Origami Piracy

[TheRealChris]

I'm not encouraging anybody to do anything. as I said before, everybody's responsible for his own doings. Dave, blacking out the good points and keeping only the bad ones just to create an "look, that's the bad guy"-sign is a poor way to go.
I know that I break the law, but in many cases the law is just a trashcan of bad ideas. half of my family was nearly broken by the law. a bank ripped-off my mother in the name of the law... 35 thousand euros. I was ripped of by a crafsman... 4 thousand euros. all in the name of the law. a very good friend is financially ruined. not because he was doing wrong, just because somebody bent the law in the right direction. that somebody was not even adjudged, because legally he wasn't doing wrong. that's the law you're praisng, Dave!
sentences like "you're breaking the law" doesn't affect me, because the law tried to break me to many times.
as I said before (you may remeber, thats the point you blacked out for some reason): if I do like a book I buy it, if I don't buy it, I wouldn't have bought it ever. and I'm not responsible for other people that don't buy anything, because I don't have the right nore do I have the knowledge about their live to judge them. within the same reasons you don't have the right to judge over me, and the fact that I'm a moderator of the forum doesn't serve the discussion in any way.

[nonkelgans]

I don't see what your series of unfortunate events has to do with the fact that you might of might not download copyrighted material. 2 wrongs does not make 1 good. According to the law you are indeed a criminal if you download protected material but in a way we are all criminals because no one is free of doing anything illegal in his lifetime, simply going over the speedlimit is doing something illegal thus making you a criminal. I myself am a criminal according to the law because I take photographs of abandoned buildings, so I trespass a lot and thus I'm a criminal. But the law is the law, it's in most cases made several hundreds of years ago and changed accordingly by idiots who don't even know how the world turns. Everybody should decide for himself what he considers illegal because in the end you have to live with your conscious. I'm myself do not have a problem with going into abandoned buildings, I consider myself a recorder of industrial history rather than a criminal. But downloading copyrighted material doesn't feel right for me because I know somebody put a lot of effort in creating it and I want to honor that person by buying his/her book. Never forget, what goes around comes around.

[aesthetistician]

"It's illegal and therefore wrong" is no more compelling an argument than "It's legal and therefore right", which is to say not very compelling at all. Legal right and wrong is at best an approximation of moral right and wrong. Of course we all consider the law when we make a decision, but it isn't a substitute for making your own moral choices.

[TheRealChris]

I don't see what your series of unfortunate events has to do with the fact that you might of might not download copyrighted material.

right and wrong is different from legal and illegal.

According to the law you are indeed a criminal

nope... not even by definition in law. I can only speak for Germany (and Austria ). a criminal is somebody that commited a crime. a crime is something illegal that is punished with at least one year prison in Germany and 3 yeas in Austria. I won't go to jail, so I don't commit a crime... thus I'm not a criminal. law is a rubber-band can you see? thats why you need to get rid of "you're doing against the law" and start saying "its morally incorrect to do".

I don't want to repeat myself again, so I point you to my first postings in this discussion. open you eyes and you will see.

[InsomniacFolder]

Origami normally makes me only ever happy. Not this discussion.

I'm not clever or good with words, and normally keep to myself. I apologise if I offend anyone, that is not my aim - my depression over this cavalier attitude to peoples work makes me want to say something.

The anonymity and ease of the internet emboldens people to things they otherwise do not do.

If you want to fold a model, you steal the diagram because you can without probable consequence.

You need/want gas for your car or food for the table, but you have to physically go and steal those things. The chance of being caught greatly increases as you physically have to be there - so you don't do it.

Money doesn't come into it. Oil companies make enough money but you still pay for the gas.

Sitting at the computer , insulated from direct discovery you feel safe enough to break laws - whether you feel they are good and just laws is irrelevant.

Stealing origami or music, or anything via the internet is, to my mind, and to the law, a crime, and one of cowardice and opportunity - the risks minimised and mitigated by the perceived small danger of getting caught.

Listing endless variations of situations that might in some way lessen your crime (e.g. a book is out of print, I could copy it a library) and help to absolve or abrogate your crime also seems specious to me. If the book is out of print it's out of print. You don't have a right to it simply by having realised that it exists. Libraries have copiers, normally for public records and similar research - that they don't invigillate against people copying copyrighted work makes them culpable too, it doesn't make your copying anymore legal or acceptable.

It seems futile to write this, I know it will not change any opinions or stop origami piracy one iota.

