interesting NYT article on "copyright morality"

[Trenien]

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.

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.

In the other thread that went over this topic, I used Cory Doctorow to show an example of an author who chose to go the way of not minding having his book copied over and over again over the internet. As a matter of fact, he relishes it, arguing that as an author he wants more people reading his books, not less.

At the time I couldn't argue about Doctorow's fame prior to his first publication - he could have pulled a 'Radiohead', cashing in on celebrity earned through more conventional means. Well, I did my homework and I can know tell you although he was somewhat known, it was mainly within the very limited circles of the CC community. That needs to be compared to the hundred of thousands of books (paper books) he's sold, mainly because he gained fame as an author with the ebooks versions...

Do note that he still retains his copyright, and the CC he's chosen specifically says that you're free to do whatever you wish with his books, provided you don't earn money in a rich country (that means reprinting the book or whatever derivative work). If you do, is lawyer and accountant will want a word with you.

So yes, as an author, if you went down that road you probably could earn money from your writings - arguably you could even earn more than you do now, provided you're any good (I couldn't say, I haven't read any of your books).

[hogleg]

I think this thread is getting hijacked by well-meaning but misguided people. I haven't seen a post about what is moral for several pages. Steve Jordan is the only user I've seen recently making what could be considered a moral argument, that is, is the concept one that is just, or one that is unjust? Legal questions (while not simple) can be answered decisively. A judge or some other proxy who is assumed to know makes a ruling, and that's it. The rest of us armchair lawyers have to live with it, or go Che on them.

Question of morality don't center around a decisive yes or no and legal technicalities. Moral answers could agree with the law, or not: something could be legal and immoral, illegal and moral, or any combination thereof. Except for a very few of us, we won't be involved in directly making laws. someone will do it by proxy. How you personally feel is irrelevant unless you have some type of representation and the laws reflect your opinions. However; how you morally react to the idea of copyright may determine whether you break those laws or not. People do not react legally, the react morally. Very few times does something happen only because it's legal. That is a afterthought. The majority of the time people act how their personal code of ethics tells them to act, and if it agrees with the laws, they're in luck. If people acted on laws rather than ethics, no one would ever break the law. How many people here would only pay for things because it is required by law, and how many pay because the feel like it's the right thing to do?

What is the intent of copyright? I'm stupefied that no one has mentioned the biggest reason copyrights are so draconian in the US is Disney pumping bucks into lobbiests. I'm amazed that no one has mentioned that the Church of Scientology uses copyright as a shield to control media relevant to figuring out what the really are. No one has mentioned that the Japanese didn't really steal from Disney morally or legally, but many of the features Animae can be directly to them (the "Pie eyes", among other things). No one has asked if artists should be compensated for a work of art, which is conceptually stealing ideas, not knowledge, which is a huge distinction. I've seen glimpses with the whole Harry Potter thing but not much. If your life's ambition was to write a children's book about a singing elephant, should some be able to come along after the fact and re-associate your idea with porn? There's Harry Potter porn out there, a lot of it, but J.K. Rowling seems to not mind. How long would she justifiably be content with it if someone could publish essentially a kid's book with sex scenes?

All these amazing ideas that could be argued are pushed aside for the question of whether piracy constitutes theft, legally, TECHNICALLY, and how copyright laws work in Botswana.

[Liviu_5]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

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.

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.

Regarding the first point, I do not think that we reached that point; people still sell books, e-books, music, and the like; some people make more money, some less, more people are published than ever and so on. I do not think that most people argue about not having to pay, but argue about details, what should they pay for, how much, what for, and other things.

Regarding the second thing - with all due respect legal downloads of freely offered material have nothing to do with piracy. So if people download thousands of something you offered for free but do not buy anything else, has nothing to do with piracy. Many people tend to download free stuff just because it's free but they do not bother to read it. If there would be evidence that one of your novels have been downloaded illegally by 50k people why only 500 paid for it, then yes I would agree, but the argument presented offers no such evidence.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

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.

Well, I'm relieved to have finally been able to explain my position clearly.

