[nekokami]

Just a general reminder-- let's keep this civil. Disagree with ideas, not people, and try to avoid inflammatory language (like "that's stupid!")

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Moejoe, there are very good examples of similar situations in the physical world. Someone creates a perfect rose and gets a patent for it. You take a seed, grow it, then clone it and give away the seeds by the thousands. Then you return one seed to the original grower. That seed you return is, of course, as perfect a copy of the original as any digital copy of a book is.

Although I agree that this is closer to the issue of distribution of digital content, I find the idea of patented living organisms very troubling. Who owns my DNA? I recognize that there can be valuable enhancements to existing organisms via breeding or other means (though I'm not a fan of genetic modification of organisms grown in the larger ecology), and for those enhancements to take place, there needs to be compensation for the effort. But saying anyone can "own" the genetic sequencing they've put together from found organisms seems very disturbing to me. I find it particularly problematic when businesses who hold these patents sue individual farmers if modified seeds blow across to their property.

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

I can walk into an art gallery and make a copy of an artwork for my own private use

Actually, many (possibly most) art galleries do not allow this. Permission to photograph artwork is controlled by either the gallery or (in some cases) the original artist. One can even buy an original painting without gaining the right to make additional copies, which may be sold separately. (I don't know if I agree with this practice or not, but it is common.)

Originally Posted by Guns4Hire

Pirates have friends and pirates make recommendations. There is revenue there, not just loss. Food for thought maybe.

Quite possible. I don't think I'd want to claim a net gain, but since there are no verifiable figures on loss, it seems premature to be talking about gain.

Originally Posted by Pardoz

A huge percentage(from what I've seen, a commanding majority, at least in fiction) of what's out there is scanned copies of books that simply aren't available in electronic form, and a good percentage of those aren't available new in any format, paper or digital - The Real Caterpillar comments on this in the interview linked above.

Yes, and when one has gone to the effort of scanning an out-of-print text, proofing, formatting, etc., it seems natural to want to share it with others. This is why I can't universally condemn uploaders. I think there's a tremendous difference between this kind of effort (or even keeping files of this type available by hosting on IRC or in torrents) and uploading a book that is already available electronically for a reasonable price. (And there's a lot of ground between these two acts, as well.) I don't think this issue is black and white.

Originally Posted by BearMountainBooks

And yet, two weeks ago an Indie author posted that she found her book posted on a pirate site.

That really does seem absurd, and insupportable.

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

What about the other 99+% of the people out there? They don't get royalties for their work. How do they take care of their kids?

They aren't relying on royalties to begin with, they are paid for their work as it is done. Authors and other creative individuals who work on a publishing and royalties system share the risk with the publishers that their efforts will be rewarded in the long run. They often put their families at risk while doing so. If we wanted to treat authors like carpenters, with no royalties, we should probably pay them by the hour for the work they complete. Some publishers work this way, but most do not.

Our contemporary notions of "intellectual property" are all based on a system that treats intellectual work separately from physical work. We assume that if one wants to earn a living from intellectual work, one must take on the risk that the work will be valued, and attempt to collect payments after making the idea public.

Then again, there is the problem that ideas are transmitted and multiplied much more easily than physical goods. Even before digital copying became possible, an idea could be shared with one person or with a room full of people for about the same effort. Ideas are also much more difficult to trace than physical goods. If I tell you about a method I use to bake bread, and then you modify it to meet your own needs, and pass it along to someone else, how much of what you pass on is your own, and how much is my idea?

This is one of the principle reasons I favor short copyright and patent terms. After a period of time an idea seeps into popular culture, and it becomes impossible for a new artist to say where they got the idea. Realistically, I'm not sure we can reasonably expect copyright or patent lengths of longer than one generation, e.g. 20 years.