I am poor (by UK standards) and only have computer access at work. I treasure my origami books as I have earned them. I don't have any of the expensive books - Tanteidens, Kaqmiya, Nishikawa - I can't afford them.

In a copule of months I will have enough to buy one, and only one and I will treasure it. That I don't download it from work probably, in light of this topic, means only one thing. I am a fool unto myself for not taking what I could for the sole inconvenient reason that I know it to be wrong.

Thank you to all the people, far cleverer and creative than me that do still publish books that I dream of one day owning and folding, I owe them many hours of joy, including all those esteemed names from Mr. Brills original post on this topic.

Again, apologies for any offence caused, or rules I have broken in this post. I just feel strongly about this.

[origamimasterjared]

InsomniacFolder, if you are a huge fan of Satoshi Kamiya, I would choose his book over any other. It has some of the best, clearest diagrams I have ever seen. And every one is a quality piece. (Though I'm not too fond of the Blue Whale). The book will expose you to a variety of techniques as you follow Kamiya's trail of designs. I would definitely choose his book over any other if you are a Kamiya fan. (If you are a huge Nishikawa fan you might want to get his book. If you love Kawahata and insects and Nishikawa Origami Insects I may be more your thing. My recommendation is to not get the magazines. They are way expensive, and unless you really love every piece in the volume, you will be better off with a book.)

[rdrutel]

I like to think of the RealChris method as analogous to something anyone would do when examining a book. He goes to a book store, sees a new origami book, and flips through the pages. He examines the quality of the diagrams and what models are there inside. If he does not like either, he sets the book back on the shelf...which in the actual sense he deletes the file or forgets about it. If he likes the book...he buys it. I perfectly understand this, but sometimes the general process of thought escapes people and so I propose a new emoticon that has a blank stare with a gaping mouth.

ROD

[JeossMayhem]

I don't think you get the big picture... it's not as simple as that. Only a few, respectful individuals will actually buy the book. Most will just walk out of the store with it. The point that InsomniacFolder made applies here, that the internet allows people to "shoplift" books without any repercussions.

If people want to "flip through a book", they can get reviews online from sites such as Gilad's. Just like anyone who wants to buy a stereo or some other expensive product, they can get reviews for free and make judgements from there.

I don't have any problem with Anna's method of copying diagrams so her friends can borrow them or, as in my case, if I'm teaching children and can't have them crowding around a single book. The problem I have is when material is distributed past the private level, where literally anyone with an internet connection can grab what other people had to pay for. If a writer/designer/inventor is asking for some amount of money in return for their creation, it's not fair that potentially millions can benefit from just one individual paying the cost of one unit. I hope nobody here has a problem with that...

I realize that this creates yet another grey area of what actually defines a population as too big per one unit, but as anyone here knows, the net amplifies how quickly information spreads on the net almost infinitely.

I can agree with Chris's opinion of "laws", I'm familiar with similar cases. I've come across some pretty preposterous "laws", but copyright laws are something I can respect because they match my moral values. I don't praise "the law" as almighty or an adamant set of rules everyone has to follow, but in this particular case, I feel it provides some sort of protection against a tragedy of the commons that Dave et al. are obviously frustrated with.

[rdrutel]

It just isn't fair to put in a lot of work and effort and have it taken away so easily.
That is the key word...easy. The Brazilian website, amongst others that were closed, was the low-hanging fruit. People are like water, finding the path of least resistance. Take South America or East Asia and look at the economic situations of people. Vietnamese on average earn 3K a year. It is painfully obvious that this activity will be the natural progression....

I don't think you get the big picture... it's not as simple as that. Only a few, respectful individuals will actually buy the book. Most will just walk out of the store with it. The point that InsomniacFolder made applies here, that the internet allows people to "shoplift" books without any repercussions.

I was talking about the RealChris method recently. You did not look around from before and read what I wrote ...something you have chastised people for...to put it nicely Jeoss...Focus

[JeossMayhem]

But as you said, you think his method "justifies downloading", when it doesn't. Sure, it might justify his own habit, but only in the case that he buys the book afterwards. Again, this is something only a fraction of people practice. I'm emphasizing that even though his DL->buy method, in the end, rights a wrong, the remaining, theives, make online materials significantly more harmful than good.

Chris's procedure doesn't actually justify downloading and give it a reason why online materials are OK, but allows him to make a decicion whether a book is in his opinion worth buying, that's all.

I'm still wondering, would you and others here report online materials, even if it didn't cost you even a second of your time? I would AND do when I come across them.

