Off Topic Poker Forums

When I cease entertaining myself I will
edit: to clarify I mean entertaining myself with the arguing, not that I'm 'entertaining myself' right now

hahaha

I simply don't understand how anyone, regardless of the security measures, ability to enforce said measures, medium, etc., can think it is ok to take something they didn't pay for and actually try to justify it with a myriad of excuses. To those in that camp, where is your sense of right and wrong? Who the F cares about the logistics of it all? It is wrong to take something that someone is selling if you didn't pay for it. It's as simple as that. Nothing else matters. The fact that the seller should continue to innovate because people like you are forcing them to do so does not make it right that you take their stuff.

I'm done now. Clearly those who think they can take what is not theirs are not going to change their minds because it would be far too inconvenient. I mean, at the end of the day, why not sacrifice your integrity for an episode of Breaking Bad?

+1. And that doesn't happen often I do that.

But hell. People justify their bad behaviour all the time.
'Its crazy you have to drive that speed on that road', "she deserved to be slapped in the face, that bitch", "she wasn't THAT young.... plus she acted really like a grown up", "if people make shit expensive, and I need it, I steal it"

Whats new.

What you should do is weigh the pros and cons of the product. If the price is too high then simply don't buy the product. Just like the seller is obliged to deliver what he has promised so should the buyer adhere to the terms and conditions of the sale.

Improva,

thanks for weighing in on this. As an author you surely have more of 'a dog in this fight' than we do. I hope you realize it is nothing personal (although it may feel very personal), it being your book just adds another layer to the debate. As Chuck said, people feel differently based on 'who' is involved.

But.... my point above was about second hand stores and 'property rights'. In the US, I AM allowed to sell my book to a second hand store, where they recirculate an author's work forever. I do not see much difference legally, or morally between the future transactions at this same store and a digital copy being passed around. The argument that it is only a single book rather than 2 digital copies just does not seem relevant. Your work is bought less often because there is another market that is offering it at a better perceived value.

If the second hand book store resells your book, buys it back, resells, buys, resells, etc etc etc... could you explain the difference economically to you, the author, as opposed to someone making a digital copy and people who want to read it downloading it for free?

If the only difference in your opinion is the physical possession of print on paper, then in my opinion you are devaluing your creative efforts. IMO a book and its value is far more in the content.

A big problem I have with those who claim digital piracy is so bad is that they take one particular type of 'creative transfer', assign their own values to it, never considering the other forms of transfer (giving these forms their blessing, either ignorantly or not) and feel so much better for it.

thanks again for your patience with us.

which


'

Just chiming in to clear things up - Improva's point was that with his book for example, you agree to not distribute it, just as he agrees to provide the service and book. This is completely different when compared to normal books. Per the agreement, you are NOT allowed to distribute his book.

Just like the seller is obliged to deliver what he has promised so should the buyer adhere to the terms and conditions of the sale.

This may be too close to the subject matter for you to feel impartially about Improva, but what if I am not a buyer? Do I still have terms and conditions ?

By downloading the copy of the book, am I obligated to adhere to the requirements of the person who offers it, or the author/vendor (if they are one and the same), who I never interacted with at all?

Those who say "It's stealing to take a book from a store without paying for it" never address the content. It is the physical book itself, and its future availability to others that is impacted, and thus is addressed with legal sanctions, and their outrage.

Naw hinted at this in the very beginning of this thread : No one really cared to address it, or even think about it much, I suspect. Doesn't fit the paradigm.

i cannot steal something when you have lost nothing, in particular the fabled "lost sale," when i never intended to buy it

which

Just like the seller is obliged to deliver what he has promised so should the buyer adhere to the terms and conditions of the sale.

I agree that the seller has conditions, and the buyer has obligations. Wouldn't the moral outrage, if warranted, be better aimed at those who offer the product digitally for free, rather than those who do the downloading ???

I have yet to hear anyone on this thread even mention those who are offering your book to be downloaded.

Curious, isn't it, that this part never ever enters the discussion.

which

edit: except for TSB, just now, 14 pages in (good point TSB, thanks)

This may be too close to the subject matter for you to feel impartially about Improva, but what if I am not a buyer? Do I still have terms and conditions ?

By downloading the copy of the book, am I obligated to adhere to the requirements of the person who offers it, or the author/vendor (if they are one and the same), who I never interacted with at all?

