Misleading Metaphors That Drive The War On Online Sharing

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Fictionwise says:
"You may download eBooks that you have bought for your personal use, but may not distribute them to other people using email, floppy, or any other method. You may not print copies and distribute those copies to other persons. Doing any of these things is a violation of international copyright law and would subject you to possible fines or imprisonment."

Emphasis added. I can't buy YA books and load them on her Kindle instead of my PEZ; if I bought it, it's for my use only. (Nevermind that no, copyright law doesn't make any rules about sharing a legitimate copy. Their site terms say "no sharing.")

Smashwords says:
"all Work furnished by Smashwords is licensed for the use of the End Users of the Site and may not be sublicensed or resold. If you purchase a work, you hold a non-exclusive, non-transferable, and non-distributable right of use. In other words, you are free to enjoy it for your own use, but you are not authorized to share, sell, or distribute the work to others."

Again, no allowance for sharing, even within the same household.

And you think that would hold up in court?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

And you think that would hold up in court?

At most it would be a breach of contact, which is a civil matter. It's certainly not a crime to let other members of your household read your books.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

In arguments of copyright infringement, it's not a matter of being "hurt," it's a matter of taking an action that could potentially deny a copyright owner a potential profit from their product. It's impossible to unilaterally decide who is "hurt" by downloading a copy of something that is not otherwise available. But it's easy to state that, if a product/service was someone's property by law, someone else should not profit from it.

I suspect the reason "fair use" is applied to law is that it allows for those who violate copyright to be exempt from automatic prosecution, as long as they don't try to make a profit on said product; but the moment you do try to make a profit, your status is automatically shifted to "criminal"... IOW, it's an interim step before becoming a criminal offense.

Even that can't be the full standard. Example - book reviews. Quoting a sentence or two as a descriptive example would be a clear example of fair use (in the US), and most reviews are done for profit. That doesn't meet your description.

[Billi]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I've got a teenager with an ebook reader; she can't legally buy any ebooks because she has no credit cards & isn't eligible for most bookstores' TOS. (Not able to sign a contract in the US; not over 18.) According to most bookstores, I'm not allowed to buy books for her.

Are you sure? I don't know much about US law but I would be surprised if it differs very much from German law in this case. In my opinion, your scenario has nothing to do with copyright but is covered by these parts of the law that deal with situations where parents act for their teenage children. And of course you can buy anything for/in the name of your daughter and give it to her, even ebooks..

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Not true. In fact, patent and copyright laws were drafted specifically to provide incentive to create products that would be mutually productive for society; without those laws, we would have less creativity and fewer products due to the lack of profit incentive, because industrialization makes it too easy to copy others' products/services and steal their potential profits.

Steve, this get to the nub of the matter. Much of the foundation of this discussion is based on bad metaphors to start with. Copyright is not property (in the classic sense), and using and thinking of it as property leads to a completely false base for thinking and considering. Making more metaphors based on a false metaphor to start with just leads to confusion and propaganda. (And that is the purpose of metaphors in this context - propaganda).

Stop and compare Patent and Copyright. It costs thousands of dollars to obtain a Patent, and you have to prove that it is "new, unique, and not obvious". Copyright, however, is just slap some stuff together and voila, copyright.

Patent only lasts 20 years, and it used to be a maximum or 34 years. Did the shrinkage reduce inventiveness? Not hardly...

Yet at the same time, copyright got extended, and extended; far beyond the rationale for encouraging creativity.

Herein lies the problem. Patent stays short because it was designed for corporate use; and it is a balancing act. On average, is a corporation better off making money off of it inventions via licensing while paying for everybody's else's patents; or forgoing the licensing money in order to use existing art for free. The balancing point seems to be 20-30 years.

Copyright keeps getting driven longer and longer because the corporations that own our government keep taking it from the public because the public is not protected from them. There is nobody with the resources to push back. Is this good? No, not even to the corporations doing it! Why? Because they lose the moral foundation of contract with the public. Since they are perceived as stealing from the public, some of the public has no compunction from stealing back. Couple that with technology that is relatively simple, cheap, and widely disseminated, and you have today.

Remember, everything before Dec. 31, 1954, should already be in the public domain. Music, movies, books - all of it. That was what the public contracted for with the patent law of 1909. Bribing Congressmen should not be construed as a moral act...

[teh603]

Originally Posted by Pinecone

BTW the Dalek is more likely trademarked than copyrighted. Trademarks are permanent. Copyrights is (or is supposed to be) limited in duration.

