What are your views on illegal copying?

[libri-libre]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

Often, people would love to pay - especially a "token amount" - but there may be no official published version, or geo restrictions. Or maybe they feel that, having bought the paper book, they have already paid the author.

Could this be another reason to support a "Netflix" model for eBooks?
I, for one, would be willing to pay for the temporary use of an eBook, especially since I really can't do much with it after I bought it.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

Illegal - often. Wrong - sometimes. Stolen - never.

Because making a copy isn't stealing.

If someone goes online and downloads an album that they didn't pay for (either for the mp3s or a CD) they aren't making a copy. They're stealing.

And that's what happens most of the time. Most people download stuff they do not own in another format. If I have a paperback, I don't need an e-book of it.

Some do, like you apparently. But you can't act like that's the majority of people downloading books. Most are getting books they don't own.

I have a paper book.
If I scan that, use OCR, get an electronic copy for my own use - stealing?
What if a friend did that and I use their e-copy - stealing?
What if someone on-line has done that, and I use their e-copy - stealing?
In all cases, the author has been paid when I bought my paper copy.

Scanning it is making an illegal copy. Not theft. I'll grant you that.

The downloading a copy of something you already own is murkier. With CDs, you're probably fine as courts have held that one can burn a copy of a CD they own for the car, or rip it to MP3s--as long as they still own the copy they paid for. i.e. Backups are legal.

As far as I know, we don't have such a ruling for books since e-books are relatively new. So downloading a copy of something you own is murky--if courts rule that making an electronic copy of a book you own is legal, then it's clearly not theft.

If they rule differently than they have with music, and say you don't have a right to back it up, then it's illegal. That would be saying that a physical book and e-book are seperate products and owning a paper book doesn't entitle you to make an electronic copy.

And that could happen. Look at movies. While you can make a copy of your CDs (burn a CD or rip to MP3s) courts have ruled that you cannot do that with DVDs or Blurays, and that by passing the copy prevention technology on them is illegal.

So it remains to be seen what happens with books.

Though again I think it's mostly a minor issue. The majority of people downloading books, albums, movies etc. are NOT downloading copies of stuff they own. They're stealing things the want to own without paying for.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by libri-libre

Could this be another reason to support a "Netflix" model for eBooks?
I, for one, would be willing to pay for the temporary use of an eBook, especially since I really can't do much with it after I bought it.

I'd love that personally, as I've said before.

I seldom every re-read fiction. I'd love to pay $10 a month for a 1 book at a time rental plan like I do with Netflix for movies.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

You are correct. But to me that just says laws need updating to deal with issues of theft of digital content.

I agree that the law needs updating - but not only to protect copyright holders - also, it needs updating to protect consumers!

If a person gets a copy of an e-book that is for sale that they didn't pay for, it should be considered theft and treated as a minor misdemeanor theft just like stealing a $5-10 physical book IMO.

I understand this view, although I don't agree with it.

The DRM issues just need ironed out and fair use clearly defined. Someone should be able to loan e-books to people for a limited amount of time. People should be able to sell or give away their ebooks--as long as they don't keep a copy themselves. People should be able to put the ebooks they bought on different reading devices they own.

I agree with all of that (although I'd prefer no DRM).

But getting copies of stuff you didn't pay for that's for sale is wrong,

Yes

and the laws need to change

Yes

to define those as theft

No - to define them as something else

as it's taking sales away from publishers, authors and e-book stores.

Maybe - but not always. Sometimes they get more sales.

I think that it would be a very bad thing if every teenager with an mp3 on their ipod that they hadn't paid for were prosecuted for theft and branded criminals. It is not the appropriate crime, in my view. You would be labelling as thieves much of the population.

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

I think that it would be a very bad thing if every teenager with an mp3 on their ipod that they hadn't paid for were prosecuted for theft and branded criminals. It is not the appropriate crime, in my view. You would be labelling as thieves much of the population.

They are thieves. We're moving to an age of digital products replacing physical products. In 50 years you probably won't find music, movies etc. for sell in major stores--just in vintage shops like you do records today.

Thus for many products the type of theft will change, as it's not longer possible to shoplift them and still a physical product. The way to steal is to go online and download it without paying for it.

I don't see the crime being easier to commit making it a lesser crime etc. Maybe the penalties, labels applied to offenders need to be less severe since it is and will be more prevalent due to the ease of committing the offense, and the unfortunate lack of stigma with downloading an album vs. shoplifting the cd version of the album.

But it's still theft. And in any case as a whole society needs to move away from this "get tough on crime" non-sense and focus more on prevention and rehabilitating offenders and not just handing out punishments and labeling law breakers as bad people. Especially for minor crimes like theft--be it shoplifting or stealing a digital file.

But that doesn't mean stealing digital content isn't theft. And it doesn't meant it's illegal copying, especially when you weren't making a copy but downloading something you don't own to begin with.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

They are thieves. We're moving to an age of digital products replacing physical products. In 50 years you probably won't find music, movies etc. for sell in major stores--just in vintage shops like you do records today.

Thus for many products the type of theft will change, as it's not longer possible to shoplift them and still a physical product. The way to steal is to go online and download it without paying for it.

I don't see the crime being easier to commit making it a lesser crime etc. Maybe the penalties, labels applied to offenders need to be less severe since it is and will be more prevalent due to the ease of committing the offense, and the unfortunate lack of stigma with downloading an album vs. shoplifting the cd version of the album.

