interesting NYT article on "copyright morality"

[mrkai]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

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.

Yes, that is correct, he is alleged to have been sharing these files...but that's not the "problem".

The RIAA (I swear the "I" is for imbeciles sometimes) is out of their minds if they think they are going to "win" by getting a slam dunk on vaporizing fair use (Orin Hatch already told them once to stick it on this regard).

Because I am used to their...strange...logic, i totally understand their angle: if it can be made illegal to make a digicopy, then 1. you dry up the supply that feeds the sharing and 2. the wet dream of forcing the CE industry to protect the AAs and Friends business models at the expensive of their own AND not have to pay for it is a slam dunk, since none of their crap has ever flown before (such as DIVX, Napster: Reanimated, MusicNet 1.0, Sony's Serial Copy Management System, etc)

It's just not going to work.

Originally Posted by Nate the great

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.

Like I said...I do hope they win. This move has like a 2% sympathy rating, if that.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by mrkai

So what we have before is is either the ultimate free market scenario or the ultimate communist utopia.
...
It's all about money

Ok, now we're not talking about morality, we're talking about economics. But I think we can talk about the intersection where morality and economics meet. In other words, what has value?

I'll share what I believe:

- Creative inspiration has value, e.g. the author who puts words together to tell a story in a way that seems new.
- Skilled labor has value, e.g. editing, proofing, typesetting, etc.
- Unskilled labor has value, e.g. moving boxes of books, or scanning pages.
- Limited resources have value, e.g. pulp or other materials used to make printing media. Or food.
- Energy has value (whether the energy is derived from a limited physical resource such as petroleum or from solar cells or windmills which require raw materials, labor, maintenance, etc.) Electrons are not really free-- at least, not electrons organized in a useful way.

Those who argue that ideas cannot be owned may be arguing that creative inspiration has no value; I disagree. Or perhaps they are simply arguing that it is impractical to worry about compensating anyone for something abstract such as creative inspiration. Or perhaps they are arguing that creative inspiration has value, but because it seems to be arbitrarily distributed, individuals shouldn't be compensated for it; it should belong to the community as a whole. I'll leave it to others to make those arguments, because I think it's irrelevant in practice:

Writing (as well as composing, or any other creative endeavor) is not merely being struck by inspiration. There is also a lot of craft, i.e. skilled labor involved. As the saying goes, "creation is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration." (Adjust numbers as you please -- I'm fairly confident that it will still be mostly perspiration.) As I noted above, I believe that skilled labor has value, so the actual words used to tell a story represent the author's skilled labor and should be compensated if someone else wants to enjoy those words (as opposed, for example, to having a friend relate the main plot of a book they've read).

So I don't really care who "owns" or "can't own" an idea. If we're discussing morality, my notion of morality includes that labor should be compensated, and this means I believe authors should be paid. So should a lot of other people in the process of getting the author's words in front of the readers. (Editors, I'm talking about you!) I'm sure it is possible to make that process more efficient, and lower the cost to the reader, compared to where we are now, but unless some of the people involved want to donate their labor, e.g. by releasing a book under creative commons or by hosting a public domain book on a server they pay for (and server uptime involves energy and most emphatically is not free), books will have costs, which ought to be paid, from a moral point of view.

Now, we can debate who should pay those costs, or how they should be paid. But I'm interested in knowing how many people even agree with the above, that labor should be compensated. Because I'm sure not everyone does. I'm not asking whether it's practical to ensure that labor is compensated, I'm not asking whether technological means such as DRM should (or can) be used to attempt to ensure that labor is compensated, I'm not asking whether people think copyright law works to ensure that labor is compensated or works against that end, or what people should do who can't afford the asking price for content in the current market: I'm just asking this one question, to the group at large:

In your mind, is it morally necessary to compensate someone for their labor, assuming they have not voluntarily donated that labor?

I believe this is the heart of the matter we are supposedly discussing.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by nekokami

In your mind, is it morally necessary to compensate someone for their labor, assuming they have not voluntarily donated that labor?

I think it is obviously not morally necessary. There are no right to be compensated for any labor you choose. If I choose to do the labor of writing in this forum I do not see how there could be some moral reason to compensate me. So I think the question probably is not the correct question to pose. But I assume it depends on what donate means. Can I pick up garbage on my way to work without donating the labor?

[mrkai]

Originally Posted by nekokami

In your mind, is it morally necessary to compensate someone for their labor, assuming they have not voluntarily donated that labor?

I believe this is the heart of the matter we are supposedly discussing.

I really don't know the answer to that question...at least not as far as making it a sweeping societal norm.

I think people that make things should get paid for what they do if they ask for it, sure.

I don't feel any deep-seated compulsion to do this however.

I certainly do not believe anyone should be beaten and broken into paying me for what i do *as long as they aren't costing me any money*.

That is to say, if I had a streaming movie service that I charged for, and folks were somehow viewing the movies without paying, I've got a problem (a very real one) because i have to pay for these people's usage of band.

On the other hand, if a bunch of people using their own resources are passing this stuff around, it doesn't cost me anything. If it is fairly obvious to these people where they can get he stuff from and pay for it and they don't, I can't even in a sane, honest state of mind claim I've lost a sale...its really obvious that they aren't going to pay for it.

