Jo

Feotakahari says that in reading a pirated copy of a book you are doing no more harm than if you simply chose not to read it, which you do literally three hundred million times a day. (Contrast to stealing an apple, where if you hadn't done anything at all then the legal owner would be better off.) I"f you don’t read or buy someone’s book, you are doing exactly the same amount of harm as if you pirated someone’s book".

Scenario One:

Professor Seaborn: "Before the next tutorial, you must all read an introduction to obscenity law. I firmly recommend Brocklehurst's An Introduction to Obscenity Law. It's not at the library, but is usually seven sestertii at Blackwell's."

Me: "Professor Seaborn, is it alright that I'm going to illegally read an illegal copy which was illegally made and illegally put on the Interweb?"

Professor Seaborn: "You would learn the same information. Brocklehurst would have made some money had you not decided to pirate the copy."

Scenario Two:

Professor Seaborn: "Before the next tutorial, you must all read an introduction to obscenity law. I firmly recommend Brocklehurst's An Introduction to Obscenity Law. It's not at the library, but is usually seven sestertii at Blackwell's."

Me: "Professor Seaborn, is it alright if I use Dr Montmorency's Another Introduction to Obscenity Law, copies of which she gives out for free?"

Professor Seaborn: "Certainly; it's just as good an introduction. Good thinking to ask that question  –  I'd never have thought to say that if you hadn't asked. Indeed, Brocklehurst would have made a great deal of money had you not asked that question."

Scenario Three:

Professor Seaborn: "Before the next tutorial, you must all read an introduction to obscenity law. I firmly recommend Brocklehurst's An Introduction to Obscenity Law. It's not at the library, but is usually seven sestertii at Blackwell's."

Me: "Professor Seaborn, is it alright if I steal a copy from Mr Brocklehurst's private library? He never locks his back gate."

Professor Seaborn: "Although you would learn the same information, you would have caused him to lose a book for no compensation, which is immoral."

It looks like only in Scenario Three  –  where you have actually removed wealth from someone's possession  –  is the really bad one; in Scenarios One and Two, you have merely avoided adding wealth to someone's possession.

But hang on. If I slave over a novel and then sell it to a publisher, and then I am never given money in exchange, because everybody's pirating my book, then I'm going to feel darned upset. Why? Because I have slaved over a novel in the expectation that, although there is a possibility that people will not buy my book, people will not try so hard to avoid compensating me that they actively break the law. And heck, I might feel so mad that I don't make any more books!

But what if the author has no such expectation? What if authors knew full well that they would receive no compensation for their work, because they have politely been informed in advance by their fans that their works will be pirated? Well, then we have fewer novels produced! Money is an incentive, people! I mean, only idiots, narcissists, and otherwise intelligent people who have a terrible, terrible blind spot become novelists for the money, but we'd definitely have fewer novels if you couldn't make money off being a novelist. I mean, can you imagine how weak the financial incentive to write would be if novelists made even less money than they do now? (We might have more novels if giving the world free access to all copyright results in a massive flourishing of writing due to the increased inspiration, but I doubt that.) But  –  like Feotakahari says  –  you could also say that about not reading books in the first place! It's one thing to say that if you want more art then you should fund artists, but is it really a moral imperative to do that with every single book you glance at, and in the exact dollar amount the author/publisher demands?

(In one country on my medianworld, copyright (besides some minimal moral rights) does not exist. There is a huge centralized database that lists the names (or pen names, which the government is constitutionally forbidden from tracing) of all known authors and their works; you use the database to send money to authors whose work you want to see more of. There's a big cultural norm that you ought to do this, and a weak cultural norm that you also ought to do it in gratitude for already-produced works in order to incentivize potential authors who fear they might be one-hit wonders. The database lists how much money the author has received so far, etc.)

If your principles tell you that in no single area can you have a negative effect on the world (eg, you allow yourself to immorally eat meat, but offset it), there's no problem with reading a book without paying for it so long as it isn't removing wealth. Now, from a purely practical perspective, you might want to incentivize authorship by making a big deal (truthfully) about how you always pay for books and how you hope everyone else follows your example. But if you admit that you pirate but also loudly say that you always incentivize your favourite authors by giving 'em money, that might also work.

It gets more complicated when publishers are involved. We need to incentivize publishers to publish, and a great way to do that is to pay them in exchange for publishing. It'd be a bit weird if we sent them (anonymous) envelopes with some cash and a note saying "Your books were ludicrously expensive, so I pirated them, but here's some money to incentivize you to keep publishing them." (Nothing's a bad thing just because it's weird, but this would probably cause publishers to freak out and lobby or something.) 

(You don't know what a 'fair' price is for any given book; maybe the author slaved over it for ten years and is on the verge of starvation, or maybe the author loved the process and would have done it for free, who knows.)

(You can say that, if you have a rule that you won't read a book without paying for it, that disincentivizes reading  –  since you're being fined for reading books  –  which hurts the author more than it accomplishes anything. But if you're enough of a Ravenclaw to be reading this, then you are absolutely going to pay enormous prices to read books if the alternative is not reading books.)

If you're the sort of person who likes a clear, bright-line rule as to what amount of altruism is the goal (so you have an achievable goal that doesn't overwhelm you, which you hit and then you don't have to feel guilty), like donating exactly ten percent of your income to charity, here are some suggestions for possible copyright rules for your personal moral system, in order of increasing strictness:

–  Don't remove books that are in the legal possession of other entities.

–  Duplicate books that are in the legal possession of other entities, whenever you want; but give money to authors you want to see more work from. (Challenge mode: also give to publishers.)

–  Duplicate books that are in the legal possession of other entities, whenever you want; but give money to authors you want to see more work from, and loudly give money to authors whose work you enjoyed. (Challenge mode: also give to publishers.)

–  Don't read a book without paying the full legal price of it. 

–  Don't read a book without paying the author and publisher the MSRP (so no libraries or second-hand shopping allowed).