But it's still theft. And in any case as a whole society needs to move away from this "get tough on crime" non-sense and focus more on prevention and rehabilitating offenders and not just handing out punishments and labeling law breakers as bad people. Especially for minor crimes like theft--be it shoplifting or stealing a digital file.

But that doesn't mean stealing digital content isn't theft. And it doesn't meant it's illegal copying, especially when you weren't making a copy but downloading something you don't own to begin with.

Thank you for that!

[kwjones]

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

If someone goes online and downloads an album that they didn't pay for (either for the mp3s or a CD) they aren't making a copy. They're stealing.

Here we go again. Legally, no. You want to use the term, but I don't think it's appropriate.

If I have a paperback, I don't need an e-book of it.

Some do, like you apparently.

"apparently"? This sounds like you're saying that this is an excuse, but it is not. I have plenty of books that I've not read yet that I'd like to have electronically, so that I can read them on my reader. Plus a few that I'd like to read again.

I think that we're agreed that this isn't wrong, but I'm not sure that it's always legal.

But you can't act like that's the majority of people downloading books. Most are getting books they don't own.

I never acted like that - you're right, I suspect.

Note that I think that it's wrong to make an unauthorised copy of a book that you could have bought and don't own. All I'm saying is that it isn't theft.

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.

Though again I think it's mostly a minor issue. The majority of people downloading books, albums, movies etc. are NOT downloading copies of stuff they own. They're stealing things the want to own without paying for.

They're making unauthorised copies, which is wrong in my view - but it's not legally stealing, and for good reason.

[LCF]

After reading this threat, I came to a conclusion (my personal opinion).

It's not about the eBooks, tha plasma TVs, the Disney donkeys or the gay sex.

It's about the people.

There are people, who are always ready to make some kind of profit on the back of others. Regardles of the consequences.

There are the people, who will never pirate something / steal / etc.

There are also the people in the middle, whose behavior depends on the circumstances.

There are (probably) also the other people, the ones that I'm foregetting about.

And there is not much you can do about it. The same "types" of people have been around for miilenia, and propably would be for at least another few.
There aint much use in rubbing your philosophy on the noses of others - it mostly makes them just angry and the instinctively oppose you.

There is also one more thing I wish to add:

[dmaul1114]

We'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

It is theft and needs to be defined as such as we move further and further into an electronic world where many physical products are replaced entirely by digital ones.

And I'll do what I can in my capacity as a criminologist and a person who regularly writes my elected officials to see that it's defined as such. And to see that the bulk of government actions are focused on educating that it is theft, is a crime etc., and that penalties aren't absurdly disproportionate to the crime like so many are in our CJ system, or in our civil system with the absurd awards given to record labels etc.

It's a minor offense, and should be treated as such. But it's still theft in nature, and should be defined as a minor misdemeanor crime.

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

They're making unauthorised copies, which is wrong in my view - but it's not legally stealing, and for good reason.

But on that, I can't just disagree as that's flatly wrong.

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.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by Kevin2960

Ben, define Darknet...

Darknet has it's own perfectly adequate and widely used definition.

The people crying about theft, when there's no deprivation, are directly aiding the darknet communities by creating a moral panic, I'd add. From my perspective, there's absolutely no ambiguity where they stand (and it's on the same podium as the RIAA, the authors of ACTA and Metallica).

Anyone not willing to be pragmatic is part of the issue, at this point in time, sadly enough.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

They are thieves.

Legally they're not. I don't think that it's helpful in terms of language to use such an emotive term for the vast majority of the population. Have you never copied an album onto cassette, or the modern equivalent of copying some mp3s from a friend? Have you never broken the rules for copying broadcast television? (in the UK this would have meant never keeping a videotape beyond a couple of weeks, at one time). Perhaps you haven't, but I would think that very unusual.

I don't see labelling most people as thieves being a helpful response to the changes resulting from the move to digital media. We need new laws which take account of what most people think - because they are our laws. The state should be there to serve the citizen, not vice versa. So we need to come up with new rules that are fair for the consumer - not just big business.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

And I'll do what I can in my capacity as a criminologist and a person who regularly writes my elected officials to see that it's defined as such.

So when you see the PirateParties get elected and IP abolished because of of the backlash against the moral panic, what will your next step be, out of interest?

[dmaul1114]

Like I said, the act of being a criminal/thief what have you needs to be destigmatized, as you note everyone pretty much breaks the law at some points in their lives. It doesn't make them a bad person.

Something like illegally downloading an album is a minor wrong--but it should be a crime and have penalties tied to it. Minor penalties, delivered in a way to minimize stigma (say like the way minor crime is dealt with in other countries like Japan). But still dealt with like the theft it is. If you can't or don't want to pay for something, then don't own it. Go without it, check it out from a library. Listen to streaming music online etc.

There's no excuse or valid justification for obtaining a copy of something illegally. Things are much murkier on making copies of stuff you bought for your own personal use, being able to loan things to friends, or sell or give away things without keeping a copy for yourself etc. The laws there need to be much clearer.

But their should be laws against downloading copies of stuff you did not pay for in any format. The legal system has to adept as we move further and further toward ONLY having digital content in many areas as the types of crime (especially the type of theft) changes as we move from physical content to digital content.

But again, we're going to go in circles here as neither of us will change our minds. So again, lets just agree to disagree. Cheers!

[dsvick]

Originally Posted by kwjones

Perfectly appropriate and thanks for reminding me - I hadn't read today's yet.