I still dont see how downloading differs from a library.

Libraries do pay for their books. I believe they may even have to pay rates on a per-lend basis (see the ongoing furore about e-book rentals: publishers are trying to impose an artificial limit to the number of times a library can copy/loan an e-book in an attempt to mimic the perishability inherent to dead tree books).

My personal views on copyright vs open source culture hinge upon a simple utilitarian equation. I do not believe any human being should be deprived of information for want of material resource, and I will do everything in my power to enable free access to as much information for as many people as I possibly can. All economic implications are secondary; dispersal of knowledge is foremost.

I believe originators (be they makers of music, cinema, books, porn, whatever) reap a net benefit from this equation in that they reach an exponentially greater audience than they ever would hiding behind a paywall; this in turn results in greater profit due to the increased pool of consumers, a percentage of whom will purchase hardcopy and otherwise become long-term supporters (financially and memetically) of the content originator. Many studies into the effects of 'piracy' on artists and other content originators have borne this out as fact, quite contradictory to the line put out by the RIAA, MPAA, and other copyright shills and anti-cultural profiteers.

I really wish it was the case that originators made back their publishing costs through their work being pirated, but they don't in many cases unfortunately. Shulgin is a good example, I can think of hardly anyone who has contributed so much to the betterment of humanity through psychedelic exploration and yet due to piracy his income has steadily decreased even as he reaches a wider range of people and a whole new generation.

He will likely lose his home and be unable to pay for his healthcare expenses due to piracy.
Also in his case piracy undermined his ability to publish and we will never have the third book, in the end this behavior harms us all.


If you think that stealing the fruits of someones labor, essentially destroying their career and job through theft is the same as checking a book out from the library... Well that says enough in and of itself.

The idea that all information should be free becomes a problem when it becomes your personal information, or information that costs you your job or harms others. However discussing information from a book, essentially sharing it, does not require theft. Citations and claims are essential components of a bibliography that illustrate the simple fact that a lot of information can be shared into the public domain without the cited works themselves being stolen. I have no problem posting information and citing the source and thus sharing it without betraying the author. As for all information being free that is idealistic but not ver practical when it comes to how it conflicts with an expectation of a right to privacy.

To believe that info in general should be public and free means that one opposes the very concept of privacy. Think about it, narcing is essentially the sharing of information that should not be public or freely available. One cannot oppose snitching and believe that information should be public and free.

Clearly our rights should never go so far as to harm the rights of others, be it a right to privacy or a right to work and obtain an income by doing research and publishing. Research and publication cost money, is it right to expect that we are owed information because it exists? Is it right to expect that stealing from researchers and those who publish is not going to harm their future ability to do further research and publish?

It is destroying the very cause it seeks to promote and we have alternatives to theft, this forum is one such example where discussion of published information can occur without theft. there is no need to harm others through thievery to be able to share information with those who will benefit from it.

I don’t see where the issue is with Shulgin, they give away the second parts of PiHKAL / TiHKAL (the chemistry parts), as far as I can see PiHKAL full version is not commonly available. TiHKAL full version is findable, I think it must be fairly recent as I had not bumped into it until I saw this thread. People seem to be quite respectful of his work. Dirty Pictures, for instance, despite incredibly long delays in release still doesn’t seem to be commonly available, I can’t imagine any other such person not having their content everywhere if they left such an anticipated film so long without release.

Which is his third book? Do you mean The Shulgin Index: Psychedelic Phenethylamines and Related Compounds Volume 1, released (hardback) in March? (I believe is his 6th published book if you include Entheogens and the Future of Religion, 5th otherwise).

Many people, including myself have supported (readonated) money to members of the psychedelic family in need. I think this should be the standard. No need to feed capitalism.

Authors don't currently get paid on a per-checkout basis.

By the logic presented in Al's earlier posts, this means that people are betraying the authors and stealing their books

Technically, it's clearly not the case, but in the terms that this argument against piracy was couched, libraries fit the qualification of things that the OP is railing against. After all, they pay for the book once and then as many people as want can read it without accumulating additional funds for the author.

If I know a given book is at my local library and available, but I choose to read/download an online PDF how is that any different? If I check out the book I can make scans of pages that I want to keep, I can gain access to all the knowledge and the author doesn't make anything off of my intellectual gain.

Al, you still haven't addressed this ^^^ you just dismiss it as not-analagous to what you claim to be "theft" even though it's clearly the same. Additionally, you still have not explained why any of the people you mentioned to be pseudoscientists were labelled by you as such. If you want to have a discussion, that's fine, I'd love to be a part of that. If you just want a platform to shout your maxims from, I'm done with this thread.

Libraries wreck the "car-stealing" analogy presented and I will reiterate again...

Piracy is NOT theft.

A side of me wants to scream George Carlin type retorts regarding this debate because a part of me is a little immature twerp.

