Exclusive interview with "Deathly Hallows" e-book pirates

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Liviu_5

I do not want to appear that I am all for "information wants to be free" slogan, but calling tens of millions of people who download music, books, movies, share them and so on... thieves and sitting on the moral high horse leads nowhere.

I'm sorry, but they are thieves. I don't want to condemn anyone, but it's the truth.

I want authors and publishers to be compensated fairly so they can keep writing, but we have to recognize that the current copyright system and the internet and more generally computers are not in sync to say the least.
Even laws are ultimately an expression of general will at least in an open society, so if tens of millions of people break those laws something has to be done.

What needs to be done is to educate people that taking someone else's intellectual property without paying for it is not an "OK" thing to do. As I said in an earlier message, there is a widespread perception at present that "it doesn't really matter because nobody's losing anything". People need to be educated that it does matter and they are taking away the livelyhoods of hard-working people.

[JSWolf]

Harry, the real problem is the ability to get the content you want to read legally. It's not always easy to get the books you want in electronic form that the program or device you are using can read. We need the publishers to get off their asses and publish more electronic content. Just think of all those out of print books that might actually sell if they were in electronic form. I don't see how it would take much to make then into ebook formats to be sold online. And yes, I do blame the publishers for high prices as well. I'm not paying more for an ebook then I'd have to pay on Amazon to get a dead tree version.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Bob Russell

At the risk of seeming insensitive, I have to think of this in terms of analogy to consultants. There seem to be two classes of consultants:
1) Those who have figure some things out and they will extract every bit of compensation possible. They don't answer questions unless they are getting paid. They won't let loose of some helpful scripts unless it's in the contract. They won't give you important answers that they can give in 2 minutes if they think it's valuable info that they might get paid for. And these people are generally empty of value once you get past the facade. They don't have a whole lot to offer as situations change.
2) Those who freely give away the "no cost" answers to questions with business partners. They gladly are helpful where they can be, and tend to give away snippets of code or technical quickies or even important tips on direction. They know that they can provide value to the situations where they are hired, above and beyond those quick answers. They aren't really worried about the obvious generic info, because their true value is the ongoing ability to analyze and use their expertise and knowledge on an ongoing basis to make things work right.

When I hear arguments about copyright, it remind me of that kind of situation, and it feels like we are protecting too many rights of authors with a long copyright protection period and by giving them too much control over how and when and how often the content is used. Even worse, with DRM schemes, people end up buying the same content over and over just because of the DRM or format compatibility issues. I want the law to encourage lots of Type 1 authors & publishers, not Type 2 authors & publishers.

Sorry, Bob, but I'm obviously missing the crux of your argument. Why do you want the law to encourage people to try to extract every bit of possible compensation that they can? Your "Type 2" people sound a lot nicer to me than the "Type 1"s!

But in my mind, the masses are being deprived of great value in what should be public domain works. Why should a 10 year old novel still be protected?

Come on, an author is surely entitled to receive income from their works for their entire lifetime, at least? It's the long "after death" period that's really the issue, and that, as you know, is being driven (in the US at least) by political lobbyists who are trying to protect the commercial interests of large companies like Disney.

[Bob Russell]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Sorry, Bob, but I'm obviously missing the crux of your argument. Why do you want the law to encourage people to try to extract every bit of possible compensation that they can? Your "Type 2" people sound a lot nicer to me than the "Type 1"s!

Oops... you're right. Of course, I meant Type 2 is better, and we shouldn't. To me, that corresponds to shorter copyright lengths.

Originally Posted by HarryT

Come on, an author is surely entitled to receive income from their works for their entire lifetime, at least? It's the long "after death" period that's really the issue, and that, as you know, is being driven (in the US at least) by political lobbyists who are trying to protect the commercial interests of large companies like Disney.

I think this is a fallacy to think that an author deserves protection for a lifetime. What is the fundamental reason that they should have more than even 5 years? The original purpose was to benefit society, not to protect the author. It was to encourage publication of books at a time when it was expensive to do so.

But even if we changed the law to be a term of life, that would be solve most of the problem in my mind, and would be much more reasonable.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Bob Russell

I think this is a fallacy to think that an author deserves protection for a lifetime. What is the fundamental reason that they should have more than even 5 years? The original purpose was to benefit society, not to protect the author. It was to encourage publication of books at a time when it was expensive to do so.

Writing books, software, or whatever, is just as much "work" as creating "physical" things. Why ever shouldn't an author be able to continue to benefit from those efforts?

A "real world" example. I run a company writing computer software for amateur astronomers, which draws maps of the sky. I've spend more than 20 years of my life writing my software. If you had your way, five years after I'd initially released my software, it would have entered the public domain and anybody would have been free to take advantage of my work and use it free of charge! Can you explain why you believe that would be "fair"?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

I also see no reason why an author cannot profit from his works during his lifetime. If a book can be good or important enough to be reread for decades, even a century, it is worth compensating the author for it.

(Edit: I agree, on the face it might not seem to be right... but consider that authors are rarely paid by the hour to write. They work hard to create something, like any artist, but they are not paid once for their creation, like another artist... they are essentially paid by the sale, plus a commission fee, making it more of a profession than an artist's career. This also makes writing one of the hardest professions to profit in, since a writer may not see major return from their book for years.)

Of course, original patent and copyright laws were written for shorter periods, specifically because people didn't live past 50 when they were written... so they were intended to last for the author's conceivable lifetime. Obviously that's changed today, and the law should be rewritten to specify "the author's lifetime," whatever that may be.

