Should Demonoid Stay Down?

[bingle]

Originally Posted by vivaldirules

To answer your question, these seem equivalent to me. Walking out the door without paying for it and digitizing it so that others can take it without paying for it seem the same to me. Actually, the latter is worse since presumably there will be many people who will end up with the item without paying for it. Although the words theft may not sound right, it sounds perfectly good to me. I just have to think about the author and publisher who worked hard to provide a product which they are not be paid for. If I need to think of that as something other than theft, I'll need some help.

OK, I'm not arguing that there is no harm to others with copyright infringement. But it's not the *same* harm as with theft. People are harmed when you stab someone with a knife, but we don't call copyright infringement "assault" or "murder". Calling it theft is just as inaccurate.

You would no doubt be confused if I said "Well, when you download a book, that's murder". Even disregarding the accuracy, using loaded terms like that will simply harm the argument.

Originally Posted by vivaldirules

How am I different if I digitize my pbook? Because I paid for the pbook that is still sitting on my shelf and I intend to use the digital copy for me alone - no one will ever see it. Should I pay the author and publisher a second time for the ebook? At the moment, I'm not convinced either way. I think it's an interesting question to think about more.

So if someone digitizes a book, and puts it on the Internet and no one downloads it, is it still theft? What if the only people who download it are people who already own the book, like you?

I'm not saying that happens, I'm just trying to probe the borders of this strange linguistic anomaly you've constructed :-)

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

I'm back. (And I've had a snack.)

Okay, I realize that it's very hard to quantify or put a price on what is essentially a collection of electrons. I honestly believe this is the crux of any argument about e-books, e-music, etc... the fact that it seems to be free and effortless to reproduce them, and that the product in a macroscopic sense, apparently does not exist.

However, in point of fact, it does have a physical form: Electrons. Electrons, in specific collections corralled by your hard drive, essentially make up the e-book, in the same way as a constantly changing collection of atoms makes up your body. Any quantum physicist would tell you that an e-book as a distinct entity is as real as your body. The courts will agree with that assessment, too.

Further, a book is considered an intellectual property, and there is a value to an intellectual property, whatever its medium. That value does not change, just because the medium has changed. A book still has the same value (plus whatever additional physical costs were involved in producing it), whether it be hardback, paperback, e-book or audiobook. Same thing goes for a movie, whether it's on film, on digital tape, or on a hard drive. It still has an inherent value, and--most importantly--it is still an intellectual property, and subject to the same regulations as any other intellectual property, whatever its medium.

This means that it is wrong, in any sense of the word or concept, to give away that intellectual property without the express permission of the creator. It also means that it is wrong, in the same word or concept, to duplicate or share it without said permission.

Legally, morally or ethically speaking, we would not expect that if we went to a movie in a theatre, we would therefore be entitled to a free DVD of that movie, or of its soundtrack, or even a poster of the hot chick in the lead. We know that we are expected, in an honest and ethical society, to pay for that other item, because it is in fact an item separate from the movie we saw in the theatre.

We also know that, if we buy a poster of the hot chick, then take a picture of that poster and try to sell our duplicate pictures, we can be hauled off to copyright court and forced to pay a fine for violation of copyright. There is no question that what we have done is wrong.

So: Is an e-book a distinct entity? Yes. Is it considered an intellectual property? Yes. Should it be free, because it has no physical form? No, because it does have a physical form... electrons... and it is treated by law as if it has a physical form.

Is a copy of an e-book the same as a copy of a printed book? Not in the eyes of the law, the property rights or the intellectual rights holder. It has physical form, therefore it is a distinct entity, and anyone who obtains it is expected to pay for it, and to respect its intellectual and property rights by not copying it and giving the copies away.

Does this make sense? Yes, in a society that exists by agreement, abides ethics and respects law and honesty. To those who do not respect law, honesty, ethics and agreement, this clearly makes no sense at all.

But the word "Anarchy" does.

[Trenien]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Part of me can't believe I'm discussing the abstract philosophical justifications of ownership and theft!

There is a reason for that: Theft is when you take a physical good from someone. When you download an ebook (or whatever other piece digital good) without paying for it when the copyright's owner isn't giving it out for free, your committing copyright infringement. Not theft.

Once again: copyright infringement isn't theft, and one download doesn't equal one less sale. And at least in the case of artistic works, although for some download you get one less sale, for others you get one you wouldn't have otherwise.

I expect that technology will eventually find a way to make piracy too much of a hassle to be bothered with, by all but the most avid pirates, leaving everyone else to get used to paying for content.

I'm sorry but you haven't much technical know-how, do you? That statement is, at best, wishful thinking. For the last ten-fifteen years, crooks have been selling this kind of snake-oil to various content producers. It doesn't work. It can't work - that's why there are laws such as DMCA and the end result is actually more of a bother to paying user than to those who don't care and download infringing versions.