Nope. Trademarks have a "use it or lose it" law, unless that's been repealed- which I doubt, because otherwise Disney wouldn't be fighting to hard to keep Mickey Mouse.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

People like that will be very much a minority, and if you get the price and convenience factors right they won't even bother looking for a free copy. Most unauthorised downloading is done on impulse — you see it, you download it. Most are never even read after download.

To quote a certain police captain: "Just because you say it with conviction, doesn't make it so!" You don't know how many people pirate files, buy files, pirate only because they couldn't find a legit file, or buy legit because they couldn't find a pirate file. And "most are never read" is NOT the same as "none are ever read." You can't make an absolute statement out of suppositions and estimates.

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Even that can't be the full standard. Example - book reviews. Quoting a sentence or two as a descriptive example would be a clear example of fair use (in the US), and most reviews are done for profit. That doesn't meet your description.

But a review of a book isn't recounting the entire book, it is its own original product; so it's not bound by the laws governing redistributing the entire book.

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Steve, this get to the nub of the matter. Much of the foundation of this discussion is based on bad metaphors to start with. Copyright is not property (in the classic sense), and using and thinking of it as property leads to a completely false base for thinking and considering. Making more metaphors based on a false metaphor to start with just leads to confusion and propaganda. (And that is the purpose of metaphors in this context - propaganda)...

Yes, we agree on this (alert the media). Copyright was formed using existing "property" metaphors in the first place... and that was probably a mistake--a minor mistake, which did little harm at the outset, but which has gotten to be larger and more troublesome over time thanks to corporate manipulation. Now, we are trying to apply a metaphor-mistaken statute to electronic files, a wholly new entity that was unheard-of when the original copyright laws were formed.

So, we know we need new metaphors that work for electronic files in general, and entertainment media like ebooks and music in particular. The next question is, are there good sources of existing metaphors for electronic media (such as cable TV, broadcast, service industry, utilities, etc), or do we need a completely new set of metaphors for electronic media? And if so, where do we get those?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

To quote a certain police captain: "Just because you say it with conviction, doesn't make it so!" You don't know how many people pirate files, buy files, pirate only because they couldn't find a legit file, or buy legit because they couldn't find a pirate file. And "most are never read" is NOT the same as "none are ever read." You can't make an absolute statement out of suppositions and estimates.



But a review of a book isn't recounting the entire book, it is its own original product; so it's not bound by the laws governing redistributing the entire book.



Yes, we agree on this (alert the media). Copyright was formed using existing "property" metaphors in the first place... and that was probably a mistake--a minor mistake, which did little harm at the outset, but which has gotten to be larger and more troublesome over time thanks to corporate manipulation. Now, we are trying to apply a metaphor-mistaken statute to electronic files, a wholly new entity that was unheard-of when the original copyright laws were formed.

So, we know we need new metaphors that work for electronic files in general, and entertainment media like ebooks and music in particular. The next question is, are there good sources of existing metaphors for electronic media (such as cable TV, broadcast, service industry, utilities, etc), or do we need a completely new set of metaphors for electronic media? And if so, where do we get those?

Maybe, for a start, that copyright and patent should have the same term, no matter what that term is, and should have the same legal enforcement framework.

The main metaphor problem is - what is ownership in the digital world. Do I buy a copy of 1's and 0's? Do I license it? How do you advertise the sale (lease? license?) You can't make metaphors until you can define (and explain) what you mean. (And everybody else understands what you mean.)

On one hand, you have the old physical (analog) concept of "I pay you money and it's mine, to do with what I wish" world. Everybody understands that world and it's implications.

The only metaphor for the digital world that everybody understands is the "movie ticket" metaphor. You buy a ticket and you see it once. You want to see it again? Buy another ticket. This works because the owners of the product being views keep control of the product. Nobody else gets a copy to keep. This is the basis for cable, only on a fixed price basis (X television for Y dollars a month).

This is the trend today. That's what cloud computing is all about. Your "data" is treated as a license, and you stream it, on a per use basis. Or you set up a custom list, a la Pandora. The idea is that eventually, only crooks and cranks will have their own data.

Because with the technology today, copyright data will always be leaking...

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Maybe, for a start, that copyright and patent should have the same term, no matter what that term is, and should have the same legal enforcement framework.

