Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Jordan
The only thing that gratifies me out of this thread is that it is providing a clarification of PD and DRM for those who do not know how it works. The rest of it, unfortunately, is all about seeking rationalizations and justification for taking something that wasn't intended for you.
|
What do you mean by “wasn’t intended for you”? At least in the US copyright is explicitly recognized by the Constitution as a utilitarian construct. It exists to compensate creators by embedding their information product in the market economy by via legally mandated artificial scarcity. Because it’s a construct there have always been edge cases – it’s just that now technology is creating new edge cases faster than the law or our common-sense can keep up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Jordan
We've had these discussions here before, of course, and probably will for all time. Personally, the rationalizations mystify me... I realize e-books may be "just a bunch of electrons," but that shouldn't mean it's okay to consider them as abstract objects, which are okay to steal because "you're not really stealing anything." They still represent a product, and if they are intended to be sold, anyone who takes one without paying is stealing.
|
We’re definitely in agreement that e-books being “just a bunch of electrons” doesn’t make it okay to deny authors compensation for their work. But I don’t think all the cases which have come up are equally wrong – or necessarily wrong at all. Consider the following cases, assuming in each that the copyright holder has not given explicit permission:
- Producing an e-book for personal use from a previously purchased p-book.
- Receiving without paying for an e-book edition of a previously purchased p-book.
- Receiving without paying for an e-book edition of an out-of-print work when used copies are difficult to come by.
- Receiving without paying for an e-book edition of an out-of-print work when used copies are plentiful.
- Receiving without paying for an e-book edition of an in-print work.
Of that list I have difficulty seeing what difficulty you could have with (1). To me at least (2) seems identical to (1) – the impact on the author is identical. I see (3) as somewhat borderline and (4) & (5) as clearly wrong, although (5) as worse than (4).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Jordan
Every time I decide I want a book, I check to see if it's available as an e-book. If not, I check to see if it is available in print. If not, maybe I'll try the few used bookstores I know of. But if I still don't find it, I just won't get it. Maybe I'll call the publisher, and ask them to re-release it. But I'm not going to go and steal it, for two reasons: One, it doesn't get back to the publisher, so they don't know it's in demand; and Two, if the publisher does find out, they will NOT release the book, because of the demonstrated tendency for theft.
|
I don’t get the last line of reasoning there. The fact that – bereft of any other means of reading the book – you received a pirated e-book edition would lead the publisher to conclude that only e-book pirates are interested in that particular book?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve Jordan
As long as there's a "darknet," there will be publishers who will not want to release titles into it. That will not help the publishing industry, nor will it help the consumer. So it's worth while to play "by the rules" and shun the darknets, thereby encouraging e-book publishers to give us more legal books.
Sure, it's not a perfect system. Sure, it means waiting seemingly forever for some books, and maybe literally forever for others. But in this case, it's better than the illegal alternative: A continued stifling of the e-book market thanks to the operation of scofflaws.
|
But if my analysis is correct then legal e-book availability has no impact on pirated e-book availability. The pirates get their kudos from scanning and OCRing p-books. In fact, my conclusion would be that the publishers should reduce piracy by “printing” solely e-books.
