the discussion has moved on but by get rich I meant better than just covering costs. I don't really think Go is the path to riches!

_________________
I am John. John-I-Am.

Out of genuine curiosity, how do people classify the following? (mainly with respect to morality as opposed to legal classification)

1) Downloading unpurchased non-free material to keep with no intention of making payment
2) Downloading unpurchased non-free material to see if it is worth purchasing, and deleting or purchasing accordingly
3) Borrowing non-free material to read or play, and return without a desire to purchase even if enjoyment was had
4) Borrowing non-free material to read or play, and purchasing on return if enjoyment was had, regardless of whether there's an intent to re-read or re-play
5) Accepting gifts of non-free material to read or play, with no intention of buying your own copy
6) Purchasing second hand copies of non-free material from individuals, where no profits go to author or publisher
7) Sharing non-free material with the intention of only needing one copy for multiple persons

I'm particularly curious with 3, 4, and the logical extension of 5 in the same direction (that is, accepting a gift, then passing it on and purchasing your own copy regardless of whether you'd read it again or not, if you thought that the material was good).

EDIT: I'm also interested to see how people compare the morality of 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7

I think the first two are considered piracy, and the rest are traditionally acceptable. (Although I suppose it probably varies in other cultures, I'm American.)

EDIT: In reply to:



I think that 1 and 2 are flouting the spirit of the law in a way that the others aren't, both because of tradition and because of the digital aspect. When you offer something for sale in America, you have an expectation that the buyer has the right of first sale on that object, and may resell it or lend it out as he wishes. Since this is a known cost and since the ability of a consumer to lend stuff out is limited by the physicality of the thing, the publisher can make an informed decision about how much the second-hand market will impact sales, and bake his expectations into the price. Doing things that are against the law subverts that. So does digitally "lending" a copy to an unlimited amount of people.

I'm more interested in the opinion of individuals than the historical status quo - what are your feelings on the 7?

1) Pirating
2) Pirating (but should be supported by the publisher in some legal way, e.g. decent kindle samples or limited lifetime trial copies, e.g. stops working after 7 days)
3) Fine - if you buy something you should be free to lend or sell it.
4) Fine
5) Fine - unless the person giving the gift pirated it.
6) Fine - as 3)
7) Fine - this is what Go club libraries are for, right?

in terms of software I think if only one person has it installed on their computer at any one time this should also be fine. - or as is done at work we have a set number of roaming licenses.

_________________
I am John. John-I-Am.

Once upon a time the Swedish government decided that it should be illegal to cross streets on a pedestrial crossing when the light was red.
However, nobody cared and instead of dedicating 90% of the police force to fine all the lawbreakers it was decided that there should be no punishment for the crime. It is still a crime though.
I have heard that in Finland you can still get fined for crossing, so there everybody crosses the streets some meters away from the crossing, since crossing a street where there is no signal is not a crime.

Is any of those approaches a good idea to implement with regards to illegal copying of e.g. books?
Any other ideas?

Personally, since I am in the business selling go books, Amazon and other similar online stores pose a bigger threat forcing me to keep the prices so low that I really cannot make any money on books. I still carry them but mostly for reasons such as trying to have a large assortment and hopefully sell more of what I can make money on, i.e. boards and stones.
Also, I am a nice guy ;) or more seriously I care for go.

Back to piracy:
We are at a crossroads right now.
Many people download illegally and many/some(?) also buy legal copies, to support the cause/an author they like or because they like the format of a physical book.
I don't think I'm being overly pessimistic when I say that the first group of people will expand on behalf of the later in the future.

This is not advocating piracy, it is facing reality; stick your head into the sand and bye-bye to your business; like it or not but piracy is here to stay and you have to deal with it one way or another.

/Mats

_________________
mohsart - games & books
http://spel.mohsart.se/

1) pirating
2) pirating
3) if as in borrowing a book then okay, if as in borrowing a pdf then pirating
4) if as in borrowing a book then okay, if as in borrowing a pdf then pirating
5) if as in getting a book then okay, if as in borrowing a pdf then pirating
*edit:* 6) okay
7) if as in sharing a book one after another then okay, if as in copying the book to pdf for everyone then pirating

It's surprising that you think #6 is unethical. I mean, people have been purchasing second-hand copies of everything for ages. It's pretty well enshrined in culture.

Would you have said the same thing 15 years ago?

Maybe we understand it differently. I thought it was meant as in: Person A pirates a book and you buy the pirated copy. To me thats piracy. Like buying a cd of a movie that was filmed with a camera in the cinema.

