MobileRead Forums - View Single Post

GreenMonkey · 07-18-2012, 02:25 PM

Think of it this way.

If I download a book and read it, the content creator never got paid.

If I borrow the book from a friend, the content creator never got paid.

Then again, if you apply a piece of Kant's philosophy on morality (what if everyone did it)...

Let's say everyone shared one copy of a book (kind of impossible, but let's pretend). There would be a huge amount less in creative works. This is why we have copyright - it's a construct intended to encourage the creation of works, for the public good (see the Constitution for this in the U.S.).

But if you take it to other extremes:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47558222.../#.UAb-PpHyx8E

Skipping commercials is stealing TV (and this is not the first spat like this...VCRs were ruled fair use due to a similiar attempt to stop technology years ago). So when you walk out of the room during commercials, or mute a commercial, you are stealing content without paying.

Think of it as "the content provider should get paid" leads to thoughts like you're stealing content by watching a movie at a friend's house. Better mail in that check for every time you watch something!! Or that you are stealing by not watching the commercials in TV. Or picking up a book and browsing it in the store - you're stealing content without paying!! Or the recent DMCA takedown of an anti-Obama youtube commercial because he was singing a copyrighted song (theft of content!! singing copyrighted music!!)

Some of us think copyright and DRM have simply swung things too far to the side of content providers. Copyright is a balance - rights of the public (Fair Use) vs right of the creator to make a profit from their work.

I will not give up the concept of "ownership" for the excuse that everything is just a limited license. Property ownership is slowly being chipped away in favor of "buy this product but you can only use it how we say". Witness Sony's attempts to say that they own the software on a product you bought (the PS3) - not you. You are not allowed to modify it because you only have a limited license to do certain things with it...sound familiar?

I've no problem with making sure creators are compensated. I actually feel for authors the most because they have the least ability to make revenue from other channels. Music and movies/TV have a lot more alternate sources of revenue. That doesn't mean I want to substitute a limited license with restrictions on loaning or selling it or even using it on my own devices for the concept of property ownership.

07-18-2012, 02:25 PM	#112
GreenMonkey DRM hater Posts: 945 Karma: 2066176 Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Michigan Device: Nook ST glow, Kindle Voyage	Think of it this way. If I download a book and read it, the content creator never got paid. If I borrow the book from a friend, the content creator never got paid. Then again, if you apply a piece of Kant's philosophy on morality (what if everyone did it)... Let's say everyone shared one copy of a book (kind of impossible, but let's pretend). There would be a huge amount less in creative works. This is why we have copyright - it's a construct intended to encourage the creation of works, for the public good (see the Constitution for this in the U.S.). But if you take it to other extremes: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47558222.../#.UAb-PpHyx8E Skipping commercials is stealing TV (and this is not the first spat like this...VCRs were ruled fair use due to a similiar attempt to stop technology years ago). So when you walk out of the room during commercials, or mute a commercial, you are stealing content without paying. Think of it as "the content provider should get paid" leads to thoughts like you're stealing content by watching a movie at a friend's house. Better mail in that check for every time you watch something!! Or that you are stealing by not watching the commercials in TV. Or picking up a book and browsing it in the store - you're stealing content without paying!! Or the recent DMCA takedown of an anti-Obama youtube commercial because he was singing a copyrighted song (theft of content!! singing copyrighted music!!) Some of us think copyright and DRM have simply swung things too far to the side of content providers. Copyright is a balance - rights of the public (Fair Use) vs right of the creator to make a profit from their work. I will not give up the concept of "ownership" for the excuse that everything is just a limited license. Property ownership is slowly being chipped away in favor of "buy this product but you can only use it how we say". Witness Sony's attempts to say that they own the software on a product you bought (the PS3) - not you. You are not allowed to modify it because you only have a limited license to do certain things with it...sound familiar? I've no problem with making sure creators are compensated. I actually feel for authors the most because they have the least ability to make revenue from other channels. Music and movies/TV have a lot more alternate sources of revenue. That doesn't mean I want to substitute a limited license with restrictions on loaning or selling it or even using it on my own devices for the concept of property ownership. Last edited by GreenMonkey; 07-18-2012 at 02:37 PM.