Live data from Hacker News

Book Piracy as Peer Preservation

computationalculture.net

121–130 of 163 posts

Re: Book Piracy as Peer Preservation

#121
post #91
post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Theft deprives the owner of something. Making a copy leaves the original intact. Technically HBO would not be providing them with the service. HBO provided the service to someone who paid for it. That person then made a digital copy and gave it to someone else. HBO is not involved in the second transaction. After I purchase something, am I not entitled to do what I wish with it, including giving it away?

>Theft deprives the owner of something. Making a copy leaves the original intact. When you create that original you estimate that you have to sell X-number of copies to get back your money that you put into creating the original. If you want to watch/listen to/read that work you at least partially agree with the author that it's worth something. It may be in your opinion worth less then the price, but it's not up to…

I don't have the right to punch someone in the face, but that doesn't make it stealing. Reusing that word is just attempting emotional manipulation, in my opinion.

Re: Book Piracy as Peer Preservation

#122
post #27
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone has the legal right to view something. Copyright only prevents producing and distributing unlicensed copies, i.e. uploading or sharing. Downloading, streaming, or attending an unlicensed performance is not copyright infringement. Without Copyright, and when it expires, the natural state of culture is to be copied, that is how it evolves - all works exist naturally in the public domain. Copyright is a limited…

You only have the right to view something if someone who created that wants you to view it. If they say that you can view it after you pay, that's their right. If you pay and are allowed to view it you can describe it in any way you want to other people, but you are not allowed to spend that time you had for viewing it to make a copy of it and show it to some other people that did not pay the original author. If you…

> You only have the right to view something if someone who created that wants you to view it.

There are a number of ways I can view something against the wishes of the copyright holder, thus reducing their monetary income. Are all of these wrong?

You already mentioned the case of me describing something to other people. The NFL has a (probably unenforceable) disclaimer for the Super Bowl that says, "any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent is prohibited."

Buying used is often quite cheap. The creator doesn't see a dime. There's no guarantee that the seller of the used item won't use that money to buy something else used instead of new. Is that wrong? Is the creator entitled to a large market of new buyers?

Format shifting is convenient for the customer but not the creator. For example, I bought Advance Wars on the Game Boy around 15 years ago. I've since backed up my copy (trivial to make your own backup with a flashcart). Now, Nintendo sells it on the Virtual Console for 8 bucks. If I play my backed up copy on a hacked Wii U, they're out 8 bucks. Is that wrong? Is the creator entitled to have every customer re-buy media for every new platform they want to consume on? The RIAA says that backing up a CD to an iPod is wrong: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2006/02/riaa-says-ripping-cds-...

Buying in other countries is often cheaper. Look at textbooks for a prime example. When I was in college, I paid $20 for a legit copy of my physics textbook from India printed on poor-quality paper with a cheap binding; the content was exactly the same as the American textbook. Was that wrong? Some people even buy books in bulk in cheap countries and sell them in America for profit. Wiley sued a Thai guy for doing this, made it to the Supreme Court, and LOST. Are creators entitled to segment markets in this way? http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/11/how-an-ebay-books...

Renting something instead of buying it reduces profit. Did you know that video game rental is illegal in Japan? Should it be illegal in the US too? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3xuy5YALl0

Lots of people watch stuff with a friend. I had a friend with HBO Go, and we had Game of Thrones night where three or four of us would watch it together. Should we have bought individual accounts?

Some media is paid for by ads. I use an adblocker in my browser. My grandma mutes the TV and goes to the fridge during commercials. Is that wrong?

Some works don't get published in foreign markets. Lots of old video games, TV shows, movies, and books are only officially released in one language, and are never translated by the creator for any number of reasons: lack of interest in the market, lack of money for translation, attachment to the "integrity" of the original work, etc. Unofficial translation violates copyright law, at least in the US. Say a work is only available in Japan, and in Japanese. Is it wrong for someone to translate it to English? Is it wrong for someone from the US to pirate the translated work, when that person would never have bought the work in its original translation and is region-locked from buying it anyway?

Re: Book Piracy as Peer Preservation

#123

I used an App on my old iPod to BUY and read the first in a series of books. I then tried to purchase the second volume, only to have the transaction declined because I don't live in North America. I wrote to Penguin USA to complain about this, pointing out that the book I wished to purchase was freely available on download sites so Why were they refusing to sell it to me? Their response was that I should find a US b…

One possibility is that the digital copyright of the second volume you are interested in was not granted in your country. The person you talked to might not know the details.

I disagree to this statement, though. "A downloaded copy does not deprive anyone of the original possession. The only issue in these cases is the legitimate right to be recompensed for that copy. However, if the owner refuses to exercise that right, how can downloading a copy still be considered "theft"?"

