Author explains why book piracy is not a victimless crime

[sologdin]

kids, it's not larceny or theft.  in infringement, there is no asportation of a corporeal movable property and no intention to deprive permanently the holder of the exclusive right of the incorporeal that is unlawfully reproduced. this equation is similar to saying 'i hold one of dead cthulhu's dreams' while looking at a banana.

piracy is robbery on the high seas.  robbery is the dispossession of property from another's person via violence.  this is even less like infringement than larceny. i know y'all want to make infringement a big deal, but it's insane.  the next step in this slippery slope is that copyright infringement is sexual assault, is murder, is gas chambers at auschwitz.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

21 minutes ago, MisterSrna said:

Scenario A: I buy a book, read it and give the copy to my friend, who then in turn reads it.

Scenario B: I buy an ebook, read it, take off the DRM and send a copy to my friend, who then in turn reads it.

How is one worse than the other?

B.  You've broken the law and made a copy of the book.  Repeat that as many times as you like.  It is not the same as loaning someone a copy because you still have a copy and they don't have to return your copy.  What's worse is they can make a copy of the book and their friends and friends friends can make copies of the book.  

Hence, making unauthorized copies is... against the law.

[MisterOJ]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

B.  You've broken the law and made a copy of the book.  Repeat that as many times as you like.  It is not the same as loaning someone a copy because you still have a copy and they don't have to return uour copy.  What's worse is they can make a copy of the book and their friends and friends friends can make copies of the book.  

Hence, making unauthorized copies is... against the law.

Legally, sure. It's technically against the law. And I say technically, because there is no court in the US that would allow something like that to be prosecuted. Why do you think that is?

Ethically, I don't think lending a book is any worse than lending an ebook. The end result is the same. I don't see why it matters if I have a copy still taking up space on the hard drive of my Nook. It is extremely rare that I re-read anything. I honestly think the only thing I have ever re-read is ASOIAF. And that was after buying them as ebooks after first having bought them as hard copies. 

As long as you're not uploading the ebook to a torrent site, no more harm is being done in B than A.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, MisterSrna said:

Legally, sure. It's technically against the law. And I say technically, because there is no court in the US that would allow something like that to be prosecuted. Why do you think that is?

Ethically, I don't think lending a book is any worse than lending an ebook. The end result is the same. I don't see why it matters if I have a copy still taking up space on the hard drive of my Nook. It is extremely rare that I re-read anything. I honestly think the only thing I have ever re-read is ASOIAF. And that was after buying them as ebooks after first having bought them as hard copies. 

As long as you're not uploading the ebook to a torrent site, no more harm is being done in B than A.

Bullshit.  Complete and utter bullshit.

You keep your copy.  Your friend is now free to make copies for her friends and her friends for their friends and to upload to torrent sites. It is an illegal act for a reason.  

 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

On Wednesday, June 15, 2016 at 10:35 AM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Because it is completely divorced from what copyright legally protects.  You are creating a structure where if Bob makes a million physical copies of Author Jane's book but gives them away Jane has no recourse against Bob.  It makes uploading torrents completely legal regardless of the potential damage to the copyright holder and further puts the onus upon the copyright holder to prove people didn't buy her book because they got the torrent for free.  It destroys the right of an author to control the copying of their copyrighted work.

Mr.OJ,

You've never addressed this.  If it's just hunky dory for you to make a digital copy of a copyrighted work and give it away like gumdrops why is it wrong for Jim with a highspeed digital copier and 400 boxes of computer paper to make and give away phyisical copies of the same book so long as he doesn't charge anyone for them?

[MisterOJ]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Bullshit.  Complete and utter bullshit.

You keep your copy.  Your friend is now free to make copies for her friends and her friends for their friends and to upload to torrent sites. It is an illegal act for a reason.  

 

Where is the harm in me keeping my copy? Assuming my friend never uploads the lent copy to a torrent site, where is the harm there? Even if she, in turn, gives a copy of the ebook to a third friend - the same end could have been accomplished by lending a physical book a second time. You are alleging some sort of hypothetical harm. Where is the actual harm?

 

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Mr.OJ,

You've never addressed this.  If it's just hunky dory for you to make a digital copy of a copyrighted work and give it away like gumdrops why is it wrong for Jim with a highspeed digital copier and 400 books of computer paper to make and give away phyisical copies of the same book so long as he doesn't charge anyone for them?

Ethically, I do have a problem with someone giving away 400 copies of a book (physical or digit). It's wrong. But, I don't think it's wrong for friends to share ebooks with one another in the same manner they might physical books. And I really doubt there is any court in the land that would disagree with me.

[sologdin]

13 minutes ago, MisterSrna said:

Legally, sure. It's technically against the law. And I say technically, because there is no court in the US that would allow something like that to be prosecuted. Why do you think that is?

Ethically, I don't think lending a book is any worse than lending an ebook. The end result is the same. I don't see why it matters if I have a copy still taking up space on the hard drive of my Nook. It is extremely rare that I re-read anything. I honestly think the only thing I have ever re-read is ASOIAF. And that was after buying them as ebooks after first having bought them as hard copies. 

