Misleading Metaphors That Drive The War On Online Sharing

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by RichL

Just out of curiosity how would you refer to a person that downloads and uses a product without paying for it. Say for instance a copy of TurboCAD Pro Platinum 18 which sells for about $1400?

Unauthorised user.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by MovieBird

It depends. Is the person a student that is attempting to do homework at home; instead of in the overcrowded lab on campus? Are they a student/poor person attempting to learn a skill (software package) for the purpose of landing a job?

Or are they a company that simply doesn't want to pay the licensing fees?

The first, I have zero issues with. It's only when it's used for monetary gain that I balk.

Have you even seen the student versions of CAD programs? Back when I was trying to learn this stuff, SolidWorks sold a Student Version for $150. A princely sum to a educational pauper. What did this $150 get you? A piece of software that was one year behind the stated release. So Student 2011, is just repackaged 2010. It was locked to two installs. If your hard drive borks itself like mine did, you're screwed.

If you create a project in Student, and then open it in Educational or Professional, or any other version, it updates the file and refuses to let it open in Student anymore. I learned that the hard way from the computer lab. Nor would it let you actually learn the interesting stuff like the Thermal/Stress Analysis modules.

MATLAB similarly charged north of $100 and restricted the number of matrices you could calculate in a script/program. Essentially making it useless for Finite Element Analysis. You also missed a ton of essential modules for higher level modeling.

Oh, and EAGLE CAD restricts you to two signal layers and a board area of 100x80 mm. Great if all you're doing is making a blinky LED. Or if you can hand solder SMTs. But if you want anything more advanced, like a simple DAC with through hole components, you're gonna need more.

So screw CAD software companies and their draconian limitations.

Exactly.

On the literary side of things, that's also why textbook companies release a new edition every year and give professors kickbacks for requiring students to use the latest edition. What could be a $15 book of text with minimal illustrations is turned into a $100+ tome with too many illustrations and sidebars and a useless CD-ROM, whose colors all change every year. And then these companies have the gall to try and smear the used book market claiming its stealing their sales or something. And that's why self- destructing ebooks exist, too. Pay $100 now, and $100 each semester beyond the first that you want to use it.

Shame we can't wring a lot of the excess greed out of the system.

Originally Posted by sabredog

Why?

Our referee prefers 3.5e. Apparently most D&D gamers do.

There should be no reason why older rules versions could not be sold as PDF's. They take up bugger all space on a modern server hard drive.

I'm pretty sure someone's still publishing the open source version somewhere, but I've had difficulty finding it.

Originally Posted by Quexos

Perhaps we are witnessing a major paradigm shift, the beginning of a transition from a money-driven society with all its inherent inequities towards something else. A new world of social justice, a world driven and motivated by the actual well-being of all its citizens and not just an elite minority. Perhaps there is already something of this new world, with us now. Perhaps the internet is it, the first tool implementing these profound changes. I must wonder whether the very nature of the internet is not the sharing of information on a global scale, not just as such but as a beacon showing us how things should be: free and accessible to all, everywhere and at all times.
Is it just a coincidence that such large free-sharing communities of millions and millions of people spawned from the net so soon after it became this tool of the masses ? Could it be that attempting to make the internet a place of business for money profit is against its nature just as it is against its nature to have it controlled by corporations, governments or any other type of elite minority ?

Maybe it's just the dreamer in me that's talking.

Well I recall the notes of that Pied Piper call from my youth. About 10-15 years later we got Ronald Reagan.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by RichL

The way I see it, theft is taking what doesn't belong to you without paying for it. Any other definition is just a thief's self-justification or a legal squabble to earn a buck.

I pointed this out to HarryT as well: your definition is ignoring freebies.

Originally Posted by RichL

The way I see it is that that argument is simply a justification for stealing. The exact (I believe) equivalent in the physical world would be if I were some sort of a weird multi-millionaire and printed up thousands of books of a just released best seller then stood outside all the bookshops and gave them away to anyone that would accept one. Would that meet the legal definition of physical theft by those that accepted the book when they knew it wasn't one published by the author? Probably not (But who knows for sure. :-)) but the fact is, by willfully preventing the author from making as large a profit as would have been made without my giveaway they would be stealing those profits just as surely as if they had taken that money out of his wallet.

