Ticked Off

I’ve written a model world in Ruby to illustrate some of the issues
being discussed (see below or http://curi.us/code/piracy.html). The
main thing it demonstrates is the difference between stealing and
piracy/copying. (This is the longest Ruby program I’ve written. Any
code style tips would be appreciated.)

Regarding releasing books in PDF format: Paper things are commonly
scanned if there is demand for them. Manga and anime are translated
to English every week by pirates. I don’t think relying on the
laziness of pirates will work well.

On May 15, 2006, at 5:51 PM, Keith L. wrote:

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?

The dealership is hurt by having one less car. See output below.

On May 15, 2006, at 6:45 PM, Jeremy T. wrote:

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.

By this criterion (not getting money), the publisher and author are
equally harmed by a person who does nothing and a pirate (see program).

If I’m not disrupting an author’s future sales, I’m not harming him.
And it has to be quite clear he would have gotten those sales, or he
has no legal case. And even if he would have gotten sales, many ways
to disrupt those sales are and should be legal, including telling
people the book is terrible, writing a better book, and buying all
bookstores worldwide and remodeling them to sell only coffee.

On May 15, 2006, at 7:39 PM, John G. wrote:

A writer works on their book based on the premise that they will be
reimbursed for each copy, thus making it worth their while –
otherwise they wouldn’t bother writing it.

That isn’t really the premise. The author needs to get paid, but
there are many different payment models possible. The most obvious
approach would be that anyone who reads the book owes the author
money. This is very hard to enforce, so selling physical copies is
commonly used instead. The physical copy approach has obvious
loopholes to screw the author. For example, people trade books around
so they can all read one copy. This way of screwing authors has been
formalised as libraries and used book stores. In theory, the entire
world could read a book that only sold one copy. And that’d be
perfectly legal! But it doesn’t happen. So the important thing is not
what could happen, but whether in a given culture authors are, in
fact, paid. Because, as you say, if they were not then many potential
authors would not write their books.

piracy.rb

Elliot T.

5/16/06

class Person
attr_accessor :inventory
def initialize
@inventory = []
end
def steal store, item_name
add_inventory store.delete_item!(item_name)
end
def copy store, item_name
add_inventory store.copy_item(item_name)
end
def do_nothing
end
def add_inventory item
@inventory << item if item
end
end

class Item
attr_accessor :name, :price
def initialize name, price
@name = name
@price = price
end
end

class Car < Item
end

class Book < Item
end

class Store
def initialize items, noun, store_name
@inventory = items
@noun = noun
@store_name = store_name
@initial_inventory_value = inventory_value
@initial_item_count = @inventory.length
end
def delete_item! item_name
item = @inventory.find {|i| i.name == item_name}
@inventory.delete item
end
def copy_item item_name
@inventory.find {|i| i.name == item_name}
end
def inventory_value
@inventory.inject(0) {|total, item| total + item.price}
end
def status_report
puts “I am #{@store_name}. This is my status report:”
puts “I began with #{@initial_item_count} #{@noun}s and now I
have #{@inventory.length} #{@noun}s.”
puts “My #{@noun}s were worth $#{@initial_inventory_value}. Now
they are worth $#{inventory_value}.”
if @initial_inventory_value < inventory_value
puts “I made: $#{inventory_value - @initial_inventory_value}.
I am happy”
elsif @initial_inventory_value == inventory_value
puts “I broke even. I am content.”
else
puts “I lost: $#{@initial_inventory_value - inventory_value}.
I am sad.”
end
end
end

class CarDealership < Store
def initialize store_name, cars
super cars, “car”, store_name
end
end

class Bookstore < Store
def initialize store_name, books
super books, “book”, store_name
end
end

thief = Person.new
pirate = Person.new
philosopher = Person.new

dealership = CarDealership.new “Casandra’s Crazy Cars”, [Car.new
(:Mercedes, 55000), Car.new(:Mercedes, 55000), Car.new(:Jeep, 19000)]

bookstore = Bookstore.new “Bob’s Big Books”, [Book.new
(:The_Fabric_Of_Reality, 11), Book.new(:The_Selfish_Gene, 10),
Book.new(:The_Machinery_Of_Freedom, 27)]

thief.steal(dealership, :Mercedes)
pirate.copy(bookstore, :The_Fabric_Of_Reality)
philosopher.do_nothing

dealership.status_report
puts
bookstore.status_report

output

I am Casandra’s Crazy Cars. This is my status report:

I began with 3 cars and now I have 2 cars.

