interesting NYT article on "copyright morality"

[deviant]

Astropin, your logic follows the idea that everyone should behave in a moral way - which, in reality, is often a case of "you help me and I'll help you", rarely a case of unquestionable love (like the one parents give you while asking for nothing in return) and extremely rarely a case of "love you enemies".

Thus;

Just because you can not afford it is absolutely no reason to steal it. It's called "going without".....at least until you can afford it.

Money, like so many other things, is relative. If I had billions to throw around, I wouldn't bother with something like pirated material. It's the fact that the greedy publishers and distributors want so much money and inflate the prices that I (and undoubtedly many youth like myself) turn to less than legal alternatives.

Many have argued about this point but IMHO this is acceptable ONLY if you have already PURCHASED the paper version. Otherwise it's "go without".

Actually, I fail to see how you're harming somebody's sales if the item in question is impossible to obtain otherwise - maybe the publisher profits on your misery?

Then it's "go without".....see how easy that is .

Why don't others as well "go without" then? Why not lower the price so that we may all suffer and all enjoy in a similar manner?


This is wrong. The fact that your player does not work is no excuse to steal movies. Buy a new DVD player (or DVD drive) or "go without".

I think this is a bigger case of asinine attempt of publishers covering their backs by ripping off customers with regional DVDs than people robbing publishers of their shares.

EDIT:

Because the publisher is making money off of a stable of artists... if you don't but author X's work, he doesn't get that 92%, but he still gets the 92% from authors A, B, C, D, E, F, G... So, ultimately, you've hardly nicked him.

When you don't buy author X's work, author X gets not one penny (beyond whatever advance the pub gave them, if any), and they don't have multiple clients and millions to fall back on. You've slammed him.

Should authors be relegated to charity and donations then? Or perhaps people should just buy books for no other purpose than to support the poor author?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Astropin

I'm really surprised this individual did not get a response yet......this is exactly the type of person we are discussing here.

If we haven't addressed him directly, it's only because most of these points have already been hit upon here (and well-summarized by you).

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by deviant

Astropin, your logic follows the idea that everyone should behave in a moral way - which, in reality, is often a case of "you help me and I'll help you", rarely a case of unquestionable love (like the one parents give you while asking for nothing in return) and extremely rarely a case of "love you enemies".

Hate to burst your bubble, but when parents are giving you "unquestionable love," they are banking on your returning that with care for them in their old age. So, in actuality, it is "you help me and I'll help you."

Originally Posted by deviant

Money, like so many other things, is relative. If I had billions to throw around, I wouldn't bother with something like pirated material. It's the fact that the greedy publishers and distributors want so much money and inflate the prices that I (and undoubtedly many youth like myself) turn to less than legal alternatives.

A very popular dodge. Rich people steal, too. And using "high prices" as an excuse does not wash. If I can't afford something, I walk away. I don't steal it. Welcome to Functioning Society.

Originally Posted by deviant

Should authors be relegated to charity and donations then? Or perhaps people should just buy books for no other purpose than to support the poor author?

That beats the hell out of stealing from them... but even an author doesn't want you to buy their books, unless you expect to enjoy it. (Except for those who want to con you into thinking you will, just to get the sale. But most of those authors already have publishers for that.)

[deviant]

A very popular dodge. Rich people steal, too. And using "high prices" as an excuse does not wash. If I can't afford something, I walk away. I don't steal it. Welcome to Functioning Society.

It's not the high prices that bother me. Some thing may be expensive. What bothers me is the fact that publishers charge more than it's worth because they know people will buy it. And it's not so much of a thing that "that makes the price appropriate", since intellectual products can't be substituted by other products. Even if the price is too high, buyers can't choose an alternative product because each of these products is unique and cannot be easily substituted. Thus, you could say that the publishers encourage people to "steal" from them.

Also, while we're on the topic, I can see where you're coming from. I guess that myself, being raised after the whole Vietnam war thing, have a different view on the world and expect every publisher, corporation or disc label to try and rob me blind in broad daylight.

That beats the hell out of stealing from them... but even an author doesn't want you to buy their books, unless you expect to enjoy it. (Except for those who want to con you into thinking you will, just to get the sale. But most of those authors already have publishers for that.)

