interesting NYT article on "copyright morality"

[deviant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Deviant,

Given the fact that you say that you believe that authors should be paid for their work, how do you pay the authors of the books that you illegally download?

I don't because they never provide me a way of doing so. If those same authors had, for example, sell an e-book online for $5, I'd buy it, even though I already have the illegal version.

@sanders

Since you've decided not to participate in the discussion, I really don't see a point in replying to your comments.

[bingle]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

However, intellectual property CAN be stolen in the U.S., and when you make unauthorized copies of an e-book, you are stealing intellectual property. U.S. law makes it clear that IP needs to be protected, specifically because of people who feel that others do not deserve due compensation for their ideas simply because they are not physical objects, and rob them of "potential sales." (Smart guys, those Founding Fathers.)

This isn't true. In fact, the Founding Fathers don't recognize copyright as a natural or inalienable right. They acknowledge, in the creation of copyright law, that they are granting (natural and inalienable rights can not be granted by the Constitution) a temporary monopoly (that would not have otherwise existed) to the creators. They're doing this for a single purpose - to encourage them to add to the public domain of knowledge, rather than keeping their inventions and works secret.

It's really fascinating to read the letters and documents behind the creation of this section of the constitution -Jefferson was reluctant to even add the monopoly, but Madison convinced him. They originally planned to limit it to 14 years, but later decided that, as infrastructure became better and people could more easily sell their ideas throughout the colonies, Congress might want to shorten that term - so they didn't put in any defined limits. Now, of course, copyright stretches for over 70 years.

Here's an interesting link on the history of copyright law in the US, and the Founding Fathers' thoughts on the matter: http://legalminds.lp.findlaw.com/lis.../msg07721.html

[bingle]

Originally Posted by tsgreer

This is where the disagreement stems from. I think that stealing a physical book and downloading it from the internet illegally is exactly the same thing. So does the law in most countries. So do most authors and publishers. Just because it "costs" less to distribute electronically than traditional publishing doesn't make it any different.

No, the law actually doesn't consider it to be the same. Try it some day! Walk into a store, and steal a book. You will be prosecuted for "Petty Theft" (at least in California), which is a misdemeanor offense with penalties ranging from a small fine and community service to 1-3 years in jail. This prosecution will be done by the State in the form of the District Attorney's office.

If you download a book off the internet, you will not be prosecuted by the state. You will be sued by the copyright holder for copyright infringement. You will not be arrested, or subject to jail time. If the decision goes against you (you are not convicted, nor at any point are you charged with a crime) then you will pay damages that will be assessed by the court, just as if you had lost any other lawsuit. You will not have anything on your criminal record, and there is no threat of serving a prison sentence.

So, as you can see, the two things are radically different in legal terms.

[slayda]

I normally try to stay out of this type of discussion but thought there might be some people who would appreciate a couple of observations.

1. Our governments who pass the IP copyright laws will, themselves, voluntarily violate the idea of IP when they "steal" information from other governments. This is typically called "Intelligence Collection" and is generally accepted as a "given" by the other governments who try to protect themselves from such theft, there being no "higher" authority to whom thay may appeal.
   
2. Some years ago when I worked for a chemical production company, my entire job consisted in trying to find a chemical formula, enough different from a patented formula, that would achieve the same general result but would not legally violate the patent. Of course we started with the original patent and made variants from that. (During my tenure we were not successful.)

So much for the way the governments and large corporations feel about IP.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's not a terribly good example, Ralph.

You seem to be assuming that the only things anyone would ever want to put on an iPod are tunes purchased from iTunes on the one hand, or illegally-downloaded music on the other hand.

That is simply not the case.

You can rip your own CDs to an iPod - I have a collection of hundreds of opera CD sets which I have on my iPod.

You can buy low-cost audiobooks, which can be very large. A large novel can be a 1GB audiobook.

You can store photograph or video.

The list is virtually endless.