With that said, I don't think that one author can sell enough books to keep the medical system from bankrupting him if he is uninsured or under insured medically and has a major medical problem like cancer, stroke, heart surgery, etc. I personally have known people who opt for cancer treatment like chemotherapy (barbaric profit motive oriented treatment for sure), and the course of treatment runs $300,000. So people downloading an electronic book are not part of this problem. The problem of out of control medical costs for medical treatments that are dubious in their effectiveness is a huge one in this society, but it is unrelated.

As for libraries doing other than paying for the book and making it available, I have never heard of a per checkout fee being paid authors of non electronic books. Do you have any citations to that effect for non electronic media like books and periodicals?

it does not exist, but was going to be called Book 3. Read the first foreword for The Simple Plant Isoquinolines, which originally began as an appendix for Book 3, the book was going to be about psychoactive isoquinolines.


libraries pay for their copies, which people do not keep, they do not copy the books either, if every library in every city bought a book that would generate enough money to pay back loans for publication.

Downloading is nothing like libraries.
If you keep a book from a library you have to pay for it.

Piracy is by definition theft, libraries pay for their books. How can you argue that taking and keeping something without paying for it is the same as being able to temporarily borrow something someone paid for? You really are not able to tell the distinction here?

If libraries stole their copies and you could just take them for free without paying for a library card and keep them, then you would be right. However you are not right.

I'm probably mistaken. There has been quite a ruckus in the UK regarding proposed cuts to public library budgets and lots of bullshit being thrown around.

Certainly though the more times a book is loaned, the more wear and tear it receives and will thus need to be replaced sooner - I think the average lifespan of a physical book is about 50 loans before it needs replacing. So technically, every loaning-out of a dead tree book does put some money in the author's (or more likely the publisher's) pocket, hence the industry's desire to protect that revenue stream by imposing restrictive licenses on potentially-infinite digital copies.

Piracy is by definition, not theft...


You keep prattling on about how people are "taking" and "keeping" and "stealing" books...this is wrong...people are utilizing copies of books while leaving the original intact and unaffected.

You fail to acknowledge the fact that I can check out a library book and take notes on any parts I want to or make copies or scans of this book...I don't need to pay to keep the book...I can keep any relevant pieces I want under the existing framework.

In the case of piracy, someone probably purchased the book and then posted the copies online. Your assertions have said nothing about how the initial copy was obtained...just that all pirated material is stolen (while ignoring the initial copy from which the new copies are made).

So...one copy was paid for and many people view it, just like a library.

Sorry, what's the distinction you are trying to make?

it isn't worth my time to argue with people like you Snozz
maybe that goes both ways

It isn't worth your time or you can't refute the points?

(and you still haven't addressed the pseudoscientists)

the issue is clear enough as it stands, people can consider it
convincing you is not my aim, however your claims of the library being the same as piracy has been rather well refuted in this thread, that you do not see that is not my problem

i did not realize however that you were such an argumentative troll, until i looked at more of your posts, it really isn't in my best interest to care what you think

Check the Real Science thread, i briefly addressed straussman there, feel free to share your opinion on it, but don't expect me to play your games.

It's Strassman.

You never even addressed my full examples (most noticeably the final example presented) so to say you "refuted" my points is laughable at best.

Demanding evidence and logic from people does not make one an "argumentative troll"...perhaps you should take some time and consider this.

Your argument clearly lacks a nuanced understanding of piracy/theft, while your unwillingness to expound upon accusations levelled against a respected member of the scientific community (and your confusion regarding Pinchbeck's nonexistent scientific credentials) makes me question your intentions.

Many good points have been brought up as to why piracy is not bankrupting authors and destroying their livelihoods. I can't tell you how many times I read a book that a friend let me borrow, one person bought it, 2 people read it, did I steal it? I did not steal it but if I enjoyed the book, maybe I'll buy the author's next one, which I wouldn't have done if my friend didn't lend it to me. People want their work to be recognized, and the more people that have access to their work, the more people are aware of his or her talents and will support them.

In music, it is not expected to make tons of money off of an album, you're lucky to get it back. You make money from live shows and build your audience and that opens the door for more opportunities. Although I'm not an author, I imagine it works similar. If the author has a reputation he will be spoke about more, the book may gain more reviews from critics, he/she may be offered to make appearances or an interview to promote the book or a future work. More people will read the book and thats the point isn't it?

These days its so easy to get lost in the shuffle because people have access to EVERYTHING through the internet. To me, artists and authors need all the support they can get to separate themselves from the mass.

I will preface this with an admittance that I have been quite involved with the piracy scene (back in the late 90s/early 00s), and have been an admin on 3 servers whose main purpose was to disseminate pirated material – warez/bookz/audio etc. This probably makes me biased.