By looking at the broader entertainment industry, I get the idea that yes, they are trying to rob me. Both with their overpriced products, low availability and wide disparity between two distributors (such as one in Europe and one in the US).

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by deviant

By looking at the broader entertainment industry, I get the idea that yes, they are trying to rob me. Both with their overpriced products, low availability and wide disparity between two distributors (such as one in Europe and one in the US).

But the point is, there's no reason you have to have their product. It's not food or shelter. If it's not to your liking, for whatever reason, you can walk away. There's no justifiable reason to steal it... and "just to spite them" is a petty reasoning.

Every seller charges what they believe the market will bear... that's their prerogative. It's your prerogative, as a member of the market, to vote with your wallet, or vote with your feet. You don't have the prerogative to vote with your sticky fingers.

(Remember, you also have the prerogative to tell the seller why you think their product is overpriced, and give them the chance to consider revising their prices to reflect market attitudes.)

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Every seller charges what they believe the market will bear... that's their prerogative. It's your prerogative, as a member of the market, to vote with your wallet, or vote with your feet. You don't have the prerogative to vote with your sticky fingers.

If you read a book, and realise you've been overcharged for it; you can't take it back for a refund.
By the time you realise you've been ripped off, it's too late to 'vote with your wallet'.

[Astropin]

Originally Posted by deviant

It's not the high prices that bother me. Some thing may be expensive. What bothers me is the fact that publishers charge more than it's worth because they know people will buy it. And it's not so much of a thing that "that makes the price appropriate", since intellectual products can't be substituted by other products. Even if the price is too high, buyers can't choose an alternative product because each of these products is unique and cannot be easily substituted. Thus, you could say that the publishers encourage people to "steal" from them.

Also, while we're on the topic, I can see where you're coming from. I guess that myself, being raised after the whole Vietnam war thing, have a different view on the world and expect every publisher, corporation or disc label to try and rob me blind in broad daylight.

By looking at the broader entertainment industry, I get the idea that yes, they are trying to rob me. Both with their overpriced products, low availability and wide disparity between two distributors (such as one in Europe and one in the US).

"It's not the high prices that bother me. Some thing may be expensive. What bothers me is the fact that publishers charge more than it's worth because they know people will buy it."

You just hit the nail on the head (and then proceeded to miss the point entirely). First of all who are YOU to decide what something is worth? Secondly.....do you understand (at all) the concept of a "free market"? If they know that they can charge a higher price because people will pay it then that is EXACTLY what they should do! The "market" has dictated a value.....just because YOU do not agree with it does not give you the right to steal it. You (should) either pay the higher price.....or "go without". I often buy refurbished products because I feel like the item is overpriced brand new. Other times (like my 505) I pay the full price because I think it's worth it.....and on MANY, MANY occasions.....I "go without" because it is out of my price range.

[Astropin]

Originally Posted by deviant

Astropin, your logic follows the idea that everyone should behave in a moral way

Yes.......

[deviant]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

But the point is, there's no reason you have to have their product. It's not food or shelter. If it's not to your liking, for whatever reason, you can walk away. There's no justifiable reason to steal it... and "just to spite them" is a petty reasoning.

Every seller charges what they believe the market will bear... that's their prerogative. It's your prerogative, as a member of the market, to vote with your wallet, or vote with your feet. You don't have the prerogative to vote with your sticky fingers.

(Remember, you also have the prerogative to tell the seller why you think their product is overpriced, and give them the chance to consider revising their prices to reflect market attitudes.)

I don't really see it as stealing since "stealing" would imply that I took something from someone denying them the ability to enjoy it purely for my personal pleasure.

If I steal a physical book from someone, then that person cannot enjoy it. If I obtain a digital copy, I do not cause any emotional harm - sure, the publisher can say "sales were down" - but he's not going to spend sleepless nights because I didn't put a $100 in his pocket?

Personally, I want to support artists. But that's the only thing I want to support - not the publishers, not the record companies, not the distributors and not the slick CEOs in their fancy cars. If I was solely supporting the artist, then I might feel regret over my actions. This way I do not. Heck, if the intermediaries actually provided me with SOME added value, I'd support them too - instead - what do I get - publishers and distributors opposing change (most notably distribution over the internet, whether legal or not) just because they'd be losing money. Do not ask me to show compassion and ethics while they're showing none.

