Pirating a pdf is not theft. Stealing something implies that the owner is no
in possession of that object. I.e. I steal your car, you no longer have a car.
Pirating is copyright infringement. There is a difference, even if
some people in this thread are implying copyright infringement is
tantamount to murder.
-tim
> I realise this may be a tangential issue, but if someone can't
> afford a book and is not going to buy it either way, whom has he
> harmed by downloading it?That's like saying that you're stuck with someone, and you're not
going to share your food either way, so what harm is there in killing
the person now instead of letting him starve to death.
OK, maybe this analogy is obvious to other people, but can you explain
to me what on earth you're talking about?
That's just a
silly way of thinking.
I can agree with that! A silly way of thinking isn't even the tip of
the iceberg. That's madness.
In fact that's got to be the least clearly articulated analogy I've
seen in years. It's like, let's make a comparison to something
completely unrelated, then add a bunch of really violent, emotionally
charged imagery, that way we can continue believing whatever we want
to believe without ever having to think about it.
For all the emotion involved, the reality is that in every field,
illegal downloads have an effect on sales. The effect is to increase
sales for niche players and decrease sales for mainstream players.
This has been found with movies and with music, so it's probably the
case for code as well. Java is the mainstream player, and Rails is the
niche. Irrespective of any passionate but utterly futile moral
debates, the ultimate economic result of this phenomenon is good for
anybody selling Rails books, including David Black.
--
Giles Bowkett
http://www.gilesgoatboy.org
I'm currently teaching a course based on ruby and rails, and David's
book looks like it could be a perfect fit for the next time it's taught.
Know where I can download it to check it out before buying 30?
Sure, buy the pdf. If the reviews and sample chapters aren't enough
for you, you can certainly afford the 20 or so bucks for an electronic
copy.
On 5/16/06, Jeff Rose <rosejn@gmail.com> wrote:
-Jeff
--
thanks,
-pate
-------------------------
I get the attitude from people in developing nations where you have
the choice of 25 - 50% of your salary or not learning something new to
be able to do better by your family. I do not get the attitude from
first-world people who would have to forego a pizza or three to afford
the book.
I *still* think that it would be worthwhile to petition the PragProgs
to look into working with publishers in developing nations to produce
less-expensive bound copies of their books for purchase.
-austin
On 5/16/06, gwtmp01@mac.com <gwtmp01@mac.com> wrote:
On May 16, 2006, at 5:21 AM, Kev Jackson wrote:
> I live in the developing world, and the fact is that there are no
> bookstores that carry Prag Prog titles here - they simply cost too
> much for the bookstores to carry. Sadly this means that most
> developers here don't even think about spending 25-50% of their
> monthly salary on a book when they can download a pdf from a p2p
> network.
I don't get this attitude at all. Either pay the asking price or
forgo the use of the book. It is really that simple. Otherwise you
are taking the work of another without any compensation. I don't see
how your location or income changes the ethics of the situation.
--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com
* Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca
gwtmp01@mac.com wrote:
I live in the developing world, and the fact is that there are no bookstores that carry Prag Prog titles here - they simply cost too much for the bookstores to carry. Sadly this means that most developers here don't even think about spending 25-50% of their monthly salary on a book when they can download a pdf from a p2p network.
I don't get this attitude at all. Either pay the asking price or forgo the use of the book. It is really that simple. Otherwise you are taking the work of another without any compensation. I don't see how your location or income changes the ethics of the situation.
Gary Wright
Well, if you were living in a home made of dirt walls where the average wage was $50 a month, then maybe you would "get it." These books are priced for your and my paychecks, not those of the vast majority of people in the world who can not afford to let their families starve while they try to raise themselves out of poverty by learning new skills. Luckily many publishers do get it, which is why they offer cheaper versions of their books.
Put it in perspective by adjusting for your own purchasing power. If each book you purchased cost $10,000, how much do you think you would learn about programming? Would you think the price was fair compensation? If your families dinner table reflected your ability to gain new skills would you think twice about downloading from the net? Probably not.
-Jeff
On May 16, 2006, at 5:21 AM, Kev Jackson wrote:
I don't get this attitude at all. Either pay the asking price or
forgo the use of the book. It is really that simple. Otherwise you
are taking the work of another without any compensation. I don't see
how your location or income changes the ethics of the situation.Gary Wright
Well put.
