Off Topic Poker Forums

i don't think it's stealing. and i don't think copying intellectual property for personal use is wrong. i do admit i am violating the letter of the law in that i copy complete works rather than excerpts, but i feel how i use is still within the spirit of the law, and you can judge me based on that liberal interpretation.


i can't really say it any better than the article i linked. from "Tragedy of the Commons": Intellectual Property Rights in the Information Age by Robin D. Gross:

"Another major myth regarding "intellectual property" protection is that it is the same as more traditional forms of property such as personal property or real estate. But this conflation of intellectual property is grossly misleading and harmful. Copying another's intellectual creation does not end the owner's right to make use of the original. Intellectual property rights are created only as a means to encourage further creativity for the ultimate benefit of all society, while more traditional forms of property rights are designed to protect the personal and private interests of their owners. This crucial distinction can be seen when considering that one's house is not intended to pass into the public domain at some time; nor does anyone have a fair use right to borrow another's car. Intellectual property is intended to have ownership "holes", to be imperfect in its control, while real or personal property are more absolute in the their grants to owners.

Equating these very different forms of property rights together leads to the inevitable restriction of the public's rights giving way to more absolute property rights for large entertainment companies. Those wishing to maximize copyrights often merge the differing types of property together, appealing to society's natural affection for traditional property rights in an effort to confuse and extend that affection to a different concept.

...Many in the entertainment industry erroneously claim that all unauthorized copying is the equivalent of "theft". But in actuality, most ordinary copying is not infringement. For example, copying for personal use, education, research, commentary, criticism, parody or other socially important uses are generally lawful under copyright law. And anything created before 1923 unequivocally belongs in the public domain and may be freely copied by anyone for any purpose, including commercial purposes. So claims that all unauthorized copying is the same social horror as theft hits far from the mark of legal accuracy."

not sure if serious? it is theft, end of story.

if i have "stolen" from someone when i copy a ebook, what do they have less of than before?

If you have copied something, then that means you had a desire to have it. By copying it, you no longer have that desire. Whether that desire is large enough to purchase X is irrelevant. The fact is that you no longer have a reason to purchase it. Your desires have been fulfilled. The creator has lost potential business. That is what is being stolen. Just because you or anyone isn't willing to spend Y to obtain X doesn't mean that you can have it for free. You either pay Y or you don't get X. By copying X instead, you are robbing the creator of potential business.

the profit motive is a red herring. most of the great works of literature people read weren't written under copyright laws. maybe people just like to write because they have something meaningful to say rather than looking for a buck? imo, copyright laws don't guarantee or even promote better creativity by a longshot.

This is a completely separate argument. Whether it hinders creativity is irrelevant to the discussion of whether it is theft.

and fwiw, i also own real hardcopies of books paid for in cash money.

Congratulations lol.

do the guys who think it's unfair when i read a free copy of a book also angry at public libraries? should universal public education also be abolished? what about 2nd hand book stores? the author doesn't see a dime of 2nd hand sales. where exactly does the moral outrage start and end?

Libraries are legal institutions that obtain books in a legal manner.* Just because you may have 1000 books (oh but don't worry, you paid for 10 of them lol) doesn't mean you are equivalent to a library. The moral outrage starts with the point at which the author's work is obtained without the author's consent.


*Feel free to correct me here if libraries obtain books without the author's consent or illegally. I'm not going to pretend I know the ins and outs of libraries and their collection methods.

whatever has been said and wrote.
I think we can all agree :
shoving the river is the most +ev line to take...

Nawhead is actually making a very good point which is one of the fundamental arguments against ACTA.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOOhccwY74Y&feature=related

Yes I have downloaded ebooks, music, games and films in the past. However I am nowhere near as bad as I used to be. There are some things I dont have a problem downloading, such as overpriced video games. Sure I bought Starcraft 2 and Portal because they are actually worth the money. I DONT like downloading music though, I really dont. A lot of the bands I listen to arent very big and dont make much money, and a lot of what they do make is through touring and selling merchandise. I would like to buy every record but I simply cant afford it at the moment.

Say I have Sky Atlantic, which is going to be showing Game of Thrones tonight. If I then download a copy of that episode from a torrent site for personal use, is that theft? I mean, I already have a subscription for access to that content. Why in the UK to watch television while its being broadcast do I need to pay for a TV license when I can avoid that law by watching the programs on demand through websites such as iPlayer, 4OD? Am I stealing when I stream a football match instead of paying Sky money? Its not like I am playing it in my pub and financially gaining from it. I can even sit in the pub and watch the game for FREE. What if I go around a friends house to watch it? I havent paid anything for it.