You really think your customers will put up with the hassle indefinitly? When there are alternatives available?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by vivaldirules

How am I different if I digitize my pbook? Because I paid for the pbook that is still sitting on my shelf and I intend to use the digital copy for me alone - no one will ever see it. Should I pay the author and publisher a second time for the ebook? At the moment, I'm not convinced either way. I think it's an interesting question to think about more. I should be clear though in saying that if the ebook is available, I'm buying it. I'm only interested in converting the pbooks that I have which I can't find digital copies of. Not sure that should make a difference, though.

If you convert a book that you own, and intend to use that copy only for yourself, you are exercising "fair use" (in the US, anyway). "Fair use" is essentially a loophole, allowing you amnesty for your copy if no one else gets it. However, you should be aware that if someone breaks into your home, takes your digital file and sells it, you can be held liable for creating the copy.

I do not believe that you owe the author/publisher any money for creating your own copy for fair use. But you do owe them for any copy that ends up in someone else's hands.

I think what's important here is to remember that an e-book is more than just a "concept" or "illusory object." It is real, even if you can't see it. Just like the bacteria crawling all over your skin right now, and the germs that give you colds, you accept that they exist, that you don't catch colds because of magic or bad luck, even though you cannot physically see them.

An e-book must be considered as a very tiny but very real object, and when it is considered real, most of these questions are duly answered.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Trenien

I'm sorry but you haven't much technical know-how, do you? That statement is, at best, wishful thinking. For the last ten-fifteen years, crooks have been selling this kind of snake-oil to various content producers. It doesn't work. It can't work - that's why there are laws such as DMCA and the end result is actually more of a bother to paying user than to those who don't care and download infringing versions.

I know exactly what I'm saying. I know it is easy to copy electronic files. But I'm sorry, did you really think that was the point here?

Originally Posted by Trenien

You really think your customers will put up with the hassle indefinitly? When there are alternatives available?

The "alternatives" you are speaking so vaguely of are content producers who stop creating content, because they cannot make a living at it because of theft. The result is: No more professional authors, musicians, theoreticians, designers, engineers, artists, inventors, and actors. We have those professions, and they can make a living, because the laws of society protect their rights. You are essentially saying "they can no longer be protected," implying that society will simply roll over and let the law be trampled by those who disrespect property rights and ethics. You are telling all of them to stop creating, and go get cashiers' jobs, because that is all they are worth.

Is that the alternative you want?

[Trenien]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Is a copy of an e-book the same as a copy of a printed book? Not in the eyes of the law, the property rights or the intellectual rights holder. It has physical form, therefore it is a distinct entity

Er.... Bull?

You're blurring the issue (again) with logically wrong arguments (again).

Your electron story doesn't fly. If you have a p-book for sale in your shop, and I come and take it, I've committed theft (and you're short one p-book).

If I hack your website and copy one of of your books in its ebook format, whoa lookee : you still have that file on your server!

To use your image, the electrons that compose it are still on your drive, arranged in a way that a computer can translate to what you've written. Physically, the only thing I've done is rearrange electrons on my drive so they have the same pattern as those on yours. The only thing that has been exchanged is information (and you'll note I said exchanged, not taken). Your electrons are still yours.

The thing, with the advent of the digital age, we now have objects (computers and so on) that are able to do what was before the exclusive realm of brains : exchange of information without need of a physical medium.

[Trenien]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

The "alternatives" you are speaking so vaguely of are content producers who stop creating content, because they cannot make a living at it because of theft. The result is: No more professional authors, musicians, theoreticians, designers, engineers, artists, inventors, and actors.

Wrong!

Do you any idea of the number of people who produce artistic work without earning any kind of livelihood from it? it's huge, so that point just isn't true.

That said, I never meant that people shouldn't be able to earn a living from their work. What I'm saying is that the previous model where reading one novel/listening to one song meant you paid for your copy of it (brushing aside exchange between people) isn't valid anymore.

I'm don't know what form this kind of thing will be in the future, but I'll bet you the farm that it won't be everybody - or even the majority - dutifully going to sanctioned websites and pay for their copy of whatever.

I do know there already are people making good money out of their work although they made it available for free (in the writters' realm, Cory Doctorow comes to mind).

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Trenien

If I hack your website and copy one of of your books in its ebook format, whoa lookee : you still have that file on your server!

That does not change the fact that you have, in fact, taken a copy of information, or an intellectual property, that does not belong to you, without permission. Theft of information without permission is still theft.

Further, the simple fact that reproducing something is easier (and make no mistake, even if we're only talking about a few milliwatts of power, it's still expending resources to be copied) doesn't mean it should automatically be free. That is a thief's argument.