Actually, they're both theft and they both unlawfully deprive the author
and publisher of their rightful income from the sale. In a theft from a
bookstore, though, there's an additional aggrieved party. (Your
characterisation of the difference between the possible judgements is
incorrect. I deplore the DMCA and am quite thankful that I don't live in
a country that has such insane copyright laws.)
They are not both theft - both actions deprive the author and publisher of funds, but they are not both theft as legally defined. Until the definition of theft is changed, copying software/data is copyright infringement. I think both are bad, but we should use the correct terms so that people don't get confused.
It's *easier* to steal from the author in one case rather than the
other, but it still deprives the author of income to which they are
entitled.
Agreed it's easier to *copy* a pdf
I live in the developing world, and the fact is that there are no
bookstores that carry Prag Prog titles here - they simply cost too
much for the bookstores to carry. [...]Has anyone mentioned this to the PragProg? Every impression that I've
ever gotten of Dave and Andy is that they would care about this, and I
think that their authors would feel the same. Why don't you suggest it
to them as a possible approach for the developing world?
One of the reasons for my reply was that I know that Dave Thomas hangs around here from time to time and this email in context would make a stronger argument than a direct unsolicited email to them. I'd be happy to ask in the bookstores here about how they get the cheaper books from AW etc. Interestingly, all university text books are actually photocopies - again as there isn't a snowballs chance in hell that the student would be able to afford them - the government or a government agency (not exactly sure) simply photocopies them in bulk and the stores sell them for ~$2 (I recall some textbooks being ~50GBP when I was studying, so this is a great deal for the students). Other books are published locally (which again helps to reduce the price).
Kev
Quoting US Copyright Law does not impress everyone.
As I have discovered many times, "the law is an ass".
One example is the copyright period of life plus 70 years.
This is designed to protect the "Mickey Mouse" copyright.
I think 10 years is sufficient for any copyright or patent.
Gus Calabrese
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
But is every case of piracy deserving of the same great scorn? I realise this may be a tangential issue, but if someone can't afford a book and is not going to buy it either way, whom has he harmed by downloading it?
Whether he has "harmed" anybody or not is quite irrelevant, and a false argument (except for purposes of how much extra money you owe the creator if you violate his/her copyright). US Copyright law, in both principle and practice, with a few specific and notable exceptions, says that what a person creates belongs to them. If I create some fabulous work of art or brilliant programming book, it is my right as the person who did the making to
give it away for free
give away the right to copy it for free
sell or lease the right to publish it to a third party
publish it myself and charge people some nominal fee
publish it myself and charge an outrageous fee
not share it with anybody but people named "Fred."
If you don't happen to like what I'm doing with my creation, that's just too bad. Make your own. The fact that you can steal it without "harming" anybody because you wouldn't have paid for it anyway (or I wasn't going to sell it to you in the first place) is a bogus argument, because it's not your right to decide who will or won't be harmed by stealing my work. It's my work, it's my time/energy/money in the making, it's my right.
Music, BTW, is one of the specific and notable exceptions; specifically the performance of somebody else's composition. There's also a time limit on ownership, which is currently very long (I believe it's creator's lifetime + 70 years, but I'd have to check; they keep changing it). Finally, there's "fair use," which I'd guess about 94% of the people who claim this don't understand, and which is widely abused.
On 2006-May 19, at 11:00 AM, Dave Howell wrote:
On May 15, 2006, at 16:03, Elliot Temple wrote:
I am going to reply in this thread off-list. If you want to be included, please email me off-list: curi@curi.us and I will CC you.
Elliot
On May 19, 2006, at 10:00 AM, Dave Howell wrote:
On May 15, 2006, at 16:03, Elliot Temple wrote:
But is every case of piracy deserving of the same great scorn? I realise this may be a tangential issue, but if someone can't afford a book and is not going to buy it either way, whom has he harmed by downloading it?