Oh, I thought it was just about reselling things which you bought legally. I guess it could have been meant either way.

The reason I pose the question is to question the purpose of anti-piracy laws. Most laws are designed with purpose in mind, such as criminal laws to prevent anarchy (such as murder, rape and theft laws), or corporate laws to prevent market monopolisation. I have always seen the purpose of anti-piracy laws as protecting intellectual property in a way that authors (or other figures in the "commercial chain" somewhere) receipt of benefits (normally money) are protected.

Of the 7 examples I gave, only 1 and 2 are considered legally to be piracy, yet ironically it is only 2 and 4 that aren't depriving the relevant industry of financial remuneration for their efforts. I can't help but wonder why people feel that 3, 5, 6 and 7 constitute acceptable ethical behaviour and 2 doesn't, aside from the argument "anything legal is ok, anything illegal isn't, and morality has nothing to do with it".

@p2501, I apologise, 6) is ambiguous, but was meant to be purchasing a second hand copy of a previously legitimately purchased original

@cata: "people have been purchasing second-hand copies of everything for ages. It's pretty well enshrined in culture." You mean when people have been pirating things for long enough for it to be enshrined in culture (if we aren't there already!), it becomes ethical? Do you consider common cultural practice to be the benchmark for setting ethics?

Another similar question:

I buy electronic media, and email it to someone else then delete my copy.
My friend finishes playing or reading it, and emails it back before deleting his copy.

This is technically piracy, but how does this compare to borrowing material and then returning it?

How does sharing material on a local network compare, with regards to piracy, to sharing a purchased book between people?

Ah I see. Thats fine of course.

Well morally I think there is nothing wrong with it since it is similar to lending a book or cd. But it is hard to prove legally and hard to convince someone that thats what actually happend.

OK, well, my comment was really just remarking on his position, not staking out a position on #6. But I'm a utilitarian, not a deontologist, so I don't think there are things which are inherently "right" and "wrong." I think there are two things to consider when it comes to the ethics of practices like this:

- A) Does it benefit society?

- B) Do the people affected actually agree about A?

Given that we live in a world with a lot of very biased humans making rules, I think that B is pretty important to maintain any semblance of order and objectivity. So yeah, I think that an important thing defining what is "ethical" regarding piracy is what people agree on as being reasonable.

To my experience pirated go books are not really rare and an exception. I've made numerous encounters with people who have pirated books, offered, etc. ... But thats just my personal experience.

Another question: - what about books that are no longer available as in impossible to obtain an original copy?

Ok, in an attempt at seeking clarification:

Person A purchases 10 Go books legitimately.
Person B illegally downloads 10 Go books, and subsequently purchases 7 of them, deleting the copies of the other 3.
Person C borrows those 10 books from person A (all legitimately bought), and keeps 7 of them as person A doesn't want them back.

Person A contributes the value of 10 books into the Go book industry.
Person B contributes the value of 7 books into the Go book industry.
Person C contributes no value at all into the Go book industry.

Your feeling is that A an C are both morally acceptable, but B is not - correct?

PS I see copies that are no longer in print as acquirable by any means, but I still think morally it would be appropriate to seek a way of donating to the author or rights holder provided that they are still alive to do so.

Wow, way to increase the abstraction in one short post

1) Yes, although this is entirely based on a personal acceptance of societal normality. I begrudgingly admit that there is no moral basis to this opinion.
2) Legally yes. Morally, I have no idea.
3) Legally no. Morally, I have no idea.
4) Legally yes. Morally, I have no idea.
5) N/A
6) N/A, but intellectually, no.
7) Willingness to Pay, and Willingness to Accept

Good to know my university promotes piracy!

I hope you didn't read my posts as *advocating* piracy. I was simply making the point that it is a feature of the universe that cannot be changed. If publishers and authors wish to stay in business they will have to plan accordingly. They need to work with the universe, not against it, because the universe will always win. You can argue that this is a bug in the universe, and I may or may not agree, but for the immediate future we have no manner of fixing it even if it is a bug.

It's just like, if you want to fly, you must work with the understanding of gravity. Publishers need to work with the understanding that the marginal cost of spreading information is effectively 0. IMO, people need to start paying for the *creation* of information, not its *distribution*.

FWIW, I don't personally pirate stuff.

_________________
That which can be destroyed by the truth should be.
--
My (sadly neglected, but not forgotten) project: http://dailyjoseki.com