Whilst I can see that in some ways piracy can be seen as economically damaging, however there are some pertinent plus points to piracy, in particular the sharing of information regarding legally questionable subjects like illegal substances. The plus points are not commercial, but rather in the safety and longevity of the information contained within them. Over in the US there is freedom of speech (maybe it won’t last, we will see!), however in many places this is not true, certainly not in my country. If we were to rely on dissemination through official channels only it wouldn’t be that hard a job at all to remove such information from the public. As it is the cat is out of the bag, and there is no way it is getting back in. Rather than thousands of copies in circulation there are many millions stored on hard drives around the world. More people have access than ever. That information is now safe, it wasn’t before the days of online piracy.

As a side note, and without the aim of flogging a dead horse – with regards to Shulgin’s most famous publications, PiHKAL & TiHKAL, I would say that the reason above was precisely why the second parts of the aforementioned books were released to the public domain. The whole books themselves have not been heavily shared, as I say I have only just noticed the existence of the full version of TiHKAL after reading this thread and having a hunt.

As far as I can see Shulgin titles are actually, as far as the scene goes, less shared than anything else similar. Due to the free release of the second parts most people who would not have bought the book but would have pirated it have not got the full books. As far as PiHKAL & TiHKAL are concerned I would say they have possibly done better than most other books on this subject. If people I know have one or two [paper] books on the subject they are most likely to be those.

With all the noise about the piracy of Shulgin’s work leading to his current financial situation being so dire, any chance of a link or a quote that confirms this is Shulgin’s belief? I have looked, but have been unable to find any information regarding this.

Snozz,

I enjoy your perspective (and the other perspectives here) on the issue of 'pirating'-- what an awful term. I will say, though, that your point about copying not being theft is missing something.

Have you ever seen 'Flash of Genius?" It is the story of the inventor of the intermittant windshield wiper. The short version of the story is that a small-time inventor came up with the intermittant winshield wiper, only to have Ford 'steal' the idea. Note that they did not take any actual wipers from the guy, they just took the idea he had been working on and didn't compensate him.

I would also note that Ford does not 'charge' for the wiper mechanism, it just helps them promote their cars, just as the Files section here helps promote this site.

Spoiler Alert: the inventor wins some money at the end of the day, and recognition. Given your views on 'pirating' would you say that the inventor should not have gotten anything? After all, he didn't have anything truly stollen by your definition.

Nitegazer, theft of an idea from which someone can produce something is radically different than the piracy of a copy of a physical book that contains knowledge/information.

You are discussing intellectual property, not physical property...there is a marked difference.

In the case of the book, your copying the book does not allow you to do anything with the book that the book's author could not have already done, nor does it prevent the author from showing that the ideas in his/her book are his/her's...your copying the book doesn't prevent any other person from paying for, reading or otherwise utilizing the book nor does it inhibit the author in any way other than potentially monetarily (which falls on its face if you consider the library example).

Unlike the example you gave, the purpose of a book is to disseminate the information therein, it is a physical product that contains ideas for consumption...in your example, the idea IS the product, which in turns leads to the creation of a material good that can be capitalized on through consumption of the physical product it creates. In your example, stealing (not pirating) the idea prevents the originator of the idea from doing anything with that idea (or at least hinders them substantially).

This kind of attitude does not fit here in the Nexus. You are free to strongly disagree with others and give your reasons for it, but to call someone a troll not only does not help in the discussion, doesnt make the other person change his position, is a fallacy, and also serves to degenerate the general atmosphere.

If you care to continue discussing here please do so respectfully, as you would like to be treated too.

Well said Snozz,

I hope you don’t mind me pushing this a bit further—I’m just trying to figure out my own stand on the matter.
In claiming the copied book is different than a copied idea for a windshield wiper, you state:

“your copying the book does not allow you to do anything with the book that the book's author could not have already done”

I think what you’re saying here is that since Ford actually built the windshield wipers, it precluded the inventor from selling the idea to another car company, and that was the crime. But why would it be a crime, unless preventing the potential sale of a product is a crime. Assuming a book is readily available for purchase, wouldn’t is free distribution (paper or digital) essentially rob the author of potential income in the same way?
You address the potential loss of income in the following:

“copying the book doesn't prevent any other person from paying for, reading or otherwise utilizing the book nor does it inhibit the author in any way other than potentially monetarily (which falls on its face if you consider the library example).”

I don’t see how the library example eliminates a claim to loss of income. Fair Use Doctrine allows for “limited use of copyrighted material.” There are various restrictions on library lending, like the amount of time folks can borrow the books. As indicated earlier, the Library does pay for the copy of the book, only allows limited use of it, and doesn’t allow those borrowing it to copy it. In essence, all of the “Fair Use” categories (libraries, criticism, teaching, etc.) can be seen as promoting sales of the book—they offer a taste, but not the whole meal.

What this site offers is the whole meal, and provides a strong disincentive to the purchase of the book.

I'm tempted to think that the posting of whole books on this site is moraly questionable. There are a few things that Nexus could do to mitigate this:
1- Only post publications that are not readily available for purchase (Like the full TiKal)
2- Post only segments of publications that are readily available
or
3- Actively promote some sort of payment members can make to the authors