interesting NYT article on "copyright morality"

[mrkai]

Originally Posted by hogleg

1. The title of this post is "interesting NY times on copyright morality." Legal arguments can not and should not be debated here. I have said that from the beginning. It's continuously ignored by you and these other yahoos who claim anything related to someone losing something real must happen before it's stolen. I suppose someone stealing your checkbook is legal if you catch them before they use it.
2. As a software developer, your company is probably a corporation, a legal entity. If I did want to argue the legality, which I don't, theft of a program stops profits to shareholders and makes a difference to them, just as it would to everyone in a publishing arena. Just because it may not be money directly taken from your pocket doesn't mean it's not theft. Where do you think the money that they pay you with comes from? Maybe from profits, which are impacted through piracy.? Try making that argument in court and see it takes more than 20 minutes to throw you in jail.
3. Something has to be unusable to me before its stolen from me? I'm sure victims of identity theft would glad to hear that. If some one stole my Identity would I cease to exist? When I write a book, and you get it without paying for it, that doesn't impact my royalties?

The rest of your arguments are absolutely stupid, and I suggest you look at the title of the thread and concern yourself with where is says "Legally, I'm not stealing, because...". Your involvement in this thread amounts to one big straw man argument. You've rebutted arguments concerning the morality of copyrights with the legal definitions and whether it's really stealing. A retarded monkey could see that it is, and you are just throwing out justifications for doing it.

Learn to argue.

"Poisoning the Well"...with a few "ad hominem" attacks thrown in for good measure.

You were saying?

[hogleg]

Originally Posted by mrkai

"Poisoning the Well"...with a few "ad hominem" attacks thrown in for good measure.

You were saying?

It would be if I said you were a pirating jerk with a reading comprehension approaching that of an 8-year old and a burning desire to prove that pirating software and downloading books and movies is okay. If You'll notice, I said your arguments and ideas were stupid, not you.

However, pleased to meet you, Pot. My name is Kettle. Nice of you to notice the suntan. Change the subject any?

[ath]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Yes it is. It is the stealing of ideas.

No it isn't.

Copyright (in its pure form) only protects form -- the form an idea is given, and only if that form shows sufficient amount of individual creativity. Sweat of the brow is not copyrightable. (There are some exceptions, but as this is a general point, those are not relevant for the moment. Sweat of the brow can under certain circumstances be protected by so-called 'catalogue copyright', but that is one of those exceptions, and such protection is limited to just a few years after publication anyway.)

The idea 'the 10 best short stories of the year' (typical anthology title) is not likely to be expressed in the same choice of stories by different editors -- and so we have grounds for copyright protection.

But if the idea covers the entire area ('all short stories printed in <suitably chosen periodical> in 2007') no or very little individual creativity is possible, and so that particular idea can only be given one form. I suppose they could be given a different order (book A gives order by author name, book B order by publishing date), but that's about how far it can be pushed.

I repeat: Copyright does not protect ideas: it protects the particular form an author has given an idea.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Yes it is. It is the stealing of ideas.

Since ideas cannot be owned, they cannot be stolen.

[HarryT]

A book is not just an "idea" any more than, say, a bridge is an "idea". Both start out that way, but the end result - a book and a bridge - are concrete expressions of that idea which can certainly be "owned".

"A boy discovering that he is really a wizard and going to a school for wizards" is an idea. The book "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" is a specific implementation of that idea and a real object which can be owned and protected.

[deviant]

Going that way, a government official could copyright the idea that a bridge should be built at a certain point on the river and demand royalties when someone else builds the bridge there, which makes no sense.

Thus ideas without implementation cannot be owned because it is not practical. Sure, Rowling may own the Harry Potter franchise but I'd say it'd be impossible to prove or deny that through the entire history of fiction books someone else hadn't come up with the idea before her, threw it in a trash can and moved to something else because he didn't think the idea had merit.

[ath]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Okay, then, here's the question:

Is an electronic version of a property considered to be a coherent thing that can be stolen? Would the supposition that an electronic document is created "from nothing" be considered a "subterfuge" in such a case? (Okay, 2 questions...)

Good question -- I don't think it can be answered well outside of a court room. I'll give it a try, though.

** Question 1: At present, I don't think the legal definition of theft (or at least the one I'm most familiar with -- there are always national variations) covers anything that is not in physical form, or 'fixed in a tangible medium'. The 'deprivation' that theft is intended to produce must be significant to the injured party -- and for purely electronic data, it is not clear that an extra copy, done at home, causes that. It may deprive the injured party of income -- thus, the stolen 'thing' is really money -- but the definition of theft implies that the injured party enjoyed the use of the stolen property, and that is clearly not so in this case.