I'm good with the same term idea, though I honestly don't think it must be a requirement. We've pointed out the differences between patenting physical objects and copyright of ideas; those differences could influence term periods. But since I don't have a logical breakdown of how, I'll go with equal terms.

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

The main metaphor problem is - what is ownership in the digital world. Do I buy a copy of 1's and 0's? Do I license it? How do you advertise the sale (lease? license?) You can't make metaphors until you can define (and explain) what you mean. (And everybody else understands what you mean.)

On one hand, you have the old physical (analog) concept of "I pay you money and it's mine, to do with what I wish" world. Everybody understands that world and it's implications.

The only metaphor for the digital world that everybody understands is the "movie ticket" metaphor. You buy a ticket and you see it once. You want to see it again? Buy another ticket. This works because the owners of the product being views keep control of the product. Nobody else gets a copy to keep. This is the basis for cable, only on a fixed price basis (X television for Y dollars a month).

Combining the movie ticket metaphor with the cable service metaphors is on the right track. Keep in mind that both imply a level of verification required: In the case of movies, the ticket; in the case of cable TV, the house itself (since it almost always stays put) and/or the cable decoder box. We'd need an appropriate version of those metaphors to apply to whatever we use to establish accounts and/or read the files.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

I'm good with the same term idea, though I honestly don't think it must be a requirement. We've pointed out the differences between patenting physical objects and copyright of ideas; those differences could influence term periods. But since I don't have a logical breakdown of how, I'll go with equal terms.



Combining the movie ticket metaphor with the cable service metaphors is on the right track. Keep in mind that both imply a level of verification required: In the case of movies, the ticket; in the case of cable TV, the house itself (since it almost always stays put) and/or the cable decoder box. We'd need an appropriate version of those metaphors to apply to whatever we use to establish accounts and/or read the files.

That'll be done with a logon/device setup. To use Amazon's Cloud for an example, it'll know who's Fire is attached to whose account. (And you will be able to change/add other Amazon machines...

They'll even fine you for copyright violations and send part of the money to the big providers. Not Amazon currently, but Apple's cloud charges for uploading and maintaining music not on their valid playlists ($24 a year), and split the amount with the big music companies. (And this gives them marketing data on what non-big music acts to sign....)

And everybody a happy corporate slave.....

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Billi

Are you sure? I don't know much about US law but I would be surprised if it differs very much from German law in this case. In my opinion, your scenario has nothing to do with copyright but is covered by these parts of the law that deal with situations where parents act for their teenage children. And of course you can buy anything for/in the name of your daughter and give it to her, even ebooks..

US law dealing with children is severely lacking in coherence. In some areas, they're treated like property that belongs to the parents--they can't decide where to live or get a job or even what to read and what church to attend, and parents are liable for the consequences of their crimes. On other areas, they're wards of the state; if the parents' choices are considered too weird or harmful, the state demands the right to make those decisions instead. (In some cases, this is valid; in others, it's religious discrimination or other invasion of family rights.)

What rights minors have to own property, including money, are unclear. That their parents are expected to provide for their welfare is certain; whether that includes "buy books/software/services registered entirely to parent" is unclear. And the digital contracts that have sprung up all over the internet have been entirely oblivious to this--there's an unspoken understanding that of course kids in a household can use digital things bought for that household, but it's only spelled out in detail on kid-oriented products.

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

To quote a certain police captain: "Just because you say it with conviction, doesn't make it so!" You don't know how many people pirate files, buy files, pirate only because they couldn't find a legit file, or buy legit because they couldn't find a pirate file. And "most are never read" is NOT the same as "none are ever read." You can't make an absolute statement out of suppositions and estimates.

Neither can the publishers. Claiming they've "lost billions" due to pirated content is lying; they're claiming they can track how much money would've been spent if the pirate files weren't available Saying "some would have been bought!" is easily countered by "some people got the first one pirated, and bought the next few in the series."

The fact that the heaviest-pirated books are the biggest sellers supports the second theory. That doesn't make it legal--but does make it hard to claim it's causing economic damage.

But a review of a book isn't recounting the entire book, it is its own original product; so it's not bound by the laws governing redistributing the entire book.

By that logic, fanfic, unauthorized sequels, and spinoff movies would all be legal. They aren't quoting the whole original, and they're new works.

And indeed, some sequels & spinoffs have been ruled to be legally fair use; others have been ruled infringing. There is no hard line for how much can be copied & reused by someone else.

