Quote from: WillHere's a question for those who believe it is not theft because there is no loss of value:

Let's say I sneak into a bookstore and take a bunch of books. I calculate that the portion of a book's price that goes to authors, artists, layout people, and editors, IE: all the 'content,' and leave the remainder of the book price behind.

Have I committed theft?

Obviously, the bookstore is down a physical product, it no longer has it there.

If you went in and copied down the contents of the book into a pocket journal would you then have committed theft?  Obviously not.

The question isn't IMO is piracy theft, because legally and practically it isn't.  The question is IMO given it's not theft, what is it and what makes it wrong?  Given I think it is wrong, I think that's an answerable question, I don't think pretending it's theft with analogies which are deeply unpersuasive is a good answer though.

Quote from: GoOrangeHave you ever taken one of your CDs and converted it or any of the songs on it to MP3 so you could listen on your computer or MP3 player?

Have you ever converted any of your old 45s to a tape, CD, or MP3?

Ever recorded a television show on a VCR or DVR?

Ever photocopied a page out of an RPG book (other than the character sheet that explicity said you could photocopy it)?

Or photocopied an article from a newspaper?

Or photocopied a page from a book at the library when doing a research project?

Ever right clicked an image on the internet (one not created by you) and saved it on your computer without asking for the author's permission?

The point is that there are practically an infinite number of ways we infringe on other people's IP. Most of the time we don't even think about it because it seems insignificant. Yet when it comes to something closer to home, like games to a games designer, suddenly we start taking the high road and claiming our selective application of morals superior to others'.

I find those who claim the issue is entirely black and white (and refuse to acknowledge that there are gray areas) are just being obstinate and simple-minded. Accusing everyone who has ever downloaded something off the internet of being a thief and morally wrong is absolutely ludicrous.

QFT - I was about to post almost exactly the same thing.

Quote from: GoOrangeMy problem is with your inability to recognize possible gray areas. Instead you chose to completely oversimplify and use prejudicial language as you stand on your moral absolutism and tell others why they are bad people.

I'm glad that your momma taught you about stealing being wrong. I only wish she would have taken time to teach you some of the many other lessons in life that apparently you missed out on. (See how nasty something like that sounds? Not really anything the least bit constructive in oversimplified, childish statements like that.)

She clearly didn't teach him that being self-righteous and petulant are also morally wrong.

I really don't get where some of you people come off trying to sound like your bowel movements don't stink.  Seriously.  I seriously doubt there is more than 2% of the population that has never committed any kind of IP infringement.  And I'm quite positive that everyone from small children up to little old ladies do it on a regular basis without seeing what the big deal is.

Quote from: walkerpDid you get those righteous Hollywood promos at the beginnings of movies in Britain?  Those were the worst.  This avuncular stuntmen preaching righteously, while his exciting scenes played in the background, about how stealing movies was taking food from his family.  Pathetic.

I saw that one in a theatre, once, several years back.

I'll note that a far more potent argument I heard against piracy was from a solo singer (Imogen Heap, I think), who stated that she would be adding six months to her tour rather than releasing another album right away, because tours make significantly more money than CDs.  And that her audience could expect much more of this kind of thing, both from herself and other artists, for the same reason.

There were no recriminations leveled, just a fair bit of "Look, I don't think this is what we want.  But it's what we got."

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI saw that one in a theatre, once, several years back.

I'll note that a far more potent argument I heard against piracy was from a solo singer (Imogen Heap, I think), who stated that she would be adding six months to her tour rather than releasing another album right away, because tours make significantly more money than CDs.  And that her audience could expect much more of this kind of thing, both from herself and other artists, for the same reason.

There were no recriminations leveled, just a fair bit of "Look, I don't think this is what we want.  But it's what we got."

As I say, I think talking about the real effects is much more useful than talking about fantasy theft scenarios.

Quote from: BalbinusIf you went in and copied down the contents of the book into a pocket journal would you then have committed theft?  Obviously not.

No? Let's say everyone had access to devices that could scan a print book in seconds just by pointing it at the book, and turn it into digital format on a tablet reader. And let's say a growing number of people thought there was nothing wrong with strolling around book stores, scanning every book that caught their fancy, and reading them later on their tablets. And those people stopped buying books altogether.

Would this be an ethical thing to do? And how would it affect publishing?

My answers are: No. Writing and publishing professional would become unprofitable endeavours, fewer people would do it, and eventually we'd have fewer (and worse) books to choose from.