My cars were worth $129000. Now they are worth $74000.

I lost: $55000. I am sad.

I am Bob’s Big Books. This is my status report:

I began with 3 books and now I have 3 books.

My books were worth $48. Now they are worth $48.

I broke even. I am content.

– Elliot T.

From an ethical standpoint, I don’t see why it matters if someone is
harmed by your ripping off his work. Receiving a benefit from someone
without compensating him in return makes you a low life. (I bought the
pdf, by the way)

If I’m not disrupting an author’s future sales, I’m not harming him.
And it has to be quite clear he would have gotten those sales, or he
has no legal case. And even if he would have gotten sales, many ways
to disrupt those sales are and should be legal, including telling
people the book is terrible, writing a better book, and buying all
bookstores worldwide and remodeling them to sell only coffee.

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 T. 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

On 16/05/06, Jeremy T. [email protected] wrote:

reach his conclusion that it wasn’t harming anyone. Try to keep up.
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 15/05/06, Elliot T. [email protected] wrote:

left un-murdered. He loses that amount of his life. But the thing is,
who is harmed in the hypothetical case I described?

– Elliot T.
Curiosity Blog – Elliot Temple

When a person makes a physical item, they can gain a salary and everyone
is
happy, but when a person makes an information-based item, they can’t
gain a
salary except by somehow producing something else (like support or
something). The moral problem of the situation isn’t about not harming
the
person by depriving them of property; everyone will agree they still
have
the items they started out with. The moral problem of the situation is
that
someone has done something for you in return for an income, and you’ve
spent
your energy thinking up and defending a loophole.

If a man helps you in return for you helping him, don’t come up with
excuses
to take advantage of the guy.

On 5/15/06, Austin Z. [email protected] wrote:

that some pissant little freak would advocate this action at all. I
was similarly annoyed that people reacted as badly to Dave T.'s
announcement that the Rails 2nd Edition would be the same price. These
people have done a lot for the Ruby community.

They deserve your financial support. Don’t be a pissant thief. Even
temporarily. There are “sample chapters” for a reason.

On the other side, we should also promote the creation of free
software and free documentation. I’m already a big book buyer but
I’m always in favor to buy a book when the book (or the older
revision) is falling into the public domain (or under a free license)
after a short period like 2 or 4 years after its publication.

Just my 0.02 EUR,

adulau

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

“If I can’t afford it or wouldn’t pay for it anyway, who would it harm
?”
There are two parts to this: you’re not getting any money from me anyway
and
I’m not harming by taking it.

If you need the book like a man who is destitute needs a loaf of bread
(you’re going to die or suffer serious injury) no one is going to have
much
moral scorn for you if you take it. If that’s the case, ask the author
for
a copy, your friends for some money, your library for a copy; if no one
can
help you, by all means, take it.

The argument isn’t usually used as a defense of that sort of thing.
Instead, those who give it simply want something pleasurable. Since
this is
almost certainly the case, if a man works hard for your enjoyment and
asks
for something in return that you can’t provide, why not forgo the
pleasure
instead of treating him like a slave who must provide for your wants for
nothing in return ?

If he’s not getting anything pleasurable (money) from you anyway, why
are
you getting anything pleasurable (knowledge presented well) from him
anyway
? Is he your slave ?

You may not be causing him any harm, sure. However, this is a parlor
trick,
a magician’s misdirection: look at this one moral harm over here I’ve
avoided, ignore the one behind the curtain. The moral problem isn’t
harm,
it’s taking without giving when you didn’t need to take at all.

On May 15, 2006, at 16:03, Elliot T. 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.

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 M.” copyright.
I think 10 years is sufficient for any copyright or patent.

Gus Calabrese
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

On 2006-May 19, at 11:00 AM, Dave H. wrote:

On May 15, 2006, at 16:03, Elliot T. 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.

I am going to reply in this thread off-list. If you want to be
included, please email me off-list: [email protected] and I will CC you.

Elliot

On May 19, 2006, at 10:00 AM, Dave H. wrote:

the creator if you violate his/her copyright). US Copyright law, in

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 T.

On May 16, 2006, at 15:08, David P. 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.

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:

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

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 H. wrote:

On May 16, 2006, at 15:08, David P. 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.