5 ms·

Violating copyright and stealing are fundamentally different things. If I steal your tv, you no longer have a TV. If I pirate a book, all existing copies of the

Violating copyright and stealing are fundamentally different things. If I steal your tv, you no longer have a TV. If I pirate a book, all existing copies of the book still exist. If you price a book above what I'm willing to pay for it, I'm never going to buy it. Ever. If my willingness to pay is "$0", then you can't even argue that the creator has lost revenue if I pirate it. I was never going to buy it - it's too expensive at any price. You can make the argument that capitalism should exclude me from ever being allowed to read it, because my willingness to pay is below the seller's willingness to sell. Fair enough. However, it's pretty tough to calculate actual economic damages here - I was never going to buy the book, at any price. And I haven't deprived anyone else of the ability to buy the book. You might say to me: "But you are clearly in the target market - you wanted the book enough to pirate and read it." I disagree - by definition, the target market must consist of people who want the product enough to pay for it.

WaltPurvis 6y ago
Your philosophical musings are not uninteresting, but they are irrelevant to the fact that violating copyright is defined as stealing property under US law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-113 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-11...
- dangerlibrary 6y ago
  Wow, I mean, what a counterintuitive coincidence. Trafficking in copyrighted works constitutes theft, but a private equity firm buying a company with debt, transferring the debt onto the company's balance sheet, allowing it to go into bankruptcy because of enormous debt load, and paying themselves huge bonuses along the way is not theft. If it weren't for the fact that the U.S. federal code as it exists in June of 2020 is the definitive source of ethical and moral definitions, I would think that maybe something _untoward_ might be going on.
  - ArnoVW 6y ago
    Seems coherent to me: you are not taking ownership of something without a contractual basis. It would I think constitute 'misuse of corporate assets' though.
- enriquto 6y ago
  > Your philosophical musings are not uninteresting, but they are irrelevant to the fact that violating copyright is defined as stealing property under US law. Your philosophical musings are not uninteresting, but they are irrelevant to the fact that freeing slaves legitimately bought is defined as stealing property under US law.
  - WaltPurvis 6y ago
    That's not cute. It's incredibly appalling to compare the institution of slavery to people who pirate books simply because they want the benefits of authors' work without compensating those authors.
    - enriquto 6y ago
      I'm not making that comparison. I'm not even saying that I disagree with your view on copyright. I'm just setting up this correspondence to show that the argumentation that you use is not valid.
      - WaltPurvis 6y ago
        Fine, but there is nothing at all invalid about my argument, because all I argued is that infringing copyrights is defined as stealing property under US law. That's not even an argument; it's simply a statement of fact. Unless you're talking about my statement that musings about how it shouldn't be considered stealing are irrelevant to the fact that it is, which is also not an argument, just a statement of fact. (Those musings are misguided as well as irrelevant, but I didn't advance any argument about them being misguided.)
        enriquto 6y ago
        Your rhetoric tricks are a bit tiring. The question is not settled by saying that something is illegal. Of course book sharing is illegal under the current law, that's the whole point. The law in question is stupid. People who respect the concept of law and the importance of laws are outraged by this, and want to use the legal system to change this stupid law. Repeating that "book sharing is illegal" as you do leads nowhere.
- ByteJockey 6y ago
  Why should the federal government be taken as the authority on the definition in terms in a non-legal context (most of the conversation here is about an ethical argument)?
  - austhrow743 6y ago
    Topic is a legal battle. I would think the onus is on people wanting to use words that have both legal and non-legal meanings in their non-legal way to specify it.
    - ByteJockey 6y ago
      The post I responded to explicitly acknowledged it wasn't a legal argument. At least using the phrase "philosophical musings" seems that way to me. Unless you want to make the argument that a philosophical argument and a legal argument are equivalent (which I would actually be quite interested in seeing).
- 6502nerdface 6y ago
  My understanding is that in Dowling v. United States, the Supreme Court specifically ruled that the very section of US code to which you link does not mean that copyright infringement is theft: > Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(19...
kazinator 6y ago
> the target market must consist of people who want the product enough to pay for it. That in fact doesn't work even in the case of actual stealing, otherwise we are forced to conclude that the target market for luxury cars includes teenage kids who hot-wire them and take them for joyrides.
kazinator 6y ago
I think that the argument which you present works well for personal use: the book $0 monetary value to you and you don't intend to redistribute it. However, there are people who copy without authorization and make money from it. (For instance, Google: they collect money for YouTube Premium subscriptions, in exchange for which they let people watch all sorts of illegally reproduced material without commercial interruptions.) Now suppose the copyright holder wants $1000 for the book. Nobody is willing to pay. You make copies available for $15. A few people are found who pay you. Are you not stealing that revenue from the copyright holder? Oh, but that copyright holder didn't want the money; or else they could have sold for $15 per copy themselves. You're just getting money that they copyright holder left on the table ...
- dangerlibrary 6y ago
  My argument is really only about calculating economic damages from piracy, and how it is difficult without information about a pirate's willingess to pay. Even for personal use, if my willingness to pay is $50, but the price is $1000, and I pirate, that's a legitimate claim that piracy caused economic harm to the author. But, importantly, not $1000 of economic harm - just $50. I've deprived the author of the opportunity to price discriminate by putting the book on sale at some point in the future, or bulk discounting, or gathering data about the readership (to e.g. build an email list). In the case you describe, there is a demonstrated willingness to pay $15, so you have enough information to calculate damages.
  - kazinator 6y ago
    Suppose you are the copyright holder of a book, and are asking $1000. For years, there are no takers; you have no revenue. I come along and would like to read your book, but at most I'm willing to pay $10. I get a little idea: I advertise that I have this book for sale for $10 a copy, and start taking orders. I collect 99 paid orders. At that point, I have $990 of other people's money. I add $10 of my own to make $1000 and buy the book from you. Without your permission, I make 99 copies, and fill the orders. Am I a pirate? Or a businessman who provided liquidity at a rationally determined market price, and enabled you to finally sell a copy and at least get a $1000? Also, what amount did I demonstrate a willingness to pay? Certainly not $1000, right? It looks as if my willingness to pay was limited to the $10 of my own that I pitched in. If I were to be sued, how should the damages be determined? According to your "demonstrated willingness" concept for calculating damages, all 100 pirates demonstrated a willingness to pay $10, so the damages were $1000. But that's exactly what you got already. Everyone demonstrated willingness to pay $10, forked it over, and it was passed on to you. So you see, this willingness to pay concept works very well with nonzero amounts too, in such a way that even pirates who charge money can come out smelling like roses.
shuntress 6y ago
By spending the time to acquire and consume a copy of the content you have proven that your willingness to pay is above "$0". Granted, perhaps not _much_ above 0. But still evidently above 0. edit: Even if your "consumption" is merely acquiring and storing (or even acquiring and immediately discarding)
- dangerlibrary 6y ago
  Sure. And the expected value of getting caught and paying fines, etc. etc. It's true, but I think the point stands.
hyperman1 6y ago
There is ain interesting flaw in: If you price a book above what I'm willing to pay for it, I'm never going to buy it. Even if this is correct, you might have bought another book that was cheaper. Case in point: Photoshop. It was pirated by everyone at home. But organizations could not pirate, so when they buy a photo editing package, it will be photoshop, as that what the employees know. If piracy at home was not an option, you'd see much more different photo packages at different price points in the market.

