11-12-2011, 11:29 AM | #1 | |
Omnivorous
Posts: 3,281
Karma: 27978909
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Rural NW Oregon
Device: Kindle Voyage, Kindle Fire HD, Kindle 3, KPW1
|
Misleading Metaphors That Drive The War On Online Sharing
I know I'm going to be sorry, but here's an interesting article from Techdirt on copyright and it's legal metaphors:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201...medium=twitter Quote:
|
|
11-12-2011, 11:37 AM | #2 |
eBook Enthusiast
Posts: 85,544
Karma: 93383043
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: UK
Device: Kindle Oasis 2, iPad Pro 10.5", iPhone 6
|
Do you think that fewer people would break the law if the law called if "theft" instead of using "cozy" words like "File Sharing", that make it sound like it's a good thing to do?
|
Advert | |
|
11-12-2011, 12:25 PM | #3 |
Nameless Being
|
I'm guessing that the language is a product of the polarized positions on copyright infringement, rather than copyright infringement being a product of the language used.
There seems to be a tendency for content producers (authors, publishers, etc.) to use words like 'intellectual property', 'piracy', and 'theft' to describe the actions of others. None of those terms are terribly accurate, but they tend to use them because copyright infringement represents a potential loss of revenue to them. On the other hand, you have copyright infringers describing their actions as 'file sharing' and 'fair use'. Neither term are entirely accurate either, but they benefit from copyright infringement so they use more positive terms to describe their actions. |
11-12-2011, 12:28 PM | #4 |
Banned
Posts: 725
Karma: 656644
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Central Florida
Device: iPad "3", Kindle Touch, Kindle Fire, iPhone 4S
|
The latest twit episode, from twit.tv made some good points about how content producers need to stop treating digital content the way we treat physical content. Go check it out for more detail. But it was an interesting discussion.
|
11-12-2011, 12:39 PM | #5 | |
Aging Positronic Brain
Posts: 633
Karma: 2155452
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Aurora (when off-Earth)
Device: Amazon Oasis; iPhone, iPad Mini
|
Quote:
The use of different words to describe actions or insitutions can redefine and modify thought processes. This is common in political activites. Regardles, the action is still the same. |
|
Advert | |
|
11-12-2011, 12:41 PM | #6 |
Wizard
Posts: 2,986
Karma: 18343081
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Sudbury, ON, Canada
Device: PRS-505, PB 902, PRS-T1, PB 623, PB 840, PB 633
|
The Law is all about the precise use of legal words. I don't think that they want to go down this slippery slope. Copyright infringement is exactly what it is, and is likely what people consider they are doing when they copy. Deliberately lying to them about the offence is unlikely to set them on the straight and narrow road. I think, instead, it would help them feel less guilty when they consider that they're copying stuff from liars and corruptors.
|
11-12-2011, 12:45 PM | #7 |
Wizard
Posts: 4,465
Karma: 6900052
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: The Heart of Texas
Device: Boox Note2, AuraHD, PDA,
|
Ah... the age old question;
"Which came first the Etymologist or the common use of the word?" Then there is one of my old favorites "The Languages of Pao" by Jack Vance, based on the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis/Linguistic Relativity and honoring Mario Pei. (Which would say that "yes, words matter") Luck; Ken |
11-12-2011, 12:45 PM | #8 |
Martin Kristiansen
Posts: 1,546
Karma: 8480958
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Johannesburg
Device: Kindle International Ipad 2
|
It cuts both ways in this theft copyright piracy debate.
When we purchase an ebook it is not really a purchase but a license to use the text in certain ways defined in the license agreement. I have no issue with this but as long as that is the defined "purchase" terms it makes it difficult to ascribe the full meaning of theft to the act of illegally acquiring the text under question. What I am try to say is that with the sale being devalued by the license then the theft must be devalued by it as well. What was offered was less than a sale then what was taken must also be less than the theft would normally be. You cannot have it both ways. Having said that I would not personally pirate/steal a book. |
11-12-2011, 04:20 PM | #9 | |
Grand Master of Flowers
Posts: 2,201
Karma: 8389072
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Naptown
Device: Kindle PW, Kindle 3 (aka Keyboard), iPhone, iPad 3 (not for reading)
|
Quote:
"Theft" or "stealing" are very accurate terms to describe taking someone's property without their permission and distributing it to thousands of others, most of whom are anonymous, in such a manner that the owner of the property loses the ability to make money from his or her creation. This is not "sharing." "Sharing" implies is giving someone something that you own and have the right to give away. Like sharing a sandwich, your toys, or the cookies your mom made you for lunch. Anonymously posting a cracked copy of a video game where thousands or millions of people can download it for free is not "sharing." |
|
11-12-2011, 04:26 PM | #10 |
Are you gonna eat that?
Posts: 1,633
Karma: 23215128
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Phillipsburg, NJ
Device: Kindle 3, Nook STG
|
i simply have a hard time seeing a collection of 1s and 0s as a "thing".
shoplifting a paperback? yea thats theft. downloading intangible code? try as i might i cant see it as theft. |
11-12-2011, 04:47 PM | #11 |
Zealot
Posts: 149
Karma: 1215642
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Utah
Device: iriver Story HD, Android
|
When you steal something from someone, they don't have it anymore. When you copy someone else's information, they still have it.