Whether he has "harmed" anybody or not is quite irrelevant, and a false argument (except for purposes of how much extra money you owe the creator if you violate his/her copyright). US Copyright law, in both principle and practice, with a few specific and notable exceptions, says that what a person creates belongs to them. If I create some fabulous work of art or brilliant programming book, it is my right as the person who did the making to
give it away for free
give away the right to copy it for free
sell or lease the right to publish it to a third party
publish it myself and charge people some nominal fee
publish it myself and charge an outrageous fee
not share it with anybody but people named "Fred."If you don't happen to like what I'm doing with my creation, that's just too bad. Make your own. The fact that you can steal it without "harming" anybody because you wouldn't have paid for it anyway (or I wasn't going to sell it to you in the first place) is a bogus argument, because it's not your right to decide who will or won't be harmed by stealing my work. It's my work, it's my time/energy/money in the making, it's my right.
Music, BTW, is one of the specific and notable exceptions; specifically the performance of somebody else's composition. There's also a time limit on ownership, which is currently very long (I believe it's creator's lifetime + 70 years, but I'd have to check; they keep changing it). Finally, there's "fair use," which I'd guess about 94% of the people who claim this don't understand, and which is widely abused.
-- Elliot Temple
Elliot Temple wrote:
The harm there is that he would die sooner than he would if he were
left un-murdered. He loses that amount of his life. But the thing is,
who is harmed in the hypothetical case I described?-- Elliot Temple
Curiosity Blog – Elliot Temple
I cannot afford a Mercedes. I therefore have no plans to buy one. Should
I steal one? After all, nobody really gets hurt, do they?
We are not talking about a starving person who has no choice but to
steal food, and therefore might be considered to have some moral
foundation for their actions. We are talking about people who actually
in most cases do have money, but no sense of ethics. They would never
steal from a Walmart, but only because they might get caught. The
ultimate harm may not be to them, but to those of us who DO have a sense
of ethics. I appreciate the fact that publishers are making their
products available in a variety of formats. Taking advantage of this
situation by copying and distributing their work without paying for it
can only have one long-term consequence: they will either discontinue
the practice or be forced to implement copy protection that makes it
inconvenient for all.
Keith
I realise this may be a tangential issue, but if someone can't afford a book and is not going to buy it either way, whom has he harmed by downloading it?
That's like saying that you're stuck with someone, and you're not going to share your food either way, so what harm is there in killing the person now instead of letting him starve to death. That's just a silly way of thinking.
The harm there is that he would die sooner than he would if he were left un-murdered. He loses that amount of his life. But the thing is, who is harmed in the hypothetical case I described?
The publisher, and as a result, the author; by not getting the money for the book.
On 15-May-06, at 8:14 PM, Elliot Temple wrote:
-- Elliot Temple
--
Jeremy Tregunna
jtregunna@blurgle.ca
>
>> But is every case of piracy deserving of the same great scorn?
>
> Yes.
>
>> I realise this may be a tangential issue, but if someone can't
>> afford a book and is not going to buy it either way, whom has he
>> harmed by downloading it?
>
> That's like saying that you're stuck with someone, and you're not
> going to share your food either way, so what harm is there in
> killing the person now instead of letting him starve to death.
> That's just a silly way of thinking.The harm there is that he would die sooner than he would if he were
left un-murdered. He loses that amount of his life. But the thing is,
who is harmed in the hypothetical case I described?
everyone of us who wants to see books continue to be made
available in electronic formats. A number of publishers are
sitting on the fence about whether they should continue to provide
(or start to provide) books like this -- redistributing copies (stealing
them) is helping to keep them away.
Who is harmed? I am. You are. Every one of us is.
On 5/15/06, Elliot Temple <curi@curi.us> wrote:
On May 15, 2006, at 4:07 PM, Jeremy Tregunna wrote:
> On 15-May-06, at 7:03 PM, Elliot Temple wrote:
-- Elliot Temple
Curiosity Blog – Elliot Temple
--
thanks,
-pate
-------------------------
Wow, I can't believe there are actually people arguing that they should be able to get the PDF for free.
By copying the PDF *without paying for it* you are depriving the author of their compensation. When you take money out of someone's wallet, that is *stealing*. You may try to equate it with other things (pirating, copyright infringement, whatever) if it makes you feel better but it doesn't change the fact that the author does NOT get paid when you copy their PDF unlawfully.
This *is* a black and white issue. No gray here.
