So, since I'm overly critical of stuff.... *New 52 topic

[Ziggy Stardust]

Ok, I do NOT have the money to buy all 52 books of the new 52.

So, I did a bad thing, sorta. I found a torrent and downloaded them all. And I plan on reading them and giving them as fair an assessment as I can.

Now, before you lambaste me for the illegal download, please note: I HAD ZERO INTENTIONS OF BUYING ANY OF THESE BOOKS!

What does this mean? I DO have enough spare cash to buy maybe a half dozen books or so a month if any of these titles truly grab me. And I'm curious to read entire issues as opposed to segments posted here where people are commenting on specific titles.

Starting tonight, I'm reading thses books... in order... with as pen a mind as I can bring to the table.

Wish me luck.

[Morrison_Lad]

Good luck.

And no, I wouldn't lambaste you. Back in the bad old days (not they're over, by a long shot) of the constant anti-piracy rants by the MPAA and RIAA, I always would laugh internally when some executive would claim that every pirated song is lost money.

Well, no, it isn't. It's the equivalent (with people doing something like you're doing) of the difference between walking into the coffee shop and them offering you a free coffee, and having to buy it yourself when you're not really that sure you even want a coffee. A free Hazelnut latte? ABSOLUTELY! A $4.12 Hazelnut latter when I'm already kinda caffeined out? Nah. I'll pass.

And in the case of someone like you, your LCS and DC might actually end up getting money that they otherwise would never have seen. *shrug* Doesn't seem like there are any losers in that equation.

[zemo]

Except that he stole. There's tons of good reasons, but in the end, and everything considered, he broke the law. Not saying that he is a horrible person for that or whatever, but everybody that downloads comics has to be 100% clear on the fact that they are breaking the law. Even if DC is making more money out of him this way than if he hadn't bought any comics at all, a law has been broken. No reasoning whatsoever will change that fact.

[Morrison_Lad]

Except that he stole. There's tons of good reasons, but in the end, and everything considered, he broke the law. Not saying that he is a horrible person for that or whatever, but everybody that downloads comics has to be 100% clear on the fact that they are breaking the law. Even if DC is making more money out of him this way than if he hadn't bought any comics at all, a law has been broken. No reasoning whatsoever will change that fact.

This is going to be last post on this part of this discussion, since I remember these back-and-forths going to epic lengths back a million years ago on /. and I can't really take any more of it.

But to steal something, you need to deny someone else of something of value. There also has to be an intent to deprive involve. In other words, if I take your copy of Moby Dick as I leave your house, thinking it was mine which I had left there, I am not guilty of theft. There was no mens rea, and no intent to deprive. It was simply an honest mistake.

Now, beyond all that stuff, I have long-argued that if you were never going to pay for the song/movie/whatever in the first place, under any circumstances, but you d/l it because it is free, then you haven't actually deprived anyone of anything (in this case, money). They were never going to get the money, under any circumstances. After you d/l the song/movie/whatever, the distributor has exactly as much money from you as they had originally: $0.

A lot of people disagree with me. And it's certainly a fine line between someone who is just checking something out, and someone who more than likely just doesn't want to pay. But I would argue strenuously (were I not so tired of this particular argument) that those two people's intentions, and therefore whether it is actually an act of "theft" are extremely different.

Anyhow, like I said, this has been argued to death over the past 15-20 years especially. No one's really going to add anything new to the discussion at this point.

[FanboyStranger]

This is going to be last post on this part of this discussion, since I remember these back-and-forths going to epic lengths back a million years ago on /. and I can't really take any more of it.

But to steal something, you need to deny someone else of something of value. There also has to be an intent to deprive involve. In other words, if I take your copy of Moby Dick as I leave your house, thinking it was mine which I had left there, I am not guilty of theft. There was no mens rea, and no intent to deprive. It was simply an honest mistake.

Now, beyond all that stuff, I have long-argued that if you were never going to pay for the song/movie/whatever in the first place, under any circumstances, but you d/l it because it is free, then you haven't actually deprived anyone of anything (in this case, money). They were never going to get the money, under any circumstances. After you d/l the song/movie/whatever, the distributor has exactly as much money from you as they had originally: $0.

A lot of people disagree with me. And it's certainly a fine line between someone who is just checking something out, and someone who more than likely just doesn't want to pay. But I would argue strenuously (were I not so tired of this particular argument) that those two people's intentions, and therefore whether it is actually an act of "theft" are extremely different.