The download is illegal because it violates the copyright.

But.... my point above was about second hand stores and 'property rights'. In the US, I AM allowed to sell my book to a second hand store, where they recirculate an author's work forever. I do not see much difference legally, or morally between the future transactions at this same store and a digital copy being passed around. The argument that it is only a single book rather than 2 digital copies just does not seem relevant. Your work is bought less often because there is another market that is offering it at a better perceived value.

So because there is a potential flaw in a system out there, rather than think how this flaw could be rectified so as to be more fair to the author, you just use it as carte blanche to go and take things you want but are not willing to pay for for free?

Do you think that finding a loophole somewhere and using it as justification to do what you like regardless of the law, wishes of the author etc is moral?

Some of the reaching for justification and frankly ridiculous analogies to try to back up the points made in here are laughable. The bottom line is, Improva created a product which took a lot of time and effort, which contains potentially very valuable information which will be beneficial to the user financially if applied correctly, with the expressed intention of selling it for financial remuneration. You have unilaterally decided that this is somehow wrong and created ridiculous justifications to back up your theft. I'm sure Improva is fully aware and to a point accepting that piracy will continue to happen and can't be stopped, but please don't insult our intelligence by pretending you are morally correct and people like Improva are stuck in the past and need to embrace the fact that their work will be stolen.

The download is illegal because it violates the copyright.

taken from Wikipedia:

Copyright infringement is often associated with the terms piracy and theft. Although piracy[/] connotes brazen high-seas robbery and kidnapping, it has a long history of use as a synonym for certain acts which were later codified as types of copyright infringement. Theft is more strongly hyperbolic, emphasizing or exaggerating the perceived harm of infringement to copyright holders who choose to utilize their copyrights for profit; it connotes a kind of loss which infringement may not actually effect, and the U.S. Supreme Court has even ruled that infringement does not "easily" equate with theft.[1]

in the United States Supreme Court case Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not constitute stolen property and that "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud.

[b]Countries where sharing files without profit is legal

Downloading copied music is legal in some countries in the context of the copyright, such as Canada,[18] The Netherlands,[19] Spain,[20] and Panama, provided that the songs are not sold.

In Canada it is legal to download any copyrighted file as long as it is for noncommercial use, but it is illegal to distribute the copyrighted files (e.g. by uploading them to a P2P network).[21]

So apparently morality depends on which country you live in? Hmmmm, that could go another 14 pages

which

So because there is a potential flaw in a system out there, rather than think how this flaw could be rectified so as to be more fair to the author, you just use it as carte blanche to go and take things you want but are not willing to pay for for free?

So, you consider second hand bookstores to be a "flaw in a system"?

My point was that they exist, legally, with acceptance from society, and I missed your explanations relating to the questions arising from them.

I did not miss the posturing and "holier than thou" though.

which

Neither have I missed the straw man arguments, selective quoting for your rebuttals and avoidance of many of the questions put to you.

Which wrote:
Yes, to answer the single question you have asked (sorry, but I really do feel like I have answered your points to some degree steppin, but if you pm me -- , I will try harder and post the answers in this forum) it is theft to walk out of a store with the magazine. The purpose? Maybe you hate the magazine, and don't want others to purchase it? I mean, I don't know other's reasons for breaking the law. Should I?

is the value of the book solely in the paper it is printed on? Or have I consumed the book by reading it? It seems you are suggesting that the value is in the strict physicality of the book.

(Cut and pasted these to address together)

Actually, you are the one suggesting that the value is just the paper it is printed on. You jumped the gun on me a little because that's where I was going with my question.
You say physically taking the object from the rack is stealing, but reading its content is not. You suggest (and nawhead believes) that you standing there and scanning the magazine into a computer to upload is not stealing, but taking the object is. The content is the same, the only difference is the paper, ergo you think the paper is what holds the value.

I am suggesting the opposite. That the paper isn't what you are stealing. Presumably, if you were to steal the mag from the rack, you're taking it to read the articles while sitting on the john or something. You're taking it not for the paper but for the words printed therein. Those same words that you can download digitally without paying for them.

But if you adhere to strict sense of morals it would seem to be theft if you read the entire contents of the magazine that interest you, IF you were intending to buy it if you could not read it instead.