When you unlawfully deprive someone of something that is rightfully
theirs, that is theft. The *act* which leads to that theft may be
copyright infringement, but the end result is that something *has*
been stolen from the publisher and, in turn, the author.
There are legal means to get things which you do not own. Purchasing
is one. Being given a copy is another. Going through some sort of
*proper* borrowing mechanism (which has yet to be created for
electronic media that doesn't also involve nonsensical DRM) is
another. Downloading a PDF from a p2p site when that PDF is not being
given away (and likely has someone else's name on it) is not.
-austin
On 5/16/06, Tim Becker <a2800276@gmail.com> wrote:
Pirating a pdf is not theft. Stealing something implies that the owner is no
in possession of that object. I.e. I steal your car, you no longer have a car.
Pirating is copyright infringement. There is a difference, even if
some people in this thread are implying copyright infringement is
tantamount to murder.
--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com
* Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca
Personally, I've always thought that there is a significant
qualitative difference between making an unlicensed copy and trolling
around the Malacca Straits with guns and knives, looting passing ships
and murdering their crews and passengers, so I try to avoid the word
'piracy' to describe copying a book or CD.
I try not to call it theft either. Whilst some people equate copyright
infringement with theft, they are substantively and legally different.
Whether they are morally equivalent is a different matter, though.
Confusing the vocabulary doesn't help to advance the debate.
Paul.
On 16/05/06, Tim Becker <a2800276@gmail.com> wrote:
Pirating a pdf is not theft. Stealing something implies that the owner is no
in possession of that object. I.e. I steal your car, you no longer have a car.
Pirating is copyright infringement. There is a difference, even if
some people in this thread are implying copyright infringement is
tantamount to murder.
I believe that "a person is guilty of theft if: he dishonestly
appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of
permanently depriving the other of it"*. Under those terms, I guess one
might argue piracy isn't theft. However, to do that, you'd miss the
point - I think the 'property' here isn't the intellectual property
itself, but the expected income from it's sale. You do not buy the
intellectual property - merely the right to a copy of it.**
As a general observation, I would have to say that if you want to steal,
then steal (just remember that what goes around comes around), but don't
try to pretend you're any better than a common thief simply because you
steal different stuff.
* (Actually, thats the definition under my local law)
** IANAL
On Tue, 2006-05-16 at 21:35 +0900, Tim Becker wrote:
Pirating a pdf is not theft. Stealing something implies that the owner is no
in possession of that object. I.e. I steal your car, you no longer have a car.
Pirating is copyright infringement. There is a difference, even if
some people in this thread are implying copyright infringement is
tantamount to murder.
--
Ross Bamford - rosco@roscopeco.REMOVE.co.uk
Austin Ziegler
> I live in the developing world, and the fact is that there are no
> bookstores that carry Prag Prog titles here - they simply cost too
> much for the bookstores to carry. Sadly this means that most
> developers here don't even think about spending 25-50% of their
> monthly salary on a book when they can download a pdf from a p2p
> network.
I don't get this attitude at all. Either pay the asking price or
forgo the use of the book. It is really that simple. Otherwise you
are taking the work of another without any compensation. I don't see
how your location or income changes the ethics of the situation.I get the attitude from people in developing nations where you have
the choice of 25 - 50% of your salary or not learning something new to
be able to do better by your family. I do not get the attitude from
first-world people who would have to forego a pizza or three to afford
the book.
Bravo! *claps loudly*
- I've got two copies of Prog. Ruby, because it's excelent, and I can
afford to have one at work and one at home. If some people are going to
copy a book (one that's not free, as aposed to my example) so that they
can feed their family, and better themselves, and perhaps one day join
me in being very well off because my ancestors had a good head start in
pillaging the world's recourses, then good on them. When they're rich
and I'm poor, I hope they won't mind me listening in on the interesting
stuff they produce.
Pretty much my message is, I think: learn your 80:20 principle. You're
coders aren't you? Don't try to chase every last penny, and maybe you'll
find you end up with more.
...On the other hand, I used to work for a softeware company that would
have had a much better stab at life if people had bought its products
rather than using pirated versions...