WaltPurvis 6y ago

Your philosophical musings are not uninteresting, but they are irrelevant to the fact that violating copyright is defined as stealing property under US law. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-113 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-11...

dangerlibrary 6y ago
Wow, I mean, what a counterintuitive coincidence. Trafficking in copyrighted works constitutes theft, but a private equity firm buying a company with debt, transferring the debt onto the company's balance sheet, allowing it to go into bankruptcy because of enormous debt load, and paying themselves huge bonuses along the way is not theft. If it weren't for the fact that the U.S. federal code as it exists in June of 2020 is the definitive source of ethical and moral definitions, I would think that maybe something _untoward_ might be going on.
- ArnoVW 6y ago
  Seems coherent to me: you are not taking ownership of something without a contractual basis. It would I think constitute 'misuse of corporate assets' though.
enriquto 6y ago
> Your philosophical musings are not uninteresting, but they are irrelevant to the fact that violating copyright is defined as stealing property under US law. Your philosophical musings are not uninteresting, but they are irrelevant to the fact that freeing slaves legitimately bought is defined as stealing property under US law.
- WaltPurvis 6y ago
  That's not cute. It's incredibly appalling to compare the institution of slavery to people who pirate books simply because they want the benefits of authors' work without compensating those authors.
  - enriquto 6y ago
    I'm not making that comparison. I'm not even saying that I disagree with your view on copyright. I'm just setting up this correspondence to show that the argumentation that you use is not valid.
    - WaltPurvis 6y ago
      Fine, but there is nothing at all invalid about my argument, because all I argued is that infringing copyrights is defined as stealing property under US law. That's not even an argument; it's simply a statement of fact. Unless you're talking about my statement that musings about how it shouldn't be considered stealing are irrelevant to the fact that it is, which is also not an argument, just a statement of fact. (Those musings are misguided as well as irrelevant, but I didn't advance any argument about them being misguided.)
      - enriquto 6y ago
        Your rhetoric tricks are a bit tiring. The question is not settled by saying that something is illegal. Of course book sharing is illegal under the current law, that's the whole point. The law in question is stupid. People who respect the concept of law and the importance of laws are outraged by this, and want to use the legal system to change this stupid law. Repeating that "book sharing is illegal" as you do leads nowhere.
ByteJockey 6y ago
Why should the federal government be taken as the authority on the definition in terms in a non-legal context (most of the conversation here is about an ethical argument)?
- austhrow743 6y ago
  Topic is a legal battle. I would think the onus is on people wanting to use words that have both legal and non-legal meanings in their non-legal way to specify it.
  - ByteJockey 6y ago
    The post I responded to explicitly acknowledged it wasn't a legal argument. At least using the phrase "philosophical musings" seems that way to me. Unless you want to make the argument that a philosophical argument and a legal argument are equivalent (which I would actually be quite interested in seeing).
6502nerdface 6y ago
My understanding is that in Dowling v. United States, the Supreme Court specifically ruled that the very section of US code to which you link does not mean that copyright infringement is theft: > Since the statutorily defined property rights of a copyright holder have a character distinct from the possessory interest of the owner of simple "goods, wares, [or] merchandise," interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(1985) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dowling_v._United_States_(19...