At best, you can argue that you've sold a copy of the original... which makes you a forger.

And sure, people can still give away their creations if they want. Cory D can do it, and it helps him, because he's already an established author, making a living, and giving away material for free helps spread his already-established name, making him more money. This logic does not work for those who are not already known, and therefore have not reached the critical mass of hundreds to thousands of fans and followers to spread the word of their existence. If all you needed was to give away some free stuff, we'd all be rich now.

[mrkai]

This is an interesting discussion indeed.

Allow me to chime in

Like HarryT and others, I too create software for a living. Guess what? I'm a smart person and as such, nothing insults me more than misapplication of terms and manipulation of language.

1. Piracy is robbery on the oceans. Piracy isn't copyright infringement. Copyright infringement isn't theft.

2. If someone makes a copy of my software and uses it without paying me for it...they haven't stolen the software from me. I still have it. I have NOT been deprived of my property.

3. NO ONE is entitled to software that is charged for without paying for it. CONVERSELY...I do not have the "right" to be paid. It isn't a "right" in the true sense of the word, as I am not being deprived of property, but of income *potential*

Copyright infringement isn't a technological problem...its a social/moral one. People should not use software they did not pay for...and I would prefer it greatly if in fact people purchased a license to use mine.

Its not going to happen. Everyone that uses it isn't going to pay for it. Its funny...the first year or so our stuff was available...we dedicated a ridiculous amount of time chasing down "pirates" and flipping algorithms and attempting to devise various ways to stop folks from using the software without paying for it.

It is, at the end of the day, a deterrent at best for casual folk...nothing more. Some people will always think it is worth "more" to spend the time figuring out how to not pay than to do so. These people are not...customers.

I don't care about them, or their problems...at all.

We finally came up with a "compromise" solution that I know for sure "hurts" my customers more than those that are not...sadly.

I've even in the past sold product to known "pirates"...

Believe it or not...the people that I find worse than the "crack please" types are the ones that purchase a product with the sole intent of getting a license...then complaining to their bank/cc company for a refund...because that costs me *more than the sale*.

I suppose its my Libertarian way of thinking about capitalism, but I realize no one is entitled to anyone else's Actual Money. Not even me.

I do not think of these people as "criminal scum" because I don't take it personally. If I never sell another copy of any of our software products, I still have the blueprints and the knowledge that was used to invent them in the first place.

If someone was able to take those away...then we have crossed into the realm of theft.

[mrkai]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Legally, morally or ethically speaking, we would not expect that if we went to a movie in a theatre, we would therefore be entitled to a free DVD of that movie, or of its soundtrack, or even a poster of the hot chick in the lead. We know that we are expected, in an honest and ethical society, to pay for that other item, because it is in fact an item separate from the movie we saw in the theatre.

This is a poor analogy for modern society as people expect just that, to some degree.

Trade Unionists and creatives are the worst in fact....they expect to receive residual compensation for work-for-hire.

If you make a car or paint a set...should you be entitled to payments beyond the work you did to create your small part of the whole...even though you did not absorb the risks involved with creating the whole in the first place?

This is essentially the core belief of collectivists. The truth of the matter is Steve that the cost of making 9000 copies of an ebook or 900 or 90000 is negligible as far as matters of scale and to do so you aren't being deprived of any Real Assets you hold (like actual money) in any level even remotely near that of someone that was buying paper, ink and bindery, or paying someone else to do so.

I'm *in* the Electronic distribution chain...its how I feed my kids.

And at the end of the day, after all rhetoric of "theft" and "entitlement" are cast aside, I know in my heart I'd stand to lose more if I was pressing discs and warehousing inventory.

I know that even if i did, it would cost me more because what i make, annualized over the costs of digital manufacturing is far and away a larger in the pocket profit than hard goods manufacture...AND...I know I contribute FAR LESS to the broader economy by doing so.

While I would LIKE everyone that uses my software to pay me for it...I know in all honesty that if I was making physical product, I would have been done and out of business long ago because every "lost sale" (hate that phrase) would cost so much more.

And Guess what? You know it too...as does anyone else that is tech-saavy. You'd be better served thinking of what you provide as a service....or doing paper pub and taking some far more "tangible" risks.

That is not to say that the digital way doesn't carry its own risks and pitfalls but they are far, far less devastating. Production scales better, etc.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by mrkai

2. If someone makes a copy of my software and uses it without paying me for it...they haven't stolen the software from me. I still have it. I have NOT been deprived of my property.

I would consider your intellectual product your property, whether it takes physical form or not (and as software, even a copy of software, it is in a physical form).

Originally Posted by mrkai

3. NO ONE is entitled to software that is charged for without paying for it.

Hallalujah. Thus endeth the lesson.