On 5/16/06, gwtmp01@mac.com <gwtmp01@mac.com> wrote:
On May 16, 2006, at 5:21 AM, Kev Jackson wrote:
To complicate things even further at a national level many countries practice what is called "infant industry protection" whereby the country as a whole simply disregards all international laws (including patents and copyrights) in an area that they wish to become proficient in. The first world got to it's position of dominance as an industrial power by precisely this practise and some countries are still doing this for selected industries.
Moral? Ethical? Don't even go there!
For all the emotion involved, the reality is that in every field,
illegal downloads have an effect on sales. The effect is to increase
sales for niche players and decrease sales for mainstream players.
This has been found with movies and with music, so it's probably the
case for code as well. Java is the mainstream player, and Rails is the
niche. Irrespective of any passionate but utterly futile moral
debates, the ultimate economic result of this phenomenon is good for
anybody selling Rails books, including David Black.
I agree that it works that way, I just don't agree with the
perspective that you're viewing it from. What if you change the scope
from 'books about all programming languages' to 'books about ruby
and/or rails'? In the world of Ruby, and Rails, David Black is hardly
a 'niche player'.
It might help to own a copy of 'Ruby for Rails' to understand why I
think that way. I'm about half way through it, and I highly recommend
that all Ruby users _buy_ a copy. It's an excellent book, and helps
build a stronger understanding of Ruby in general (ie: it's _not_ just
for Rails users).
I think Chris Pine's 'Learn to Program' is probably the best example
of free distribution leading to increased sales. He started out by
publishing a free tutorial, people found out that it was well written,
and was a great intro for beginners, and it eventually became a book.
Before his book was published, Chris might be considered a 'niche
player', he wasn't known for any major library or framework, he wasn't
part of the Ruby or Rails core teams, he wasn't part of the PragProg
team, he wasn't one of the founders of Ruby Central, etc. Now that
his book has been published, along with the fact that it was published
by PragProg, he's no longer a 'niche player', at least in my mind.
I guess it comes down to who is a niche player, and personally, I
don't think it's right to use that subjective decision to determine
that it's ok to download any author's pdf, because I think they're a
niche player, and by downloading it, I'm going to help them down the
road.
On 5/16/06, Giles Bowkett <gilesb@gmail.com> wrote:
--
Giles Bowkett
http://www.gilesgoatboy.org
--
Bill Guindon (aka aGorilla)
The best answer to most questions is "it depends".
I agree with the general sentiment in Austin's first message: David
has given a lot to the Ruby community and he deserves proper
compensation for his book, which I'm sure required a lot of effort to
write.
But I do not agree with all the sentiments about copyright
infringement being theft. Denying someone potential income by
downloading a copy of their work is NOT like taking money from their
pocket. That is like me saying another Ruby programmer is stealing
from me for getting a consulting contract for a Rails project that I
felt I should have gotten. Potential income is not like money in the
bank. Now I'm not saying that downloading stuff is right or moral. If
someone is trying to sell a product, something they have put a lot of
time and effort to create, one should not acquire it without the
author being paid.
Still, I think some new thought needs to be put into copyright law
given the modern digital age. Right now the system is broken because
copyright has been changed from being something that is designed for
public good to something that is designed to maximize profits for
copyright holders (which are usually large, powerful, multinational
corporations.) Copyright is supposed to expire fairly soon so that
artistic works go into the public domain and can then be built open
and expanded, adding knowledge and beauty to the culture. But that is
not how things are now. Disney has been spear-heading the constant
increase of copyright expiration length in the US so that Steamboat
Willy (the first Mickey Mouse cartoon) will not go into the public
domain. I'm not sure why they want to do this, because I don't think
they are making any money off it anymore, plus it becoming public
domain does not release their trademark on Mickey. Maybe they are just
evil 
<us_centric>
But the point is copyright is not what the founders of the US intended
it to be anymore, and that needs to be fixed. I'm not sure if our
current lobbyist-controlled Congress is capable of making this change,
so I'm not sure what the solution is.
</us_centric>
A final point I want to make is this: a lot of people think that
without copyright nothing creative or artistic would ever be created.
This is just nonsense. For one thing, many beautiful works of art and
great literature was created before the concept of copyright existed.
A more contemporary example is open source software and the world wide
web. While some people can make money tangentially to their open
source work or their web-site, many people create things with no
monetary incentive. Just something to think about.
Ryan
