quite right, the analogy of a library to piracy is clearly untenable
The sole exception is the idea that someone could read a book by borrowing it instead of purchasing it, however there are legal restrictions to this. So while there is no doubt that libraries potentially decrease the income relative to a published work in many cases there is no other aspect to a library that mirrors piracy.

When you state that reproduction and distribution essentially robs the person of income you are correct. This is clearly demonstrated. The library analogy in particular is poor because libraries do not reproduce and distribute works free of charge, nor do they allow an individual to legally copy and or keep a book that has been borrowed.

Snozz appears to argue for the sake of argument alone. I find that to be argumentative, that and his aggressive tact is quite reminiscent of troll tek. My opinion regarding that is something I should be free to have without being censored or banned regarding it. I have no wish to slander him and and not making a value judgement regarding him as a person.

A book is essentially a service, like a meal at a restaurant, taking a service that costs money and not paying for it is not ethical, be it online or off. Some people feel they are entitled to take what they want, be it online or off, to me it is a matter of respect. I know several internet pirates who shoplift books and feel the same about shoplifting as they do making and downloading copies, they feel that this is how they are fighting corporatism, that if they want something they cannot afford then it is okay to steal it. This type of mentality is both prevalent and not limited to online behavior.

Well...this kind of merges two points...it's a crime for them to do anything with it because it's his idea. If he chooses to sit on it and keep it entirely to himself, that's his right. The issue with intellectual property is that the actual idea is the property of an individual/entity and therefore they have sole control over what happens with this idea, if anything. This idea is singular...it is not reproducible...it is akin to a work of art. Ideas are subject to theft, not piracy.

If I steal the Mona Lisa out of the museum, I don't need to do anything with it other than hold onto it for my actions to affect others. In the case of intellectual property, this would be akin to Ford patenting the windshield wiper, they don't need to make a single penny off of it in order to prevent the idea's creator from "owning" it. Once they patent it, they have stolen (not pirated) the idea because the idea now legally belongs to them and they are the only people who can do anything with the idea (including doing nothing). Does that make sense? I feel like I rambled a bit of that and can put it more succinctly if necessary

Profit is a different, albeit related discussion. The thing is, with piracy, you can't claim it robs the author of any profit as there is no guarantee the individual would purchase the good if it were not available through pirated channels. Take music for example...if you look at the digital music collection of someone who pirates, they probably have a LOT of music. If you were to ask them to break their music down by how much they listen to it/how big a fan of certain groups they are, you will undoubtedly wind up with a hierarchy. Let's say this hierarchy has 5 levels:

1) Awesome music
2) Great music
3) Good music
4) Crap music
5) Gag/joke/not-quite music

We could reasonably assume that if this person were to be entirely restricted to only non-pirated music, ALL of the music in the lower 2 categories would be gone and probably sections of the third category as well. People don't buy music that they download solely because its funny or trashy or part of an inside joke. People don't buy lil Wayne CDs if they think he's garbage, but when you can download it and give a listen for free, people don't think twice. Now, looking at it like this, its possible that an artist gets more exposure in the world of piracy...when anyone can download you and pass you on (even if they think most of your work is garbage) it's easy to amass publicity and get your name out there. If you have to buy the cd, its quite likely that you will get less exposure overall.

Ultimately, the take-away is that it is impossible to say to what degree (if any), piracy results in lost sales...as there is no guarantee that people who pirated a given song/book/movie/etc would have even considered buying it.


With a library book, I can check it out and renew it multiple times...should no one else be interested in the book, I can continuously check it out as much as I like. I can take notes on the book, I can photocopy/scan pages, I can essentially do everything with a library book that I can with a digital copy except hold onto it for literally as long as I please regardless of anyone else. What would be the difference in having an electronic copy of a book or checking it out from the library 10 months out of the year?

Many of the topics we discuss are esoteric, thus there is generally not high demand for the books, so this doesn't seem all that far off to me. What can I explicitly do with a downloaded copy that I can't do with a library book, other than hold onto it indefinitely? If this is the only issue...what would you say to the fact that at the job I work now, I have checked out journals and renewed them multiple times over the course of a year? No one else is asking for them so the library is letting me hold onto them indefinitely (essentially). How is this different than me downloading copies of the journals?

