Fair point.
Sorry if I sounded snappy, but I don't think it's helpful to be using
emotive examples when .people are already wound up.
···
On 16/05/06, Jeremy Tregunna <jtregunna@blurgle.ca> wrote:
On 16-May-06, at 9:51 AM, Dick Davies wrote:
> On 16/05/06, Jeremy Tregunna <jtregunna@blurgle.ca> wrote:
>
>> On 15-May-06, at 8:14 PM, 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?
>
>> The publisher, and as a result, the author; by not getting the money
>> for the book.
>
> The argument was that wasn't going to get that money *anyway*.
> If you're going to compare actions to murder, at least try to pay
> attention 
You'll note if you had been paying attention that I wasn't comparing
those actions to murder, I was comparing the *THOUGHT PROCESS* to
reach his conclusion that it wasn't harming anyone. Try to keep up.
--
Rasputin :: Jack of All Trades - Master of Nuns
http://number9.hellooperator.net/
If whatever you're stealing is actually causing people to lose
some of what is rightfully theirs (money) then you're a thief.
Ethically, I'd say if you're some kidd-o or a dysfunctional
adult (burn!) who wants to learn rails and you don't have a job and
otherwise wouldn't buy the book, it's the equivalent of checking it
out from the library.
-Jeff
···
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 01:01:20AM +0900, gwtmp01@mac.com wrote:
On May 16, 2006, at 11:25 AM, Phil Hagelberg wrote:
>Keith Lancaster <klancaster1957@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>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?
>
>I know you mean well, but it really bothers me when I see copyright
>infringement equivocated with theft. It's not the same thing. It's bad
>in this case, and it's *totally illegal*. Shouldn't that be enough of
>a reason?
Are you arguing that the word 'theft' is reserved to describe the
misappropriation of tangible goods and therefore doesn't apply to
copyright infringement or are you trying to say that there is some
ethical difference between the two situations? I'm confused.
Gary Wright
I am barely following this discussion.
I am not up to speed on the intricacies of copyright law
I also do not know how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Since I believe copyright law is immoral, I would chuck the
pin and the angels.
POD
···
On 2006-May 21, at 12:39 PM, Dave Howell wrote:
On May 16, 2006, at 15:08, David Pollak wrote:
While there might be a fair use justification for
emailing a friend a copy so he/she can evaluate it before buying it,
No, there is no "fair use" clause that allows for copyright violation in the name of evaluation.
Yes, *I* know there is a difference but many of the posts here were ambiguous, at best, on this point.
So we've clarified the terminology. It still isn't clear to me if you (or others) are suggesting that the two are differently ethically.
···
On May 16, 2006, at 12:06 PM, Peter Hickman wrote:
gwtmp01@mac.com wrote:
Are you arguing that the word 'theft' is reserved to describe the misappropriation of tangible goods and therefore doesn't apply to copyright infringement or are you trying to say that there is some ethical difference between the two situations? I'm confused.
Gary Wright
Theft: If I steal the shirt off your back you no longer have a shirt.
Copyright infringement: If I steal the design of the shirt on you back you still have a shirt.
There is a difference and the case law to support it.
There is a legal difference, yes. I'm not sure that there's a
meaningful *semantic* difference in discussions that do not involve
lawyers or people who deny that intellectual property exists in the
first place. "Steal" is a synonym for "theft." It's still the
misappropriation of something which does not belong to you and you
have not been given permission to use.
This is, however, a matter of semantics that does not answer the real
problem: someone was advocating taking something that does not belong
to them and they were not given permission to use, and preventing a
friend of mine and a person who contributes to the community from
receiving the appropriate compensation for his work.
-austin
···
On 5/16/06, Peter Hickman <peter@semantico.com> wrote:
gwtmp01@mac.com wrote:
> Are you arguing that the word 'theft' is reserved to describe the
> misappropriation of tangible goods and therefore doesn't apply to
> copyright infringement or are you trying to say that there is some
> ethical difference between the two situations? I'm confused.
Theft: If I steal the shirt off your back you no longer have a shirt.
Copyright infringement: If I steal the design of the shirt on you back
you still have a shirt.
There is a difference and the case law to support it.
