Piracy and Human Nature

[Anthem]

Well the definition of all these words is all crapped up.

Piracy is a different activity from stealing (although it entails it!). Sharing should also be cordoned off and remain excluded from the definition of piracy even though the big media companies desperately hope they can convince us that they are the same thing.

A candy bar:

-The person who takes a candy bar from the store shelf and pockets it without paying is guilty of theft and therefore a thief.

-The person who takes a candy bar and replicates it a thousand times or acquires a thousand increments and sells the goods to suspecting and unsuspecting people is traditionally thought of as a pirate. <--Counterfeiting (thanks to Kali Yuga for pointing this out!)

-Copying illegally would be piracy. In the digital world incidental copying is an interesting operation and where much of the per-view per-instance difficulty comes in.

-The person who buys a candy bar and shares it with other people while also enjoying it for him/herself is the hard to categorize person that industry wants to be labeled as a pirate out of convenience to their flighty prosecutorial cause.

The re-defining of a person who wants to share cool S*it with people (which we have all done for our entire lives because it is a part of our nature as humans) as a bad person guilty of heinous criminal activity has been popularly accomplished or is proceeding with staggering efficiency. It is massive sleight of hand and legally treacherous to human nature.

And that is the digital problem: every person who owns a computer has been given capabilities that only the incredibly wealthy or the well entrenched/well-connected and amazingly technical have been able to have in the past. Now, a $300 notebook computer can do almost all of these things.

Big media freaks out because average people now have their capabilities and they fear for their absolute and sovereign control over their content empires. So what do they do? Introduce hardware and software gateways to content and watchdog solutions to guard the content. Second, redefine piracy in order to set every consumer up as not only a potential pirate, but literally sitting on the fence in a way that requires policing and guarding of content on a per-view per-instance basis because every consumer is now a threat and dangerous as a consequence, not to mention most probably a wanton criminal at heart.

My only comment on my own thoughts is that I do not advocate the sharing of copyrighted content even when you can. People can buy their own damn books as far as I'm concerned, and mine shall be jealously guarded whether they have DRM on them (in which case the guarding is out of my hands) or not (in which case the guarding is my task). I don't like feeling like I have been stolen from. On the other hand, it is within human nature to share and to share rampantly. Content producers will either figure this out and learn how to use it to their advantage or they will eternally be banging their drums against it and finding themselves in divine opposition to humanity in general.

I don't know the solution, but I hope someone figures it out soon because the digital revolution of the last 50 years has given the average person awesome powers and completely redefined our definition as the populace, cosmos, or mass. We have been given the power to not only consume with ease to be create and destroy with impunity in our digital lives. We are the masters now. We are less dependant on big people than ever in the history of our species.

What be your thoughts?

[jgaiser]

I have a number of thoughts on this subject, but I'll probably keep most of them to myself as threads like this usually end up ratholing as extremes for and against end up driving the middle ground away. We'll see how this one ends up.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Anthem

What be your thoughts?

That this has been discussed 1000 times before, and that you're unlikely to change anyone's mind from its already entrenched position on one side or another.

[FF2]

Interesting take. Although, I do have a problem with buying and sharing a candy bar. If you do buy and share it, you only get a portion or a taste as do those others you share with. Now a taste might be more than sufficient but sharing a book in that manner might be a bit disappointing. Which chapter(s) do you keep and which do you share with others?

The "lending" feature now being implemented might help but the limitations on that method might be a bit too constraining. Only once and for a short period.

As I have written I purchased the Lost Symbol in hardbound. I did not get to it and actually loaned it out to about 5 other people. Possibly I deprived author/publisher of sales. I don't know if any of those borrowers would have purchased it if they could not borrow my copy.

Can't do the same with a ebook - heinous crime or maybe I should say heinous act since the debate rages over whether copyright infringement is a crime or merely a civil/contractual wrong.

Let's see how long it takes for this thread to span pages.......

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by FF2

As I have written I purchased the Lost Symbol in hardbound. I did not get to it and actually loaned it out to about 5 other people. Possibly I deprived author/publisher of sales. I don't know if any of those borrowers would have purchased it if they could not borrow my copy.

Can't do the same with a ebook - heinous crime or maybe I should say heinous act since the debate rages over whether copyright infringement is a crime or merely a civil/contractual wrong.

Certainly you can do the same with an eBook - by physically lending your eBook reader, with the book on it, to other people. That is the exact equivalent of lending someone your hardback book, and is absolutely fine. You break no laws if you do that.

The problems occur when people erroneously mistake the act of "lending" with the entirely separate activity of making duplicate copies of the book. To extend your analogy, "lending" someone a copy of your eBook is the equivalent of photocopying your hardback, and then providing each of your five friends with a photocopy, while at at the same time retaining the original yourself. It's a completely different activity. It's not the "lending" that's the problem; it's the creation of multiple copies where previously there was only one.