Give me a break, calling someone a troll is passing a value judgement plain and simple...engaging in doublespeak is not prudent.

My arguments in this thread are all well thought-out and articulated...I'm arguing because I believe your views to be entirely flawed, not because I like to argue.

Ignoring my points while claiming to have refuted them is immature, as is refusing to elaborate on your claims of Strassman and Pinchbeck engaging in pseudoscience, especially seeing as one of them is a lauded member of the scientific community and the other is a private researcher/author who works outside of the scientific community.

This seems like a touchy subject for you...I'm guessing you have some vested interest in publishing. That's all well and good, but I would ask you to direct your frustration somewhere that isn't me, I really don't appreciate it.

peace,
SB

I see your points, and agree that 1- this site acts much like a library, and 2- there is likely a small (if any) monetary loss to the authors. This site may even result in more book sales for the authors in the long run.

Thank you for taking the time to write it all out. I'm glad there is some serious consideration that has gone into the decisions of this site. It is sometimes hard to split out the the corporate interest from genuine interest on behalf the writer.

The last pang of righteousness that I have with the matter is that the authors may not want to have their books posted here, though there is no way to know-- they very possibly would be thrilled about the exposure. A creator should have some say in what happens to their creation. I assume if one of the authors became a member of the site, and requested that the file be taken down, that you (or other mods) would acquiesce to their wishes. I am tempted to track down some of the authors to invite them here-- it is a wonderful place that they helped make possible, and they would no doubt enrich the conversation.

I think, if we were to ever receive any explicit requests to remove files by their original authors, there would be little, if any, hesitation to remove their works. Afaik, this hasn't happened, but Trav is more than reasonable and I would be shocked to see any real resistance if someone raised a legitimate issue about something they had created that was being hosted on the Nexus against their will.

I would LOVE to see some of the authors of various entheogen-related materials drop by, I think that would be AMAZING. Hey, for all we know some of them could already be here as vocal or not so vocal members I know Strassman has been invited at least once, but declined because he's too busy to hang around a forum...but ya never know who might be hiding behind these internet monikers.

A book itself is physical property, not intellectual property. It is not the ideas contained within it that are copyrighted, nor has this been claimed. Access to the book is a service, be it through purchase or through a library, which still requires monetary compensation.
It is not analogous a patented method in any way. Pirating a book is like having a contractor build you a house and then taking it and refusing to pay, it is about physical property and access services regarding content. The idea is not copyrighted, just the service of the presentation of it


I disagree that this has ever been the issue regarding profit, the issue is that many of those who would purchase the book do not do so when they can obtain it for free, be it by stealing it from a shelf at a bookstore or library or from an online source.

The problem is not those individuals who would not otherwise obtain the work, that is a straw man.


legally you are not entitled to reproduce most books by notation or by scanning them without express consent from the author.

not legally speaking, likewise you cannot make alterations, you cannot destroy the book and you cannot legally copy and distribute it. About the only thing you can legally do with a library book is read it and take notes upon it provided you are not doing so to reproduce the book. likewise you cannot check out the book from the library for free, it is a service not an entitlement

the primary difference is that there are numerous libraries and each one must pay for the copies they have, from money collected from the patrons, however an electronic copy can be distributed and copied in a manner that is not legal for libraries to do. I have also seen libraries order extra copies of books that have high demand, something that never happens for pirated works


I believe otherwise, i believe they were well written, but not well thought out, for example you make numerous claims that are not true, such as that you are legally entitled to scan a library book. Also i have read enough of your posts to know that you not only like to argue, you are incredibly good at it.

I believe them to have been clearly and distinctly refuted in this thread but that you choose to ignore that.

I made this thread out of compassion for what i have seen piracy do, as i have stated numerous times, i also mentioned that i have no commercial interest regarding this matter, something you have either chosen to ignore or failed to read. I know the game you play for what it is and you are clearly incredibly adept at debating. I am sorry you take my belief that you are trolling this topic as a value judgment. In general i often agree with your opinions shared in this forum, but also note your personality is highly aggressive, as is mine. I like you, despite this difference of opinion.

