[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by llasram

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.

Check out footage of a riot in any major city, and you'll usually see human nature assert itself in taking whatever people think thay can get away with carrying. That "innate sense of fairness" is a great concept which, unfortunately, has not been widely demonstrated in real life. That's why we have to have laws in the first place.

Originally Posted by llasram

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.

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.

Your arguments seem to suggest your opinion is that as long as the author did not create the work you obtained for free, he is not impacted. I disagree. You, the consumer, in fact do not have the right to reproduce another person's work without permission. When you do, you create another instance of that person's intellectual property, which, due to copyright law, is his to sell... not yours. When you make the decision for him, without his permission, you are violating his rights. That is both illegal AND immoral.

Originally Posted by llasram

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.

I hear this a lot: "An e-book isn't really an object to buy or sell... it's a bunch of electrons, nothing like a real, physical object that I can hold in my hand. Therefore it should, by rights, be free to create, trade, or give away."

What an e-book is, is an intellectual property. Whether you can physically hold it is immaterial... that is a rationalization which, in fact, does not hold water (because electrons are material objects... they are the basic matter that makes up material objects... and the fact that you can't actually see them doesn't mean they don't exist. I know an elephant named Horton who can tell you all about that concept). The intellectual property is considered valuable, whatever the medium, and laws are written to protect its creator/owner. Again, those laws may need to be revised to better encompass digital files, but they do cover them by intent already.

Originally Posted by llasram

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.

I don't mean to say that Joe can't rip the CD he owns to an MP3 for his own use. Almost every government on the planet gives an implicit okay to do this (even if it is just looking the other way). But Joe does not have the right to sell, or even give away, that MP3 to another, without the author's permission (in the U.S., and in some other countries). That is illegal (in the U.S., and in some other countries) and immoral (to anyone who believes that Thou Shalt Not Steal).

Originally Posted by llasram

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?

This has been mentioned throughout this site, in many threads.

Originally Posted by llasram

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?

Strictly speaking, you are violating the law to do so. Practically speaking, as long as neither of you sell your copies... the law couldn't care less. (Unless they catch you. Then you'll be fined, and wished you never heard of e-books. That one's up to you.)