I agree that the practicality of expecting a discount on the ebook if I already own the hardcover just isn't there, but we were discussing the morality of acquiring, for example, a scanned/OCRd ebook that someone else has prepared, when I already own the pbook. My point is that if the scanning etc. is done by volunteers who don't expect to be compensated for the conversion, there isn't a moral problem with accepting a copy of the scan if one already has paid for the pbook.

Now, there's a separate problem that the way these scans are usually distributed is by effectively broadcasting them to anyone who wants them. I do see that as a moral problem. I'd prefer to have some kind of club system in which members would make some commitment to only download copies of books they actually have paid for. (Or possibly that are long out of print... that's a separate issue.)

Now, going back to practicality, I suspect that most people who download or upload a book without having paid for it in another form either a) will never read it, because they are simply hoarding (a lot of this goes on in the darknet gift economy) or b) will eventually buy something else by the author, especially if the author's works are available as ligit ebooks. In other words, from a practical standpoint, I don't think piracy is much of a threat to real-world sales.

So, Steve, we can debate morality or practicality, whichever you prefer... (but with respect to the other participants, I'm going to ignore the name-calling and bickering about whether an idea can be owned, because I don't think that part of this thread is constructive.)

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Liviu_5

Regarding the first point, I do not think that we reached that point; people still sell books, e-books, music, and the like; some people make more money, some less, more people are published than ever and so on. I do not think that most people argue about not having to pay, but argue about details, what should they pay for, how much, what for, and other things.

Actually, plenty of respondents have argued about not paying... and when arguing about the details, take the position that "if those details aren't to my liking, I'm justified to take it." (I think they call that Mob Morality.)

Anyway, no, we're not there yet. However, it's clear to me that without pesky things like copyright laws and DRM, we would be there right now...

I concede the second point... I mis-read and missed the actual point you were making. I have yet to try the "free download, pay my if you like" method, though I've considered it a few times. Generally I haven't done it, specifically because of those (admittedly anecdotal) reports.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Therefore, copyright laws have a lot to do with compensation to the author.

Then you need to explain how someone compensates a dead person - as I have asked at least twice so far - and which you have failed to explain.

Until you do, copyright is only for compensation to a few companies who do not generate content.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Copyright laws are there to enforce fairness (or morality)

Wrong tense. "Copyright laws used to be there to enforce fairness." The moment the law extended copyright beyond author's death, they stopped enforcing fairness.

[mrkai]

Originally Posted by hogleg

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?

Your hostility is out of place. Perhaps you should....check the other threads to get a better idea of the general tone used in these parts.

At any rate, you are basing the morality or lack thereof on some notions that really just don't make any sense.

Al-righty then, let's talk about the morality then.

Something I do not believe I've done in any post here.

So here goes:

There isn't any. I do not believe anything in history has even remotely prepared us to this environment, which, for me at least, makes it more exciting than frustrating.

We are really defining some new things, and re-defining old ones to try to fit into what was conceivably an impossible scheme: A way for practically anyone, anywhere to get something they want, near instantly in some cases, delivered directly to them if they have a magical box in which to use them.

What existing concepts do we have before us that really even begin to define the reality of what we have here?

What appears to be happening is we are trying to hold water in a sieve. We are trying to apply locks to the unlockable, to fit concepts we've established in a reality where physics dictates that a made tangible thing that exists in 3 dimensional space can only be at one place at one time.

The thing is, in the digital reality, this essential rule has not changed; the bits attached to some storage medium cannot be attached to another simultaneously.

The twist is of course, that an exact copy of these bits can be made without any loss. This effectively puts it at multiple places at multiple times, and each of these copies exists without any expenditure of resources to maintain them in this other location whatsoever (the possessor of the duplicate is the owner of the medium storing them).

So the argument turns to what is lost and what is gained here?

The answer: potential revenue. Not real money. Not real materials. A bunch of "not" but not a lot of....anything tangible.

What makes this all so...brutal...is that every point of reception is a point of transmission, or as Ed Perrine told me almost 20 years ago when i first became interested in the software business: "The thing with software is, every customer is a potential competitor."

At this point, the mind reels with trying to bang the square "property" peg into the round "digital" hole.