Yes, we agree on this (alert the media). Copyright was formed using existing "property" metaphors in the first place... and that was probably a mistake--a minor mistake, which did little harm at the outset, but which has gotten to be larger and more troublesome over time thanks to corporate manipulation. Now, we are trying to apply a metaphor-mistaken statute to electronic files, a wholly new entity that was unheard-of when the original copyright laws were formed.

It wasn't unheard of the last time copyright laws were edited; the corporations who wanted the power-grab of extending their monopolies just didn't want to pay attention. There's no sign, in the newer talks about copyright, that they're paying attention now to digital realities--they talk about streaming like it's inherently different from downloading, like it's not "download-and-erase." They refuse to acknowledge that every web page is copied by every reader.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Freeshadow

theft means very basically to take something from the owners possesion/radius of influence with the will to treat it as if the taker would be the owner - copying does not remove something from the owners possesion. Thus it cannot be theft, it is analogous to it, but this isn't enough since analogous aplying of legal poenal norms is also prohibited by several laws (amongst others the Eurpean Convention of Huma Rights) nulla poena sine lege unless it is in favour of the accused.

Some legal systems require that the item stolen is corporeal (Germany) so they need an additional norm defined for theft of electricity (and apart of the fact it's energy and not an item the rest fits: once taken it's gone and not just copied)
Legal language is strict face it, live with it and be happy about it, because were it different, you could be imprisoned any time just with the reasoning "Well what you have done isn't verbatim declared as illegal or forbidden, but it is kind of similar to the things which are." - just think about that and shiver.

Many theft statutes just do not required removing something from the owner's possession. Depriving them of any part of its value is enough. See the statute I linked above. Or see "theft of cable services" statutes.

Originally Posted by Pinecone

Doesn't mention printed works, just sounds.

Two points:

1. So what? Surely the argument isn't that stealing copyrighted music is theft, but stealing copyrighted books is not?

2. There is a more general provision of the statute that would apply to other copyrighted materials:

[unauthorized control means using someone's property]
(2) in a manner or to an extent other than that to which the other person has consented;

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Again, no allowance for sharing, even within the same household.

I was referring to Amazon, B&N, Kobo, etc. where publishers and authors permit up to 6 devices at the same time.

Regarding Smashwords and Fictionwise, it's the price we pay to have a DRM-free ebook. Personally, I'd rather buy from Amazon, B&N, Kobo, etc. Casual sharing permitted.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Fbone

I was referring to Amazon, B&N, Kobo, etc. where publishers and authors permit up to 6 devices at the same time.

Regarding Smashwords and Fictionwise, it's the price we pay to have a DRM-free ebook. Personally, I'd rather buy from Amazon, B&N, Kobo, etc. Casual sharing permitted.

Kindle terms:
"Content Provider grants you a non-exclusive right to view, use, and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times, solely on the Kindle or a Reading Application or as otherwise permitted as part of the Service, solely on the number of Kindles or Other Devices specified in the Kindle Store, and solely for your personal, non-commercial use."

Bolding added. They let you register extra devices, but nothing in the TOS says you can let other people look at them.

Kobo:
"The download of these literary works is intended for Kobo's Registered Users' personal and non-commercial use. Any other use of literary works downloaded from kobobooks.com is strictly prohibited. Registered Users may not modify, transmit, publish, participate in the transfer or sale of, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, display, or in any way exploit, any of the content of these literary works, in whole or in part."

Again, bolding added. The TOS says the book is only for view by the person who bought it. The allowance of multiple registered devices is presumably for that person's use; the TOS doesn't allow showing it to anyone else.

Barnes & Noble:
"Barnes & Noble grants User a non-exclusive, revocable license to download and make personal, non-commercial use of the Barnes & Noble eReader Software solely for the purpose of downloading, purchasing, accessing, reading and using Digital Content"

Same thing. The TOS only allows for the buyer to have access. (B&N, unlike the others, insists on the right to remove your access to the content.)

In all of them, there's a lot of tolerance for casual sharing, especially within a household or close family members, but none of the terms actually allow that.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Kindle terms:
"Content Provider grants you a non-exclusive right to view, use, and display such Digital Content an unlimited number of times, solely on the Kindle or a Reading Application or as otherwise permitted as part of the Service, solely on the number of Kindles or Other Devices specified in the Kindle Store, and solely for your personal, non-commercial use."

You're misapplying the phrase "personal, non-commercial."