To me it's not even a question of doing what you mother told you. It's a question of recognizing the total long-term effects of millions of little decisions. Lots of people doing what benefits themselves immediately can have seriously bad effects long-term on other people and on themselves. Unfortunately, a greatly many people are either intellectually incapable of discerning those long-term negative impacts, or delude themselves in order to satisfy their short-term wants.

Quote from: GoOrangeHave you ever taken one of your CDs and converted it or any of the songs on it to MP3 so you could listen on your computer or MP3 player?

Not a copyright violation.

Quote from: GoOrangeHave you ever converted any of your old 45s to a tape, CD, or MP3?

Again.

Quote from: GoOrangeEver recorded a television show on a VCR or DVR?

Again.

Quote from: GoOrangeEver photocopied a page out of an RPG book (other than the character sheet that explicity said you could photocopy it)?

Again.

Quote from: GoOrangeOr photocopied an article from a newspaper?

Again.

Quote from: GoOrangeOr photocopied a page from a book at the library when doing a research project?

Again.

Quote from: GoOrangeEver right clicked an image on the internet (one not created by you) and saved it on your computer without asking for the author's permission?

That's an interesting question. I'm not sure if that's a copyright violation or not....

Quote from: GoOrangeThe point is that there are practically an infinite number of ways we infringe on other people's IP.

Only one of the examples you provide might be considered infringement. The rest have been fought out in court and in the law.

Quote from: GoOrangeMost of the time we don't even think about it because it seems insignificant.

And because it's not a copyright infringement.

Quote from: GoOrangeYet when it comes to something closer to home, like games to a games designer, suddenly we start taking the high road and claiming our selective application of morals superior to others'

Problem is, given your examples, you're comparing apples and oranges...which is ironic given your name.

Quote from: GoOrangeI find those who claim the issue is entirely black and white (and refuse to acknowledge that there are gray areas) are just being obstinate and simple-minded.

And I think those who use examples that are not, in fact, copyright infringement, and them claim others are simple minded are...well...I think you get the drift.

There are definitely gray areas in the law. Part of the problem is that "legality" of any of the given acts depends greatly on the intent of the person taking the action. I can convert all of my records to mp3 - for my own personal use. If I upload them to the Internet - it's still not necessarily a violation - unless I have the intent to distribute the material. It's these niggling details that make the issue so difficult for people to wrap.

In fact, the entire argument, which I've had for hours with my older brother, is really, IMHO, not about copyright violation, per se. Instead, it's really a matter of better defining "Fair Use."

Quote from: GoOrangeAccusing everyone who has ever downloaded something off the internet of being a thief and morally wrong is absolutely ludicrous.

Fortunately for me you won't see me making that argument (see above). If others here have (I've not caught up on the thread since yesterday), they are rightly excoriated for saying such. But your argument is one of the excluded middle. You seem to be saying that since there are valid ("Fair Use") ways to ignore copyright, all material is free for copyright violation. That's as ludicrous as the perspective against which you appear to be arguing.

Quote from: HaffrungNo? Let's say everyone had access to devices that could scan a print book in seconds just by pointing it at the book, and turn it into digital format on a tablet reader. And let's say a growing number of people thought there was nothing wrong with strolling around book stores, scanning every book that caught their fancy, and reading them later on their tablets. And those people stopped buying books altogether.

Would this be an ethical thing to do? And how would it affect publishing?

My answers are: No. Writing and publishing professional would become unprofitable endeavours, fewer people would do it, and eventually we'd have fewer (and worse) books to choose from.

To me it's not even a question of doing what you mother told you. It's a question of recognizing the total long-term effects of millions of little decisions. Lots of people doing what benefits themselves immediately can have seriously bad effects long-term on other people and on themselves. Unfortunately, a greatly many people are either intellectually incapable of discerning those long-term negative impacts, or delude themselves in order to satisfy their short-term wants.

I've been quite clear I don't think it's ethical, my point is that it's not theft.

Something can be unethical and yet not be theft.

I would note by the way that the evidence that downloading decreases sales is far from persuasive by the way, so the analogy still doesn't hold.  But I would thank you to read all my posts, including those bits where I note that I don't think downloading is as a rule ok.

Arguing from analogy doesn't really work here IMO, and is unnecessary.   Instead of talking about fantasy worlds with instareaders, invisibility and intangibility we could instead talk about the real world effects of piracy and why those are undesirable, the far fetched analogies do far more harm than good IMO.

Quote from: HaffrungNo. Writing and publishing professional would become unprofitable endeavors, fewer people would do it, and eventually we'd have fewer (and worse) books to choose from.

