Why DON'T you pirate?

[Aus_Snow]

In my view, those social constructs which are necessary for society to exist. A right not to be stabbed or stolen from, that is a natural right.

Those social constructs called 'laws' then. OK.

What is inaccurate about it? Information is what makes something copyrightable.

Show me where it is written (officially, or even with any accuracy) that that is what copyright in fact means, extends to, whatever. Please do back that one up, as it is most certainly not in line with any definition or applicable interpretation of 'copyright' I am familiar with.

 

[Hereticus]

Well, other than the obvious "it's illegal" reason - because I produce digital stuff and I know how it feels to see people pirating it. It's not a nice feeling.

Yesterday I went to the local game store and paid full price for the 4.0 PHB2, and had already bought the three pack there.

I told the store owner that I wanted to buy a text copy of both PHBs, and he said that he would look for me. There are also other on-line places I can look.

I already know where I can get an illegal copy for free, but I don't want to do that. I have no problem paying a fair price for their work.

I will take the free illegal copy if I can't buy it through legal channels.

.

I don't know about other people, but I have been on the giving and receiving end of photocopies.

 

[pawsplay]

Those social constructs called 'laws' then. OK.


Show me where it is written (officially, or even with any accuracy) that that is what copyright in fact means, extends to, whatever. Please do back that one up, as it is most certainly not in line with any definition or applicable interpretation of 'copyright' I am familiar with.

What does copyright protect?
Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section "What Works Are Protected."

How do I protect my idea?
Copyright does not protect ideas, concepts, systems, or methods of doing something. You may express your ideas in writing or drawings and claim copyright in your description, but be aware that copyright will not protect the idea itself as revealed in your written or artistic work.

in·for·ma·tion
Pronunciation: ˌin-fər-ˈmā-shən
Function: noun
Date: 14th century
1: the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence
2 a (1): knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction (2): intelligence , news (3): facts , data b: the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects c (1): a signal or character (as in a communication system or computer) representing data (2): something (as a message, experimental data, or a picture) which justifies change in a construct (as a plan or theory) that represents physical or mental experience or another construct d: a quantitative measure of the content of information ; specifically : a numerical quantity that measures the uncertainty in the outcome of an experiment to be performed

I put forth that "communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence" substantially overlaps with "facts, ideas, systems... the way these things are expressed."

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Because I want to support the people and publishers who make my hobbies possible.

Because I would very much not like it if people were doing it to me.

Because it would lessen my own opinion of myself.

Because not having something because I cannot afford it right now gives me something to strive for.

The Auld Grump

 

[kunadam]

I think the main question is why people buy books or pdfs.
Anyone can have practically anything from "a complete stranger's HDD, that miraculously happened to be delivered to be" or whatever.

I definitely do not buy anything out of ethics (as far as ethics goes I would not buy any digital media, information wants to be free!)

Many of the OPs items are good answers particularly 3 (IMHO):

a. Having the actual book is more convenient. I collect some lines, and there I prefer to have them on my selves.

b. One show his/her gratitude/support by buying. In my mind I'm actually paying for the future, not so much for the actual product. I want them to continue producing stuffs.

c. Price. Ultimately the part of pirating that actually hurt businesses (now this is important, I can download hundreds of movies, songs, books, whatever, it does not mean that someone suffer monetarily, as I would not have paid for them anyway) is the part where one would pay if it would be cheaper. Because there there is a lost costumer.
Pdf's are a good compromise here, as they are cheaper than the hard copy, and by that become affordable to people living in the less well-to-do part of the world. Sometimes I only buy much later when there is a sale, when the price gets right for me (I'm not playing actively any more, unfortunately, thus timing is not so much of an issue for me. I still collect RPG books)

 

[Jeff Wilder]

Creators do maintain control over their creations, and people do earn money from their creations, even though piracy occurs.

Yes, in spite of theft -- and copyright infringement is theft -- people still make money. I don't understand your point.

It's a stretch to say, "The person who wrote this is entitled to payment because I made a copy."

How is it a stretch? You are benefiting from something created by someone else, in a society that has laws recognizing that creation as a form of property. If the creator wants payment for his property, and you take the property without paying, you've stolen from the creator.

(And in case there are people who don't understand this: The sectors of a hard disk on which an mp3 song resides -- before and/or after it's been pirated -- are not the property. The song is the property.)

It isn't necessarily the creator who gets paid, anyway, in this era of work-for-hire.

That's irrelevant. Part of having control over property is the right to give full or partial control over to someone else. Work-for-hire is simply an agreement that the control I would have, you'll have instead, usually in exchange for money.

Copyrights and royalties are not natural rights; they are specific privileges enshrined in our laws for a specific purpose. Just as an example, copyrights do not exist in traditional hunter-gatherer societies.

Nor, in many cases, does the concept of property at all. I don't get your point.

How is this all supposed to work? I wish I knew. But trying to put the genie back in the bottle is just not going to work.

This I completely agree with. Modern realities needs different models, and corporations are just being idiotic by fighting that need rather than by finding a way to service it. More and more artists are recognizing that corporations aren't fighting for them by doing this, and the artists themselves are finding new business models. (One of my favorite bands, Cowboy Junkies, we completely independent many years ago, and they're doing fine.)

Why are artists doing this? Because they believe that creators should have control over their creations, and if they desire should earn money for them.

