Publishers' lawsuit leads to removal of 500,000 books from Internet Archive

[Squid Surprise]

I was simply responding to the person that said reading (free) ebooks was bad because it's illegal. Different crimes outrage different societies. Terrorism outrages the US because it has a huge standing army yet is vulnerable to terrorism. Countries like Iraq probably feel outraged by US gunships mowing down their civilians. Countries like the UK are moderately outraged by the US extraditing Assange for releasing the video that showed the soldiers gunning down the civilians and laughing.

Had you actually READ my post, you'd have noticed I said nothing about the morality of reading free books... I simply said that it was ILLEGAL.

Thus, complaining that you are no longer able to commit this CRIME is rather foolish.

If you want to change copyright law and allow people to read any book they want for free, feel free to petition your local government... but know that the consequences would be far-reaching and most likely catastrophic to the majority of creative artists out there - who for some reason wish to profit from their creations...

As for degrees of legality, there are certain crimes that are more serious than others - and the legal consequences of these are suitably different. If you steal a book, your punishment will probably be a small fine... if you murder someone, you'll spend the rest of your life behind bars... They're both illegal, but I leave it as an exercise for the reader as to which crime is worse - both morally and actually.

Again - I'm not speaking for or against piracy - there is ZERO evidence that it is harmful and some even argue that it helps promote certain works... but... it is still ILLEGAL and therefore complaining that you can't do it is inane.

 

[mbk34]

So you only steal from authors you dislike?

At least I don't charge them for the time wasted attempting to make sense of their books

Stop rationalizing your lack of ethics.

My ethics are simply different to yours but I think it's wrong to assume I lack ethics. From an authors perspective, I figure they probably do a little better out of me than from you (obviously I'm guessing a little bit here and my apologies if I'm wrong). I know they'd do worse out of me if I didn't have the opportunity to read free copies of their work first.

At least I admit to my "failings" and try to give the logic behind them. If I do ever feel guilty about my approach, should I just email the crappy ebooks back to their authors?

 

[GhostLegion]

Those who steal cars also find that approach allows them to drive a much larger variety of vehicles. Stop rationalizing your lack of ethics

Legality is not equivalent to ethics. I’ll not debate the legality of my actions, as they are obviously illegal. Doesn’t necessarily make them unethical.

To point out an extreme, not cooperating with the Nazis in Nazi Germany would be illegal but hardly unethical.

Ethics are set by an individual, laws by society. I don’t consider my actions unethical but I can hardly complain if the police decide to fine/jail me. Well I could, but I doubt a court would agree.

 

[Endymio]

At least I don't charge them for the time wasted attempting to make sense of their books

My ethics are simply different to yours but I think it's wrong to assume I lack ethics....At least I admit to my "failings" and try to give the logic behind them.

I do want to commend you for debating in a rational, unemotional manner.

However .... the entire basis of property rights -- a cornerstone of Western civilization for the last 400 years -- is that ownership implies control. If you create something of value, you own it, and thus control how its used. All the rest -- whether or not you've "harmed" the owner -- is irrelevant. If you break into a man's home and stay a few days, you've violated his property rights, even if your sojourn didn't cost him a penny. He owns the property; he sets the rules. He may sell, lease, rent, or simply allow you to use his property -- but you and he must AGREE on the terms of the deal. You don't get to simply decide what you think is fair, then use it anyway.

The concept of intellectual property rights is so basic to Western civilization that it isn't just a law; it's enshrined in the Constitution. Why? Because the Founders learned from history. Nations which protected these rights generated vast quantities of IP, and prospered as a result. That enriches not simply those who create these works, but all of us.

 

[mbk34]

However .... the entire basis of property rights -- a cornerstone of Western civilization for the last 400 years -- is that ownership implies control...

I think it was ideas and not property rights that were always the cornerstone of Western civilization. The normal view is that the cornerstones are Christianity, Roman law and Greek science. Ideas are promoted through books so getting citizens to pay excessive prices for ebooks could be seen as bad thing for society. Restricting higher education to only those that can afford it can similarly be seen as a bad thing.

I'm not American but many years ago I travelled all over the States with a motorbike and a tent. It was before the days of Kindle and book shops were surprisingly hard to find. I remember going specifically to one town because I'd been told it had 2 book shops but was a little depressed to find that one bookshop only sold Christian books and the other one only sold used Christian books. I found it a bit depressing though I have nothing against Christianity.

Nations which protected these rights generated vast quantities of IP, and prospered as a result. That enriches not simply those who create these works, but all of us.

China (no matter what you think of them) generally disregards IP and still seems to have profited hugely over the past 30 years. Just saying

 

[Squid Surprise]

I think it was ideas and not property rights that were always the cornerstone of Western civilization.

John Locke's 3 rights (what he described as the 3 reasons to form a civil government) were what the US Charter was based on... Life, liberty and property. The wording was changed to "pursuit of happiness" but the intent was (and still is) the protection of property.

 

[mbk34]

John Locke's 3 rights (what he described as the 3 reasons to form a civil government) were what the US Charter was based on... Life, liberty and property. The wording was changed to "pursuit of happiness" but the intent was (and still is) the protection of property.

Interesting info but then I suppose that's more the basis of the American constitution and certainly not "Western civilisation". The point of Jefferson deliberately dropping "property" and replacing it with "the pursuit happiness" seems fairly clear to me.

 

[Endymio]

I think it was ideas and not property rights that were always the cornerstone of Western civilization.

Specific ideas were that cornerstone -- the ethics of humanism, property rights, and free trade between free individuals.

The normal view is that the cornerstones are Christianity, Roman law and Greek science.

Edward Gibbon, one of the world's greatest historians and author of the six-volume 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' concluded that Christianity led to the downfall of the Romans.

Ideas are promoted through books so getting citizens to pay excessive prices for ebooks could be seen as bad thing for society.

This is a significant stretch, even for you. Next, you'll be claiming you're pirating books "for poor children's sake."

China (no matter what you think of them) generally disregards IP and still seems to have profited hugely over the past 30 years. Just saying

Oops! When China structured its society over the same neo-socialist principles you're espousing, it remained a nation of one billion peasant-farmers, 98% of which spent their entire lives laboring in the sun 12 hours a day, with an infinitesimal per-capita GDP of a couple hundred dollars. Starting in the 1980s, they adopted a form of managed capitalism that respected their own citizens property rights and their value to create, own, and manage their own real estate, corporations, and intellectual property (though China does indeed steal IP from *other* countries).

With just that one change made, China transformed nearly overnight. They became the world's fastest-growing major economy, raised their per-capital GDP from $250 to $14K in just 30 years time, and became the world's manufacturing powerhouse.

 

[Endymio]

Interesting info but then I suppose that's more the basis of the American constitution and certainly not "Western civilisation". The point of Jefferson deliberately dropping "property" and replacing it with "the pursuit happiness" seems fairly clear to me.

The Declaration of Independence is a simple statement. The relevant document here is the US Constitution ... and in its BIll of Rights, the 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 7th amendments specifically protect property rights.

Furthermore, in the body itself of the constitution, the protection of intellectual property is specifically named as a duty of Congress:

 

[mbk34]

I'll let you have the last word. I don't think we're going to settle anything or change each others minds but it's been an interesting discussion.