As long as you're not uploading the ebook to a torrent site, no more harm is being done in B than A.

huh? criminal infringement is prosecuted.  see e.g. United States v. Frison, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 10344 (8th Cir. 6/8/16).

that said, there is a radical conceptual incoherence in copyright that seeks to prevent readers from reading without paying by prohibiting copies, but is fine with downstream alienation and bailment.  

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 minutes ago, MisterSrna said:

Where is the harm in me keeping my copy? Assuming my friend never uploads the lent copy to a torrent site, where is the harm there? Even if she, in turn, gives a copy of the ebook to a third friend - the same end could have been accomplished by lending a physical book a second time. You are alleging some sort of hypothetical harm. Where is the actual harm?

 

Ethically, I do have a problem with someone giving away 400 copies of a book (physical or digit). It's wrong. But, I don't think it's wrong for friends to share ebooks with one another in the same manner they might physical books. And I really doubt there is any court in the land that would disagree with me.

If it is okay for you to give away digital copies why is it wrong for Bill to give away 400 or 4000 or 400,000 physical copies of the book?

[MisterOJ]

3 minutes ago, sologdin said:

huh? criminal infringement is prosecuted.  see e.g. United States v. Frison, 2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 10344 (8th Cir. 6/8/16).

That appears to be a case involving counterfeit goods. Not a person giving a copy of a purchased ebook to a friend to read. Do you honestly think there is a court in the US that would hear such a case?

[MisterOJ]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If it is okay for you to give away digital copies why is it wrong for Bill to give away 400 or 4000 or 400,000 physical copies of the book?

Because people have been sharing books for decades with friends and it has never been a big deal. I don't think there is any reason that practice must change just because the format in which people read books has changed.

[sologdin]

8 minutes ago, MisterSrna said:

That appears to be a case involving counterfeit goods. Not a person giving a copy of a purchased ebook to a friend to read. Do you honestly think there is a court in the US that would hear such a case?

of course a court would hear that case. unlawful copying is a violation of the statute.  there's no need for aspirational thinking here.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

 

11 minutes ago, MisterSrna said:

Because people have been sharing books for decades with friends and it has never been a big deal. I don't think there is any reason that practice must change just because the format in which people read books has changed.

What I posit isn't "sharing" nor is what you describe.  You are making a new copy of a book and giving that copy away.  If what you are doing is fine, then, by extension Bill giving away physical copies to 400,000 of his closest friends should be fine too.

[sologdin]

okay.  i'm wrong, and scot's wrong, at least in the US.  criminal infringement, anyway, is limited under 17 USC 506, as follows:

Quote

 

Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18 [18 USCS § 2319], if the infringement was committed--

(A)  for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;

(B)  by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $ 1,000; or

(C)  by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution.

 

so, there shall be no offense in the US for infringement via a solitary copy of an ebook for non-commercial purposes, unless of course that single copy retailed for more than $1,000.00.  my apologies to mr. srna.

ETA--

a single 'share' could for instance be a criminal problem for things like this.

[Pebble thats Stubby]

what if hypothetically I made a copy and gave that to a friend then deleted my copy.  The friend never made another copy or uploaded it to a torrent site?

 

Yes legally I'm still breaking the law but is that any more wrong than passing along a physical book? or maybe its just as wrong as sitting on the floor and eating in a Canadian public area?   (yes I have no way to guarantee my friend will not make more copys or distribute them, but lets pretend here for the sake of argument)

[C.T. Phipps]

4 hours ago, john said:

Well, counterfeiting is fraud.  Fraud is also a more evil act than piracy, if that's what you're asking.

Which is essentially what digital piracy.

Really, really petty digital fraud.

I say that as a person who has engaged in it like most of the internet.

[MisterOJ]

59 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

 

What I posit isn't "sharing" nor is what you describe.  You are making a new copy of a book and giving that copy away.  If what you are doing is fine, then, by extension Bill giving away physical copies to 400,000 of his closest friends should be fine too.

Okay, making a new copy and giving that away.

Which apparently, as solo pointed out, doesn't qualify as copyright infringement.

So, no harm; no foul. Right?

[sologdin]

well, it'd be infringement subject to civil remedies (which are not at all insubstantial), but in most cases will be below the threshold for cognizable individual criminal responsibility under the act.

[Kalbear]

8 minutes ago, MisterSrna said:

Okay, making a new copy and giving that away.

Which apparently, as solo pointed out, doesn't qualify as copyright infringement.

So, no harm; no foul. Right?

Making one copy for non-commercial uses is fine.

Making thousands is not, and I suspect would qualify as a commercial use even if you're not intending to sell  it (giving things away for whatever reason can be construed as a commercial application). 

[sologdin]

one copy for non-commercial use not in excess of $1,000 retail is not a violation of 17 usc 506, but still as yet a civil infringement, subject to statutory damages and attorney's fees!  tread carefully kids.

[Darth Richard II]

The most hilarious part of this whole thread is when actual authors show up to give their opinion and people ignore them because it doesn't match up with what they think actual authors think in their head.