[Bob Russell]

Actually, I think it would be even more fair for software. In the software you are talking about, you are continually adding features and adding compatibility with new versions of the O/S, etc. You are a great example of Type 2 consulting -- you continue to provide value in a non trivial way, and people would continue to buy the upgrades.

But this does bring a good point. Others might want to take the guts of your software and tweak it to make a competing or free version that they maintain. So, while I hadn't thought about that, maybe it does make sense to keep a "no derivatives" protection for life even if copyrights were shortened.

In practical terms for the case of books, this would mean that substantive improvements would have to have value to extend the length of sales. You could write a book on Java programming, but if it was public domain after 10 years, you could only sell another version if you provided new value, like updating it for current technology. If it was a biography, you would really have to have significant improvements, but I think that's fair. I don't know what the right number is, but personally I think the length now is too long.

In terms of your example, I think you should get derivative protection for an extended period, but that you should (and do, I'm sure) continue to provide value in your ongoing work. If you produced it 20 years ago and never touched it since, then I think it's an open question about whether you should have full control of it over your lifetime.

Maybe the opposite is even possible - you have control if it, but not the derivatives after a period of time.

That's really a tough example, though, because it's so personal. I wouldn't like any laws changed that keeps money out of my pocket - whether the law change was fair or not, I would not want to see it happen.

Still, I think there's a difference between a book that is written and not continually worked on, and the kind of software career you are talking about in which you are working on it for 20yrs. You deserve ongoing revenues and more protection in that case, and I think your value-added work should be protected by some kind of derivative protection.

But like I said, I'm still trying to formulate my own position on this, so that's just my feeling right now...

Originally Posted by HarryT

Writing books, software, or whatever, is just as much "work" as creating "physical" things. Why ever shouldn't an author be able to continue to benefit from those efforts?

A "real world" example. I run a company writing computer software for amateur astronomers, which draws maps of the sky. I've spend more than 20 years of my life writing my software. If you had your way, five years after I'd initially released my software, it would have entered the public domain and anybody would have been free to take advantage of my work and use it free of charge! Can you explain why you believe that would be "fair"?

[Bob Russell]

I tend to agree - author's lifetime seems reasonable, even though I have the gut feel that it's too long. But there is a sense in which the creation is being "taken away" from the author if set to less than a lifetime term.

And longer than lifetime seems to be depriving the societal benefits of making it public domain after a time in return for the copyright protection.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

I also see no reason why an author cannot profit from his works during his lifetime. If a book can be good or important enough to be reread for decades, even a century, it is worth compensating the author for it.

(Edit: I agree, on the face it might not seem to be right... but consider that authors are rarely paid by the hour to write. They work hard to create something, like any artist, but they are not paid once for their creation, like another artist... they are essentially paid by the sale, plus a commission fee, making it more of a profession than an artist's career. This also makes writing one of the hardest professions to profit in, since a writer may not see major return from their book for years.)

Of course, original patent and copyright laws were written for shorter periods, specifically because people didn't live past 50 when they were written... so they were intended to last for the author's conceivable lifetime. Obviously that's changed today, and the law should be rewritten to specify "the author's lifetime," whatever that may be.

[volwrath]

Originally Posted by HarryT

A "real world" example. I run a company writing computer software for amateur astronomers, which draws maps of the sky. I've spend more than 20 years of my life writing my software. If you had your way, five years after I'd initially released my software, it would have entered the public domain and anybody would have been free to take advantage of my work and use it free of charge! Can you explain why you believe that would be "fair"?

Can I ask which software? I am familiar with a few.

[nekokami]

John Scalzi (a fairly prolific author living from his writing) suggests 25 years or life, whichever is longer. Search Google on "copyright site:scalzi.com" for more info.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by volwrath

Can I ask which software? I am familiar with a few.

Forgive me if I don't say. I use an alias on this board, and prefer not to reveal my "secret identity" . Hope you understand.

[yvanleterrible]

@ HarryT

Thanks for sharing on what you do for a living.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

@ HarryT

Thanks for sharing on what you do for a living.

ONE of the things I do for a living, anyway . I'm one of those people who has their finger in a lot of different pies, rather than having one "proper" job. I write books (boring physics textbooks, before you ask), write software, do IT consultancy - all sorts of different things .

[Liviu_5]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm sorry, but they are thieves. I don't want to condemn anyone, but it's the truth.

Here is where we disagree; I am not sure that even legally you are right, since from what cases I heard prosecuted they were for copyright violations or for DCMA breaking, not for theft. You may feel strongly that way, but again using loaded and most likely inaccurate legal words encourages extremism.

As mentioned many people here in the US are legally speaking tax cheats by not paying sales tax on online purchases, but even the tax enforcers and governors do not call them that since they know it leads nowhere, they try to change things to minimize the losses.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Liviu_5

Here is where we disagree; I am not sure that even legally you are right, since from what cases I heard prosecuted they were for copyright violations or for DCMA breaking, not for theft. You may feel strongly that way, but again using loaded and most likely inaccurate legal words encourages extremism.

You're right - "theft" is an incorrect term. Let's settle for "they are criminals" - that's nice and "generic" .

As mentioned many people here in the US are legally speaking tax cheats by not paying sales tax on online purchases, but even the tax enforcers and governors do not call them that since they know it leads nowhere, they try to change things to minimize the losses.

I actually think that's even worse. Someone who downloads a book illegally is taking money away from one person. Someone who evades paying their taxes is taking money away from the entire community.

I'm surprised that the US can't come up with a system of handling sales tax at source. If the EU can do it in a community of 25 nations, each of which has its own completely separate legal system, tax system, language, etc, one wouldn't have thought it would be beyond the limits of human ingenuity to come up with a way of uniformly collecting sales taxes within a single country, would you?