I agree that spite is a result of poor reasoning but is greed any better?

Originally Posted by Astropin

You just hit the nail on the head (and then proceeded to miss the point entirely). First of all who are YOU to decide what something is worth? Secondly.....do you understand (at all) the concept of a "free market"? If they know that they can charge a higher price because people will pay it then that is EXACTLY what they should do! The "market" has dictated a value.....just because YOU do not agree with it does not give you the right to steal it. You (should) either pay the higher price.....or "go without". I often buy refurbished products because I feel like the item is overpriced brand new. Other times (like my 505) I pay the full price because I think it's worth it.....and on MANY, MANY occasions.....I "go without" because it is out of my price range.

Ah, but a free market also implies choice of distributors and fair play does it not?

Sadly, the first is sorely lacking here, making those that do provide a book charge it the highest they can because there is no choice. Secondly, how can one call upon a buyer's morality when the seller is blocking their competition so it can keep prices up?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

If you read a book, and realise you've been overcharged for it; you can't take it back for a refund.
By the time you realise you've been ripped off, it's too late to 'vote with your wallet'.

That's why books come with reviews, back cover summaries, excerpts, and the names of authors you hopefully know, so you can check all of that before you buy. And yeah, if you're still screwed by the book after all that, don't fret. Happens to everyone. Next time, don't buy that author's book. And maybe write a review, so no one else will be suckered like you were.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by deviant

I don't really see it as stealing since "stealing" would imply that I took something from someone denying them the ability to enjoy it purely for my personal pleasure.

We're talking here about stealing Intellectual Property. No, it's not a physical thing that you hold in your hand. But yes, it's still stealing.

If you come up with an idea for a machine that will solve the world's energy problems, and by the way make you rich... you blab about it to me at a bar... and I build it first, making the money that you won't... I've just stolen your intellectual property.

But I guess you don't feel you've been wronged at all, do you?

[Astropin]

Originally Posted by deviant

Ah, but a free market also implies choice of distributors and fair play does it not?

Sadly, the first is sorely lacking here, making those that do provide a book charge it the highest they can because there is no choice. Secondly, how can one call upon a buyer's morality when the seller is blocking their competition so it can keep prices up?

You ALWAYS have a choice. You have a choice not to steal it and thus, not to own a copy of it at all. If you feel you are being treated unfairly by a "seller" then don't buy (or steal) their products.....period.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

And yeah, if you're still screwed by the book after all that, don't fret. Happens to everyone.

Exactly, everyone gets ripped off sometimes - publishers, authors, readers - stuff happens.

[deviant]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

We're talking here about stealing Intellectual Property. No, it's not a physical thing that you hold in your hand. But yes, it's still stealing.

If you come up with an idea for a machine that will solve the world's energy problems, and by the way make you rich... you blab about it to me at a bar... and I build it first, making the money that you won't... I've just stolen your intellectual property.

But I guess you don't feel you've been wronged at all, do you?

There is a distinct difference, which I have already pointed out, between your example and our issue.

In this case, only one of us can profit from the idea. In our issue one can use the product without preventing another from using it.

The two make a poor comparison.

On another note - no I wouldn't care. In fact, I'd probably let anyone use such a technology for the betterment of mankind rather than my own personal enrichment. On the same topic - would you have the moral audacity to profit off a, let's say, cure for cancer?

You ALWAYS have a choice. You have a choice not to steal it and thus, not to own a copy of it at all. If you feel you are being treated unfairly by a "seller" then don't buy (or steal) their products.....period.

Again, I must restate - I do not see it as stealing.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

We're talking here about stealing Intellectual Property. No, it's not a physical thing that you hold in your hand. But yes, it's still stealing.

If you come up with an idea for a machine that will solve the world's energy problems, and by the way make you rich... you blab about it to me at a bar... and I build it first, making the money that you won't... I've just stolen your intellectual property.

But I guess you don't feel you've been wronged at all, do you?

No, you haven't. If it's not registered or recorded then it's not property.

You've been using the term IP wrong, Steve. It does not refer to the idea, because you cannot own an idea. IP refers to the pieces of paper that give you the right of sole use of the idea.

Your books are not your intellectual property, Steve. Your IP is the right to copy and distribute the books. Thus, unless someone tricks you into signing away the copyright, your property has not been stolen.