Originally Posted by mrkai

CONVERSELY...I do not have the "right" to be paid. It isn't a "right" in the true sense of the word, as I am not being deprived of property, but of income *potential*

Again, you have had intellectual property taken from you without permission. Unless you agreed to that without compensation, I still believe you have a *right* to be paid for it.

Originally Posted by mrkai

Copyright infringement isn't a technological problem...its a social/moral one.

Exactly. Arguing about how many mouse-clicks it takes is being obtuse. This is an ethical issue, nothing less, and part of the Big Picture that we can't afford to ignore.

We are compromising principles, here... we are unilaterally sacrificing others' rights, we are declaring ourselves above others in our desires. We are the elite in the castle, saying that we are above the law simply because the peons outside can't get to us. Does that make it okay to copy others' files? No. It just makes it easy for you to get away with being less than a member of civilization.

(And tomorrow: I'm gonna eat cake!)

[mrkai]

I didn't put it in my profile thingee, but I'm actually in four-one-oh. Howdy, neighbor!

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by mrkai

I didn't put it in my profile thingee, but I'm actually in four-one-oh. Howdy, neighbor!

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by mrkai

While I would LIKE everyone that uses my software to pay me for it...I know in all honesty that if I was making physical product, I would have been done and out of business long ago because every "lost sale" (hate that phrase) would cost so much more.

And Guess what? You know it too...as does anyone else that is tech-saavy. You'd be better served thinking of what you provide as a service....or doing paper pub and taking some far more "tangible" risks.

If I thought of my work that way... as a service, instead of a product... I would probably charge more for it, as I would consider each e-book worth the time it took me to create it. I know what you're saying, but I don't think that works for anyone except a creator who is being paid directly by a boss/publisher/patron. I'm an independent author, and every dime I make comes directly from every product I sell, minus my personal overhead to make them available, not from a set salary.

That's why I sell my books as e-books, as opposed to print-on-demand or vanity press books, to keep my costs down, and be able to pass that cost to the consumer in the form of low product prices. Because, no, I could not afford to spend money on, or lose sales from, more expensive printed products.

[mrkai]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

I would consider your intellectual product your property, whether it takes physical form or not (and as software, even a copy of software, it is in a physical form).



Hallalujah. Thus endeth the lesson.



Again, you have had intellectual property taken from you without permission. Unless you agreed to that without compensation, I still believe you have a *right* to be paid for it.

I didn't lose anything but sleep if I decided to get twisted about it. I got over that long ago. its just not realistic...and the alternative is worse to me. See below:

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Exactly. Arguing about how many mouse-clicks it takes is being obtuse. This is an ethical issue, nothing less, and part of the Big Picture that we can't afford to ignore.

We are compromising principles, here... we are unilaterally sacrificing others' rights, we are declaring ourselves above others in our desires. We are the elite in the castle, saying that we are above the law simply because the peons outside can't get to us. Does that make it okay to copy others' files? No. It just makes it easy for you to get away with being less than a member of civilization.

(And tomorrow: I'm gonna eat cake!)

Yeah...the DCMA tho sort of makes it real apparent to me that putting "real" locks on data that can effectively be reproduced via the real world equivalent of Star Trek "transporter" technology has far, FAR worse effects on the rights of others and the "peons" and "unwashed masses".

I did NOT always feel this way. It happened over time, really, when I actually got fed up with people "ripping me off" and decided it was "going to stop" with the next product we did. I decided it was going to exist as a physical boxed product in the really-for-real world.

The thing is...it wasn't a runaway hit. I have boxes and boxes of the thing still unsold...and THAT was when it hit me.

We're winning...for now. As a consumer and producer of e-products...I know things like DRM are just...wrong and hurtful to consumers...which is why really we've relaxed more and more the shackles on the software we make.

It seems to be a cycle in software devs...every 15 years we figure out copy protection or whatever doesn't work...then we get sucked back in

With ebooks its got to be the same. I mean you control the process, end-to-end...and it SUCKS to buy an eBook and not be able to read it on a Mac...or play an iTune on an Xbox.

I think consumers are driven by these shackles in the "peon" ranks nowadays much more so than back when I was a youngster because I don't think e-Product is fairly priced for them...especially when its restricted.

And if you ask around, there are some that will never pay for ANYTHING but many, many more that feel that content providers charge more for "less" with e-products.

They see it as the "art"...consumers see the product as the medium, because traditionally art is a patronage thing and medium is a traded good.

Something you cannot retrade is inherently worth less to the buyer.

Perhaps if e-things took this to heart (moreso with content than software products) than everyone would be better served.

The flaw of any business plan, one learns early, is that if you have to "educate the customer" for them to understand the value of your product, then you've really already failed