[Hitch]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

Note, in the following I am not making a case one way or the other regarding the rights and wrongs of copyright infringement or promoting or not DRM.



The correct comparison with copyright infringement is that you made a copy of the Rolls-Royce, not stole ("converted" in some jurisdictions) one. If you stole one your argument would be with the owner of the vehicle and the law enforcement, if you made a copy of one any argument would be with Rolls-Royce. To take a Rolls-Royce is theft, to make a copy of one is not theft.

As I alluded to before, the application of the term "theft" for copyright infringement is an emotionally charged one and is used mostly by those with some personal axe to grind and by exaggeration seeking sympathy for their case. In my view, by making such erroneous comparisons, they weaken their case.

John

John:

I'm well aware of the argument and position. The early laws for "copywrite" and "copyright" sought to add protections for the type of intangible property that is IP. The earliest laws, et al, are discussed ad nauseam on this forum; they can be looked up by anyone, so I shan't repeat them here.

Had the early lawmakers known that by calling it "copyright infringement" instead of outright "theft" would have created this loopholing, pedantic argument about how "copyright isn't really theft," I think that they would have been even more specific in their wording. The whole intent was to provide an additional layer of protection for those persons who created and shared intellectual ideas called ART. Not to diminish the theft--emotionally charged word or otherwise--of it. Not to create some lesser, second-class form of protection that is in place today. And, certainly, they could never have realistically foreseen the day when making digital copies would be a push-button operation.

It can be called piracy (which to my mind glorifies it), "borrowing," "copyright infringement," etc., but your tweaking of the analogy while not completely incorrect, is misleading. If you make a "copy" of the Rolls, then Rolls Royce is a) out the sale and b) if the copy is perfect enough, the counterfeit Rolls could enter the marketplace. If you think that RR wouldn't pursue that like a cat after Savory Salmon, you're wrong. Of COURSE they would.

(And...if the legal owner of the Rolls deliberately gave you the original to copy, knowing you'd strip it down, emulate the parts, use this and that to make the molds, etc., is he guilt-free of the now-conspiracy to dilute the value of RR, by making counterfeits available? You think that wouldn't be pursued as a theft of IP? You betcha. For the exact same reasons that an author does. The only difference is who is involved and for how much.)

Forgive me, but the whole, "let's defuse this situation by using the 'correct' legal term for it, 'copyright infringement,' instead of this emotionally-charged word, THIEF," is a form of deflection. That mayn't be your intent; perhaps you are, like I frequently am myself, simply being extremely correct in wanting everyone to understand the correct legal niceties and differences.

Let's analyze real-world cases: What's the difference between me/my company and an author, when the author's work is stolentaken?

At my company,

• I paid employees and paid overhead on each and worked hours myself on all of the book(s) that was/were done by my company, that weren't paid for.
• Did someone break into my office, hold me at gunpoint, and steal actual, real, money from my petty cash drawer?
• NO: they unlawfully took (stole) a copy of a file that I had on my computer, to which they were not legally entitled.
• How is that different from a casual thief, who takes a book from a friend, to which they are not entitled?
• The author and publisher--let's use BearMountain, simply because s/he is here, has paid time and sweat, and perhaps monies, into the work itself, copyediting, proofreading, cover design, layout, printing...or for eBooks, formatting, just as I paid my employees, in my situation, above.
• When a "pirate" steals a file that Amazon has on its computer, or BearMountainBooks has on his/hers, that's the SAME thing.
• I can't file a report of "theft" for the books that were stolen from me.
• Nor can BearMountainBooks file a report of "theft" for the books taken from him/her, by those who give them to their friends.
• And if those gifts bear fruit and multiply, onto the Darknet, she can't do a damn thing about that, either, without taking the miscreant to civil court.
• In both instances, I have to file a contract dispute; while
• s/he has to file a lawsuit for copyright infringement.

I don't know ANYONE who thinks--or perhaps they just won't say it to my face--that I am not entitled to be paid for the books we produced for those THIEVES. Contract-breakers. Whatever polite, not-emotionally-charged phrase you want to use. But many of those same folks will make the same arguments about "piracy;" well, nobody is hurt. I still don't see how those two scenarios are different--I have spent money and time, and created eBooks. So has a Publisher. When I get ripped off, the general consensus seems to be I should be able to get MY MONEY.

If that's true..then why is a publisher less entitled? What, EXACTLY, are the real, practical differences between what's happened to me, in my business (thankfully, in the past) and what happens to authors now? And yes, I know that legally, it's "copyright infringement," but I find it offensive to use such a deflecting phrase to describe what, in my opinion, can really hurt authors like the client I mentioned in the last post. (OH, and BTW, all you publicity folks: ask, go ahead and ask, just how much "free publicity" and increased sales he got from that walloping bunch of piracy. Go ahead. I dare you. Suffice it to say, we could count the "big increased sales" on ALL of his digits and toes.)

And, yes: for some of us, the discussion of general public honesty is an emotionally-charged one. Maybe it's because unlike authors, I have a way to actually SEE and TRACK and quantify exactly how much I'm being ripped off for my digital work. Authors/Publishers--and the people who want to be able to use those products as they see fit--can easily ignore the numbers, because they are unknown.

However, given my own numbers--6% of our annual gross, when those people COULD be identified, and COULD be sued for contract breach, versus the creeps hiding in the shadows of the Darknet, who can't easily be identified, and thus have far, far less risk--and given the DWA's figures, y'all mightn't be so cozy with the idea that it's just "not that many."

I'm done. Nobody on this topic ever changes their mind, not until they've been hit in the pocketbook, too.

Hitch