First of all, I like how in the story you don't consider yourself responsible for the author's potential loss of profits, but the people accepting free books.

The second point would be: I remember reading posts by authors who self published through Amazon that said that when other stores had offers that lowered the price of their books Amazon would match those prices and if the price went below a certain value (was it 2.99?) they would go from getting 70% on each book to getting 30%. Since you consider loss of profits to be caused by someone stealing, who is the thief in these cases?

Originally Posted by RichL

You're saying there's a difference between stealing with intend to defraud and stealing just for the hell of it?

I think that the point was that what you described isn't called stealing.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

That's *a* definition of theft, but it's not the only one. Theft in California requires proof that you " feloniously steal, take, carry, lead, or drive away the personal property of another" - with no "deprivation" requirement at all. Many states also use the model penal code's "exerting unauthorized control" language with "the intent to deprive the owner of any part of the property's value or use."

And a few states still use the "with intent to permanently deprive the owner of any part of the property's value or use."

So you can't assume that there's no theft because the owner still has a copy.

When downloading a file from the internet, you have the permission of the person that you are downloading from.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by RichL

You're saying there's a difference between stealing with intend to defraud and stealing just for the hell of it?

He's saying there is no theft if there is no loss.

With a side order of, "profits are not guaranteed in any business venture." It is not "stealing" an author's profits to convince someone not to buy a particular book. If that were the case, critical reviews would be theft.

I mean, aren't reviews theft? You're taking something that doesn't belong to you--the attention people want to give to the original author--and using it for your own benefit, possibly profit. That's use of someone else's creative work, without permission, for personal gain.

The issue of what kinds of uses are allowed (review of the book) and what kinds aren't (movie based on the book) without permission has nothing to do with the core ethic of "is it okay to use someone's work w/o their consent?"

Just out of curiosity how would you refer to a person that downloads and uses a product without paying for it. Say for instance a copy of TurboCAD Pro Platinum 18 which sells for about $1400?

Depends on their use of it. Using it once a year for fifteen minutes in a class demonstration about the history of graphic arts programs wouldn't seem to be theft to me. Likewise, downloading it after full purchase and a computer upgrade, having lost the original box with the serial numbers, wouldn't seem unethical either.

[RichL]

Originally Posted by ScalyFreak

That depends on which side I'm on, now doesn't it?

Yep what you said.

Originally Posted by ScalyFreak

What I do see is that the pirate would never have paid $1400 for the software. If it was not available to download free, he'd have gone without, which makes any outcry about a lost sale null and void. And that was pretty much my only point.

That much I agree with. The whole thing is pretty much making a mountain out of a mole hill. You have to admit though that it is giving whole generations of lawyers, reporters and bloggers something to do. :-)

I'd bet dollars to a hole in a donut that this same argument comes up in relation to dumpster divers as well.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

It's been awhile since I've seen a thread of this subject that, by now, hadn't completely devolved into pure insult and irrationality. Kudos to all. Some points:

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

(See also theft of cable services statutes).

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

He's saying there is no theft if there is no loss.

I think both of these comments are vital to this discussion, as the first represents a set of "metaphors" that might suit ebooks better than most product/services, and the latter raises an important concept also touched on by cable services.

I remember when cable services were rolled out in our area, and right away, consumers were trying to figure out how to "steal" cable signals from neighbors, what rights they had to run lines through their homes and create multiple outlets out of one, and why they were suddenly paying for something they used to get for free (excepting the cost of a television).

The customer logic was that the cable companies weren't "losing" anything through cable sharing. It was the same show, whether they got it over the air or from a spliced cable, and they'd never paid for it before. In one sense, it seemed a logical argument.

The cable companies didn't see it that way: They were creating infrastructure and providing a customized access to video materials, even if they didn't create the materials themselves; in short, they were providing a service to customers, and customers were free to pay for the service, or get their TV elsewhere.

