sale for the publisher, and you still get to experience the content without paying the author.

True, but there is only one physical copy of a particular book once it is sold or given away if the original owner wants it again they much purchase it. This is not true if a copy is made without destroying the source of that copy. Now there are two existing identical copies that were not there before. Just as if you had a magical ability to create an identical copy of a paper book and hand it to your friend....or sell it....or.....

If you had that magical ability to duplicate physical objects would it be right?

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

There is a difficult middle category, of books which you can't buy electronically, but don't own. Perhaps the right thing there would be to take the electronic copy and buy a paper one as a license, thereby turning it into the first category.

And if it's no longer available for sale new, then what? Buying a used copy reimburses the creator precisely the same amount as downloading one, after all. There are all kinds of tricky lines here, especially since we're in a transitional stage.