IF you were browsing through the magazine with the mind set of "Hey, maybe I will browse through the articles and I will see if one interests me, then maybe I will see enough value to actually buy it" then the "free sample" business model seems appropriate to me.

which

If you browse the magazine, that is appropriate IMO. You purchase it to actually read the entire article or articles that interest you. Browsing does not mean you read the whole thing before you buy. Honestly though, you can read the whole thing as long as you then buy it. So that the publisher gains the value from their product.

yes, theft is theft. Stealing x = stealing Stealing y = stealing

this does not mean x=y

but I am not in a logical mood today Smile

interesting that when folks talk about morals they never want to be held to strict standards. It becomes a matter of "well that is not so bad, after all we could have taken a baby". Really?

If you look back at where we started on this, I said it was theft to read the article.

What is interesting to me about not being held to strict standards, is that you clearly think taking the magazine is theft, but gaining all the knowledge therein by finding that very magazine digitally is not only not as bad, it's not even bad at all.

Further, I do not think it is unreasonable to weight severity of a certain crime. It is wrong to steal the magazine, and wrong to steal a baby. It is worse to steal a baby than a magazine. They are both stealing and wrong, but they are not equivalent. It is worse to run over someone and kill them than to run over someone and injure them. That doesn't mean I think running over someone is okay as long as they don't die.

avoidance of many of the questions put to you.

well, if I were smart enough to know the answers to all these questions, I would answer. If I "was" smart enough though, I am sure y'all would change your minds. But I am not. And so you don't.

Sorry. I admit it is a failing of mine

which

1. If the only difference in your opinion is the physical possession of print on paper, then in my opinion you are devaluing your creative efforts. IMO a book and its value is far more in the content.

3. A big problem I have with those who claim digital piracy is so bad is that they take one particular type of 'creative transfer', assign their own values to it, never considering the other forms of transfer (giving these forms their blessing, either ignorantly or not) and feel so much better for it.

2. Actually, you are the one suggesting that the value is just the paper it is printed on.

Steppin,

I put numbers in front of the quotes to make it easier to read. In #1 I posted this In #2 you seem to be thinking I am saying the opposite? If I am wrong, please correct me.

My points all along have tried to stay away from "whether doing X is moral". I was, and continue to struggle with these issues. I am just asking why those who seem to be so against X, can never explain their ambivalence to other acts which I consider similar. == #3

As for Geeks objections to my 'outrageous' arguments, I feel that looking at extremes can help me distill my thinking. The middle ground is so cloudy to me, its the edges that are easier to see. My personal failing to be sure.

which

well, if I were smart enough to know the answers to all these questions, I would answer. If I "was" smart enough though, I am sure y'all would change your minds. But I am not. And so you don't.

Sorry. I admit it is a failing of mine

which

Personally, I answer to work through it, not because I know. And a lot of times my initial answer does not hold water after I think about it some more. I just like to get something down and then see if it has holes in it.

1. If the only difference in your opinion is the physical possession of print on paper, then in my opinion you are devaluing your creative efforts. IMO a book and its value is far more in the content.

3. A big problem I have with those who claim digital piracy is so bad is that they take one particular type of 'creative transfer', assign their own values to it, never considering the other forms of transfer (giving these forms their blessing, either ignorantly or not) and feel so much better for it.



2. Actually, you are the one suggesting that the value is just the paper it is printed on.



Steppin,

I put numbers in front of the quotes to make it easier to read. In #1 I posted this In #2 you seem to be thinking I am saying the opposite? If I am wrong, please correct me.

You said #1, but I don't think you've thought it through.
In the example of the physical magazine, you said it was clearly stealing to take it away without paying.
You are also (and correct me if I'm wrong) suggesting that should the articles contained in said magazine appeared in digital downloadable form on the internet, that it is not stealing to download them and read them.
If it is not theft to download and read the content of the magazine for free, then it follows that the content cannot be stolen. If something can be had for free how can you steal it?
If the content cannot be stolen, then in the taking of the physical magazine, there must be something else of value. Since a magazine is merely the paper with content printed on it, albeit aesthetically arranged, then it follows that it is this paper which you are unlawfully removing.

