Off Topic Poker Forums

FYP

haha I pirated my cassette tapes

I think there are a lot of things that people do may be equally wrong and require no justification for.

Is piracy worse for society than those things?

Forgive me if I'm not understanding, but are you saying that because piracy is less bad than other things, that it's relatively irrelevant?

Sneakers, Techno, and I have agreed on something. Continuing this thread is only pushing us closer to the apocalypse IMO.

http://youtu.be/MVFj-_SDIHE?t=26s

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.

I agree with this, but I may be interpreting it incorrectly. The owner (Improva) should be able to charge whatever he feels his product is worth. The consumer does not get to decide the price (unless the owner chooses that route obv).

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.

I use it out of convenience instead of saying "taking something that doesn't belong to you without providing the necessary compensation." See how long that was?

We as a society need only to ask, "does the creator of product A deserve anything for his efforts?" To me, the answer is yes.

kudos to you for getting involved in this. Shows more principal IMHO

I have the kudos now. This means I win.

Well, want to really learn an issue? Try defending the side you disagree with.... I have played devil's advocate so often it is second nature (y'all could probably tell this already ) Instead of attacking something/someone , trying to examine the various sides of an issue might actually promote getting to the point you want to end up at.

I agree with this. I just can't get past the notion that someone who creates something shouldn't be compensated for it. That just seems like such a simple fact that I can't get my head around the fact that, instead of paying for it, we should all just take it. I don't even know how to argue the other side. I've seen the arguments ITT and many don't make any sense.

And yet your 'go ahead and sacrifice your integrity...' remark seems justified to you? I mean, all those guys who disagree are that lacking in integrity in your opinion? If so, you have a very broad brush sir.

Indeed. If you [insert synonym for steal that doesn't have legal connotations] something, then I most certainly think it decreases your integrity and questions your character that you would value product X over doing the right thing. This isn't to say that you won't grow and mature as I did, but if you view the internet as simply a medium for taking things you don't deserve, then you are swept up in my brush strokes.

So when you visit places do you research the area first? My point about eminent domain was made in part because there is a shopping center here in DFW that took/stole/paid less than what the owners felt was fair just to have a parking lot extended for a Nordstroms to be built. Until a recent Supreme Court decision, it was wrong/illegal to take something for private use, rather than public 'good'. In our twisted world, this no longer seems true (in the US). So, when a park is built on land that is 'taken' do you still visit? You shopping anywhere this is true?

I apologize, but I don't understand the relevancy of this paragraph. I shop on Amazon if that helps lol.

So does your "I" in the above refer to you as part of a society? Or just you as a person, who might be blindly traveling around preferring to NOT know all the things that were NOT paid for?

Again, I'm struggling a bit at staying on track with this, but I don't expect people to have perfect knowledge. Getting back to the point at hand, most people know that when they download something that they are taking something that doesn't belong to them.

TSB, my point is that we are all part of a system that we at times disagree with. It is a price of belonging to a society. And 'society' decides what is right and wrong.

Nawhead seemed to be saying that the digital world is creating change. Business , economic, and legal systems will need to adjust.

I agree that we need to adjust. I still have yet to see an argument for why someone shouldn't be compensated for their work though. I even read the Radiohead article (and the comments!). That's great that they did that. That doesn't change the fact that Improva and others like him deserve to be compensated. Please, I would love to hear a logical argument that explains how someone who creates something and wants to be paid for it should have his/her product taken for free.

Please, I would love to hear a logical argument that explains how someone who creates something and wants to be paid for it should have his/her product taken for free.

you won't because there isn't one... This is why

Indeed. If you [insert synonym for steal that doesn't have legal connotations] something, then I most certainly think it decreases your integrity and questions your character that you would value product X over doing the right thing. This isn't to say that you won't grow and mature as I did,.

my general points about eminent domain and its abuse is that there are instances where we, as society, enjoy the fruits of 'taking' someone else's property without adequate compensation. I am sure you actively try and avoid these public (and now sometimes private) spaces.

After all you would not want to be painted into the same corner you are putting "us" in, right? I mean, who would be left to hold that brush?

And now, having been alerted about eminent domain abuse, your growth and maturity would not allow you to take advantage by saying you were ignorant? You will start researching your travels? And in return, I promise not to download any of Improva's books (without paying for them)

which

PS "using" is the term I might choose instead of stealing above.

