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.