My points all along have tried to stay away from "whether doing X is moral". I was, and continue to struggle with these issues. I am just asking why those who seem to be so against X, can never explain their ambivalence to other acts which I consider similar. == #3

We all do some things we don't consider strictly moral and accept that as part of us. The fact that I have never illegally downloaded a song or something is more due to the fact that I never got into that stuff, and never even had an mp3 player until the last couple of years or so than any moral high ground. However, and this is a big one - I know it is stealing. In the future I may do it, but I'm not going to pretend I'm not taking something. Since owning an mp3 player, I have bought songs because if I like them I want to support the creator so he/she will make more. They deserve it.
Oliver deserves the money he gets for his book, and I'm not going to turn my back on that. He did it (the writing of the book). Now, of someone takes it I don't think they should be shot or are too sickening for me to ever speak to again. I can understand some of the reasons why someone might do it. I know of people who have illegally downloaded SolidWorks for example (an extremely expensive 3d design program). I get why. It is priced so that only companies can afford it, but knowing it is a job skill that can get you hired. How are you supposed to learn it if you can't afford the thousands of dollars it costs to have it to learn with? Still, its stealing. Understandable stealing.

Jeez some people really love to argue and have way too much time on their hands...

well i only debate someone until i get a read on how they argue. some of the respondents in the thread which i had a read on from previous encounters i'm choosing to ignore (so no estist, i don't argue just to argue). some i've never talked to before, and was trying to get a read on how they think.

anyway, this thread is done for me. this thread is filled with (as someone once put it to me) "forum grinders." there's no edge here.

mr. which, keep that flame going, if you have the stomach for it. you're a better man than i am.

Little offtopic:
Does Improva still plays poker and is it known where and which stakes?

Questions to improva:
Why there isn't more yours coaching videos here (last one is 2 years old)?
I very easily found The poker puzzle googling, even didn't have to download, it's possible to read it instantly . Does newer version of book is lot different than older one?

Little offtopic:
Does Improva still plays poker and is it known where and which stakes?

Questions to improva:
Why there isn't more yours coaching videos here (last one is 2 years old)?
I very easily found The poker puzzle googling, even didn't have to download, it's possible to read it instantly . Does newer version of book is lot different than older one?

Yes I still play and play on a mix of sites. I coach 1000nl and below. HU not higher than 600nl.
Book
The latest version is very different. 25% is shared. Videos. There are a number of reasons. In random order: Time, I prefer to help people I know and talk to on skype and students have more than once requested (half joking) that I dont release more videos. The last reason is that I suffer from pretty nasty arthritis which means that I sleep a lot ...

Steppin--

your response is below:

If something can be had for free how can you steal it?

Naw's is below:

i cannot steal something when you have lost nothing, in particular the fabled "lost sale," when i never intended to buy it at an artificially unsellable price when a free option was available to me. it would not be rational to do so. the lost sale can only be defended on moral grounds,

This forum seems to give naw no credit for morals, yet it seems pretty clear the "only" defense would be moral.

I realize you prefaced your remarks with a big "if" Steppin, I have not forgotten that part.

Here is the preface to your quote above:

If it is not theft to download and read the content of the magazine for free, then it follows that the content cannot be stolen.

So, if the Supreme Court were to weigh in on the matter, would the if become somewhat more problematic?

in the United States Supreme Court case Dowling v. United States (1985) that bootleg phonorecords did not constitute stolen property and that "interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud.

Steppin, I have learned a lot in this discussion from folks like you and TSB who have held back on the personal attacks. I do think my feelings about this issue will change over time. But I also think naw was right, absolutely.....

making laws that cannot be enforced to protect that which cannot be protected is a waste of resources.

Thanks for weighing in y'all, I do appreciate the feedback/constructive critiscism.

And special shout out to Improva for putting up with being the test subject here

which

Isaac Asimov on learning

if reading is a crime, then i am a criminal, and i am not sorry. flame on.

Isaac Asimov on learning

if reading is a crime, then i am a criminal, and i am not sorry. flame on.

Sigh....

Isaac Asimov on learning

if reading is a crime, then i am a criminal, and i am not sorry. flame on.

wow, what a martyr.

be more egocentric

Isaac Asimov on learning

if reading is a crime, then i am a criminal, and i am not sorry. flame on.

So when he says 'absorb the whole universe' (or something like that) you hear that as 'you can take whatever you like in this universe aslong as you are learning?'.

Cool world view.

btw, your the one that is flaming on

OMG i just found the newest edition from the book online, ching ching !!!
anyone want a copy
no but for real, you people all have waaaaaay to much time on hands.
Just let it go, both party's, let it go...