It doesn't seem to be working this way in the music world. There's still a long line of people who think they'll get rich playing music or singing, and more televisions hows than I care to think about (Let alone watch! Hurray for no TV!) about that involve singing, dancing and music. Add in popular video games that allow you to pretend you're a rock star...and well this doesn't hold up for me.

Edit

And who gets into writing to make a buck? Seriously other than a few top flight cats, writing is pretty unprofitable right? And yet people still do it.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI saw that one in a theatre, once, several years back.

I'll note that a far more potent argument I heard against piracy was from a solo singer (Imogen Heap, I think), who stated that she would be adding six months to her tour rather than releasing another album right away, because tours make significantly more money than CDs.  And that her audience could expect much more of this kind of thing, both from herself and other artists, for the same reason.

There were no recriminations leveled, just a fair bit of "Look, I don't think this is what we want.  But it's what we got."

This has been true for some time. Artists make more money on the road than from recording. It used to be that way as well. Recording technology has been a sword with two edges...as most technologies are...

Quote from: Serious PaulIt doesn't seem to be working this way in the music world. There's still a long line of people who think they'll get rich playing music or singing, and more televisions hows than I care to think about (Let alone watch! Hurray for no TV!) about that involve singing, dancing and music. Add in popular video games that allow you to pretend you're a rock star...and well this doesn't hold up for me.

So far as best can be told, piracy has limited effects on legitimate sales, possibly even a beneficial one in some cases.

Also, a fair few people pirate items they also legitimately own and have paid for.

It's not nearly as simple as theft, where an owner is permanently deprived of their property. It's why the analogies are so unhelpful, they don't recognise the messy reality.

I agree.

Quote from: BalbinusMy user experience as a legitimate user was much worse than that of a pirate, the same applies (increasingly even more so) to computer games.  Piracy is in part on the rise because legitimate users receive an inferior product to pirates.  Toughening up on legitimate users is not in my view a fruitful response.

This one really annoys me. A few years ago I purchased a game from a software manufacturer who decided that if you had a CD-RW in your computer, you clearly were only using it to pirate games and disabled the game so that it would not run on computers with CD-RWs. I'll never, ever buy from them again.

Quote from: WillHere's a question for those who believe it is not theft because there is no loss of value:

Let's say I sneak into a bookstore and take a bunch of books. I calculate that the portion of a book's price that goes to authors, artists, layout people, and editors, IE: all the 'content,' and leave the remainder of the book price behind.

Have I committed theft?

Firstly its not theft because there is no intention to permanently deprive the owner of the property. You are not taking anything you are copying it. Legally this is entirely different. The crime you are committing is the same crime as borrowing your friend's copy of the book, just a different degree (rather like stealing a bar of chocolate rather than stealing a car).
It's like a con trick is not theft. If I pursuade you to give me money for something that turns out to be not what I led you to beleive it was that is fraud not theft.

If I break into a car and drive it round the county then dump it in a field. That is not theft, that is TWOC (Taking Without Owners Consent) as there was no intention to permanently deprive the owner of the car of their property.

Your example is actually almost impossible to compute. The value of the book that is royalties is known but the rest of it is almost impossible to judge since these fixed costs are not computed on a by the book level. You might pay 40K to these guys in costs but that 40K is a fixed cost wether you sell a million books or 6.
Now if you were able to not pay the royalties in some way and you could agree this with the owner of the physical property you are buying. Come to some agreement in collusion with them that the copyright holder would get no benefit from this sale then ... no it would not be theft but some sort of copyright infringement or possibly fraud (you could claim the books were not sold return blank paper to the publisher for them to pulp ... I don't knwo I am reaching here)
I am pretty certain that if you sneak into a store and take something and leave cash behind you are still guilty of theft by the way (regardless of the amount of cash) as there is no de facto contract of purchase between the two parties.

Quote from: James J Skach

Quote from: GoOrangeEver right clicked an image on the internet (one not created by you) and saved it on your computer without asking for the author's permission?

That's an interesting question. I'm not sure if that's a copyright violation or not....

It doesn't violate copyright.  Whenever you view a webpage the HTML and images are downloaded (copied) to your computer.  You can browse the cache folder and see the images for all the pages you've visited.  If it were a copyright violation the world wide web would not be possible.

I'm gonna peek in it via download.
Why not use 21Century technology to make some people feel better? I might as well go to a store and stick my nose in it for an hour or four, irritating the owner, like I did when I was a teenager with no cash.

If I like it, I'll buy it ASAP.
If it's shit,I'll print it out to defecate on it (then throw it away and delete the file). No seriously, I might keep it for a few days if I plan to write a review, but other then that I see no sense in having it on my harddisc.