[llasram]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Actually, the fact that the consumer doesn't want to pay for something they obtained from someone else's labor is the root of the problem. Solve the former, and you solve the latter.

Ah, here’s perhaps our essential difference of opinion. I’m assuming a human nature which can learn a few new tricks but is ultimately static. People in aggregate will always want something for nothing, but will have an innate sense of fairness which prevents them from “stealing” as they intuitively perceive it. I see widespread digital piracy not as a failing of human nature in the face of inflexible rights, but as a failing of the system constructing those rights in the face of an inflexible human nature.

The United States’ experiment with criminalizing alcohol during the Prohibition didn’t stop people from drinking – it just made criminals of those who drank. The law ran counter to moral intuition and lost. Moreover, the distributed, victimless nature of the crime made it ultimately impossible to enforce effectively. Alcohol consumption in the US went up during the Prohibition.

I see copyright facing a very similar situation in the face of digital reproduction and transmission.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

So far, the only "justifications" I've heard are: It's practically nothing; Everybody else does it; and I won't get caught doing it. Your own mother wouldn't buy those excuses.

What about the one I’ve repeated several times: “the author’s compensation is not impacted”? You appeared to agree with that one in the personal-use p-book–ripping case from my earlier post.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Granted, U.S. Copyright Law is antiquated, and has not kept up with the digital era. That's a reason to update and revise it... not to throw it out. Copyright law serves the purpose of guaranteeing proper compensation to a producer of works, and that need is still there.

I completely agree that we need to guarantee “proper compensation” for content-producers, and that this is purpose the institution of copyright serves. My argument is that this is only reason copyright exists, and any times copyright interferes with uses which do not relate to creator-compensation are failings of copyright. It may be illegal to violate copyright in ways which do deny creators compensation, but it is not immoral.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Not at all. Think about it: A hardback book tends to be large, heavy, printed on high-quality paper stock with well-crafted covers. Nice for display, but not something you want to damage through handling. A paperback is small, light, cheap. There's no big loss if it is ruined through handling, adverse weather conditions, accidents, or theft... it is considered disposable, whereas a hardback is not. It is easy to see why someone might value a hardback version of a book, yet prefer to have a paperback to take on a beach vacation or on a commuter train.

The same logic is applied to e-books: I have the printed book, but the e-book is more convenient, so I want that, too.

Sorry, still don’t buy it . I think most people’s intuitions are in line on the hardback-with-paperback-free analogy because the hardback and paperback are both physical things. When you have both then you have two of them, like having two wine glasses or two hotdogs. This is this context in which copyright was constructed – informational products incarnated as physical products whose value can be inflated by a state-granted production monopoly.

Even if one did want to have both the hardback and paperback for the reasons you describe (do you actually do that?) they’re still separate physical things, which you could then re-sell individually. When I and others assume that having the p-book gives one justification to have the same content in e-book form, those two representations of the same content are very much perceived as linked. Like buying the hardback, getting the paperback for free, but then only being able to re-sell them together as a unit.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Not actually... because, just as if you had bought a hardback and got a paperback for free, which would remove the cost of the paperback from the author's profits... you bought a printed book and got an e-book for free. That e-book could have been purchased (if it was a legal product), which would enrich the author. If it was not a legal product, you just supported an illegal venture, which is preventing the author from being paid for his product.

Here I think you’ll butt hard against most people’s intuitions. Even if not explicitly legal like it apparently is in Australia, I think most people feel intuitively that purchasing a music CD gives them the right to listen to that music in any form they desire. Criminalizing CD-ripping creates more criminals than it stops CDs from being ripped. My intuition applies the same principle to books – that I should only need to pay twice for the same content if I want to sell or give away one “copy” of the content.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

And again, the root of the problem here is your justifications and rationalizations for not paying for someone else's works. It is your refusal to pay that essentially prevents the author being compensated... the problems may trickle through middlemen, et al, but it starts with you. Every e-book consumer needs to understand that.

When the options are: (a) read the book without compensating the author or (b) don’t read the book without compensating the author, how is that a justification or rationalization for not paying the author? The author gets no compensation either way. The only possible difference is that the first case involves a copyright violation, but as I discussed above I feel that instances of copyright violation without content-creator harm indicate ways in which copyright is a flawed system.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

A library pays a royalty to compensate for the loaning of their books... the author still gets compensated for that.

Libraries pay a separate royalty beyond just the cover-price of the book? I haven’t previously been aware of that. Do you have any references?

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Loaning a personal copy of a printed book is accepted, because the one book was paid for, and it remains one book as often as it is loaned out. The moment someone copies the book and gives away the copies, however, they are violating copyright law.

(I’m going to read “violating copyright law” as “denying the author compensation.”)

You agreed previously that producing for personal use an e-book edition of a p-book one purchased was acceptable. What if a friend and I both buy copies of the same p-book, but then only I go through the effort to produce an e-book edition. Is it wrong for me to give him that e-book edition even though it would be alright for him to produce exactly the same thing himself?