The best thing to make me change that opinion would be to see legal cases, involving unauthorized copying of digital information (music, films, books, etc.), that refer to the law(s) on theft, instead of those on copyright protection. Until that happens, I regard the word 'theft' used in such cases as a rhetorical device, that is, 'reasoning by appeal to emotion'.

Of course, changing (or clarifying) the legal definition would also do the job. But such clarifications must come from someone who is not a party with a limited area of interest (such as RIAA and similar groups, who obviously have a active interest in protecting their own livelihood, and so can't be assumed to protect the interest of the general public with the same vigour).

It's pretty clear, though, that laws lag behind real life, and that the legal map does no longer conform to reality. I think theft and copyright infringement ... and perhaps one or two other legal areas are in serious need of being reshaped.

I don't think it is useful to discuss any other (i.e. non-legal) definition unless that definition is clearly expressed up front. (Talleyrand, I think, noted that abstract terms are like valises with false bottoms: I can remove or insert things without anyone noticing I have done so. And that tends to happen a lot -- even unconsciously.)


** Question 2: Not sure if I understand the question: I probably expressed that part less clearly that I hoped to do.

The subterfuge I was referring to is confusing a legal definition of theft with some other definition that isn't well expressed, but carries tons of emotional overtones ('argument by emotion'). The context was that of the question why people accept personal copying of digital information ... and I was trying to express a belief that it could partly be a reaction against that form of public education. That is, by saying: 'it's bad, Bad, BAD! You ought to be ashamed! Big Brother says so, naughty person. ', instead of 'you're breaking the laws of copyright protection: this is why we have them, and this is what they protect', the message is changed from facts to emotion. [added: I see that I do a bit of that emotion bit myself here, by using 'Big Brother'. Sorry about that, but I'll let it stand as a bad example.]

Now, advertisements largely work by appeal to emotion ... and more and more people recognize the techniques used and have raised mental filters for them. Legal advice that uses the form of such advertisements (you have all seen the 'You wouldn't steal a car ...' tracks on many DVDs) will easily be rejected as bogus or at the very least non-impartial advice just for this reason. That may easily go the opposite way: if legal advice looks so obviously bogus, I (assuming I do plan to make some unauthorized copies) can probably expect it not to stand up in court if I am caught.

I believe there's a lack of clear-thinking and plain-speaking in this field, and that that is often taken as contributing reason to break existing laws and regulations.

I hope that didn't raise more questions than I hopefully answered.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

A book is not just an "idea" any more than, say, a bridge is an "idea". Both start out that way, but the end result - a book and a bridge - are concrete expressions of that idea which can certainly be "owned".

You're getting confused again.

We aren't talking about physical books. We are talking about the story contained in the words of the book. That is what is copyrighted. The actual book is protected under property laws already. There's no dispute over that.

The story is the idea and the story cannot be owned.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by nekokami

Sorry for the delay. Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. And if you think about it, it's because I do believe in the idea of intellectual property that I feel that way. I've paid for the intellectual property (as well as the formatting effort, which also has value) and I may have paid for some physical production as well (if I bought a p-book), but that's separate. The point is, by buying the book in any format, I feel I've bought a license to use that IP. Not to re-distribute it, but to use it myself.

Now, if I paid for an ebook, and I want to have a nice hardcover version made, I would naturally expect to have to pay a printer/bookbinder to make a copy. That might also involve some nice typesetting, which I'd also have to pay for. If I wanted illustrations, I'd have to pay the illustrator, etc. But I've already paid for the IP of the book content itself, so I don't think I should have to pay that again, so long as I'm not distributing the copy.

Do you at least see where I'm coming from on this?

Yes, I do (I know... finally!). The only thing is, as sensible as the concept is, it is not practical in the real world (which is why it took me so long to understand).

If you bought one version of a book, you are not automatically granted a licence to purchase another format at a reduced price... not that it's impossible, you could issue coupons with every book or something, it's just that publishers won't do that, in order to make money. So you know you can't go to a store and say, "I own the e-book, so sell me the hardcover at $1.00."

Touching on the morality issue, this is one case where morality clearly takes a back seat to capitalism, and tries to forget it's even in the car.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

I admit, I've gotten tired of the wordplay and semantics in this thread. I'm already wondering how long it'll be before I close up my website and keep my books to myself. I'm wondering now:

Originally Posted by recycledelectron

The only reason we tolerate any IP is to encourage innovation, by rewarding the authors & inventors.