--
Austin Ziegler * halostatue@gmail.com
* Alternate: austin@halostatue.ca
Ah, but in this case, they were not stealing the *design*, they were
stealing a *product*, i.e., the pdf. While the pdf may be electronic, it is
nevertheless a physical product - it is not just the idea or design, as
would be the case in pure copyright violation. If on the other hand they
retyped the book word for word, they would be violating copyright, as you
say. I happen to be from the music industry. If someone copies a segment of
one of my compositions and reproduces it in their work, they are violating
my copyright. If on the other hand they take a copy of my recording, either
by removing a CD from a store without purchasing it, or by downloading it
from a network without paying for it, they are stealing.
···
On 5/16/06, Peter Hickman <peter@semantico.com> wrote:
gwtmp01@mac.com wrote:
> Are you arguing that the word 'theft' is reserved to describe the
> misappropriation of tangible goods and therefore doesn't apply to
> copyright infringement or are you trying to say that there is some
> ethical difference between the two situations? I'm confused.
>
> Gary Wright
>
Theft: If I steal the shirt off your back you no longer have a shirt.
Copyright infringement: If I steal the design of the shirt on you back
you still have a shirt.
There is a difference and the case law to support it.
>
> Are you arguing that the word 'theft' is reserved to describe the
> misappropriation of tangible goods and therefore doesn't apply to
> copyright infringement or are you trying to say that there is some
> ethical difference between the two situations? I'm confused.
>
> Gary Wright
There is an ethical difference.
It's unethical to artificially limit a resource simply so that you can
profit.
Ok, so anybody who has ever sold anything that's digital is unethical.
I think you drank a little too much of Stallman's koolaid.
···
On 5/16/06, Michael Greenly <mgreenly@gmail.com> wrote:
It's illegal to violate copyright laws.
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
--
Bill Guindon (aka aGorilla)
The best answer to most questions is "it depends".
There is an ethical difference.
It's unethical to artificially limit a resource simply so that you can
profit.
It's illegal to violate copyright laws.
It's equally unethical to expect someone to provide you with services,
work, or software cheaply or for free simply because you can not afford to
pay them what they have deemed their time is worth.
Your argument is invalid and illogical in every sense. You are trying to
take a very BIG view of a very specific situation. Before <insert verb that
your comfortable with that has to do with leaching off of others work and
time here> why not contact the author or publisher and explain the
situation.
Regardless, the author has NO i repeat NO obligation to provide his work to
ANYONE for free EVER. Wrap your criminal behavior/intentions in all the nice
fluff you want to justify it with but do NOT fool yourself it is still
immoral, unethical, and criminal.
Not to mention most people on this list are making their livelihoods by
selling and creating intellectual property. Its like stabbing a bee hive.
Paul
It's unethical to artificially limit a resource simply so that you can profit.
How do you make money? If you're a programmer, you're a resource.
I need some code written. I expect you to write it for me for $3 per hour,
thanks. It's unethical to artifically limit the coding resources you could
provide me simply so you can make a profit.
Since it's unethical for you to artifically limit the coding resources you
could provide me simply so you could make a profit, I've decided that
you'll work for peanuts. I hope you don't mind not having a say in what
the value you produce is worth.
Regards,
Bill,
Your Friendly Evil Communist Overlord
···
From: "Michael Greenly" <mgreenly@gmail.com>
At the risk of continuing this thread, I would recommend that anyone
who is interested in the topic of copyright in the modern age read
Lawrence Lessig's book "Free Culture."
I checked out a copy from the library, but you can download a free PDF
from the web site for the book:
http://free-culture.cc/
Click on "Free Content".
The public domain is under assault by big media's continued corruption
of copyright laws, and if we want to maintain the same sort of open
and free thinking society that got us this far, we must not allow all
content to be locked in a perpetual copyright jail.
Regards,
Ryan
"Austin Ziegler" <halostatue@gmail.com> writes:
There is a legal difference, yes. I'm not sure that there's a
meaningful *semantic* difference in discussions that do not involve
lawyers or people who deny that intellectual property exists in the
first place. "Steal" is a synonym for "theft." It's still the
misappropriation of something which does not belong to you and you
have not been given permission to use.
Chalk it up to the hackerly tendency to be irritated by endless
repetition of minor inaccuracies. In this case there is not a great
semantic difference, but equivocating the two leads people to think
that they are the same in every case.
For instance, if someone thinks that there is no difference whatsoever
between copyright infringement and theft, it's very difficult to
explain how fair use works--it comes across sounding like a
rationalization of wrongdoing. ("What, you mean it's not stealing,
it's borrowing without asking?")
someone was advocating taking something that does not belong to them
and they were not given permission to use, and preventing a friend
of mine and a person who contributes to the community from receiving
the appropriate compensation for his work.