I currently have 125GB of material on my 160GB iPod. Not one byte of it downloaded illegally. Not 1c spent at iTunes.

HarryT, I deliberately used an extreme example, to give sense of how large the differential can be (or become over time). Personally, I can't imagine someone downloading those enomous quantities. I will gently inquire though, what was the total retail cost of your opera CD collection? (either you or somebody before you (if purchased used) bought the CDs, did they not?) 2500 pounds? More? Isn't this a comparable expense to paying for downloads? (Conceptually, if not actually in cost. I consider <both> to be moral acquisition of I.P.) My audio library has cost me over $5,000 US over the last 20 years.


If course, you can create your I.P. and load it for free. It's <your> I.P.

[bojan]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Sorry, why have people lost the ability to re-read their books? They have lost the ability to encode them for new devices, but they can re-read them as many times as they wish on their current devices.

Harry, I think your being a little sarcastic with this, so I will rephrase my question. What in your opinion should this people do to re-read their books, when they change their reading device? And bear in mind, that a lot of people have already changed the device sometime in the past, but have not downloaded all the previously bought books, to update them to the new device!

[nairbv]

given that, as one person points out, piracy is fought in civil court not criminal court, ... and... criminal court seeks to restore money from damages.... how do their legal cases ever make any ground?

I mean,... I can imagine them having some success suing uploaders and web-site operators, but... I've heard stories of them going after downloaders and file copiers. Don't they have to show damages somehow? If I have $40,000 worth of music on my ipod, and I've never had $40,000 in the bank, doesn't that prove that I haven't cost them $40,000 in revenue? If the money doesn't exist then I obviously never would have given it to them. Maybe they lost $200 in revenue, what I would have actually been willing to spend on music if I'd been a paying customer. If I haven't cost them $40,000 in revenue then how can they go about suing me at astronomical rates?

Surely there must be criminal penalties for piracy too, aren't there?

[Nate the great]

They don't have to prove they were damaged, they just have to prove that the infringement occurred. Then the plaintiff can ask for statutory damages. This is set in Title 17, Section 504 of the U.S. Code, and is between $750 and $30k.

[nairbv]

More (hypothetical) legal questions... if anyone knows...

I mean, ... If I own a book, I can re-sell it.

If I've paid for the IP... Well, let's say I do resell it. Let's say, I keep my own copy too. Now, let's say (for the sake of argument) that I realize that I've duplicated the value of the IP, and that I owe money to the base owner of that IP. Lets also say that, since I sold the IP, I want to use that money to pay what I owe.

How much would it be? how would I go about paying it? If I can be sued for it, do I just have to wait until I'm sued? Will the suit be at the value of the IP, or some astronomical cost beyond the value of the IP?

Is there any feasible legal way for me or anyone else to do this? Would it be legally possible to open a website selling pirated copies of every ebook on the market, and then just mailing a check to the relevant publisher and/or author every time someone downloads a book? What would be the appropriate amount of money to send, and how would I find out? Note that I don't want to buy another lit file from ms every time I sell another copy of IP, ... because then I'd be paying extra for MS's service. I'd *only* want to pay for the IP.

What if I don't keep my copy (not that they'd ever know)? What if I buy lit files, crack them, and sell them to someone else? Or instead of cracking them I just give them whatever account information is necessary to transfer them to their computer (I assume that's possible, like with mobipocket)? If I buy MS files, crack them, and resell them at about the same price, ... have I really done anything different than reselling a book? Even if I'm a good boy and I only resell it once?

[nairbv]

statutory damages... very interesting... I'm gonna go read about that on wikipedia :-)
thanks

[bingle]

Originally Posted by nairbv

More (hypothetical) legal questions... if anyone knows...

I mean, ... If I own a book, I can re-sell it.

If I've paid for the IP... Well, let's say I do resell it. Let's say, I keep my own copy too. Now, let's say (for the sake of argument) that I realize that I've duplicated the value of the IP, and that I owe money to the base owner of that IP. Lets also say that, since I sold the IP, I want to use that money to pay what I owe.

