Off Topic Poker Forums

Alright for those who are in disagreement with TSB - at what point would you find the piracy not acceptable:

1. If you want to pirate you need to go and look for it yourself.

2. Or would it be okay for someone to send a private msg to a person where he can download the book?

3. Or would posting the download link directly in the forum not be more efficient since we're doing nothing wrong to begin with?

4. Or how about we host the book on ourselves on a web server and spread the word in every single thread at DC. After all we're doing Improva a favour by promoting his book for free no?

Obviously not all piracy is equal. A man who would download a rip of The Avengers has a different set of values to a man who would pirate a DC coach's e-book.

A huge part of what makes piracy "justifiable" is who you're hurting and by how much. Even though the phrase "stealing from a faceless company" is somewhat misleading, there is a layer of truth to it. When you download one rip of The Avengers, the damage you deal to others is very limited. If you decide to act out number 4 in your examples, the damage you deal is not negligible. It does become very much a matter of degree, rather than a principal argument between "piracy is always right" and "piracy is always wrong".

The other factor, that I dare repeat several times, is incentives and disincentives. Obviously if you post the download link in every thread on DC, people will not take kindly to it and you will absolutely get banned. A simple but effective disincentive.

I'm not really sure why you even brought up 2, 3 and 4 though. The discussion has so far been limited to procuring the product, not to distributing it further.

The argument was about EUSSI questioning why OP had bought Improva's book whilst he could download it for free of the net. He then claimed he was only kidding. I don't think TSB or anyone has a problem with people downloading a pirated version but raising awareness or whatever you'd like to call it is something else. It's disrespectful to Improva which is why something had to be said. The others then went ego tripping in la la land about how right it is to download stuff and go all robin hood bat crazy stylee in the thread. Hence I thought it would be a nice idea to turn the tables on them and instead of having them present a lot of gibberish arguments why downloading Improva's book is not wrong, see at what point they do believe it's wrong. To this hour I still have to see one convincing sound argument but we all know there really can't be one.

I don't think TSB or anyone has a problem with people downloading a pirated version but raising awareness or whatever you'd like to call it is something else.

I thought it would be a nice idea.... see at what point they do believe it's wrong. .....but we all know there really can't be one.

no contradictions in these statements

lucky for us folks like Estist exist. Otherwise my moral compass would be spinning.....

it's okay though, as long as it spins quietly

which

Wow. 12 pages of pointless discussion. Amazing.
Do I think piracy is harmful? Of course! Just look at PC games market and what piracy has done to it... I know I wouldn't bother working on some project if I couldn't get paid for it because everbody just took it for free.
Is piracy wrong? Who cares?! Do you gamblers really care about "moral" standards? What is morality anyway? Bunch of rules that society in any given moment considers correct. Just look at sexual revolution over last century and how it changed "morality"...
The truth is most people don't feel guilty downloading something for free. Piracy is a fact and people will do it as long as they can. So let the "creators" invent new DRMs and "pirates" new ways to break them. You can't possibly convince them not to.

And then there's the eye patch. Who can resistant putting on that eye patch?

Which wrote:
What I meant was that "pay" in your example would be pretty much comparable to "not pay enough for" in mine. In other words, the pay should measure up to what the 'owner' feels its worth is, not some outside entity's sense of it.
My understanding of one of Naw's points is that we as a society should revisit what the term taking has evolved into. In a digital world, it is certainly less obvious that in the old days.

The pay, as you put it is determined by the market, not the creator. The initial price is determined by the creator.

I disagree that a digital world has changed the meaning of the word take. It may have made it easier, and virtually unpursuable by the aggrieved, but the meaning is the same. Something digital still exists. Just because it can be easily cloned does not mean it can't be taken.
I will concede that it is a fairly unique form of taking. As I have used the word cloned, I offer this analogy - do you have ownership and rights to your unique DNA makeup, or should someone be able to obtain your DNA through non violent means and clone as many of you as he or she pleases?

Stealing is a legal term, which is decided upon by the government, right? If the case goes against me, I am wrong, if it does not, by definition, I am not 'legally' wrong. For you to use the term so loosely and judgmentally really defeats the purpose of the discussion.

IF, and I agree, there are many that disagree with any of my thoughts, you think stealing is an 'end result' label of my actions AFTER being judged by legal means, then sure, 'stealing' is bad. But until we as a society agree as to what 'taking' digital substance is, stealing is a harsh word to use for those who disagree with your particular sentiment.