Sony, bless them, are really the pioneers and trailblazers on this insane notion; we can look to them to see the depth and breadth of their failure. Go back to SCMS (Serial Copy Management System) and work forward. The rootkit debacle shows how far they are willing to go to piss off someone actually giving them money, by being more concerned about people that have no intention of doing so.

Because they don't have to, or need to.

So what we have before is is either the ultimate free market scenario or the ultimate communist utopia.

See that? "Or". I did it myself, that "old thinking" thing. If I were to record what I see, as it is, literally, instead of trying to mold it to either side of an equation, I'd see plainly that is it "neither" because it is essentially "both"...which of course would be "impossible" because they are opposites.

Yeah? Think of it like this: tell someone who has not experienced these things how I can cook food in 1 minute, draw fire from my fingertips at will, and see into other people's homes from across the world and see them and talk to them via my magic picture frame...and see what kind of rational responses you get from revealing to them the "impossible."

I honestly think you are being very one-sided on this issue because you just don't seem to consider the fact that it is not only possible, but acceptable and valid for there to be questions to the question of "Should a creator be paid for his work?"...even within the *existing* framework of what we already supposedly know how to deal with, even tho these questions are asked everyday.

For you, the answer is "Yes."

Not "Yes..." or "Yes," or "Yes:" or "Yes;"

The reality has proven to be far, far more complicated, mostly due to the fact that a fiat has no power in an environment where absolutely nothing within it can exist exclusively.

When an author writes a book, they get an advance. That is their only guaranteed income in a typical publishing scenario. They have been paid by the publisher.

So it isn't then a question of "if" but one of "how much"? The school used to be the one where you name you price for your offerings and the buyer can "take it or leave it"...with "it" being the product or service offered. A seller's market.

Our digital market is a whole different school altogether because effectively the buyer can simply opt to not pay the seller and have what they want, anyway. This sucks for the seller.

Of course, there is balance here because, the seller can still get a buyer because while the last buyer chose not to accept the price on the table, the seller did not lose the product or service and can offer it intact to a new buyer. Subsequent buyers that agree to the price and pay for it all get the exact same product...but the seller isn't limited to a raw materials pool that drains and needs to be replaced with each subsequent buyer.

I don't believe anyone that can scream from the rooftops that the internet is driving people to the soup lines is anything more than a liar. The evidence clearly shows the content biz is doing *quite* well.

Lying is horribly immoral.

I don't believe that anyone that feels that some kid downloading a crappy mp3 of a canned pop song should be punished the same way wife-beaters and car jackers are is even...sane.

At the end of the day, to me anyway, the whole "morality" argument of copyright in the digital domain is moronic. There effectively isn't any copy control, so asserting THAT aspect copyright (and seemingly, the only aspect that "matters" to this crowd) is a bit less than sane, and a bit more than mental masturbation.

Its like standing on the top of a mountain screaming "mine! mine! mine!" into a valley full of people smiling back at you, shaking their heads.

But what is absolutely the WORST about these discussions of "morality" is that at least from the "they are criminal scum" side of the fence, is that it really isn't about "right or wrong" at all.

It's all about money

-K

[Liviu_5]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Anyway, no, we're not there yet. However, it's clear to me that without pesky things like copyright laws and DRM, we would be there right now...

I am again confused about what copyright laws have to do with drm, concretely.

Copyright laws are useful and arguably necessary, if only to protect authors/publishers not from Joe downloader, but from rival publishers who could always undersell them if they do not have to pay for the content itself. Terms, conditions, fair use and so on are all arguable points, and the necessity of copyright laws to be in step with the times is also obvious, but I do not think that people by and large argue to abolish copyright.

DRM on the other hand has nothing to do with copyright. It just prevents the paying customer from enjoying his product, while doing nothing to protect anything. I really would like to see a concrete example where drm prevented something appearing on the darknet. Even when the e-book does not exist, if it's popular or it has a cult following it gets scanned sooner or later.

The one argument that it prevents sharing among friends, acquaintances and so on, is also moot considering the large number of people using p2p. In any large enough group for "casual sharing" to be a problem the chances are there will be also enough people to know how to use the darknet to get anything available without drm...
(check the Ars Technica article I posted in the 40k needed to fill an iPod thread, where it has been found that 36 million PC's have Limewire on, and there are other clients too, plus all the file sharing sites, all the warez forums, irc, Usenet...)