Anyhow, like I said, this has been argued to death over the past 15-20 years especially. No one's really going to add anything new to the discussion at this point.

On your first point, if you take the book as an accident, it's not really theft because you thought it belonged to you. It was not a willful act. If you realize your mistake and keep the book anyway, then it is theft. It was a willful decision to keep something that did not belong to you.

On your second point, there is a value to these books for the producer, if not the consumer. DC produces these books with the expectation that they will be bought, which is their inherent value. When you circumvent paying for the books through an illegal download, you are depriving DC of getting the value for their product. As a consumer, you might feel that these books have no value, although I'd argue if you're going to read them through any means, legal or illegal, that they do have a value to you. (What you're actuallly arguing is price.) Even if you personally weren't going to give any money for the book in question, there is still the assumption that someone would (even as a download), which does deprive the producer, no matter how you want to rationalize it. When you willfully make the decision to do this, it's still theft.

Third, DC does provide the opportunity to sample their product through their previews, which are free. That's what they're willing to offer as their "free sample". That's the equivalent of your free Hazelnut coffee. Much like that theoretical Hazelnut coffee, if someone passed up the book after the reading the preview, than that was at the company's risk. Their attempt to entice you didn't work, but it was stilll presented-- it was an assumed, calculated risk by the producer. It was not an attempt to circumvent purchasing the item. In this case, this is someone saying I don't know if I want a doughnut, but I know I don't want to pay for a doughnut, so I'll just lift one when no one is looking.

Now, personally, I think there's a lot worse things in the world than illegally downloading something, but to rationalize it as not being theft is just ludricrous.

[Corrina]

You want a positive topic and you start with talking about piracy and illegal downloads?

::epic facepalm::

[Kevin T Brown]

This will not end well.

[Corrina]

"I took something I should have paid for but maybe in the future, I might buy some more, so we're all good, right. Am I right?"

That's your logic, Ziggy. In point of fact, you might never pay for anything. I think it's more honest to say "I wanted to read and I didn't want to spend the money so I stole it because I think the law is dumb," than say "well, hey, I stole your stuff but maybe in the future I won't, and that will be good for you."

I might point out the DC (and the creators who get a cut) were counting on the curiosity that you express in wanting the books to be an incentive to buy them and thus make money. Sure, I want to read all the 52 books too if I could afford it. But I can't, so I go to places like the library and just read other stuff I enjoy instead. There's plenty of free reading available on libraries and on the 'net that's legal, so I don't quite understand the temptation to take stuff illegally.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Here's what's what.

If this was 20 years ago and I did not have the option to pre-read these books, DC would have gotten ZERO dollars from me. I would NOT support a questionbable relaunch, especially at the prices they are charging for these books.

My sister has high speed internet and let me use her connection to download this torrent. I can now read these books and decide if I do want to spend money on any of them or not.

So, DC could have gotten nothing from me with

If not, I won't be bothering to down load any furhter issues either.

With my distaste for how things were going DC would have gotten nary a penny from me as I would not even remotely want to condone their decision with any of my hard earned money. Because, whether I hate the book or like it, my money spent to find out still counts as "sales" and bragging rights for DC.

This way, I may just give them money, because if I like the book, I will track it down and buy it, even for more than the cover price.

So, DC could have gotten nothing from me with the prospect of further nothing in the future, or they got nothing from me with the prospect that I will finally start buying some of their books again for the first time in almost 10 years.

I make too little and they charge too much for me to give them anything on just a "maybe it's good" or "folk on da web say it's great".

Stealing? If I planned to keep it up, yeah. Fact is, I am going to delete them all when I'm done and then go out and buy the ones I liked.

[zemo]

Here's the very simple thing: as soon as you want the books they have a value. You might not value them high enough to buy them, but there is value inherent by the simple principle of supply and demand. Yes, the demand, at least in your specific case, does not equal what the supply is offering. But that does not change the fact that if you take something for free that, as established, has a value, then you break the law. Easy peasy.

And also, this is not, and has never been, a dispute about what anybody THINKS is right or wrong. It's the law. The same law (the term being used in a general fashion) that will allow you to be sued if you steal from a big, soul-less company also, for example, protects your own independent comic to be taken by said company and made into a successful franchise without you getting any of the profit. You live in a society and therefore have chosen to abide by its laws. You don't get to cherry-pick. 's as easy as that.