You may be conflating this belief (that I share with many others) with support for the current IP regime (legal and corporate). Please don't, because -- as I've written in other threads -- I believe that law and corporate response to modern technology is lagging years behind, and is woefully misguided.

 

[Zimri]

If you park your car, and I then go to your car and steal it, you can no longer drive your car because I am in posession of it and you are not. There was only one car and now you are deprived of it's use because I have physically taken it from you.

If you park your car, and I go to your car and wave my magic wand over it creating from the ether an exact replica and drive away in the replica leaving your car intact and there for your use you have lost nothing and I have gained a car.

Cameras (digital or otherwise) aren't actually soul stealing devices, nor are mirrors.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Modern realities needs different models, and corporations are just being idiotic by fighting that need rather than by finding a way to service it. More and more artists are recognizing that corporations aren't fighting for them by doing this, and the artists themselves are finding new business models. (One of my favorite bands, Cowboy Junkies, we completely independent many years ago, and they're doing fine.)

Well, the "Its just hurting the Corporations living off the artists" warcry doesn't have the same oomph it used to (not that I think it had any, really).

Indie and startup artists are starting to feel the pinch of piracy just as much.

In several interviews, Ani Di Franco has opined that she's spending more and more time defending her stuff (she owns her own label) against piracy than she ever thought she'd have to, and it is starting to take away time and FUN away from the actual music side of her business.

I also personally know a band that had more copies of its debut album sold on a Russian Mafia pirate site than through legitimate channels...and you can guess where that money went.

Even non-label music retailers are getting hurt- there are equipment/retail companies in the biz that are selling unsigned artists' materials through their websites...and even THEY have been feeling the pinch of piracy.

I'm not arguing that downloading needs to end- even though its not to my preference, it is incredibly efficient from both the supply and demand side- but personally I haven't seen any alternative to the current regime that protects the rights of the artist...and all those people who helped the artist bring their product to market (studio engineers, producers, session musicians, etc.).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If you park your car, and I then go to your car and steal it, you can no longer drive your car because I am in posession of it and you are not. There was only one car and now you are deprived of it's use because I have physically taken it from you.

If you park your car, and I go to your car and wave my magic wand over it creating from the ether an exact replica and drive away in the replica leaving your car intact and there for your use you have lost nothing and I have gained a car.

Cameras (digital or otherwise) aren't actually soul stealing devices, nor are mirrors.

Yet despite not being soul-stealing devices, they can help you commit theft.

Part of the nature of a purely electronic good- that you can steal it without depriving the original creator of posession- in no ways diminishes the taking.

There are VERY FEW goods that have that characteristic.

I've posted the Black's Law dictionary definition of theft in several piracy threads:

Black's Law Dictionary
Theft: is..the act of stealing. The taking of property without the owner's consent...the fraudulent taking of personal property belonging to another, from his possession, for from the possession of some person holding the same for him, without his consent, with intent to deprive the owner of the value of the same, and to appropriate it to the use or benefit of the person taking...Theft is any of the following acts done with the intent to deprive the owner permanently of the possession, use, or benefit of his property: (a) Obtaining or exerting unauthorized control over property; (b) Obtaining by deception control over property; or (c) Obtaining by threat control over property; or (d) Obtaining control over stolen property knowing the property to have been stolen by another.

and

Black's Law Dictionary:
Stolen: Acquired, or possessed, as a result of some wrongful or dishonest act or taking, whereby a person willfully obtains or retains possession of property which belongs to another, without or beyond any permission given, and with the intent to deprive the owner of the benefit of ownership (or possession) permanently.

(emphasis mine)

By downloading without paying, you exercise unauthorized control over another person's property- you've committed a theft.

By infringing on someone's copyright, you are stealing because:

1) One of the fundamental powers of owning a copyright is the right to distribute or to choose not to distribute by any legal means. If you obtain copyrighted material without compensating the IP holder, you've done so by not honoring the terms by which he has offered to distribute the IP. IOW, you have deprived the owner with at least one benefit of ownership- the right to sell (or not sell) it to you.

2) You have intentionally obtained & retained possession of the property without/beyond the permission of the owner.

 

[Jeff Wilder]

If you park your car, and I then go to your car and steal it, you can no longer drive your car because I am in posession of it and you are not. There was only one car and now you are deprived of it's use because I have physically taken it from you.

If you park your car, and I go to your car and wave my magic wand over it creating from the ether an exact replica and drive away in the replica leaving your car intact and there for your use you have lost nothing and I have gained a car.

Cameras (digital or otherwise) aren't actually soul stealing devices, nor are mirrors.

You seriously don't get that it's not the "1001101110111011" resident on your hard drive that's the property? It's the song that is the property. (Or the verbal expression of ideas within the PDF. Or whatever.)

If I have a car for sale, and you take the engineering specs for the car and build yourself one, you've stolen something. The fact that I still have my car for sale is irrelevant. You've stolen my intellectual property.

If I have a song for sale, and you take all the digital information that allows you to play my song, you've stolen something. The fact that I still have my song is irrelevant. You've stolen my intellectual property.

There is a reason that the word "property," when used in legal matters, has modifiers (like "real," "personal," and "intellectual").

You can deny, if you like, that file-sharing should be legal. You might be surprised at how much I might agree with you. But denying that it isn't theft currently -- and clearly -- is a self-serving rationalization.