I would love to hear a logical argument that explains how someone who creates something and wants to be paid for it should have his/her product taken for free.

Well, TSB, I am not sure that naw or I or anyone else in this thread is actually advocating the "taking something for free".

I thought naw's point was more along the lines of "Hey, the technology available today allows this to occur, and society needs to embrace new paradigms" - pardon to naw if I am misrepresenting this.

The paying for something I can get for free argument? Well, the thought I come up with would be sports or music venue related. Am I an immoral person if I build a 12 story condo that overlooks Texas Motor Speedway and its occupants can see the race without paying for tickets? Does Fenway Park have the ability to charge everyone on the balconies of the homes that have a view and are out on their porch? If I can hear a band play, but did not purchase a ticket, do I need to move out of earshot?

And if you think these have little in common with other creative pursuits, could you explain how?

which

Well, TSB, I am not sure that naw or I or anyone else in this thread is actually advocating the "taking something for free".

I'm not going to go through the entire thread looking for others, but EUSSI and nawhead both said or implied that it would be irrational to not take what's available online for free. This is exactly the point I have been arguing against.

As for your other examples, if you build the condo for the strict purpose of watching free races, first lol, and second, that's probably something the the speedway just has to accept. Improva has to accept that there will be people out there who will "use" his book for free. This acceptance != permission and does not justify the action.

Ok, I'm actually done now. I'm going to go watch a poker movie that I just purchased (even though someone put it on YouTube).

you won't because there isn't one... This is why

i'm pretty sure you just stole that picture. and made us complicit in stealing it too. please apologize to Tecmo. now.

sure, "irrational" sounds correct. But reason and morality do not always coexist peacefully....

Remember when Clinton lied about "having sex with that woman" ? Many at work told me, "I would have lied too, what was he supposed to say?"

They felt the rational thing to do was to lie when caught.

which

I edited my response above to add some things. See above.

PS "using" is the term I might choose instead of stealing above.

+1

but labeling an action as something bad to prove that it's bad when the controversy is whether that action is actually something bad is so much easier.

I thought naw's point was more along the lines of "Hey, the technology available today allows this to occur, and society needs to embrace new paradigms" - pardon to naw if I am misrepresenting this.

that was just a call to get real. my basic stance is that sharing/copying/consuming an intellectual product (e.g., reading a book in the library [we're not even checking it out, yeah, we're stealing on the premises now, the audacity of some people!] or watching a sport from outside the park, nice example btw) is not even remotely the same thing as stealing physical property.

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?

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.

I know this is a stretch, but to make it simple I will lay out my understanding of the literary world.

Its a Race !! Pure and simple, nothing more, nothing less.

If you can freely sell second hand books, it would be possible for the entire world to read a single book. Hmmm, sounds a lot like what actually happened when printing was first invented.

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.

So the 'want' for the book has to exceed the supply, or there will be no sale. Can't wait for second hand books? Buy it new? Can't wait for library waiting list? Buy it new or used. Can't wait for business hours? Buy it for your own library. Cant wait for your friend to finish reading it? Buy one for yourself.

If every city had a library with every single book in such quantity that no one would ever have to wait, would bookstores exist? Maybe. But there would be fewer sales.

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.

which

which

Forgive me if I'm not understanding, but are you saying that because piracy is less bad than other things, that it's relatively irrelevant?

If you're asking if I'm saying that "piracy less bad than bad things like murder so it's irrelevant" then no, I'm definitely not saying that.

I'm saying it's possibly less bad or equal to a lot of things that are wrong, but are deemed as generally acceptable and commonplace, and will continue to be done just because of the nature of the system in place.

Arguments can be made that people who play poker are doing wrong, and it's even a moral, social and legal grey area in a lot of places. However, the monetary incentives are in place. There are a lot of justifications that you can throw at it, but they don't really cover up the reality that it is probably overall 'wrong' and for the benefit of self.

The nature of society, though, is as competitive as it is cooperative. Some 'wrong things' end up being acceptable under that regard, as long as there are not enough monetary/social/legal disincentives in place, e.g. slightly bullshitting your way through a job interview at the expense of another candidate. This idea will often extend to exploiting a crack in the system, or someone else within that system, and being able to 'get away with it' so to speak.

Whether society should work like that, that's a deep and complicated subject that's hard to cover. But it does, and piracy is just one example.

Ty Schweig. I understand what you meant now

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.