MobileRead Forums - View Single Post - Misleading Metaphors That Drive The War On Online Sharing

Hamlet53 · 11-20-2011, 04:16 PM

This was originally about the language used to describe use your words of choice; “file sharing,” “theft,” “piracy,” or “copyright infringement.” It has since devolved into the usual arguments about the legality or morality of the act. So a few thoughts on some of the arguments that have appeared here, from my point of view. I will use “copyright infringement (CI) to not get caught up in the battle over language.

First what I consider the most specious argument in favor of CI, that is something like the “seller is charging so much more than [what I think] it is worth so people are justified in CI.” Ridiculous. I firmly believe that in a prosperous society like the US [for example] people have a right to genuine needs such as adequate food, shelter, medical care, and for youth education, being fulfilled even if unable to pay for these. Those are needs. No one needs a MP3 of the latest Lady Gaga song or an ebook of the most recent book in the A Song of Ice and Fire series. Don't have the money or don't want to spend the money that the copyright owner is asking, then do without it.

Then there is the “fair use” concept. A teacher distributing xerox copies of portions of a copyrighted book is fair use. A teacher (school district) purchasing a single copy of the ebook and then making multiple copies of the file to distribute to the class is just CI to save some money.

If one person in a family purchases a single copy of a paper book that person does not expect to be able to go back to the bookstore and receive additional copies for free to distribute to friends and family members. I don't understand why people think it becomes acceptable when the purchase is of an ebook. This without even getting into the idea of purchasing a single copy and putting the file up on a web site for an unlimited number of strangers to download for free.

Then there is the issue of what sort of damages are appropriate when a person is caught engaging in CI. Let me relate a true story from about 10 years ago. I was discussing with a friend the case of a woman he knew who had been defrauded by an auto repair shop, charged for work and parts never done. This friend thought the woman was a b___h because she was not satisfied with the auto shop's offer to refund to her the fraudulent charges but was suing for additional damages in civil court. My reply to the friend at that time was for the auto shop owner to only refund his ill gotten gains when he got caught and keep those ill gotten gains when he wasn't caught was hardly and inducement for him to stop the practice. Just the opposite, heads he comes out even and tails he wins. The concept of awarding punitive damages in addition to actual damages in order to actually discourage harmful action is nothing new to the case of CI.

11-20-2011, 04:16 PM	#228
Hamlet53 Nameless Being	This was originally about the language used to describe use your words of choice; “file sharing,” “theft,” “piracy,” or “copyright infringement.” It has since devolved into the usual arguments about the legality or morality of the act. So a few thoughts on some of the arguments that have appeared here, from my point of view. I will use “copyright infringement (CI) to not get caught up in the battle over language. First what I consider the most specious argument in favor of CI, that is something like the “seller is charging so much more than [what I think] it is worth so people are justified in CI.” Ridiculous. I firmly believe that in a prosperous society like the US [for example] people have a right to genuine needs such as adequate food, shelter, medical care, and for youth education, being fulfilled even if unable to pay for these. Those are needs. No one needs a MP3 of the latest Lady Gaga song or an ebook of the most recent book in the A Song of Ice and Fire series. Don't have the money or don't want to spend the money that the copyright owner is asking, then do without it. Then there is the “fair use” concept. A teacher distributing xerox copies of portions of a copyrighted book is fair use. A teacher (school district) purchasing a single copy of the ebook and then making multiple copies of the file to distribute to the class is just CI to save some money. If one person in a family purchases a single copy of a paper book that person does not expect to be able to go back to the bookstore and receive additional copies for free to distribute to friends and family members. I don't understand why people think it becomes acceptable when the purchase is of an ebook. This without even getting into the idea of purchasing a single copy and putting the file up on a web site for an unlimited number of strangers to download for free. Then there is the issue of what sort of damages are appropriate when a person is caught engaging in CI. Let me relate a true story from about 10 years ago. I was discussing with a friend the case of a woman he knew who had been defrauded by an auto repair shop, charged for work and parts never done. This friend thought the woman was a b___h because she was not satisfied with the auto shop's offer to refund to her the fraudulent charges but was suing for additional damages in civil court. My reply to the friend at that time was for the auto shop owner to only refund his ill gotten gains when he got caught and keep those ill gotten gains when he wasn't caught was hardly and inducement for him to stop the practice. Just the opposite, heads he comes out even and tails he wins. The concept of awarding punitive damages in addition to actual damages in order to actually discourage harmful action is nothing new to the case of CI.