Personally I do not think the sky is falling; there is some turmoil and confusion, and some careers will tank while others will take off that would not have had a chance before, but overall I do not see the disappearing of content or of means of profiting from it by its creators and enablers.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by hogleg

have your studies brought to Kant? The universal maxim is very much what I am arguing.

Well, I asked about the moral concept of stealing you were using and I do not se how you can define that from Kant's categorical imperative. A moral definition of stealing must probably include a definition of property and a definition of what actions done to that property is considered morally to be stealing.

It is impossible to discus this from an ethical/moral standpoint without clarifying the terms. If you just want to discus what is morally wrong do not use morally undefined terms like theft and stealing.

[Penforhire]

Mrkai, I do not believe we are quite as unprepared as you imagine. This is not different than other IP (intellectual property) questions being debated in EVERY high-tech industry (e.g. the cell design of a complex semiconductor can be pirated 100% at no "cost" to the inventor). We just need to update our laws and practices to modernize our archaic systems of patent and copyright.

Down the road I believe these issues will settle out through centralized computing. When our internet is everywhere and fast enough there will not be a real need to "own" digital objects locally. I believe we will be on a permanent rental basis soon enough. But I could be wrong. We still brag about the brand of PC box we own, when it really should be an appliance like a toaster. Does anyone brag about their brand of toaster?

[mrkai]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

Mrkai, I do not believe we are quite as unprepared as you imagine. This is not different than other IP (intellectual property) questions being debated in EVERY high-tech industry (e.g. the cell design of a complex semiconductor can be pirated 100% at no "cost" to the inventor). We just need to update our laws and practices to modernize our archaic systems of patent and copyright.

Right, but every consumer of a semiconductor can't instantly produce one "out of thin air".

Design copyrights can be protected because of manufacturing...and of course forgery and whatnot are covered here as well.

Originally Posted by Penforhire

Down the road I believe these issues will settle out through centralized computing. When our internet is everywhere and fast enough there will not be a real need to "own" digital objects locally. I believe we will be on a permanent rental basis soon enough. But I could be wrong.

I personally have serious "moral" issues with this scheme...but I'm not worried about it, as so far, the market has responded...appropriately...to all schemes so far in this regard.

They have failed. Customers like to "own" certain kinds of products. All attempts so far at hamstringing consumers via "industry serving" (as opposed to customer serving) consumer electronics have failed. I expect this trend to continue.

I have a lot of associates in the software biz that seem to look towards a scenario like that, but when I ask THEM if THEY would want to be fettered in such a way, almost all of them reply "well, no"...some more reluctantly than others

The Kindle seems to be the book world's attempt at a Divx player. We'll see how it goes

Originally Posted by Penforhire

We still brag about the brand of PC box we own, when it really should be an appliance like a toaster.

Well, you won't be able to pull this off with a general computing device. Radio and TV are not the same in the mind of consumers (and really, any solution that does not cater to THEIR wants and needs is a proven recipe for failure) as "cds" or "records" and "dvds".

You would essentially have to offer a Cable-TV like model for all of computing...with the value that consumers believe exist for such a thing.

People tried this with software and content, too. The market doesn't like it.

Originally Posted by Penforhire

Does anyone brag about their brand of toaster?

I don't have a toaster...but you'd have to beat me to get me away fom my Kitchen Aid stand mixer...

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by mrkai

The Kindle seems to be the book world's attempt at a Divx player. We'll see how it goes

What do you mean?

[mrkai]

I mean the old DIVX hardware/software scheme, as opposed to "DiVX" the DiVX Networks codec product.

[mrkai]

I hope the RIAA wins this case. It will be an...interesting world indeed if they do

Doomsday Scenario: Lose/Lose at its finest.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by mrkai

I hope the RIAA wins this case. It will be an...interesting world indeed if they do

Doomsday Scenario: Lose/Lose at its finest.

The WaPo screwed up the article. The RIAA is suing in that particular case because he shared those files online, not just because he made the copies.

But on the other hand, the RIAA screwed up royally. Everyone is correctly interpreting the meaning of that legal brief. It has grown from a PR fiasco to a PR Charlie Foxtrot.