[jerrywojo]

I can count on 1 finger the amount of people I personally know who are capable of navigating the net in that certain way to partake in piracy. All have PC's or equivalents and most would have a hard time figuring out Farmville.

Now with that being said. I just wonder what the percentages are of "average people" having the technical know how to pirate books? I'm thinking the numbers are so low to actually be unmeasurable.

[Jellby]

And comparing physical goods with copyrighted material is like mixing churras with merinas, as we say here.

[jgaiser]

Originally Posted by Jellby

And comparing physical goods with copyrighted material is like mixing churras with merinas, as we say here.

As someone who raised Navajo Churro (related to the Churra) for about 15 years, I love the quote.

[cfrizz]

Originally Posted by FF2

...whether copyright infringement is a crime or merely a civil/contractual wrong.

Copyright infringement is a misdemeanor civil offense. Civil offenses are punishable by fines or possible jail time in a county jail. Crimes that are felony's are crimes against the state & punishable by imprisonment in a state or federal prison.

Originally Posted by jerrywojo

I can count on 1 finger the amount of people I personally know who are capable of navigating the net in that certain way to partake in piracy. All have PC's or equivalents and most would have a hard time figuring out Farmville.

Now with that being said. I just wonder what the percentages are of "average people" having the technical know how to pirate books? I'm thinking the numbers are so low to actually be unmeasurable.

I consider myself fairly computer literate, however, I don't have the slightest clue on how to pirate a book. But I'm getting closer to deciding to search the web for copies of my drm books that are drm free.

[Quexos]

Personally I don't think vitals such as food or health care should cost anything. Because they are vital and you can't help yourself. You can't decide tomorrow to stop eating cause food is too expensive or because you lost your job. Therefore I believe selling food is morally wrong. But that won't stop companies from selling food because their interests come first.
As for the non vitals, well I can understand that they want money for their works and creations and these should be worth some if they are good. Unfortunately it is human nature for each to defend their own interests. So from that point of view It is in the interest of the corporation or company or author (or any other producer of a marketable product) to sell it and make as much money as possible. But on the other hand it is in the interest of the individual to get that desired product for as little as possible. And as little as possible can be "free" if the chance arises. And the chance has risen with the advent of the internet. So the question then would be: can the individuals be blamed for defending their own interest ? as every other company, author, corporation, government and so on, would do ?
Sometimes corporations and companies succeed to bring some individuals down as one can hear in the news and such individuals end up with impossible to pay fines of hundreds of thousands of dollars and prison time.
The corporation does not say: hmm maybe prison is too harsh, by sending this person to jail we take away his freedom, when this person only did what millions do on the net ...
No, they get that person to go to jail without pity and why ? because their corporate interests come first. So I say, fair enough, but when the tide turns and the individual becomes king and has more power towards defending his/her interest, don't blame him/her.

Originally Posted by Anthem

What be your thoughts?

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Anthem

The person who takes a candy bar and replicates it a thousand times or acquires a thousand increments and sells the goods to suspecting and unsuspecting people is traditionally thought of as a pirate.

Actually, that's a counterfeiter.

Originally Posted by Anthem

-The person who buys a candy bar and shares it with other people while also enjoying it for him/herself is the hard to categorize personthat industry wants to be labeled as a pirate out of convenience to their flighty prosecutorial cause.

A person who non-commercially distributes IP without permission is a "copyright infringer."

And by now, we pretty much all know this is what we mean when we say "pirate." (And definitions change constantly; e.g. "nice" had a completely different meaning 200 or so years ago.) Quibbling over semantics doesn't really help.

Originally Posted by Anthem

The re-defining of a person who wants to share cool S*it with people (which we have all done for our entire lives because it is a part of our nature as humans) as a bad person guilty of heinous criminal activity has been popularly accomplished or is proceeding with staggering efficiency. It is massive sleight of hand and legally treacherous to human nature.

Err......

"Intellectual property" is a social construct. So is material property, marriage, currency, gender, law and political rights. None of these things have a "natural state." Nor is applying them "treacherous."

Humans do not necessarily have an innate desire to "share cool stuff." History is replete with secrets, exclusivity and restrictions on information, training and knowledge. E.g. the Bible wasn't translated into vernacular languages until the 1500s, and even then over the objections of the RCC; and only the elite read Latin (if at all).

I suggest you be extremely careful and circumspect when making blanket assertions about "human nature."

Originally Posted by Anthem

Big media freaks out because average people now have their capabilities and they fear for their absolute and sovereign control over their content empires.

Well, not exactly.

Yes, they don't want to lose control. Neither do you, yes?

But it's mostly economics, not power plays.

Originally Posted by Anthem

So what do they do? ....redefine piracy in order to set every consumer up as not only a potential pirate, but literally sitting on the fence in a way that requires policing and guarding of content on a per-view per-instance basis because every consumer is now a threat and dangerous as a consequence, not to mention most probably a wanton criminal at heart.

