Those are in no way the same as pirating, especially considering that you have to give them back.
They are very much the same thing. They allow you to examine and use the material, for free or at low cost, before deciding whether or not to purchase it. They allow countless people to make use of the IP with only a single entity-- in this case, the library-- purchasing a legal copy. Libraries even sell their copies of used books and used DVDs when demand for them drops off, and the publishers never see a dime of that money.
First, the very claim that they wouldn't have paid for it anyway is suspect.
And it's contradictory, because the "noble" characterization is that the "good" pirates would "contribute," as you put it.
I don't know how you can have it both ways, actually.
My ability to obtain free copies has not prevented me from making a single purchase I otherwise would have made, and has in fact led me to making many purchases I otherwise would not have made because I would not have been exposed to the material or considered purchasing it before I downloaded it. I am a pirate, and I contribute, and I contribute again by convincing others to purchase materials they would not have heard of had I not downloaded them illegally.
Besides you know -- I've seen your posts -- that if free copying and distribution is made legal, everyone will stop paying. Or at least the very few who would contribute voluntarily won't be enough to support someone creating content.
I've never argued that. I've argued that if we didn't have some form of copyright protection, it would be impossible for content creators to make a profit. There's a very big difference between a physical copy of a book and a digital copy of a book, and most people
will pay extra for a physical copy; I absolutely believe that the author, designer, or inventor should have exclusive
commercial rights to his work for a limited time, and that this period should be considerably longer than one year.
In fact there
are business models in which I believe intellectual property creators can continue to profit while their works are freely distributed, and I advocate for them. I applaud companies like Paizo and Baen that are taking the initiative to explore those models-- and thriving while doing so.
"Well if they wouldn't [pay for it], then they don't deserve to have it. Period."
Those were your exact words.
Then I don't get why you're all over me above. I'm arguing against legalized unlimited free copying and distribution.
You're also attempting to morally equate piracy with theft and ignoring the public good it creates, and arguing in favor of the ridiculously inflated copyright durations under the current law. Your arguments are contributing to the general atmosphere of stupidity that surrounds this issue and prevents society from seeking rational, equitable solutions that serve
everyone's best interests rather than insane and self-destructive policies like SOPA/PIPA on the creators' side and abolishing copyright altogether (or limiting it to a ridiculously short period) on the consumers' side.
It shouldn't matter if one person or the whole universe benefits from the distribution of intellectual property. It should be up to the owner of the property to decide its distribution. Like it or not, profit benefits mankind by providing an inventive to produce new and improved commodities.
You think I'm some kind of socialist, opposed to the private pursuit of profits? You couldn't be further from the truth. Copyright is a
restriction on the free market, a temporary government-granted monopoly that exists for the sole purpose you just described-- to benefit mankind by creating a profit incentive for artists and inventors. But the key words there are "temporary" and "restriction"; copyright laws are an imposition on the free market for the public good, and should thus only be tolerated to the extent that they
serve the public good.
Some owners of property do make it public domain. I use Open Office in lieu of Office, and GIMP in lieu of Photoshop. Both are public domain by choice of the originators.
No, they're not. Open Office and GIMP are both licensed under the terms of the GNU Public License which has strict terms concerning the uses of licensed materials. Under current copyright law, the earliest instances of open-source software licensed under the GPL won't enter the public domain until the early 22nd century.