Agreed. This is bad, and I am disappointed that people in the
community have sunk to such depths.
-Phil Hagelberg
"Keith Lancaster" <klancaster1957@gmail.com> writes:
While the pdf may be electronic, it is nevertheless a physical
product.
Really? Can you touch a PDF? What does an MP3 smell like?
I happen to be from the music industry.
There are some who would say this disqualifies you from speaking with
any level of authority on copyright law, since most professionals from
your field have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they know
nothing of the content of these laws. However, I will refrain from
making any such judgements myself.
If someone copies a segment of one of my compositions and reproduces
it in their work, they are violating my copyright. If on the other
hand they take a copy of my recording, either by removing a CD from
a store without purchasing it, or by downloading it From a network
without paying for it, they are stealing.
I would suggest that you read up on the applicable laws.
-Phil Hagelberg
As a preface, I own virtually every book published by the Prags, both
in dead tree and pdf. I do believe that there is a difference
ethically. All theft is not ethically the same:
- Auto theft for joy riding
- Stealing food to feed your family
Both of these are theft, but I have no problem saying that there is an
ethical difference.
Similarly, stealing a paper copy of a book (or a physical CD) is
ethically different (although to a smaller degree) from violating a
copyright as in the first case the producer has lost physical value
(there was a production cost in the first case).
Again different:
- A student copying the PDF
- A professional developer copying the PDF
···
On 5/16/06, gwtmp01@mac.com <gwtmp01@mac.com> wrote:
On May 16, 2006, at 12:06 PM, Peter Hickman wrote:
> gwtmp01@mac.com wrote:
>> Are you arguing that the word 'theft' is reserved to describe the
>> misappropriation of tangible goods and therefore doesn't apply to
>> copyright infringement or are you trying to say that there is some
>> ethical difference between the two situations? I'm confused.
>>
>> Gary Wright
>>
> Theft: If I steal the shirt off your back you no longer have a shirt.
> Copyright infringement: If I steal the design of the shirt on you
> back you still have a shirt.
>
> There is a difference and the case law to support it.
Yes, *I* know there is a difference but many of the posts here were
ambiguous, at best, on this point.
So we've clarified the terminology. It still isn't clear to me if
you (or others) are suggesting that the two are differently ethically.
--------------------------------------------
I am not saying any of these are "good," but there are certainly an
ethical differences.
pth
i'm afraid this doesn't fly in the open-source world. if you are given to
then you are ethically bound to give to others what you can. paying it
forward is how the open-source world works. david wrote a book. he's
ethically bound to give back. fortunately for all of us he does so in many
ways, not least of which by providing sample chapters and countless answers on
this list. nevertheless, it's a short sighted view to say that people using
freely given things should not, themselves, be ethically bound to give back in
whatever way they can. creative works might be considered a little bit
different, but even iggy pop owes a very real debt to the works of bach - like
has been said many times : there is nothing new.
morals, ethics, and crime are all relativistic ideas so let's not be too harsh
in our judgements - we all live in glass houses. let's just say it would be
really great for as many people to buy david's book as possible. he has given
back to the community in many ways and deserves our support for what, people
are saying, is a fine book.
-a
···
On Wed, 17 May 2006, Paul D. Kraus wrote:
Regardless, the author has NO i repeat NO obligation to provide his work to
ANYONE for free EVER. Wrap your criminal behavior/intentions in all the nice
fluff you want to justify it with but do NOT fool yourself it is still
immoral, unethical, and criminal.
--
be kind whenever possible... it is always possible.
- h.h. the 14th dali lama
Paul D. Kraus wrote:
There is an ethical difference.
It's unethical to artificially limit a resource simply so that you can
profit.
It's illegal to violate copyright laws.
It's equally unethical to expect someone to provide you with services,
work, or software cheaply or for free simply because you can not afford
to
pay them what they have deemed their time is worth.
Your argument is invalid and illogical in every sense. You are trying to
take a very BIG view of a very specific situation. Before <insert verb
that
your comfortable with that has to do with leaching off of others work
and
time here> why not contact the author or publisher and explain the
situation.
Regardless, the author has NO i repeat NO obligation to provide his work
to
ANYONE for free EVER. Wrap your criminal behavior/intentions in all the
nice
fluff you want to justify it with but do NOT fool yourself it is still
immoral, unethical, and criminal.
