Copyfraud - public domain's fate?

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

If you think that business is carried out with a complete lack of morality (or to borrow Harmon's phrasing) ethics, then you are sadly mistaken. If that were the case, the transaction costs of doing any business whatsoever would be so high as to make business impossible. It would mean that you would have to cross check every statement anyone ever makes to you in the course of a commercial transaction.

No, the transaction costs aren't so high *because* it would make business impossible, and they are limited by competition. I'm sure that if the unethical person that resells PD books wouldn't have competition from the free sources, he would have charged more, the same way that publishers have done for decades.

[Ankh]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

But the text is duplicated (and if calibre is working well) so is the formatting. Its like water in two different containers. The fact that one container is plastic and one is metal doesn't change the water.

Oh, but container does matter! They do sell bottled water, don't they?

The fact that you are distributing calibre for free does not MEAN that calibre is not creating a value. You gave it to the world, but you can not limit anybody from using it for commercial purposes. Baen does! The fact that Baen owns the "water" is secondary, the application of Calibre has created a new flavour of their product.

It is the value of container that is falsely advertised here. It is very cheap to produce. Penguin's classic edition would add (copyrighted, but let us ignore that for a bit) new artwork, commentary, formatting... gilded container for the same "water", essentially.

[kovidgoyal]

@Kali Yuga: you are confusing the retailing of physical objects which cannot be effortlessly duplicated with the retailing of digital information, which can. A natural confusion, but one you need to get over.

[kovidgoyal]

@Ankh: What does calibre have to do with anything? If you insist on using calibre as an example, the correct example would be if someone renamed calibre to sat halibre and then setup a website that sells downloads of halibre for $10.

And, while I am no lawyer, I do believe that would be legal (provided they also distributed the source). That does not make it right, by a *very* long shot.

And if, as you say, the container matters, then all I'm asking for is a disclaimer along the lines of what Harmon proposed, something that say, this work is public domain and available freely elsewhere but offerred here for your convenience.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Ankh

Oh, but container does matter! They do sell bottled water, don't they?

The fact that you are distributing calibre for free does not MEAN that calibre is not creating a value.

Actually, he doesn't exactly distribute calibre for free. He lets the buyer set the price. If the buyer sets the price at zero, then that's what he's willing to accept.

If you use calibre, you should press the "donate" button.

[kovidgoyal]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

No, the transaction costs aren't so high *because* it would make business impossible, and they are limited by competition.

So you're saying that people actually don't lie in business? Hmm...

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Harmon

It is not an emotional position, it is an ethical one.

No, it's pretty clearly emotional. See my previous post as an example of why.

Also, you may want to read Daniel Ariely's book Predictably Irrational. He discusses how people act in a highly irrational (yet predictable) way to "free (gratis)".

Originally Posted by Harmon

Business transactions require a certain level of "fair dealing." A seller is entitled to a "fair profit." In other words, business transactions occur in an ethical climate.

Hopefully, yes.

Originally Posted by Harmon

Kovid's position is a way of saying that when a seller, at no cost to himself, has done nothing to improve a product otherwise available for free, there is actually NO profit that can be regarded as "fair." Therefore, it is incumbent on the seller to reveal that the product can be had for free.

No, it is not.

It doesn't matter how much it costs to produce a good. It doesn't even matter if you charge an outrageous price -- as long as you aren't engaging in anti-competitive behavior, or claiming that you are selling X when instead you are selling Y.

E.g. DeBeers acted immorally when it essentially cornered the market and inflated the price of diamonds. Gold bugs, on the other hand, are not engaging in immoral actions if they bought gold when it was cheap, and sell when the price is higher -- even though the seller did absolutely nothing to "improve the value" of the gold.

Originally Posted by Harmon

I think that an ethical seller would say something along the lines of "This product is in the public domain, and the identical product is available for free elsewhere....

You are welcome to refer to such an individual as virtuous if you like. But that does not mean that it is unethical to request payment for PD works.

Originally Posted by Harmon

It is not ethical to sell something a buyer something that he and everyone else already owns, and to hide that fact from the buyer.

