Do you consider it to be unethical...

[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

Rationalization by semantics. This argument is getting tiresome.

Different words mean different things. That's why we have different words to describe what we mean. If one is not precise in their use of the language it is difficult to understand what they are trying to convey.

I would assume anyone that loves books so much as to frequent this site would have a firm grasp on the necessity for the precise usage of words.

[shanghaichica]

No, but I wouldnt use the darknet myself.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by MovieBird

Different words mean different things. That's why we have different words to describe what we mean. If one is not precise in their use of the language it is difficult to understand what they are trying to convey.

I would assume anyone that loves books so much as to frequent this site would have a firm grasp on the necessity for the precise usage of words.

Unfortunately, that same preciseness can cause people to lose awareness of the general concept the precise term falls under (accidentally or otherwise). Copyright violation and theft, while legally are two separate things, are the illegal taking of something that doesn't belong to the taker. Lawyers make a mint capitalizing on those distinctions.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

Unfortunately, that same preciseness can cause people to lose awareness of the general concept the precise term falls under (accidentally or otherwise). Copyright violation and theft, while legally are two separate things, are the illegal taking of something that doesn't belong to the taker. Lawyers make a mint capitalizing on those distinctions.

And they can lose awareness of that when you make a copy the original is not destroyed. And they can lose awarened of that information and pysical entities are very different things.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HarryT

How much money have you had to spend in equipment and software in order to permit you to do this? That's a serious question - I'd be interested to know how much it all cost. Not the PC, but the other stuff - the scanner, software, etc.

Used scanner from Craigslist: $125. (I caught a bargain. Similar scanners are commonly available at eBay for ~$250, which is is what I expected to pay for it.)

I get to cheat for this--I work at a place that has high-speed scanners; I have for many years. I have access to scanners that most people never will; my home scanner is a convenience to avoid coming into work on the weekends to borrow the equipment. I can also use the paper-cutter at work; chopping off the spines is a matter of seconds, not hours with a ruler & razor.

Software--Acrobat Professional 7: $250 or so at ebay.

FineReader Pro: 10 is available new-in-box at ebay for $150 or less.
FR 6 is available for GBP 6.99. 8 seems to be bid-able starting at about $45, but there aren't many of any of the older versions available. (I use FR 7.0 Pro. I know I don't want to upgrade to 8; it loses some imaging options. I'm nervous about upgrading to 9 or 10 because I doubt that's fixed, although I suspect the OCR quality would be better.)

PixEdit: I have *no idea* if this is even available for purchase anymore. It was insanely expensive when I got it as part of a closing package from a job that was shutting down ("hey, we have six licenses, and we're closing this office entirely... here, have a box, a disc, and some installation instructions.")

I also do stuff with Photoshop, but I could do all of that with GIMP if I had to. (I could probably, with a bit of effort, do my Pixedit work with GIMP.)

I'm aware it's not a cheap package of software. Cheap flatbed scanners are as little as $20, but scanning with those is about 2 pages/minute, *if* you get the settings all perfect.

I get a lot of other use out of Acrobat Pro; I edit documents & ebooks. I get limited other use out of FineReader, mostly related to "download scans of legal docs, OCR them, and post the text somewhere other than scribd." (US court documents are all in the public domain.)

[HamsterRage]

This argument is akin to the idea that if enough people think something's harmless--like racial discrimination, for example--well, that's okay.

Actually, it can be argued that shared morals define (or are defined) by a society. So if you lived in a culture where most people believed it was harmless then you'd probably feel that it was okay. And there are lots of cultures that do embrace things that we in the West would consider to be unfair discrimination, and they probably consider themselves to be morally superior to us in the West. Are they wrong? They don't think so.

I think it's a red flag whenever a society has a significant percentage of its population ignoring the laws, just as we seem to have here. What it probably represents is a shift in how society views intellectual property - eventually the shared morality of such a large number of people who don't view copyright violation as wrong is going to have some effect on society as a whole.

It seems clear at this point, however, that people aren't going to stop doing it and there's no way that laws are going to be used to punish everyone who participates in it. So maybe the laws need to be changed to acknowledge the reality that is already going on.

I don't think that the argument, "You're just rationalizing", is going to make any ground with anyone either. The underlying assumption there is, "You know it's immoral, the rest of your arguments are just you wiggling out of responsibility for your immorality". Which, apart from being wrong, is insulting and doesn't lay the groundwork for shared understanding. My read is that people who fileshare honestly don't feel there is anything wrong with it, or feel it's no worse than any number of a thousand things we do every day without any twinges of guilt.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

Copyright violation and theft, while legally are two separate things, are the illegal taking of something that doesn't belong to the taker. Lawyers make a mint capitalizing on those distinctions.

No, theft is taking something that doesn't belong to the taker.

Copyright infringement is *use* of something the infringer doesn't have the right to *use.*

And--this is where the distinction becomes important--not all use of someone's copyrighted materials without permission is illegal. One of the issues still being sorted out is how much and what kinds of use a person is allowed.

Criminal copyright infringement (in the US) involves "at least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $2,500." Which means copying an ebook and giving it to four friends is not criminal. It's hard to say that *any* amount of distributing scans of 60's-era comic books is criminal, because there is *no* established retail value for those digital copies.

It could be sued for non-criminal infringement, at a penalty of up to $150k/violation. But that gets into the issue of fair use... what's the market harm in distribution of something that's not in print?

There are other issues attached to "copyright infringement," including derivative works, that get glossed over by the "copies are theft" crowd.