Not to mention most people on this list are making their livelihoods by
selling and creating intellectual property. Its like stabbing a bee
hive.
Paul
Wow, you make lots of bad assumptions.
My criminal behavior? You make lots of bad assumptions. I've purchased
every single Ruby/Rails book published so far and have never in my life
knowingly pirated anything.
Right or wrong it's the law and I'm stuck with it, but at least I don't
stick my head in the sand and pretend it's the way the world should
work.
···
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
Bill Kelly wrote:
From: "Michael Greenly" <mgreenly@gmail.com>
It's unethical to artificially limit a resource simply so that you can
profit.
How do you make money? If you're a programmer, you're a resource.
I need some code written. I expect you to write it for me for $3 per
hour,
thanks. It's unethical to artifically limit the coding resources you
could
provide me simply so you can make a profit.
Since it's unethical for you to artifically limit the coding resources
you
could provide me simply so you could make a profit, I've decided that
you'll work for peanuts. I hope you don't mind not having a say in what
the value you produce is worth.
Regards,
Bill,
Your Friendly Evil Communist Overlord
This is poorly written and just stupid.
Charging what the market will bear is simply fair, assuming you're free
to buy from who you want and I'm free to sell to who I can.
If programmers were licensed by the goverment and the goverment only
licensed 10 regardless of demand then we'd be artificially limited.
···
--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.
It's the fact that people care about these important details which
makes me like the Ruby community so much
Now everyone go out and buy David's book!
Douglas
···
2006/5/16, Phil Hagelberg <phil@hagelb.org>:
Chalk it up to the hackerly tendency to be irritated by endless
repetition of minor inaccuracies. In this case there is not a great
semantic difference, but equivocating the two leads people to think
that they are the same in every case.
"Keith Lancaster" <klancaster1957@gmail.com> writes:
> While the pdf may be electronic, it is nevertheless a physical
> product.
Really? Can you touch a PDF? What does an MP3 smell like?
If I print a PDF out and put it on a news stand for sale, and you come by
and take it without paying for it, is this copyright violation or theft? If
it is theft, are you saying that all you are stealing is paper, and the
content does not play a role? How is the printed version logically different
from the electronic in this case?
I happen to be from the music industry.
There are some who would say this disqualifies you from speaking with
any level of authority on copyright law, since most professionals from
your field have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that they know
nothing of the content of these laws. However, I will refrain from
making any such judgements myself.
You appear to be well versed in the law - perhaps you are a lawyer? That
would in general disqualify you from speaking with any authority about
ethics, would it not? Yes, most musicians are not lawyers. They are just
people who understand common sense.
In the end, I do not care one whit whether the activity discussed (ie,
taking a pdf without paying the author), is *technically* stealing or
copyright violation - I find it wrong, as at least I *think* do you. As
others have written, most of the applicable laws were written before
electronic copying was possible. Perhaps it is time that the laws catch up
with the technology.
···
On 5/16/06, Phil Hagelberg <phil@hagelb.org > wrote:
i'm afraid this doesn't fly in the open-source world. if you are given to
then you are ethically bound to give to others what you can. paying it
forward is how the open-source world works. david wrote a book. he's
ethically bound to give back. fortunately for all of us he does so in
many
ways, not least of which by providing sample chapters and countless
answers on
this list. nevertheless, it's a short sighted view to say that people
using
freely given things should not, themselves, be ethically bound to give
back in
whatever way they can.
I didn't say that. Reading my initial comment it came out harser then it
should have but its still true. When someone uses open source they are bound
to contribute back. How they contribute is up to them NOT the community.
What your saying would be akin to "because he uses <open source software pkg
we get to take his stuff after all its only fair". He does contribute
and my statement is still valid. Just because someone uses opensource
software does NOT mean they obligated to never make profit from any IP work
or that they should be ok with others leaching off of the work they have
done for profit.
Not to mention most people on this list are making their livelihoods by
selling and creating intellectual property. Its like stabbing a bee
hive.
Just imagine, people whose livelihoods are based on the creation of
intellectual property, but who can still grasp that copyright
infringement and theft are distinct yet morally questionable types of
behaviour. Sort of like speeding and running red lights are both
wrong, but they're not the same damn thing, and depending on the
situation one or the other may be more or less reprehensible.
This thread is incredibly tedious, why am I even posting?
-tim