That's real sweet, but it's simply not how PD works. PD means that no one controls it anymore.

Originally Posted by Harmon

One interesting thing about this discussion is that the ethical dimension of the selling of PD books only seems to exist in the digital environment.

Yep. Did I mention the thing about emotional reactions to "free (gratis)"?

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

@Kali Yuga: you are confusing the retailing of physical objects which cannot be effortlessly duplicated with the retailing of digital information, which can. A natural confusion, but one you need to get over.

No, I'm clearly not.

Again: If I make $7 in profit from a public domain text, why does it matter if I sold a paper copy or a digital one?

Just because we use the same English word to mean "zero price" as "liberty," does not mean that one requires the other.

Heck, you're a software guy. Aren't you familiar with the whole "free as in beer" vs "free as in speech" thing?

[kovidgoyal]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

No, I'm clearly not.

Again: If I make $7 in profit from a public domain text, why does it matter if I sold a paper copy or a digital one?

Because the paper copy is not an effortless duplication. You are entitled to demand whatever reward you like for your effort, except in the case when the effort is zero. That is because zero is qualitatively different from non-zero. If you make any profit whatsoever from something that costs zero you are making an infinite profit, and that is a disproportionate reward for your effort.

[Ankh]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

@Ankh: What does calibre have to do with anything?

It is prime example of the tool used for format-shifting. Which precisely is the (only) difference between PG version and the one offered for sale.

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

If you insist on using calibre as an example, the correct example would be if someone renamed calibre to sat halibre and then setup a website that sells downloads of halibre for $10.

It is not the same. I am claiming that the application of the free tool creates a value, despite the tool being free.

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

And if, as you say, the container matters, then all I'm asking for is a disclaimer along the lines of what Harmon proposed, something that say, this work is public domain and available freely elsewhere but offerred here for your convenience.

And I have no issues with requirement for label "This work is in Public Domain". I somehow believe that even Kali will not argue against such a requirement, as it is not limiting what one can do with PD works, just states the fact that the text is in PD.

As for the rest, the public domain work might not be "available freely elsewhere", but it should still be labeled as "Public Domain", IMHO. The customers should understand that what is sold is "the container", not "the water".

[kovidgoyal]

Originally Posted by Ankh

As for the rest, the public domain work might not be "available freely elsewhere", but it should still be labeled as "Public Domain", IMHO. The customers should understand that what is sold is "the container", not "the water".

Good, then we are in agreement.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

So you're saying that people actually don't lie in business? Hmm...

How did you end up with that conclusion? Are you trying to say that the PD reseller lied about something? Did he say he wrote the book? Did he say he was a descendant of the author?

[kovidgoyal]

Well boys and girls it's been fun, but I'm getting tired of repeating the same argument with every person that comes into this thread and doesn't bother to read my preceding posts, so I'm going to leave this thread with a link to Harmon's excellent summary of my position https://www.mobileread.com/forums/sho...&postcount=249

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

No, it's pretty clearly emotional. See my previous post as an example of why.

Tell it all those professors who teach courses on business ethics. (Hmm..if there's no such thing as business ethics, is it unethical to teach that there is...?) Or any ethics, for that matter. Sure, there's an emotional component, bound up in evolutionary psychology and cultural context. So what? Just because something has an emotional dimension does not mean that it is irrational, which seems to be what you are implying.

Also, you may want to read Daniel Ariely's book Predictably Irrational. He discusses how people act in a highly irrational (yet predictable) way to "free (gratis)".

Sounds interesting. (Of course, if it's not in ebook format, it doesn't exist for purposes of this discussion...)

There's no doubt that people react irrationally to "free." That does not mean, of course, that all reactions to "free" are irrational, assuming that is what you are implying.

It doesn't matter how much it costs to produce a good. It doesn't even matter if you charge an outrageous price -- as long as you aren't engaging in anti-competitive behavior, or claiming that you are selling X when instead you are selling Y.

E.g. DeBeers acted immorally when it essentially cornered the market and inflated the price of diamonds. Gold bugs, on the other hand, are not engaging in immoral actions if they bought gold when it was cheap, and sell when the price is higher -- even though the seller did absolutely nothing to "improve the value" of the gold.