Cable services put a lot of effort into working out problems like that, mostly through massaging laws and offering value-added extras to their services. They have been largely successful over time in satisfying customers that they are getting a valuable commodity for their money (content quality notwithstanding), and getting legislatures to back their assertion that their services could not be "pirated" without prosecution. Today, most customers do not obsess over attempts to "pirate" TV signals... they are more likely to complain about not liking the content on the 500 channels they pay for.

"Theft" of ebooks is, in many ways, similar to cable "theft," in that strictly speaking, there is no loss of physical product involved; it is considered a theft of service, the idea that you are legally expected to pay for their services provided, or go without.

The discussion about the $1400 software touches on this, as there is no "justification" for unauthorized access to something you don't need to survive; you either pay to use it, or go without. All software, from $1400 CAD programs to $5 MP3 rippers, go by this legal assumption, and it is understood and (mostly) accepted by all parties involved. (The argument that "I need this software for (work, school, whatever)" is not justifiable; if you can't afford the materials needed to follow a vocation, you simply choose another one you can afford. Society has no obligation to let you steal the supplies you need to follow a particular career choice.)

Therefore, ebooks should be considered in the context of software and broadcast services, as a digital file created by a service and offered by a provider (and therefore requiring the mutual agreement of the customer to compensate the service/provider for their work as requested), and protected by the same statutes that prevent unauthorized re-broadcast or reuse of broadcasts. This makes much more sense than looking at ebooks specifically and solely as analogues to the physical products that they replace, a model that has proven to be unworkable in the marketplace even if it seems logical on its surface.

From that foundation, we ought to be able to make the required adjustments for the realities of the internet and digital devices to ensure the proper adherence to these considerations, and most importantly, establish a way to identify and prevent unauthorized activity.

Boy, I have said way too much. Moving on!

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Pinecone

Where is this?

Can you point to the actual statuate?

This is Indiana law, but it's based on the Model Penal Code.

35-43-4-2
Sec. 2. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally exerts unauthorized control over property of another person, with intent to deprive the other person of any part of its value or use, commits theft, a Class D felony.


35-43-4-1
Sec. 1. (a) As used in this chapter, "exert control over property" means to obtain, take, carry, drive, lead away, conceal, abandon, sell, convey, encumber, or possess property, or to secure, transfer, or extend a right to property.
(b) Under this chapter, a person's control over property of another person is "unauthorized" if it is exerted:
(1) without the other person's consent;
(2) in a manner or to an extent other than that to which the other person has consented;
(3) by transferring or encumbering other property while failing to disclose a lien, adverse claim, or other legal impediment to the enjoyment of that other property;
(4) by creating or confirming a false impression in the other person;
(5) by failing to correct a false impression that the person knows is influencing the other person, if the person stands in a relationship of special trust to the other person;
(6) by promising performance that the person knows will not be performed;
(7) by expressing an intention to damage the property or impair the rights of any other person; or
(8) by transferring or reproducing:
(A) recorded sounds; or
(B) a live performance;
without consent of the owner of the master recording or the live performance, with intent to distribute the reproductions for a profit.

[CyGuy]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

35-43-4-2
Sec. 2. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally exerts unauthorized control over property of another person, with intent to deprive the other person of any part of its value or use, commits theft, a Class D felony.

Downloading the music/ebook/movie does not deprive the other person of any part of its value or use, it still has the exact same value as before. It can still be used exactly as before. Downloading it does not somehow "damage" the original.

[John F]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

...

I remember when cable services were rolled out in our area, ...

...

Dude, you must be, like, Dinosaur old.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by John F

Dude, you must be, like, Dinosaur old.