[bethnor]

to be perfectly clear, i am against taking copyrighted materials.

that being said. what is not being addressed--at all--is what should be done with copyrighted material that is now out of print--with the likelihood of reprinting close to zero. mr. brill is alive; he has a say. he has stated his wish and those wishes should be respected.

but some authors aren't alive. a good example is yosshino. what's to be done? are current and future generations interested in learning his models simply to be told... too bad? get over it? move on? find other models? really? is that the stance the community really is going to take? arguably, his boar is the progenitor of things like kawahata's dragon head... lang's koi... and all incarnations of ryu-zin. so nobody from now on is ever to learn how it all started? really?

i do think copyright should be respected. but if the community really wants to do something about illegal acquisition of copyrighted material, i think something needs to be done to ease the legal acquisition of legal materials.

on another note, this thread makes me feel old . i didn't even notice that brilliant origami was out of print. it used to be one of the most easily obtained books, 1 copy in every borders/barnes&nobles... now i see USED copies are going for as much as $170 on amazon... which is theft of another kind, i would have to say...

[rdrutel]

Technically, it's the uploading that's illegal, not the downloading, but there's a reason why we're trying to make them sound synonomous. The latter is a moral issue that too many refuse to recognize. Some more courtesy would be nice.

I'm emphasizing that even though his DL->buy method, in the end, rights a wrong, the remaining, theives, make online materials significantly more harmful than good.

Jeoss you did not Focus...above you say two things. Downloading is not illegal (Kamiya Sea Turtle discussion) and then you say that downloading is wrong and call the remaining downloaders thieves, or people that are guilty of theft (criminals ?). How do you explain these two statements coming from the single you. Maybe an honest mistake or conformity?

So if it is not illegal, as you stated before, then it comes down to a moral decision. Moral according to whom? You? Morality is relative from person to person and according to the Vedas, you would be of the most immoral individuals for eating a Big Mac. We all justify to ourselves what we think is moral and immoral to certain degrees and it is possible that you believe one thing is immoral that one person practices while that person believes your daily activity is immoral that he does not practice.

It was such a beautifully rhetorical question "wondering" if I or others would report online materials aka criminal or "bad" activity (Jeoss has stated both...). And so I will beautifully turn it around. Take that question out of this environment and throw it into any other and ask it to yourself and make the perpetrator a family member or close friend. Doesn't this resemble something?....Those that are sinless, cast the first stone. Maybe?

ROD

[Rdude]

You know, the funny thing about this? Alot of people who are against pirating music, or downloading books, aren't against photocopying a book in the library, or recording a couple tracks off of the radio. To me, if you are going to make one illegal, then both need to be. Photocopying a book in the library for instance, is like downloading bootlegged material off of the internet. I know this sounds radical but think about it. In both cases someone else already owns the book, and the material is being obtained without any payment to the author. And another example, recording music off of the radio, or copying a CD for a friend is just like downloading it from the internet, in both cases, it is basically being redistrubuted by the previous owner, with no recompense to the author. That being said, I'm not trying to legitamize stealing at all. I agree with Chris in a way though, If I'm thinking about buying a CD I want to make sure that I'm not wasting my money, and that I like more than one song on it. Thats why I really appreciate it when musicians post a preview of their songs on their website, so I can actually give it a listen LEGALLY before I buy it. If I like a band, or an (origami artist for that matter ) I really believe in supporting them by paying for their product (I just wish, that in the case of musicians more of the money went to the artists)

That being said, I know that if origami artists are trying to protect themselves, the best place to start is all of the torrent sites.

Just my 2 cents, take it for what it is worth!

Andrew

BTW, nice Biblical reference ROD

[JeossMayhem]

The thing is that once things are on the internet, there's nobody to blame other than the person who uploads whatever. That prevents the people who download things from being responsible. The uploader/host is the root of the problem and the only one who can be held accountable. And I call those people thieves, not criminals, because there's hardly any way such people are going to actually be persecuted, which is a sad truth. There's just not enough resources to hold every offender responsible so the logical way to stop the problem is to remove the source.

And you're broadening the relevent definition of what is considered 'moral' in an effort to attack my argument. We're talking about theft, not whether or not it's moral to eat animals. Anyone here can understand what it feels like to be underhanded or stolen from. We're not talking about eating animals. Do you seriously think that theft of someone's life work can be moral? Because that's the argument you're making.

[Galif]

Do you seriously think that theft of someone's life work can be moral?

That's not for you to decide, I'm pretty sure. Like rdrutel said, what's immoral to you might me perfectly acceptable to me, and vice-versa. I'm not criticizing your judgement, by the way, but rather the argument you used to support it.