The thing is, with copyright law, it's tricky. It's *not* like stealing, in that you haven't deprived anyone of property, so you don't just owe the cost of the property.

Instead, you have infringed on the copyright holder's rights - like if you had infringed on their civil rights, or right to vote, or right to free speech.

You've violated their right to exclusively decide how their works are duplicated and distributed.

So how do you put a value on those rights? Well, it's complicated, and that's why a court has to decide. The guidelines are, as Nate posted, something between $750 - 30k per infringement, depending. That's a wide range, and the penalty is decided partly based on the financial harm suffered by the copyright holder, but not solely. That's why it's possible to get damages far in excess of actual losses.

Originally Posted by nairbv

How much would it be? how would I go about paying it? If I can be sued for it, do I just have to wait until I'm sued?

Yes, in fact, regardless of moral guilt ;-) you're not legally guilty of infringement until a court has found you so, and that can't happen until you're sued. If you're sued, it can be a lot of money (E.g. the Jammie Thomas suit), far in excess of any sort of reasonable losses and the defendant's ability to pay.

Originally Posted by nairbv

Is there any feasible legal way for me or anyone else to do this? Would it be legally possible to open a website selling pirated copies of every ebook on the market, and then just mailing a check to the relevant publisher and/or author every time someone downloads a book? What would be the appropriate amount of money to send, and how would I find out? Note that I don't want to buy another lit file from ms every time I sell another copy of IP, ... because then I'd be paying extra for MS's service. I'd *only* want to pay for the IP.

No, because again, you're not legally liable for the content, you're liable for violating the author's rights. Even if you printed up a lovely hardcover copy, sold it in Borders, and sent the entire proceeds direct to the author, you'd be violating copyright.

This is the legal side of things, not the moral side of things, and I'm not a lawyer (although I am a moralist ).

[Alan]

Originally Posted by Liviu_5

That's mostly true and for a good reason: they do not need to. When they will be forced by external pressures, they will do it, until them everything will be just half-hearted as is now.

But why? A publisher's goal is to earn money. He is doing this by selling books to customers. That is his job. He would be a fool if he would let an opportunity slip away. So why are so many publishers so reluctant to publish an ebook in a timely manner? The costs are minimal - at least compared to paper books (paper, printing, proof reading, formatting, logistics).

Of course, for the time being, ebooks are just something nice to have and not a big seller. That might change in the future. But given the small amount of money the production of an ebook costs, I still don't understand why not every publisher will bring out an ebook when he releases a new title.

Alan

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by Alan

But why? A publisher's goal is to earn money. He is doing this by selling books to customers. That is his job. He would be a fool if he would let an opportunity slip away. So why are so many publishers so reluctant to publish an ebook in a timely manner? The costs are minimal - at least compared to paper books (paper, printing, proof reading, formatting, logistics).

Because eBooks make publishers obsolete.

The business need that publishers fill is making books affordable. Imagine how much books would cost if each copy had to be hand-created. Publishers invested in the technology to produce large numbers of books cheaply.

Since reproduction of an eBook requires no special equipment and can be done for no cost, publishers have no business need to fill in the eBook market.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

Because eBooks make publishers obsolete.

eBooks most certainly do NOT make publishers obsolete . Publishers do a heck of a lot of work from copy editing through to sales promotion, publicity, etc, which are not feasible for an individual author.

Yes, authors CAN "self-publish", but it's a rather rare author who can turn out a book that's as well-presented as a publisher can produce.

The internet makes self-publishing possible, but publishers very definitely still have a place, especially when it comes to things like textbooks, where a publisher will arrange peer-review of the material - vitally important and something which an individual author really can't do themselves.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Alan

But why? A publisher's goal is to earn money.

Traditionally I think the most important goal has been to publish good books but this seems to have changed recently. Publishing seems to be a very conservative and tradition bound activity so the current behaviour is not surprising at all.