Take the recent stance on used games in gaming. The next generation of consoles WILL NOT let you play second hand games. Their argument is that you have not paid them directly for their content at their set prices, which results in them making a loss and the third party who sold you the game a profit...when it wasnt their IP to begin with. To me this is fundamentally wrong and epitomises capitalist greed.

Im currently looking into building a valve guitar amplifier. A lot of the circuits are the same, so if I take a design I like and "clone" the amplifier for personal use with schematics that are freely distributed by the manufacturer and possibly even enhance the design, is that theft? Im not selling the amplifier. What if the amplifier is discontinued? Could I sell it then?

People like Improva know the answer to combating this problem of filesharing, its to keep evolving their products content and keeping some aspects as their unique selling point. Have I downloaded his book? No. Would I buy his book and coaching package if I was in the position to do so? Certainly.

It's incredible how ignorant some people can be regarding the theft and then try to justify it. Every time you or someone else downloads Improva's book you're stealing the money that he charges for his intellectual property. You go down the route of telling other people about it, your increasing his financial loss. I pointed out that this is an unacceptable practice in the DC forum but clearly some are too blind (or not old enough) to realise what the issue at hand is.

I'm not advocating that you buy the material, I'm advocating that if you feel the need to download it for whatever reason, at least be intelligent enough to acknowledge that it's not a good thing that you're doing and be respectful enough to keep it to yourself. This has been pointed out in nearly all of Tecmo's posts, but I don't think you guys have bothered to read it properly and think it over, which is a real shame.

People like Improva know the answer to combating this problem of filesharing, its to keep evolving their products content and keeping some aspects as their unique selling point. Have I downloaded his book? No. Would I buy his book and coaching package if I was in the position to do so? Certainly.

Did you even read my post?

btw, about the theft thing and what not, my uncle is a famous belgian singer/songwriter.
he is one of the biggest selling singers in the country, and probably also in europe.
i talked to him on the matter and he said he rather have people download his music, then not listening to it at all.
he makes music because he loves doing his job, and he loves the fact that people apreciate his voice and his music, thus listening to it.
obv making money of it is great, but with most of the people out there making music, money comes in second, there love for the music is to great to even start bothering about what is being downloaded en what is being bought.

ofc, this has nothing to do with the comment i said about improvas book, just saying

btw, about the theft thing and what not, my uncle is a famous belgian singer/songwriter.
he is one of the biggest selling singers in the country, and probably also in europe.
i talked to him on the matter and he said he rather have people download his music, then not listening to it at all.
he makes music because he loves doing his job, and he loves the fact that people apreciate his voice and his music, thus listening to it.
obv making money of it is great, but with most of the people out there making music, money comes in second, there love for the music is to great to even start bothering about what is being downloaded en what is being bought.

ofc, this has nothing to do with the comment i said about improvas book, just saying

That is called consent. Pretty important detail that is often missing.

Maybe I should share my point of view.

The early versions of the book did not have any DRM protection - which was fine in the beginning because I only gave the book to students which consider my friends. At some point it found it's way to torrent sites. My biggest concern with that is that I'm not happy with that version of the book. It was and still is a work in progress.

Some of the people who download the book write to me and often they tell me that they cannot afford to buy it.. but that they like the old version [None of the torrented versions are actually the latest version. They claim to be.. but it is not true]. Anyway, most of the time I give those people a free copy and a couple of sessions if I can find the time. If those players have any talent at all for the game they end up playing SSNL and buying more coaching.

SSNL+ players I expect to buy the book. So the bottom line is that I don't at all mind micro players download the old torrented version. If they feel the book helped them I expect them to get the latest version when they start playing SSNL. What I do mind is people trying to justify that they made a copy without knowing my POV. I find that disrespectful but I know that we all make mistakes, so I don't carry a grudge - but I do expect those persons to pay me whatever they can afford.