Certainly the legal realm and the ethical realm overlap. But they are not coterminous. Kovid has explicitly said that he's not making a legal argument. Nor, for that matter, is he making an argument based on economic rationalism. He's making an ethical argument. You apparently do not believe that there is an ethical dimension to economic activity, other than to obey the laws, legal & economic. So you reject the premise of the discussion.

But since Kovid is making an ethical argument, you are not engaging his argument when you make legal or economic arguments.

You are welcome to refer to such an individual as virtuous if you like. But that does not mean that it is unethical to request payment for PD works.

All ethical behavior is virtuous, isn't it? Let's don't get off on trying to distinguish terms. For the time being, we can use Ethical/Moral/Virtuous, or EMV, at least for a post or two. It's not catchy enough to survive any longer than that.

It is not unEMV to request payment for PD works. It is unEMV to fail to reveal to the buyer that what appears to be offered for sale is in the Public Domain. Different things.

That's real sweet, but it's simply not how PD works. PD means that no one controls it anymore.

So what? Nobody disputes that. We are in total agreement that PD means that no one controls it anymore. And we are in total agreement that anyone can offer PD material for sale. What we don't agree on is whether the seller has an EMV obligation to disclose that the material is PD.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Tell it all those professors who teach courses on business ethics.

The relevant discipline is actually "behavioral economics." (And yes, they do teach business ethics.)

Originally Posted by Harmon

Just because something has an emotional dimension does not mean that it is irrational, which seems to be what you are implying.

Trust me, people do NOT react rationally to prices.

Or better yet, don't trust me. Read Ariely's book, he has run numerous experiments that demonstrate the point. (And yes, it's available as an ebook.)

Originally Posted by Harmon

There's no doubt that people react irrationally to "free." That does not mean, of course, that all reactions to "free" are irrational, assuming that is what you are implying.

Once you look into it, you'll see that it is not rational. That doesn't mean that it is wrong or counter-productive, but it's definitely not rational.

Originally Posted by Harmon

Certainly the legal realm and the ethical realm overlap....

I'm not referring to the legal issues in those examples. Regardless of any laws, DeBeers arguably acted immorally when they manipulated diamond prices.

Originally Posted by Harmon

You apparently do not believe that there is an ethical dimension to economic activity, other than to obey the laws, legal & economic. So you reject the premise of the discussion.

On the contrary, I definitely believe there are ethical aspects to economic activity.

However, to me a public domain book is libris, and there is no reason why that requires that public domain books must also be gratis.

Originally Posted by Harmon

All ethical behavior is virtuous, isn't it?

"Virtue" is a positive moral behavior. Actions can also be morally negative ("immoral") or neutral, which is where I would place "selling public domain works." It's best to stick to the existing terms/jargon.

Originally Posted by Harmon

It is [unethical] to fail to reveal to the buyer that what appears to be offered for sale is in the Public Domain.

I disagree (obviously), and am not seeing any persuasive arguments to the contrary.

It is not a requirement of any seller to either tell you their costs; or to base the price off of costs; or to inform you of cheaper alternatives.

Yet again: If I'm at Tourneau Corner and I spend $100 more on a watch than I would have somewhere else, was that an ethical failing on the store's part? Heck, they're taking me for a $100 ride. Isn't that ten times worse than dropping $10 for a book I could get elsewhere for free?

And if you still think the watch pricing is ethical while the PD book is unethical, then yes, you're reacting irrationally to "the power of free." Because from a rational perspective, paying $100 extra is definitely ten times worse than paying $10 extra.

Originally Posted by Harmon

What we don't agree on is whether the seller has an [ethical] obligation to disclose that the material is PD.

Yes, I had noticed that was one source of dispute.

And no, they don't. Their only moral obligation is to not to re-impose copyright restrictions on a "liberated" work.

And what exactly would qualify as "proper" notification? A click-through agreement? One sentence buried in the midst of other publication data at the end of the book? A big screaming ad banner in the middle of the sales page?