Ok, you obviously missed my point here. The intellectual property I was referring to was the idea of the windshield wiper in the example shared by Nitegazer. I used this to contrast the physical property of the book...perhaps re-read?

Piracy is not like robbing a house out from under a contractor...here, let's review shall we?




Who are you? How could you possibly know what percentage of people pirating books can/can't afford them? This seems like a claim that's a little beyond your ability to make.


So that's why libraries have huge corporate photocopiers in them? That's why libraries have scanners and explain how you can go about photocopying and scanning pages out of their materials? I have been explicitly instructed by head librarians to photocopy pages out of journals and books that are specifically reserved for professors so that I can get the information without getting in the way of their work.

Since as far back as I can remember going to the library, there have always been machines for reproducing the materials you claim cannot be legally copied. I have been copying library book pages on library-supplied equipment as far back as I can remember, 6 or 7 years old maybe? Even if it is the case that you can't copy books (which I'm quite skeptical about) then libraries openly violate the law themselves and it's clearly not an enforced/important law.

Perhaps I should rephrase my initial claim with regards to copying (as it rings true to me in the state it's in, but apparently not to you):

I have never been informed that I could not legally reproduce sections of library books. In fact, numerous librarians in numerous libraries over the past two decades have helped me do so. From this perspective, if I choose to download a pirated text that I cannot afford for the purpose of my own personal consumption and edification, I see absolutely nothing wrong with it and will continue to engage in such actions.

here:
Copyright Act at 17 U.S.C. §
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html
107 and 108 are the primary sections concerning this

Quote:

the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work...

(then from the next section)
(f) Nothing in this section —

(2) excuses a person who uses such reproducing equipment or who requests a copy or phonorecord under subsection (d) from liability for copyright infringement for any such act, or for any later use of such copy or phonorecord, if it exceeds fair use as provided by section 107;

the existence of the copy machines is not for systematic reproduction and distribution, there are very specific terms to these laws
you are not entitled to reproduce and distribute a work just because you obtained it from a library, you are only entitled to fair use which is aimed at preventing piracy of hard copies

As far as I understand it, this is a flawed explanation of rights given over to the holder of a book on acquisition. The same as software, video, audio or any other copyrightable media; when you acquire a book or similar you only own the paper, ink and whatever else is held physically within the item. You are given usage rights as laid down in the license terms stated by the author/creator/publisher/distributor. You do not as such own the data it contains, just the physical part of it.

ps. Can we have a quote or source for the fact that production of Shulgin’s Book 3 is untenable due to copyright infringement?

wow...nice red herring...why are you distorting the topic?

No one is talking about copying and redistributing...that has nothing to do with piracy for personal consumption, which has been the topic of the entire thread, afaik...at the very least, that's been the entire focus of everything I said.

I mean...you can see that just from the way I re-couched my earlier statement at the end of my last post.

If you look at the beginning of your quote, you can see that for education, research and scholarship, copying the material is acceptable...so it seems to me that anyone pirating such texts for "education, research, or scholarship" is well within their legal rights.

Gonna address any of the actual points I raised?

The laws for visual media, audio and software are notably different than that of books.
The primary usage rights are defined by the fair use laws. For example, if you have a book that tells you how to landscape your yard, you are legally able to do that landscaping if you borrow the book from a friend, the ideas and methods in the book are not proprietary. You may also explain such methods to others or even perform services based upon them for others for money because you are not infringing upon the authors presentation of those methods. An exception exists if the method presented is patented, but that is not a matter of copyright and fair use, instead that is the domain of intellectual property.

You are of course absolutely correct regarding data of media and software.

I wish I had the time to add more at the moment as I find this a very interesting subject, coming from a piracy background at the same time as being an occasional content producer of kinds, with many friends and contacts who work in content production full time (extra funny fact – the owner of one warez server I was admin on actually went on to get into IP law as a profession!).

