5 ms·

I agree with this. Theft of digital copies is still theft. Someone made something with the intention of selling _copies_ of said thing. Taking a copy for free

I agree with this. Theft of digital copies is still theft. Someone made something with the intention of selling _copies_ of said thing. Taking a copy for free deprives the creator (or the rights owner) of revenue. That is stealing. Yeah it’s often exceedingly inconvenient or sometimes impossible to legally obtain a copy of a movie, song, book or software. But that still doesn’t justify stealing a copy. The availability of copies of digital products to you is at the discretion of the rights holder. You don’t get to decide that you now have the right to take a free copy. If you decide to take a free copy of a digital product without the rights holder’s consent, you are stealing, which is wrong, no matter how much you want the thing or how expensive or difficult it is to obtain.

richardatlarge 4y ago
Not so simple; how many times have I been told by someone they won’t buy my book, they’ll check it out from the library. This is not theft or piracy, but it’s taking the total value of something without compensation to the creator
- throw10920 4y ago
  This is absurd. Libraries are a legal construct that artists accept in order to provide a tradeoff between profit and benefit to society, the library still purchases copies of the work, and as those copies wear out over time and new ones need to be purchase, an individual is still indirectly and effectively paying a small amount to the artist (although, again, even if they weren't it wouldn't matter, because the creator agreed to the terms of the library, unlike with digital theft). They're not remotely comparable to piracy.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    > the creator agreed to the terms of the library Really? When/where?
    - Popeyes 4y ago
      Check your contracts with the publisher of your book.
      - josephcsible 4y ago
        Can you link to an example of such a contract? And besides, I thought the First Sale Doctrine meant that no matter what your contract said, once the book was sold that the copyright holder didn't have any say over that copy of it anymore.
      - berniedurfee 4y ago
        I’ve always wondered about this. In need to do some Googling, unless someone knows the answer. Are libraries entitled to loan any book on the market? Do they need permission? Do they ever provide compensation?
        josephcsible 4y ago
        > Are libraries entitled to loan any book on the market? Do they need permission? Do they ever provide compensation? My understanding is the answers are yes, no, and nothing besides the normal purchase price of the book.
  - richardatlarge 4y ago
    Amd no comparison was made to piracy
akomtu 4y ago
I'd be more receptive to copyright if it was the rightful creators who owned rights, and investors could only lease limited rights from the owner. Instead, the capital owners have written the law, and the creators are lucky to get pennies from sale of their work. I see no reason to pay to corp C who bought "rights" from corp B who bought rights from corp A who strongarmed a bookwriter into a one-sided contract where the corp gets all the rights. Taking from robbers isn't theft, it's rightful redistribution of knowledge in our society.
- drakonka 4y ago
  This is a convenient assumption for those who choose to pirate. Even if we assume that it's appropriate to dictate what kinds of contracts artists should or shouldn't enter into with publishers and whether you think they're "strongarmed" or not, this specific scenario only really holds water if you take the time to confirm whether the structure you describe is the one being used in practice before pirating the work. Self-publishing is growing year over year. More and more authors are publishing their own work on platforms where they get 70% (in case of KDP)-100% (in case of direct sales) royalties. Along with the time to write the actual thing this also usually involves paying out of pocket for things like editors and covers. If you're genuinely committed to this scenario you're describing, I hope you check whether you're actually "taking from robbers" or taking from the author who created the book you're enjoying.

richardatlarge 4y ago

Not so simple; how many times have I been told by someone they won’t buy my book, they’ll check it out from the library. This is not theft or piracy, but it’s taking the total value of something without compensation to the creator

throw10920 4y ago
This is absurd. Libraries are a legal construct that artists accept in order to provide a tradeoff between profit and benefit to society, the library still purchases copies of the work, and as those copies wear out over time and new ones need to be purchase, an individual is still indirectly and effectively paying a small amount to the artist (although, again, even if they weren't it wouldn't matter, because the creator agreed to the terms of the library, unlike with digital theft). They're not remotely comparable to piracy.
- josephcsible 4y ago
  > the creator agreed to the terms of the library Really? When/where?
  - Popeyes 4y ago
    Check your contracts with the publisher of your book.
    - josephcsible 4y ago
      Can you link to an example of such a contract? And besides, I thought the First Sale Doctrine meant that no matter what your contract said, once the book was sold that the copyright holder didn't have any say over that copy of it anymore.
    - berniedurfee 4y ago
      I’ve always wondered about this. In need to do some Googling, unless someone knows the answer. Are libraries entitled to loan any book on the market? Do they need permission? Do they ever provide compensation?
      - josephcsible 4y ago
        > Are libraries entitled to loan any book on the market? Do they need permission? Do they ever provide compensation? My understanding is the answers are yes, no, and nothing besides the normal purchase price of the book.
- richardatlarge 4y ago
  Amd no comparison was made to piracy

akomtu 4y ago

I'd be more receptive to copyright if it was the rightful creators who owned rights, and investors could only lease limited rights from the owner. Instead, the capital owners have written the law, and the creators are lucky to get pennies from sale of their work. I see no reason to pay to corp C who bought "rights" from corp B who bought rights from corp A who strongarmed a bookwriter into a one-sided contract where the corp gets all the rights. Taking from robbers isn't theft, it's rightful redistribution of knowledge in our society.

drakonka 4y ago
This is a convenient assumption for those who choose to pirate. Even if we assume that it's appropriate to dictate what kinds of contracts artists should or shouldn't enter into with publishers and whether you think they're "strongarmed" or not, this specific scenario only really holds water if you take the time to confirm whether the structure you describe is the one being used in practice before pirating the work. Self-publishing is growing year over year. More and more authors are publishing their own work on platforms where they get 70% (in case of KDP)-100% (in case of direct sales) royalties. Along with the time to write the actual thing this also usually involves paying out of pocket for things like editors and covers. If you're genuinely committed to this scenario you're describing, I hope you check whether you're actually "taking from robbers" or taking from the author who created the book you're enjoying.