Copyfraud - public domain's fate?

[Ankh]

Originally Posted by tompe

If you get a bottle marked poison you are expected to know that you should not drink it. But if it is marked with a name of an obscure poison it id deceptive not to tell you that it is poison.

Do you think that a requirement for a visible label "This work is in Public Domain" would improve the situation?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Ankh

Do you think that a requirement for a visible label "This work is in Public Domain" would improve the situation?

That would probably be a good thing to have.

But my point was just that it is not strange to see it as a problem. The problem might or might not have a good solution but that is another question.

[kovidgoyal]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I entirely agree with you that there are all sorts of things that one would not like to see people doing with books that are in the public domain, but the price to pay for imposing legal restrictions on its use would be one that would be too high to pay: the effect would almost inevitably be to harm the legitimate user far more than the (very rare) abuser of this material.

Good, can I take that to mean that you agree that selling identical copies of PG texts without informing the user that they are identical copies of freely available works is one these things that one would not like to see people doing?

[HarryT]

I would like to see people say that, yes, because it seems like the right thing to do, but I wouldn't like to see people being forced to do so.

[kovidgoyal]

Excellent, that is all I wanted to hear.

[charonme]

I would like to see people doing that if they can profit from it in the long run

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

@Kali Yuga: Sigh. Again with what the law says, or should say or should not say. Do you want me to post in some language other than English?

I am addressing both legal and moral obligations.

If it's in public domain, and I want to charge for it, it is fair game.

It belongs to no one. If I want to charge for it, and people want to pay for it, I am under absolutely NO OBLIGATION WHATSOEVER OF ANY KIND to do anything other than a) correctly identify the author and b) not copyright it.

[kovidgoyal]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

It belongs to no one. If I want to charge for it, and people want to pay for it, I am under absolutely NO OBLIGATION WHATSOEVER OF ANY KIND to do anything other than a) correctly identify the author and b) not copyright it.

Then I'm afraid your avatar picture is most appropriate.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

I promise we can have the discussion about what should be done after we are all agreed that duplicating a PD text and then selling it without informing the customers that it is a duplicate is wrong.

You're not getting that agreement.

Because, simply put, there is nothing wrong with it -- legally OR morally. No one owns it, therefore anyone can do whatever they like with it.


Let's say you purchase a public domain ebook for $10, and no one bothers to inform you that a free version is available. Net loss: $10.

I walk into Tourneau Corner and look at a watch that is $1000. The sales person neglects to tell me that their competitor sells it for $900. Net loss: $100.

You're losing ten times more in the watch scenario than in the PD scenario. Do you take Tourneau Corner to task for "jacking" their customers? For neglecting to tell the customer that they could save $100 by going somewhere else? If not, why not?

There is no special moral connotation to "free ebooks," nor have you advanced any such argument. All you've done so far is appeal to your own emotional position that "there is something rotten in Denmark." Unfortunately, it simply is not persuasive.

[kovidgoyal]

So you see nothing immoral in tricking people? Your philosophy of life is

"I can go through my life doing my best to trick people and if people are tricked by me, too bad for them"

Are you serious?

[charonme]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

@charonme: How would you decide something is immoral?

My basic intuition would be to trace it back to the nature of man or his self-ownership. A completely different approach would be to clear up what exactly are you trying to attain by a certain proposed "public policy" and then to analyze it and see all the actual effects the policy would have.

I'm not saying you can't disagree with the PG reseller, you may even boycott him or advertise the competition's alternatives to his potential customers, but you didn't justify using violent force against him for what he did or to prevent him from doing it. If he prospers in the long run, he's doing a valuable service to the community. If not, he'll go bankrupt. Either way, no one else would be damaged.

[DMSmillie]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

And more specifically, would you be willing to countenance a scenario where someone changes the text of a public domain work and then sells it as the original work.

I'd suggest that becomes a straightforward case of misrepresentation. Fraudulently passing something off as something it isn't. That's a whole lot different to simply not informing a potential customer that they can get the same thing cheaper or for free from someone else.

[kovidgoyal]

Originally Posted by DMSmillie

I'd suggest that becomes a straightforward case of misrepresentation. Fraudulently passing something off as something it isn't. That's a whole lot different to simply not informing a potential customer that they can get the same thing cheaper or for free from someone else.

As opposed to fraudulently passing off something that has a value of $0 as something that have a value of $10? The essential point here is that it is not just "any competitor" who is offering a lower price, it is the competitor whose product you cloned.

[charonme]

kovidgoyal, no tricking was shown to occur, yet

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Net loss: $10. ... Net loss: $100.

here I disagree. There is no "net loss". You bought the thing because you valued it more than the $$$ you paid for it. Maaaaaybe after you realize you could have got it cheaper we could talk about some "loss", but that has nothing to do with the earlier incident of you deciding to buy it.

[charonme]

"...has a value of $..." is meaningless. Things don't have "value" (noun). People value things (verb). If you buy something, you value it at that moment more than the money you pay for it.