kazinator 6y ago

> the target market must consist of people who want the product enough to pay for it. That in fact doesn't work even in the case of actual stealing, otherwise we are forced to conclude that the target market for luxury cars includes teenage kids who hot-wire them and take them for joyrides.

kazinator 6y ago

I think that the argument which you present works well for personal use: the book $0 monetary value to you and you don't intend to redistribute it. However, there are people who copy without authorization and make money from it. (For instance, Google: they collect money for YouTube Premium subscriptions, in exchange for which they let people watch all sorts of illegally reproduced material without commercial interruptions.) Now suppose the copyright holder wants $1000 for the book. Nobody is willing to pay. You make copies available for $15. A few people are found who pay you. Are you not stealing that revenue from the copyright holder? Oh, but that copyright holder didn't want the money; or else they could have sold for $15 per copy themselves. You're just getting money that they copyright holder left on the table ...

dangerlibrary 6y ago
My argument is really only about calculating economic damages from piracy, and how it is difficult without information about a pirate's willingess to pay. Even for personal use, if my willingness to pay is $50, but the price is $1000, and I pirate, that's a legitimate claim that piracy caused economic harm to the author. But, importantly, not $1000 of economic harm - just $50. I've deprived the author of the opportunity to price discriminate by putting the book on sale at some point in the future, or bulk discounting, or gathering data about the readership (to e.g. build an email list). In the case you describe, there is a demonstrated willingness to pay $15, so you have enough information to calculate damages.
- kazinator 6y ago
  Suppose you are the copyright holder of a book, and are asking $1000. For years, there are no takers; you have no revenue. I come along and would like to read your book, but at most I'm willing to pay $10. I get a little idea: I advertise that I have this book for sale for $10 a copy, and start taking orders. I collect 99 paid orders. At that point, I have $990 of other people's money. I add $10 of my own to make $1000 and buy the book from you. Without your permission, I make 99 copies, and fill the orders. Am I a pirate? Or a businessman who provided liquidity at a rationally determined market price, and enabled you to finally sell a copy and at least get a $1000? Also, what amount did I demonstrate a willingness to pay? Certainly not $1000, right? It looks as if my willingness to pay was limited to the $10 of my own that I pitched in. If I were to be sued, how should the damages be determined? According to your "demonstrated willingness" concept for calculating damages, all 100 pirates demonstrated a willingness to pay $10, so the damages were $1000. But that's exactly what you got already. Everyone demonstrated willingness to pay $10, forked it over, and it was passed on to you. So you see, this willingness to pay concept works very well with nonzero amounts too, in such a way that even pirates who charge money can come out smelling like roses.

shuntress 6y ago

By spending the time to acquire and consume a copy of the content you have proven that your willingness to pay is above "$0". Granted, perhaps not _much_ above 0. But still evidently above 0. edit: Even if your "consumption" is merely acquiring and storing (or even acquiring and immediately discarding)

dangerlibrary 6y ago
Sure. And the expected value of getting caught and paying fines, etc. etc. It's true, but I think the point stands.

hyperman1 6y ago

There is ain interesting flaw in: If you price a book above what I'm willing to pay for it, I'm never going to buy it. Even if this is correct, you might have bought another book that was cheaper. Case in point: Photoshop. It was pirated by everyone at home. But organizations could not pirate, so when they buy a photo editing package, it will be photoshop, as that what the employees know. If piracy at home was not an option, you'd see much more different photo packages at different price points in the market.