This thread is getting out of hand. If impova made it into a hard back and you stole it from his desk it would be theft. If you stole it from a shop it would be theft, you are getting something that costs money for free without the authors permission. If that theif scanned all the pages in the book and put it on the internet and i downloaded it, it would be theft. I am taking something that costs money for free without the authors permission.
If i saw it online and pm'd improva saying i am a poor please can i download your book via this link, and he for some reason agreed. This is not theft, i have the authors permission and he has the right to charge what ever he likes for his product to some people and give it away for free to others.
Just because it is not a physical object doesnt mean it is not theft. If you stole $100 from a wallet it is theft. Are you trying to say if you found out someones credit card details and transferred $1000 from there account to yours that you didnt steal anything because the numbers on your laptop are not physical $ bills.

btw, about the theft thing and what not, my uncle is a famous belgian singer/songwriter.
he is one of the biggest selling singers in the country, and probably also in europe.
i talked to him on the matter and he said he rather have people download his music, then not listening to it at all.
he makes music because he loves doing his job, and he loves the fact that people apreciate his voice and his music, thus listening to it.
obv making money of it is great, but with most of the people out there making music, money comes in second, there love for the music is to great to even start bothering about what is being downloaded en what is being bought.

ofc, this has nothing to do with the comment i said about improvas book, just saying

Your uncle is talking out of his arse. Tell him to stop charging for his music and put it out for free and see how quick he changes his tune.

it's somewhat amusing how improva came out looking like the greatest guy in the world; combined this with his poker mind, =

The fact is that you no longer have a reason to purchase it. Your desires have been fulfilled. The creator has lost potential business. That is what is being stolen.

so by this same logic, if i read a book in a library, or buy a book 2nd hand (as the author "loses" business), or even borrow a book from a friend, i have stolen something from the creator. it does not follow.

this kind of overreaching sentiment is what's making intellectual property laws the beast that it is.

This is a completely separate argument. Whether it hinders creativity is irrelevant to the discussion of whether it is theft.

you're right, it is a separate argument. and so is asking whether allowing fair use of books undermines incentives to write.

Libraries are legal institutions that obtain books in a legal manner.* Just because you may have 1000 books (oh but don't worry, you paid for 10 of them lol) doesn't mean you are equivalent to a library. The moral outrage starts with the point at which the author's work is obtained without the author's consent.

libraries are free to lend out books without the author's consent afaik. and unless someone obtained the copy from which the ebook copy was made illegally, that 2nd or 3rd or millionth copy is derived from a legally obtained copy.

being stuck in a scarcity economics mindset with intellectual property is just howling at the moon. when we can make a million copies instantly with near $0 production costs, we're no longer in a scarcity economy. a pay-per-copy business model based on 20th century market dynamics no longer applies. it's over, and it's time to get real.

People like Improva know the answer to combating this problem of filesharing, its to keep evolving their products content and keeping some aspects as their unique selling point. Have I downloaded his book? No. Would I buy his book and coaching package if I was in the position to do so? Certainly.

+1

we should all know this as poker players. it's all about adjustment.

it's somewhat amusing how improva came out looking like the greatest guy in the world; combined this with his poker mind, =

+1 mirrion. he's already on my short list of coaches to ask when i can make it past the micros. but if i've lost that privilege by posting itt, i'll be sure to sit with him once legalization happens if/when we can all play together again.

so by this same logic, if i read a book in a library, or buy a book 2nd hand (as the author "loses" business), or even borrow a book from a friend, i have stolen something from the creator. it does not follow.

Are you saying you don't see a difference between copying X without the author's consent and reading X at a library?

you're right, it is a separate argument. and so is asking whether allowing fair use of books undermines incentives to write.

Yea, that was my point.

libraries are free to lend out books without the author's consent afaik. and unless someone obtained the copy from which the ebook copy was made illegally, that 2nd or 3rd or millionth copy is derived from a legally obtained copy.

"Legally obtained copy" seems like an important detail here and where the difference lies imo. It sounds like neither of us know the exact ins and outs of library stuff, but I have to imagine they don't obtain products from bit torrents illegally.

being stuck in a scarcity economics mindset with intellectual property is just howling at the moon. when we can make a million copies instantly with near $0 production costs, we're no longer in a scarcity economy. a pay-per-copy business model based on 20th century market dynamics no longer applies. it's over, and it's time to get real.

I agree that technology is allowing us to evolve in many ways. I just think, regardless of the manner, someone should be compensated for creating something they wish to sell. I really don't see how you can disagree with that point.


And you edited it out already, but to your threat about not continuing this discussion, I say lol. You often make a lot of good points in various threads, but how the heck do you want me to respond when you say, "oh, and fwiw, I've bought some books too." What is the point of that statement? It made me laugh and if you don't see how ridiculous that statement is then there likely isn't a point in continuing.