And my question is: Is that so bad? Is offering me a reward for my writing so immoral? Am I evil for wanting due compensation for my work? I realize that if I died tomorrow, 99.99999% of the almost-seven-billion people on this planet couldn't care less, but does that mean my efforts to provide for myself are pointless and futile? Why don't I just kill myself now, and "decrease the surplus population?"

(Okay, that last was morose, sorry.)

We are a world of intelligent beings (if we believe our own propaganda). Why can't we earn a fair wage off of our intelligence?

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

And my question is: Is that so bad? Is offering me a reward for my writing so immoral? Am I evil for wanting due compensation for my work?

No, it isn't bad.

But you assume that current copyright laws have something to do with compensation of the author. They don't.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by ath

** Question 2: Not sure if I understand the question: I probably expressed that part less clearly that I hoped to do.

My question 2..."Would the supposition that an electronic document is created "from nothing" be considered a "subterfuge" in such a case?" ... referred to the suggestion made by many on this site that an e-book has no actual physical substance, and therefore is not bound by the concept of theft.

My contention is that, in fact, e-books do have a physical substance, as electrons are physical objects, even if they are effectively invisible to human beings. To argue that e-books are not real objects is, therefore, just more semantics, clever wordplay intended to separate e-books from physical books and thereby negate the argument of "theft."

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

No, it isn't bad.

But you assume that current copyright laws have something to do with compensation of the author. They don't.

I contend that copyright laws are the only thing in place trying to guarantee fair compensation by the author, an idea that is severely contested by the opinions expressed here. It is part of the societal agreement that states that work done should be compensated for, and it extends that agreement to ideas. Therefore, copyright laws have a lot to do with compensation to the author.

You, for instance, haven't said anything to convince me that I can expect to be fairly compensated for my work, copyright laws or not, since they are only electronic files. And many others have made it clear that they feel no remorse in taking an e-book of mine without paying me a penny for it.

Copyright laws are there to enforce fairness (or morality) in a society that would rather ignore the concept in order to "take what they want." Throwing out copyright laws will simply give everyone the official OK to "take what they want," which society has historically proven that it is perfectly willing to do.

And I contend that that is not a good thing.

[Liviu_5]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

You, for instance, haven't said anything to convince me that I can expect to be fairly compensated for my work, copyright laws or not, since they are only electronic files. And many others have made it clear that they feel no remorse in taking an e-book of mine without paying me a penny for it.

I am confused here; I did not read anywhere in those posts this;

Personally I think that you should be far, far more worried about people finding out about the books than pirating them, and if somehow there would be large piracy of your books you would also be much better compensated than now for them since there also would be large numbers of people paying for them too.

I heard all these "theoretical" examples of commercial e-books selling 5 copies and being downloaded 100k times. That to me is pure bs (or just wishful thinking of authors wanting to reach that many people). If your book is popular enough that lots of people would download it than also lots of people will buy it.

Again look at which authors are the most pirated and ask yourself, or any author, in which situation they would prefer to be: low piracy, low sales, or high piracy, high sales...

And regarding fair compensation - unfortunately this notion is quite fuzzy for everyone, not only authors; by and large compensation is what the market dictates and many times there is nothing "fair" about; not an optimal way of doing things maybe, but much better than the alternatives as history has shown us repeatedly

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Liviu_5

I am confused here; I did not read anywhere in those posts this;

Statements along those lines (in other words, not saying this specifically but clearly implying it) have been made in many of the threads where e-book piracy and worth has been discussed.

Originally Posted by Liviu_5

Personally I think that you should be far, far more worried about people finding out about the books than pirating them, and if somehow there would be large piracy of your books you would also be much better compensated than now for them since there also would be large numbers of people paying for them too.

What I'm worried about is trying to sell a product in an atmosphere where society believes they do not have to pay for my work, and thus all of it is pirated.

Originally Posted by Liviu_5

I heard all these "theoretical" examples of commercial e-books selling 5 copies and being downloaded 100k times. That to me is pure bs (or just wishful thinking of authors wanting to reach that many people). If your book is popular enough that lots of people would download it than also lots of people will buy it.

Actually, I myself saw literally thousands of downloads of my free short story collection, "The Onuissance Cells," while seeing sales of my books struggle to reach 3 digits, over the past 2 years. And with me being relatively unknown, at that. So this, at least, is true.