Have you ever heard the argument: „Piracy is doing publishers a favor. Because when I publish a pirated standard illegally, some of my readers will go and buy the standard afterwards. Without me they would have never discovered the standard and never bought it.“
This makes a lot of sense, does it not?
Well, no.
Because it is „Marketing on behalf of“. This means, deciding how to do marketing on behalf of standard organization.
But deciding and acting “on their behalf”, claiming that we “know what is best for them” is a dangerous path.
Yes, you we can claim and believe and have an opinion, but that does not entitle us to act on it.
What do you think?
Standard publishers most likely did not ask you to do their marketing. They did not elect you to do marketing for them. Doing otherwise violates their freedom to decide on their own how they do marketing, their decision what is best for them and whom they want to entrust with doing their marketing.
Projection: When you claim to know what is best for them (despite their declared statement opposing your claim) this is not just violating their freedom, but it’s also a projection. Just because you think you know what is best for them, does not prove that it is really best for them (have you thought about all the second order consequences?) and does not entitle you to act accordingly.
And even if you were right and standard organizations were wrong, and piracy would help standard publishers sell standards, it is up to them to make their own mistakes and to possibly change their action, on their own terms and when it is right for them.
Thinking otherwise is an entitlement attitude.
Question: Will readers of pirated standards find them valuable and buy them?
Answer: Some will.
But some will also do it after consulting a free preview.
And some will after reading an article about it.
And some will do it in another way, in their own time.
You will probably never know which factor contributes most to a purchasing decision.
Pretending you knew does not justify piracy.
Still not convinced?
Imagine this: Imagine you were a car salesman and I would enter your property and “borrow” your private car to take my friend for a ride, with the argument that my friend might buy the car from you afterwards. Would I be justified to borrow also your bike, your PC, your TV and your phone, with the argument that my friend may likely buy those things after having tried them?
You would probably value your right to use your own assets higher than my right to use your assets – and rightfully so.
If the dealer decides to take you for a test ride, for marketing purposes, that fine. You can share your opinion and suggestions, but it is up to the dealer to decide if he wants to use this marketing tactic or not. But to make the decision for someone else, violating their choice, their strategy … is presumptuous.
Proportionality: Everything we do has both good and bad consequences. But just because we can find the possibility of one good consequence of an action, this does not automatically justify the action.
It is conceivable that even rape may have some good side-effects for someone, somewhere, at some point in time… but just because there is a conceivable upside for an action, this does not automatically justify to take that action. The end does not justify all means.