Regarding fair use, this is mainly a US concept, most other countries do not have this exception to copyright law, and the few that recognise fair use in some form are far more limited in scope than that of the US.

yes, provided it does not contradict the four points given for consideration of copyright infringement

those were:
1 the purpose and character of use
2 the nature of the work itself
3 the amount copied in relation to the entire work (ergo to copy the entire thing is not legal)
and
4 the impact that making the copy has upon the market for the book

just because it is for education does not mean you can violate these considerations

Regarding Book 3 and Shulgin, among some people this is considered common knowledge, however he is not well as you may know, the right people to contact regarding this are people who work with the Shulgins or close friends of the Shulgins. Feel free to inquire, but I am not going to cite a source because i am not representing Shulgin in any way, my opinion is my opinion.

Snozz, how many people who pirate online copies are those who would not otherwise buy them? This is something you said, it is quite a claim to make. Who are you to make it?
How many authors have you talked with regarding this topic?

most of the arguments you use can be directed at your own claims to refute them, it is kind of fun to read them

I will state that I am in full agreement with Snozz. Piracy is not theft. This comes from someone who has been in the music industry. My family has mad its living from being in the music industry. I am pro piracy, because from what I've seen, it actually increases revenue. I've also know from firsthand experience that independent and major labels leak recordings onto the net to get a buzz going. I imagine it probably happens in the publishing industry also.

I have a question for OP. There are some musician and author groups who believe that selling used books and albums is also infringing on the income of the artists and that the artist should get money every time the book or album is re-sold. I saw this in action first hand. I owned record store in D.C. in the 90's when these groups were pouring money into politicians pockets. The result was the pawn squad of the D.C. police implementing draconian paperwork schemes in an obvious attempt to stop stores from selling used cd's and books. We tried to follow their kafkaesque and impossible rules and eventually just didn't do it. Luckily, their funding was inadequate and they couldn't enforce the scheme. In Md. some stores suffered and lost quite a bit of money. I know of one that was actually forced to close because of an overzealous pawn squad.

So: do you think that selling used books should be banned because the author doesn't get any money from the sale?

Albert,

I'm not claiming whether or not people can afford them...you specifically claimed that many people who would buy these books (read: could afford to obtain) don't and instead pirate them.

I'm asking you how you know this, I'm not making any claims about this, so turning that question back to me seems rather illogical.

It also seems to me that it would be quite simple to copy those books under legal scholarship etc without violating any of their qualifiers...that would be for the courts to decide.


Also, great points Mister_Niles

I have no doubt about that regarding the music industry. Sadly authors do not sell merchandise and concert tickets so increased distribution of their work does not have the same positive impact that it does for musicians. I have several friends in the music industry and totally agree with you.

I have seen it cause small publishers and self published authors go under actually. If they had another income aspect to their work, such as musicians have in the form of concerts and merchandise then it would be different.


No I do not feel that selling used books should be banned. The copy involved has been paid for, hopefully, and since there is no reproduction involved the author and publisher do not lose any money per copy because it was already paid for and the right to own it is transferable, for example you can buy a book and give it as a gift, you just can't legally copy it and give that as a gift.

I am also not an advocate of intellectual property laws in general, this area of law needs serious reform. At present it (intellectual property law) is something i consider unethical. I am in favor of publishing into the public domain whenever possible.


it may seem illogical but it comes from this statement you made:


I am just going to point this out:
http://www.mediabistro.c...books-attributor_b11678


When you are self published, as many good authors tend to be, then the economic impact of piracy is severe. If your publishing company sent you a check when you gave them the book, then the impact is much less, though it can still affect future publishing by limiting the potential sales and thus causing good works to be denied. Essentially the more esoteric and obscure the publication the more damaging the potential impact of piracy is because demand is already limited.

I have a copy of J.Ott's Pharmacotheon.

torrents ftw

I don’t mean to hammer a point, but considering a large part of the start of this discussion was that Shulgin’s current financial woes are due to large scale piracy of his materials and publication of further works was untenable as a result of piracy, can we please have a source or quote?

i'm in agreement with snozzl

but what is all this long winded arguing ever going to really accomplish?

The paradigm has now changed. Content creators will never be able to revert the masses to the old mechanisms of control and dissemination of information.

We, content producers and consumers, must adapt to the current situation. There are no other options.