<swings cane at whippersnapper's head... dislocates shoulder, hip and three finger joints>

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

<swings cane at whippersnapper's head... dislocates shoulder, hip and three finger joints>

<Picks up Steve's cane, passed him his walker, and starts trying to whack the young whippersnapper.>

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

It's been awhile since I've seen a thread of this subject that, by now, hadn't completely devolved into pure insult and irrationality. Kudos to all. Some points:





I think both of these comments are vital to this discussion, as the first represents a set of "metaphors" that might suit ebooks better than most product/services, and the latter raises an important concept also touched on by cable services.

I remember when cable services were rolled out in our area, and right away, consumers were trying to figure out how to "steal" cable signals from neighbors, what rights they had to run lines through their homes and create multiple outlets out of one, and why they were suddenly paying for something they used to get for free (excepting the cost of a television).

The customer logic was that the cable companies weren't "losing" anything through cable sharing. It was the same show, whether they got it over the air or from a spliced cable, and they'd never paid for it before. In one sense, it seemed a logical argument.

The cable companies didn't see it that way: They were creating infrastructure and providing a customized access to video materials, even if they didn't create the materials themselves; in short, they were providing a service to customers, and customers were free to pay for the service, or get their TV elsewhere.

Cable services put a lot of effort into working out problems like that, mostly through massaging laws and offering value-added extras to their services. They have been largely successful over time in satisfying customers that they are getting a valuable commodity for their money (content quality notwithstanding), and getting legislatures to back their assertion that their services could not be "pirated" without prosecution. Today, most customers do not obsess over attempts to "pirate" TV signals... they are more likely to complain about not liking the content on the 500 channels they pay for.

"Theft" of ebooks is, in many ways, similar to cable "theft," in that strictly speaking, there is no loss of physical product involved; it is considered a theft of service, the idea that you are legally expected to pay for their services provided, or go without.

The discussion about the $1400 software touches on this, as there is no "justification" for unauthorized access to something you don't need to survive; you either pay to use it, or go without. All software, from $1400 CAD programs to $5 MP3 rippers, go by this legal assumption, and it is understood and (mostly) accepted by all parties involved. (The argument that "I need this software for (work, school, whatever)" is not justifiable; if you can't afford the materials needed to follow a vocation, you simply choose another one you can afford. Society has no obligation to let you steal the supplies you need to follow a particular career choice.)

Therefore, ebooks should be considered in the context of software and broadcast services, as a digital file created by a service and offered by a provider (and therefore requiring the mutual agreement of the customer to compensate the service/provider for their work as requested), and protected by the same statutes that prevent unauthorized re-broadcast or reuse of broadcasts. This makes much more sense than looking at ebooks specifically and solely as analogues to the physical products that they replace, a model that has proven to be unworkable in the marketplace even if it seems logical on its surface.

From that foundation, we ought to be able to make the required adjustments for the realities of the internet and digital devices to ensure the proper adherence to these considerations, and most importantly, establish a way to identify and prevent unauthorized activity.

Boy, I have said way too much. Moving on!

Steve, to riff off you metaphor, for some it is like downlinking the satellite feeds in an area without cable providers. For media not available through any legitimate commercial channels, you are stuck...

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Therefore, ebooks should be considered in the context of software and broadcast services, as a digital file created by a service and offered by a provider (and therefore requiring the mutual agreement of the customer to compensate the service/provider for their work as requested), and protected by the same statutes that prevent unauthorized re-broadcast or reuse of broadcasts.

The legal precedents following those rules allowed for taping movies & sharing them with friends. Allowed for time- and format-shifting for personal & family use. Allowed for mix-tapes of movie clips to be made for entertainment or educational use. Allowed for copies to be played on multiple devices, as many as a person wants to buy. Allows the copies to be carried to a friend's house to watch on his 42" TV.

Publishers don't want to say, "it's like cable," because cable allows a lot of activities they want to prevent.

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

This is Indiana law, but it's based on the Model Penal Code.
"unauthorized control over property of another person, with intent to deprive the other person of any part of its value or use"...

Wow, not even sticking with losses; for that one, you need intent of deprivation of value or use. If you *didn't know* that distributing 500 digital copies would cost the music company money, you're off the hook.

If you honestly believe that distributing free e-copies increases physical sales, you're not violating this law.