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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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 M. 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.
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 W.
There is an ethical difference.
It’s unethical to artificially limit a resource simply so that you can
profit.
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 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.
you (or others) are suggesting that the two are differently ethically.
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
I am not saying any of these are “good,” but there are certainly an
ethical differences.
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.
It’s the fact that people care about these important details which
makes me like the Ruby community so much
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.
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.
[snip] Disney has been spear-heading the constant
increase of copyright expiration length in the US so that Steamboat
Willy (the first Mickey M. 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
My guess is that they’re trying to avoid a precedent being set.
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.
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 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.
No assumptions just a bad habbit of liberal use of “you/your” in the
general sense. Non of that was directed at “YOU”. My bad.
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.
I don’t think I am sticking my head in sand. I think if someone works on
something, spends their time on something, and they do it for the reason
of
making money then they should get paid. If you(<-liberal use of you
again)
CHOOSE to use their product, that they have attached a price to then you
are
morally obligated to pay for it. Taking it for what ever reason is just
wrong.
New to list, shouldn’t be getting involved in this anyways but its a
touch
subject.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