Stealing is not a legal term. It is a defined word, and a concept that existed before the first laws were written. It is only that the consequences prior law of stealing were limited by the ability of the party stolen from to exert pressure on the stealer.

No one here has addressed naw's question about second hand bookstores AFAIK.

I have been thinking....... (always a bad idea)

I want to buy a book, Actually might be Improva's, since I did not know he even had one before this thread. No joke, not inserted for effect

If I buy a hardcover, am I allowed to give it to a friend when I am done? How about a relative? If I buy a digital copy, I cannot give it physically. But I am allowed to lend a hardcopy right? Would I be allowed to share a digital copy with a friend? Would we have to use Teamviewer, or could I just send him the file? If I buy a book, I can drop it off at Half Price Books and they will pay me 5-10% of cover price usually. AFAIK this is not illegal. They then sell that book for 50% of cover price (author gets nothing ) The new owner gets to give it to friends, relatives, share, lend etc. Then he can take it to Half Price Books, and a new buyer gets it. AKAIK none of the purchasers are criminals. Or immoral. Can I sell my ebook for 5-10% of purchase price? Is it wrong if I do?

As I said, it can get quite murky, and I certainly don't have answers for all questions. Second hand sales is an interesting and confusing area. And not just for intellectual property. Can I sell you my used gun? I won't be running any background checks on you since I don't know how or care to. It's my gun, legally purchased and now I wish to pass it on to someone else.
I don't know if it's of consequence or a mere difference, but a book does not become two books when you sell it to a second hand store. And it does not become a third book when the second hand store sells it.

I have a photographic memory. Anything someone tells me, I retain. Anything I see, I retain. I go into Barnes and Noble, where they allow browsing. I am interested in Poker, and wind up reading every single book they have. I tell my friend how to play poker perfectly. He remembers. He is crushing the games. He writes a book. It seems a lot like Harringtons book. Strange coincidence. His book turns into a best seller.

If he is crushing the games I doubt his book resembles Harrington's, but if he generates the book himself and doesn't plagiarize other works, it is his.
Intellectual property still has to be created, like any other kind of property. It is interesting that some so devalue the effort of the creation of new and innovative things. Fabricate a car and somehow it's more valuable and clearly wrong to steal compared to generating knowledge, which apparently has no worthiness.

When an author writes a book he is hoping the public's desire for this book, and willingness to address various hurdles associated with different distribution channels exceeds the supply.

An author is hoping for the public's desire for the book, but he doesn't want them figuring out ways to get it for free. His goal is to sell a book to all who want one. The reason is because he wishes to be compensated for his time, and to gain for himself whatever value his creation has been given by the market.

myself? I totally agree with Naw. The key to the new world we live in is to add value. Give the customer something to go along with the 1s and 0s that can not be copied easily. Improva seems to have figured that out already.

The reality is that people can get something of value without ever having to acknowledge the creator. If you can, do. The only substantive difference between downloading a digital file and stealing a book is that one can't really be caught downloading the file.
You say the thing is to add value, but there is already value that is being taken without compensation. Personally, I think it is far more likely improva will simply stop including the book in the package rather than looking for more and more things to toss on top of it because he can't recoup the value of the book because people are simply taking it. That may or may not happen, it all depends on whether the people like Tecmo or myself (I have never downloaded for free anyone's work) who pay for things are enough to subsidize the people like nawhead who take it without paying.

but if he generates the book himself and doesn't plagiarize other works, it is his.
Intellectual property still has to be created, like any other kind of property.

well, in my example everything he knew comes from my browsing and telling him everything in the books that were freely offered for my browsing pleasure. And I AM allowed to discuss books with friends right? Share my thoughts and learnings from these books?

Which brings up an interesting question

Is it legal for Barnes and Noble to open a commercial "library" where for the price of a cup of coffee I can now read any book or magazine offered? Barnes and Noble does not compensate authors for turning their books into free samples to boost sales on their 90% profit margin coffee.

It is interesting that some so devalue the effort of the creation of new and innovative things.

Never really saw this in the thread. I value creation as much as many. Naw probably even more than most.

which

a book does not become two books when you sell it to a second hand store. And it does not become a third book when the second hand store sells it.

my point was that without the addition of time pressure, each person who reads the same book may potentially take a sale away from the author. That is the basic argument used against the downloaders. : It robs the author of the 'possible sale'. So, if we all lived forever, we could theoretically take a single book and pass it around until each of us has read it, and the author only got paid once. And we did this within societal norms. But no one gets outraged at used book stores. Or garage sales. Or libraries. Or Barnes and Noble.