I'm not defending copyright infringement, just pointing out one way that it's different from theft. |
11-12-2011, 06:58 PM | #12 | |
Wizard
Posts: 2,986
Karma: 18343081
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Sudbury, ON, Canada
Device: PRS-505, PB 902, PRS-T1, PB 623, PB 840, PB 633
|
Quote:
The action is already illegal as copyright infringement. I have a bad taste in my mouth when I see some trying to also apply charges for a different crime to it, as well. It strikes me as unjust and so will backfire in the long run. |
|
11-12-2011, 07:46 PM | #13 | |||
Guru
Posts: 977
Karma: 43409226
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Bay Area, CA
Device: Kindle 3
|
I doubt this very much.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Last edited by Kevin8or; 11-16-2011 at 03:29 PM. |
|||
11-12-2011, 11:01 PM | #14 |
Grand Sorcerer
Posts: 5,185
Karma: 25133758
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: SF Bay Area, California, USA
Device: Pocketbook Touch HD3 (Past: Kobo Mini, PEZ, PRS-505, Clié)
|
I see we have our monthly copyright law debate thread.
1) Copyright infringement is not "theft." 2) That doesn't mean it's legal or ethical; just that the proper label of the crime or tort involved is not "theft." 3) Part of the reason for "theft" not being the right label, is that "theft" means you *no longer have* whatever is stolen. 4) Another part is that theft has penalties equivalent to what was stolen + reasonable penalty fee; stealing a CD = ~hundred dollar fine; unauthorized copying of a CD = up to $150,000 fine. 5) None of this is going to convince anyone who's been involved in these arguments before; we do this to either discover new phrasings for what we already believe, or give newcomers to the debate an idea of the range of issues involved. 6) Copyright law is seriously broken, and has been since the first computers went online. There is absolutely no way for individuals to enforce copyrights of their noncommercial works. (If, for example, I wanted to say, "I do not grant permission for my posts to be copied to AOL's servers," I have no way to enforce that, even thought I didn't post on AOL's servers.) |
11-13-2011, 02:07 AM | #15 |
Addict
Posts: 280
Karma: 2064388
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: MN, US
Device: Kobo Touch, Asus Eee Pad Slider
|
Theft is not an accurate term at all. And it doesn't need to be in order for piracy to be bad. You can't just stick any old negative-sounded word in there and claim it's equivalent.
A person pirating a book is not doing anything close to theft. They are essentially generating a copy of a work of unknown original, acquired in an unknown way. Nothing has been taken from anyone. Files are replicating. No one has lost any property due to piracy. Have they lost revenue? Possibly. However, this new copy is not directly responsible for that. The person who originally obtained the file and then used it for copyright infringement is the true responsible party. This does not mean a pirate is not doing something unethical. They may or may not be - depending on whether they understand what piracy is. I didn't, when I first pirated a song when I was 13. I don't believe that what I did was unethical, because I didn't understand that I was generating a copy that may reduce the value of an artist's work. Lack of knowledge impairs judgment. I do understand that now. And I don't pirate now. It's not because I think piracy is "theft." It's because in the cantankerous world of the emerging internet business model, artists are suffering in part because of piracy. An individual pirate probably isn't directly responsible for that, but they are contributing to it. I think DRM and artificial price inflation worsens piracy. And I avoid giving money to entities that perpetuate those things. But this reflects my disagreement with their license terms. It doesn't give me license to pirate. They gave me the terms, and I decided they were not acceptable. That doesn't give me permission to go around them. I don't think piracy is necessarily as bad as theft. But it is certainly copyright infringement and it has a turbulent effect on an already turbulent industry. It is uncertain at this point what role piracy might play if license agreements were less insane. They might actually help sales. They might have no effect. Or they may continue to harm sales. There's a valid argument for all of these possibilities. But until such a time as I know which one it turns out to be, I disagree with piracy. It isn't theft. It's another beast entirely, for which we currently have no accurate name. But whatever it is, I feel it currently has a degrading effect on artists making a living. And I don't know what effect it would have in an environment that's more fair to consumers. This article brings up the great point that we are constantly making the futile attempt to equate digital products with physical ones. This simply doesn't work because of the replication factor - a factor which exists for legal content as much as illegal content. But it's also clear that the current model, which I'd define as a fear psychosis on the part of companies, is harmful to consumers and feeds piracy. We need something else. We need better language, and a new model. Last edited by SmokeAndMirrors; 11-13-2011 at 02:09 AM. |
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Free (Kindle/ChristianBook/nook) Day of War (Lion of War Series) by Cliff Graham | arcadata | Deals and Resources (No Self-Promotion or Affiliate Links) | 6 | 02-24-2012 06:59 PM |
Chicago Public Library Figured Out How to Prevent Hacking! (Misleading) | Sydney's Mom | Amazon Kindle | 8 | 06-13-2010 03:54 PM |
Stallman: Ending the War on Sharing | Moejoe | News | 49 | 08-27-2009 01:58 PM |
Misleading Battery Indicator Fix | Fitzwaryn | Sony Reader | 2 | 04-12-2007 08:03 AM |
iRex - Misleading Advertising | Riocaz | iRex | 114 | 03-20-2007 04:08 PM |