And nobody is arguing that wide distribution of digital copies is okay, is reasonable and legal. They're just arguing that it's not theft, just like making a movie based on a book without permission is not "rape" (of the author's characters). Nobody's taking away anything that belongs to the author (or publisher & other people involved). They *might* be taking away *potential* income... but that's not "theft" even when it's illegal.

Preventing customers from entering a store might be a crime, but it's not theft, even when the store loses money. It could be "interfering with a business" or "fraud" (depending on what's said to people to keep them from entering) or "public nuisance" or "loitering" or "blockading a sidewalk" or various other crimes. And painting over windows is not "theft"--it's vandalism.

There are plenty of crimes that cost people money & income that aren't "theft."

Calling copyright infringement "theft" is nothing more than an attempt to incite harsh emotions by obscuring what's actually happening. You can't get people to get upset over "copyright infringement"--which is already illegal--so you call it something it's not, that you know people object to.

[GA Russell]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

You know what's a lot more like real theft? It's when Congress took away thousands of works that belonged to us, the people, by declaring their copyrights were retroactively extended, despite the fact that, when they were published, it was under the agreement that they'd be monopolized for a maximum of 56 years. Everything published before 1954 should be in the public domain. Most things published before 1982--everything not registered with the US copyright office--should be in the public domain.

Return *those* items to us, the public, and we'll talk about respecting the new copyrights.

Because right now, we've got no reason to believe anything will *ever* enter the public domain.

That's my feeling.

And add to that the point that the matter (that copyright is to be for a limited period only) is in the Constitution.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by tompe

And they can lose awareness of that when you make a copy the original is not destroyed. And they can lose awarened of that information and pysical entities are very different things.

Hunh? Could you explain yourself a little more thoroughly?

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

No, theft is taking something that doesn't belong to the taker.

Copyright infringement is *use* of something the infringer doesn't have the right to *use.*

And--this is where the distinction becomes important--not all use of someone's copyrighted materials without permission is illegal. One of the issues still being sorted out is how much and what kinds of use a person is allowed.

Criminal copyright infringement (in the US) involves "at least 10 copies or phonorecords, of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $2,500." Which means copying an ebook and giving it to four friends is not criminal. It's hard to say that *any* amount of distributing scans of 60's-era comic books is criminal, because there is *no* established retail value for those digital copies.

It could be sued for non-criminal infringement, at a penalty of up to $150k/violation. But that gets into the issue of fair use... what's the market harm in distribution of something that's not in print?

There are other issues attached to "copyright infringement," including derivative works, that get glossed over by the "copies are theft" crowd.

And nobody is arguing that wide distribution of digital copies is okay, is reasonable and legal. They're just arguing that it's not theft, just like making a movie based on a book without permission is not "rape" (of the author's characters). Nobody's taking away anything that belongs to the author (or publisher & other people involved). They *might* be taking away *potential* income... but that's not "theft" even when it's illegal.

Preventing customers from entering a store might be a crime, but it's not theft, even when the store loses money. It could be "interfering with a business" or "fraud" (depending on what's said to people to keep them from entering) or "public nuisance" or "loitering" or "blockading a sidewalk" or various other crimes. And painting over windows is not "theft"--it's vandalism.

There are plenty of crimes that cost people money & income that aren't "theft."

Calling copyright infringement "theft" is nothing more than an attempt to incite harsh emotions by obscuring what's actually happening. You can't get people to get upset over "copyright infringement"--which is already illegal--so you call it something it's not, that you know people object to.

You're still merely playing the semantic game here.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by HamsterRage

...It seems clear at this point, however, that people aren't going to stop doing it and there's no way that laws are going to be used to punish everyone who participates in it. So maybe the laws need to be changed to acknowledge the reality that is already going on....

So if large numbers of people cheat on their income taxes, the laws shouold be changed to make it legal? If large numbers of people believe is descrimination of some kind, the civil rights laws should be changed to allow it? If large numbers of people speed in school zones, the laws should be changed to make it legal?

Originally Posted by HamsterRage

...I don't think that the argument, "You're just rationalizing", is going to make any ground with anyone either...

Sadly, you're probably correct there.

Originally Posted by HamsterRage

...The underlying assumption there is, "You know it's immoral, the rest of your arguments are just you wiggling out of responsibility for your immorality". Which, apart from being wrong, is insulting and doesn't lay the groundwork for shared understanding. My read is that people who fileshare honestly don't feel there is anything wrong with it, or feel it's no worse than any number of a thousand things we do every day without any twinges of guilt.

Then why do people spend so much time and effort trying to rationalize it? At least we have at least a couple of people here who had the background to admit what they are doing is illegal and they don't care (not that it exonerates them).

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

...And add to that the point that the matter (that copyright is to be for a limited period only) is in the Constitution.

Where? Surely you do not mean the first admendment?

[GlennD]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

Where? Surely you do not mean the first admendment?

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by GlennD

Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution, known as the Copyright Clause.

Thank you.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

You're still merely playing the semantic game here.

Laws are very much about semantics.

Ethics & morality discussion require semantic agreements. You and I probably agree that "theft" is wrong--but we disagree on what "theft" is, so we may disagree on what actions are wrong.

We may not. We may agree that the same set of actions are immoral, but we can't know that unless we are describing them the same way.

I'm not going to call copyright infringement--an illegal act--by the name of another illegal act, for your convenience. And if you think copyright infringement *really is* theft, I have to wonder what else in your logic is flawed, and I feel comfortable disregarding the rest of your judgments, because obviously, they're based on false premises.