But someone downloads a book for free? Geez, the gloves come off, and the guys are branded as immoral 'stealers' of intellectual property responsible for all the end of all future creative efforts.

I don't know how to read Chinese. I download a book written in Chinese characters. Have I stolen it? Was it theft of intellectual property? Did the author lose a sale of the book if I never lend it to anyone, just delete it from my computer? Is my moral compass wrong when I do not compensate the Chinese guy?

I mean the anti downloading group seems pretty adamant. There really is no grey area.

Will the Chinese guy stop writing if he finds out 1 million of his books were downloaded but not paid for? What if a year later he finds out it was me. I have a virus on my computer, and it keeps downloading the same file over and over. The virus came from China.....I can't fix it, after all, I still can't read Chinese characters.

I mean, one reason I think this stuff is so much fun to think about is that it is endless. And those who think its simply 'theft'? LOL

which

well, in my example everything he knew comes from my browsing and telling him everything in the books that were freely offered for my browsing pleasure. And I AM allowed to discuss books with friends right? Share my thoughts and learnings from these books?

He still has to regurgitate the information, filtering it through his mind, perception, and ability to communicate thoughts. Which is what you did when you told him information. Therefore, you are repeating through your own lens, not plagiarizing.

Is it legal for Barnes and Noble to open a commercial "library" where for the price of a cup of coffee I can now read any book or magazine offered? Barnes and Noble does not compensate authors for turning their books into free samples to boost sales on their 90% profit margin coffee.

As long as BN is not reproducing the books on their own for dissemination, then they are not stealing.

Never really saw this in the thread. I value creation as much as many. Naw probably even more than most.

Value in the economic sense. If you are downloading content for free, then you are not valuing it. You do not feel it has value or you would agree to pay a value for it.

my point was that without the addition of time pressure, each person who reads the same book may potentially take a sale away from the author. That is the basic argument used against the downloaders. : It robs the author of the 'possible sale'.

The basic argument is not about potentiality. The argument is that the product has value, and to get it without exchanging something agreed upon as equal to that value, you are stealing it. It really should not matter what the 'thing' is. If it has value, that value should be realized by the creator.

I mean the anti downloading group seems pretty adamant. There really is no grey area.

As I said, to me (as that is all I can speak to), if you think something has worth, and yet you take it for free without consent of its creator or his/her agents, you stole it.


FWIW, I do agree with the exceptions that exist in law now that someone posted above. I think if something is used in parody, for example Mickey Mouse dressed up as a nazi, then that is acceptable because it creates a new image or thought or concept, whatever. It is new, its meaning new and separate from the original property. Not that it wouldn't get you sued out the ass anyway.

I don't know how to read Chinese. I download a book written in Chinese characters. Have I stolen it? Was it theft of intellectual property? Did the author lose a sale of the book if I never lend it to anyone, just delete it from my computer? Is my moral compass wrong when I do not compensate the Chinese guy?

Yes, you stole it. Yes the book is intellectual property. It is intellectual because the author used his/her intellect to create it, it has nothing to do with your intellectual ability to digest the information. No, the author didn't lose a sale and as I said above, that really isn't what makes it theft. According to my moral compass, your moral compass is flawed when you do not compensate the Chinese guy. I also consider you a fool for stealing a book you can't read, just to delete it from your computer. But that is with my mind, not my moral compass. It is IMO perfectly acceptable to be a fool.

my point was that without the addition of time pressure, each person who reads the same book may potentially take a sale away from the author. That is the basic argument used against the downloaders. : It robs the author of the 'possible sale'.

The basic argument is not about potentiality. The argument is that the product has value, and to get it without exchanging something agreed upon as equal to that value, you are stealing it. It really should not matter what the 'thing' is. If it has value, that value should be realized by the creator

so back to my point. Each person who reads the book for free does so within societal norms. The author never realizes a sale past number one. Yet a physical book gets to be passed on for ages, while a digital one is 'stealing' when I give it to others?

If it has value, that value should be realized by the creator

Second hand book stores get compensated for books with no monies to the author. The second hand buyer gets the book without compensating the author either. Lousy thieves. Isn't there a law against this?