Copyright law has been around for hundreds of years, so the concept is not entirely new.

But yes, when a new technology is introduced, you're going to need to either make new laws or reshape old ones to keep up. "The laws don't keep up" is a common complaint.

[cfrizz]

Originally Posted by Quexos

Personally I don't think vitals such as food or health care should cost anything. Because they are vital and you can't help yourself. You can't decide tomorrow to stop eating cause food is too expensive or because you lost your job. Therefore I believe selling food is morally wrong. But that won't stop companies from selling food because their interests come first.
As for the non vitals, well I can understand that they want money for their works and creations and these should be worth some if they are good. Unfortunately it is human nature for each to defend their own interests. So from that point of view It is in the interest of the corporation or company or author (or any other producer of a marketable product) to sell it and make as much money as possible. But on the other hand it is in the interest of the individual to get that desired product for as little as possible. And as little as possible can be "free" if the chance arises. And the chance has risen with the advent of the internet. So the question then would be: can the individuals be blamed for defending their own interest ? as every other company, author, corporation, government and so on, would do ?
Sometimes corporations and companies succeed to bring some individuals down as one can hear in the news and such individuals end up with impossible to pay fines of hundreds of thousands of dollars and prison time.
The corporation does not say: hmm maybe prison is too harsh, by sending this person to jail we take away his freedom, when this person only did what millions do on the net ...
No, they get that person to go to jail without pity and why ? because their corporate interests come first. So I say, fair enough, but when the tide turns and the individual becomes king and has more power towards defending his/her interest, don't blame him/her.

And if corporations can do & get away with what the CEO & other executives of Enron got away with for so long they would & no doubt do. The devastation of that mess is still felt by thousands of people.

[CazMar]

Perhaps we should also look at ebooks in the same way we do other items like paper books or CD's - I would like to be able to share them with my family/best friend but no way am I "lending" my paper books (or anything else) to a perfect stranger or even a casual acquaintance. Do we need a "friends" system like Facebook but perhaps limited to, say, 4 people who have borrowing rights? This would be a much fairer DRM system and fits in with our everyday way of interacting with our closest social group.

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by Quexos

Therefore I believe selling food is morally wrong. But that won't stop companies from selling food because their interests come first.

Where I am, people who can't afford food can get free food. It may not be the food they prefer, but it will sustain them; "preferred food" is optional and must be paid for. If people are willing to pay a premium for convenience, let them. When I pay for a pizza, I do so willingly, and I'm serving my own interests just as much as Papa Johns or Pizza Hut are serving theirs. No moral issue there - simply supply and demand.

As for the non vitals, well I can understand that they want money for their works and creations and these should be worth some if they are good. Unfortunately it is human nature for each to defend their own interests.

Entertainment items carry the highest price the market will bear. For some entertainment, the market is local, which is why one movie theatre might have a different ticket price than one of the same chain just 10 miles away. If someone wants a cheaper ticket, they can drive across town, or they can go to a matinée. Or they can stay home. People serve their interests by choosing the option they can afford and are willing to pay for. As long as a rate increase does not negatively effect projected profits, it is considered successful. The more expensive theatre stays in business because the location with the cheapest ticket prices is a reflection of its location - often not a favorable neighborhood.

Ebooks are not locally priced. New books in general are not locally priced, at least not on the scale of some other forms of entertainment. The regions are broken up by country (or larger) not by towns. And yet plenty of people buy them at the going rate. When someone chooses to download an illegal copy, they are not simply "serving their own interests". Not buying the book at all because they can't afford it would be serving their interests. Downloading a pirated copy instead of paying for it stems from a sense of entitlement.

The highest sustainable market price takes time to form, but I suspect it will never be as cheap as some would like. But there are options - different books have different prices, except most of the Agency 5 titles. There are hundreds of thousands of books published - choosing one that looks interesting within one's price range would be serving one's interests. No one is entitled to any given book in any given format. Entertainment has always been about "something for everyone" not "everything for everyone". There are a few select situations in which illegal downloading might be acceptable - in my opinion, pricing is not one of them because it's a variable unique to each individual.

As far as the original post, maybe it's because I'm an only child, but I don't feel a driving need to share my stuff with all my friends. I loaned out a book once. Once.

[ficbot]

But HarryT, it is not as absolute as even you make it out to be. My mother's Kobo is technically registered to my account and I buy the books for her when she requests them. I then take the physical Kobo, load the books onto it and give the physical Kobo back to her. If *I* then want to read the books though (I haven't, because so far she has asked for books which do not interest me) I still have them on my account and can read them on my iPad, off the website etc. even if not on the Kobo which she now has in her possession. And this is perfectly legal and ADE allows me to have more than one device, and even the die-hard zealots on this forum have said this is just fine...