Re: Book Piracy as Peer Preservation

#124
post #47
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be a breach of the contract between designer and the company. If you quote someone a rate, they agree, you do the work, but they don't pay you, then you can sue them regardless of whether a copyrightable work was created. Copyright infringement without breach of contract is more like people stealing the Transmit logo https://panic.com/extras/ripoff/

Isn't it breach of contract when you copy tv show, when it clearly states that copying of that show is prohibited? When you buy that dvd, book or whatever it is, you agree to the 'terms' which usually say - copy in any form shape or size prohibited.

Isn't it breach of contract when you copy tv show, when it clearly states that copying of that show is prohibited?

Yes! And breach of contract is not theft.

Re: Book Piracy as Peer Preservation

#125
post #60
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a graphic designer is hired to do something for someone, it is usually agreed beforehand how much money he will get for the job. If he doesn't get the money, it is simply a breach of agreement.

If you copy something with "coping prohibited" you're also in a breach of agreement, whether you agree with it or not.

[deleted]

Re: Book Piracy as Peer Preservation

#126
post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you use someone's property without authorization, but don't intend to deprive them of it permanently, that indeed in most jurisdictions is not theft, that is criminal conversion. It's really not that difficult, you can simply look up what these terms mean instead of inventing your own definitions. "Depriving someone of money" is not the definition of theft. And it not only isn't, it would be a braindead definition…

Is it still "criminal conversion" when you decide after that one ride that you want to keep that car in your garage, but not drive it anymore? You will return it some other day.. Maybe in 2020. After all it's just a copy of that prototype that the manufacturer created. It's a copy, and you did not intend to buy it anyway so it's all right, and it's not a theft right?

> It's a copy, and you did not intend to buy it anyway so it's all right, and it's not a theft right?

WTF?

"It's not theft, therefore it's alright" ... where did you pick up that logic?

Re: Book Piracy as Peer Preservation

#127
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it isn't "stealing". You're not depriving them of the content, you're copying it. And you're not even depriving them of the price they charge to access that content, unless you would've bought it had it not been available through piracy. And that's I think really the exception, not the rule. I know I download a hell of a lot of movies, tv shows, etc. that I would definitely never watch if they were not available…

Sure, it's all virtual, you're not actually 'stealing' their money since you weren't actually going to pay for it anyways, but if we're pedantic about it you are depriving them their rights. As the owner, they can copyright it, they can specify the terms by which you're allowed to view it or not view it. They can decide to not let you view it. You are taking that right from them. You are saying your right to access t…

Whenever a big corporation steals, err, I mean 'copies,' GPL code and refuses to give the output away, they aren't actually stealing, they were never going to contribute anything anyways...

Why would you think people would disagree with that?

Re: Book Piracy as Peer Preservation

#128

There's a huge amount of books/music/movies/games that I have no means of obtaining legally. There's also tons of stuff I don't have convenient way to buy (e.g. no way I'm paying full HBO NOW subscription for watching a single TV show). We are 16 years into 21st century now, it's about time for big-name producers to stop calling people "thieves" and offer them an acceptable service instead.

When you say "convenient" you're really saying "inexpensive". At least in the US, HBO NOW is only $14.99, which for a season of a TV show is not ridiculous (by comparison to what other shows cost on DVD or streaming through Amazon), made less ridiculous by the fact that you actually have access to all seasons of that show.

As for whether it's stealing or not, it seems difficult to rationalize it. Is sneaking in to see a movie stealing? Is stealing perishable food stealing (or is it only stealing if all of the rest of the food is purchased before it spoils)?

Legalities aside, ethically it seems pretty clear; if everyone acted as you propose to act, then there would either be no reward for producing content, or content producers would need to physically lock down the ability to view the content (like having movies or TV shows only available in theaters).

Re: Book Piracy as Peer Preservation

#129

There's a huge amount of books/music/movies/games that I have no means of obtaining legally. There's also tons of stuff I don't have convenient way to buy (e.g. no way I'm paying full HBO NOW subscription for watching a single TV show). We are 16 years into 21st century now, it's about time for big-name producers to stop calling people "thieves" and offer them an acceptable service instead.

When you say "convenient" you're really saying "inexpensive". At least in the US, HBO NOW is only $14.99, which for a season of a TV show is not ridiculous (by comparison to what other shows cost on DVD or streaming through Amazon), made less ridiculous by the fact that you actually have access to all seasons of that show. As for whether it's stealing or not, it seems difficult to rationalize it. Is sneaking in to se…

In Canada you can't get HBO Now without a tv subscription, which kind of defeats the purpose.

Re: Book Piracy as Peer Preservation

#130
post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only reason you own anything is thousands of years of lobbying. Copyright and property rights are both artificial constructs.

The scarcity that physical property deals with isn't artificial.

I'd argue that the lack of scaricity makes owning a work of art less problematic. Someone can always make a new one.

I was born into a world where every peace of land I could use to survive on is owned. But there are an unlimited number of songs or books that can be written. What's the harm in letting a person own the book they created. There are an unlimited number left.

Post reply on HN