And my Barnes and Noble example is about setting up a coffee shop disguised to look like a book store. Is Barnes and Noble not guilty of 'stealing' when they set the authors/publishing houses up by using the authors creative efforts to sell starbucks coffee?

And for all those outraged souls out there who frown on downloading....

you agree with steppin's " if you think something has worth, and yet you take it for free without consent of its creator, you stole it." ? All you reading magazine articles at the magazine rack are thieves?

which

so back to my point. Each person who reads the book for free does so within societal norms. The author never realizes a sale past number one. Yet a physical book gets to be passed on for ages, while a digital one is 'stealing' when I give it to others?

A digital one is not given, it's copied. A physical book no longer in your possession cannot be reread or used for reference.
In your book getting passed on forever, there are people who would die before the book got around to them because there are 7 billion people in the world, and more would be born in the meantime. Do you think it would be okay if instead of passing the book around, you decided to rewrite a thousand copies so that more people had a chance to read it?

If you steal a pack of gum and give a piece to your friend, did you still steal the pack of gum?

Second hand book stores get compensated for books with no monies to the author. The second hand buyer gets the book without compensating the author either. Lousy thieves. Isn't there a law against this?

I don't know how second hand book stores work, they may in fact pay royalty-type payments. But the author did get compensated for that copy of the book. Make another copy of it though, and he's only been compensated for one of them.

you agree with steppin's " if you think something has worth, and yet you take it for free without consent of its creator, you stole it." ? All you reading magazine articles at the magazine rack are thieves?

If you stand there reading the whole article, I think so. It's not a major crime, but there's a reason newsstand vendors would tell you to buy it or put it down.
There is a difference between reading the article and downloading a copy of the whole magazine. One is worse than the other. Just like there's a difference between grabbing a dollar you saw fall out of someone's pocket, and going up to someone and taking money out of their pocket.

There is a difference between reading the article and downloading a copy of the whole magazine. One is worse than the other.

Seems the exact same to me. Theft is theft. But your response below seems to contradict the one above:

the product has value, and to get it without exchanging something agreed upon as equal to that value, you are stealing it. It really should not matter what the 'thing' is

I mean, an article is a thing, and a magazine is a thing, and "it really should not matter".

which

so back to my point. Each person who reads the book for free does so within societal norms. The author never realizes a sale past number one. Yet a physical book gets to be passed on for ages, while a digital one is 'stealing' when I give it to others?

A digital one is not given, it's copied. A physical book no longer in your possession cannot be reread or used for reference

A digital copy CAN in fact be given. I send you the file. I have already read the book and paid for it, and gotten value from it. Should the fact that I no longer have possession be the legal deciding factor ? This idea is brought up so often, but rarely challenged. You might be right, I don't know. But it is not AUTOMATICALLY the deciding factor.

As far as I know, there is no law prohibiting me from making a copy of the book I purchased. I then use the copies for my own use. No one ever sees these pages but me. If I lend the real book to a friend to read, do I need to destroy my copy for the lending to be legal? If there is in fact a crime committed, is it me for keeping the copy, or for sending the real book to my friend. Is the friend a co conspirator in this theft automatically? Or only if he KNEW I had a copy of the book held back?

This stuff is just so involved.... it has gone so quickly from physical possession, and society, and by extension, the law has not kept up.

this lag is what makes these things so difficult. Few question where or why the original rules came out of, and so have no real basis for making future decisions.

And for those of us with so much faith in the general public to assent to a fair standard? We don't even give them credit for being able to play decent poker.

which

+1 to pretty much everything which said. fantastic work.

Alright for those who are in disagreement with TSB - at what point would you find the piracy not acceptable:

1. If you want to pirate you need to go and look for it yourself.

2. Or would it be okay for someone to send a private msg to a person where he can download the book?

3. Or would posting the download link directly in the forum not be more efficient since we're doing nothing wrong to begin with?

4. Or how about we host the book on ourselves on a web server and spread the word in every single thread at DC. After all we're doing Improva a favour by promoting his book for free no?

1, sure.
2, sure, unless PM's/email is monitored, then depends on who's monitoring i guess.
3, depends on the forum
4, think that's considered spam in any forum. instaban.

and i feel your sarcasm in 4, but it really is better for Improva... scratch that, the world, if more people are exposed to him. he has an amazing poker mind. and that kind of clean thinking can teach someone how to analyze all problems, not just poker problems, better. i believe there's a synergistic effect for everybody when great minds and ideas can reach the masses as rapidly and with the fewest barriers possible.