Is this morally wrong?

[Alobar]

nothign wrong with this. Whether you go to the library and get it for free, or DL from your underwear at home for free. Same diff. The only way I think you could make a case was if you printed it out and sat it on a bookshelf or something.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
nothign wrong with this. Whether you go to the library and get it for free, or DL from your underwear at home for free. Same diff. The only way I think you could make a case was if you printed it out and sat it on a bookshelf or something.

[/ QUOTE ]
What's the difference if it's in his digital collection or his print collection? Why is it wrong if he has it printed out, but all of a sudden it's nothing if he just has it on his computer? He stole it either way.

That's like saying it's alright if you hack into the bank and transfer somebody's money into your bank acount, but if you take it out of the atm as cash, only then does it become wrong.

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
nothign wrong with this. Whether you go to the library and get it for free, or DL from your underwear at home for free. Same diff. The only way I think you could make a case was if you printed it out and sat it on a bookshelf or something.

[/ QUOTE ]
What's the difference if it's in his digital collection or his print collection? Why is it wrong if he has it printed out, but all of a sudden it's nothing if he just has it on his computer? He stole it either way.

[/ QUOTE ]

ok, you are right. He should erase it after he's done reading it then.

When I get a book from the library, am I stealing it?

If I have the choice of two options (library, or DL) and in both choices the author or publisher or library or anyone makes even $.01 off it, and when I'm done I release it (return it, or erase it) Then what does it matter which route I go? No one will ever know, and the result is exactly the same. Its kinda like quantum physics, heh.

[spamuell]

But if everyone downloaded books then libraries wouldn't exist and authors wouldn't receive the money they are paid by the libraries, so it does make a difference.

Books are too expensive though (in the UK).

[NiceCatch]

[ QUOTE ]
No, it's not wrong.

It's almost like how the MPAA likes to say they are losing millions of dollars to internet piracy when most of it is either people downloading movies they would never pay to see or downloading movies they are going to pay to see anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't make sense. If someone downloads a movie, it is because it has some VALUE to him/her. Just because he or she wouldn't pay the full price for the movie, doesn't entitle them to a FREE copy of it. Taking something that you don't want to pay full price for is (by any reasonable definition of the word) STEALING.

The bottom line is, there are people working hard out there to make the music and movies that you listen to and watch, and every time you don't pay for one of their products you are ripping them off.

I don't think there's much gray area here. I think the problem is it's so easy to pirate music and movies, that often as people do it, they're not forced to realize that they're taking money out of the pockets of hard working musicians and actors. I guess it's similar to people gambling away huge sums on internet poker; without the feel of physical chips in their hand, the situation and cosequences are less real to them.

[Alobar]

[ QUOTE ]
But if everyone downloaded books then libraries wouldn't exist and authors wouldn't receive the money they are paid by the libraries, so it does make a difference.

Books are too expensive though (in the UK).

[/ QUOTE ]

thats a valid point I suppose. Im gunna put this waaay waaay low on the list of "stealing" tho. So low in fact, that I wouldnt feel morally wrong about it.

[chesspain]

[ QUOTE ]
I download copyrighted e-books/scanned books to read on my computer. If I wanted to read them otherwise, I would check them out at the library. Regardless of whether or not I check the book out or download it, the publisher will receive no money from me.

Is it morally wrong to read the e-books?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not unless you think stealing is wrong.

[NiceCatch]

[ QUOTE ]

You may be interested in reading this.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2....ideas_pr.html

[/ QUOTE ]

A thought that struck me as I read the opening TJ quote is that his argument leads to the following conclusion: ideas and intellectual property have no inherent monetary value. Which means the work that people put into creating intellectual property shouldn't (or can't) be compensated.

I'm not really worried about the fact that the production of intellectual property will disappear to nothing... but certainly I would think the quality of it would go down greatly with zero financial incentive. Would you work at your current job if you received no financial compensation? Why is it that you DON'T do what you'd love to do (if it is not what you are currently doing for a living)?

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

What I do for a living is entirely production of intellectual property. What I supply to a customer is data, models, designs, my opinion, and other things that are of significant value as intellectual property. They pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars at a time for this property. I'm certainly not going to give it to them for free and they'd certainly be upset if someone hacked in and stole it. I sign agreements that I won't disclose any of it to anybody else.

Granted, in my particular line of work this also has potential national security and/or ITAR implications, but in the end, it's essentially the same as music, movies, or literature. This stuff doesn't come for free. We are in an era now where intellectual property is quite significant and we need to come to a better way of controlling it and its communication, just as other forms of property and their transfer were more important in past eras.

[turnipmonster]

good post, patrick. people should get paid for what they do, whether they're authors, musicians or sciencing rockets.