And, as I get paid everyday, and enough to not struggle thru life, I think its fair to say that I'm not being hurt by this. I'm not at the food bank, I'm not homeless...etc.

as I said in another thread (I think you were a participant) I wasn't always like this. Initially, we went on a tear hunting these people all over the internet.

What happened was, we found one of these guys, did the take down...and for some reason, I actually emailed the guy and asked him 1. how he cracked our Copy protection and 2. *why* he did it.

And no it wasn't a "tell me or we'll sue you to oblivion" thing...I just asked.

I even told him (and this was the truth, at the time) that i saw no problem with HIM figuring out how HE could do this for himself...he'd "earned" it...my problem was with the X number of people that had not.

Anyway, he told us how he did it, and told me why: because he could. it was a challenge. It seemed a "waste" to him to NOT package it all up after all of the hours he put into it so that others might benefit, if they wished.

Now, this is...sort of robin hood logic to me, but I sort of just filed it away for awhile. He promised to behave and we got some R & D out of it all, so that was that.

Now, morally, this guy believed he was doing a service. He didn't seem to think it was wrong for us to sell our product...at all.

He also felt that people that paid for it should be able to move it to another computer without asking us first. When I mentioned that I did not agree because it was "my software" he simply said "so what do people get from you when they give you money, then? A promise?"

I had never looked at it like that, of course.

I've had many "run-ins" and discussions about the nature of IP with many people that I consider both honest and intellegent, and while the "moral" angle rarely comes up, i does from time to time...with the end result being turned on the content providers, sort of like this:

"Is it morally justified to deny others something simply because you don't want them to have it, even if they use their own resources to acquire and maintain it? If there is no physical restraint whatsoever from them doing this, and it costs you nothing for them to have it, either in an instant or on an ongoing basis, what moral grounds do you have for denying someone this?"

I honestly don't know that there IS a moral leg to stand on here. I mean, I *know* there are people out there using our stuff and we haven't received a dime for it...but it doesn't cost me a damned thing.

Every time we release a new version, we sell it. I cannot *honestly* say that I am actually being hurt in any measurable way by this, outside of desire to have these people's money as my own and it honestly isn't something I lose sleep over anymore.

As far as I know, no one is re-branding our stuff and selling it, or selling it and sending those customers to us for support so, I mean, its really hard to shake a fist of moral outrage here.

I guess if anyone should be upset, it would be paying customers. However they seem not to mind because they can ask us to help them if they need it, or request features, or call us on the phone and get someone to help their Grandma use one of our apps.

You know what DOES piss them off? Our DRM scheme...which is why we're working to get rid of it.

[mrkai]

Originally Posted by tompe

There are no right to be compensated for any labor you choose. If I choose to do the labor of writing in this forum I do not see how there could be some moral reason to compensate me.

Right. Again, it is very hard for me to talk about what i see as an economic problem as a "moral" one, but yes, Tommy is pretty much correct here.

Every business endeavor carries risks. One of those risks is that you'll invest in R & D and your product will bomb.

If you are a reseller, one of those risks is that you will buy a "hot" product that has a 2 month shelf life of "hotness" and then you are stuck with stock you can't sell.

If you make digital products, one of those risks is that every customer can be a potential distributer/factory/competitor.

No one is entitled to make a damned thing for a product they create. You don't get an "E for Effort"...people buy it, or they do not. No matter how many reasons why or why not you throw onto the dogpile, at the end of the day that's the only thing that matters...sale or no sale.

If you choose to do this, it is in the hope that it will be gainful to you. If no one wants to pay for what you are selling, then you have chosen...poorly, and in these cases, it might be time for some introspection...or at least better market research

[Trenien]

Originally Posted by mrkai

As far as I know, no one is re-branding our stuff and selling it, or selling it and sending those customers to us for support so, I mean, its really hard to shake a fist of moral outrage here.

I know of one case where software was rebranded and sold (for a much lower price). The "software" was Redhat Linux - which is open source so it is completely legal for you to take it and sell your own copy.
I don't remember the name of the company that tried that, but interestingly enough it didn't go very well for them; actually the 'bright idea' just tanked...

[MaggieScratch]

Originally Posted by Kajti

Except that's not strictly true. Some people have always been driven to write, and have done so without regard to how widely they're read, if it all. As long as humans are human, this isn't likely to change. Vast amounts of fan fiction and original material exist online, that no one charges for. Also, some writers will manage to get enough return from tip jars or whatever that they will consider it monetarily worthwhile to write even if it's infeasible to charge for copies of their works.

Further, even if writers stop writing (and here I'm mostly considering for-pay fiction writers), does it matter? Yes, I have a list of future books I'll pick up when they come out, mostly continuing series and works by authors I like. But I survive when an author dies, and won't write any more. I'll survive if all fiction writers stop producing. Enough has already been produced that I could read a novel a day in the categories I like for many decades to come. The books are out there, easily available to download. Thousands of books sit on my hard drive, waiting to be read.

Listen--my favorite author is Jane Austen (who isn't producing any more books) and I'm currently glomming 18th century literature, the books that Jane Austen would have read, and enjoying them immensely. But I think it's a darned shame that many very good books wouldn't be written because the authors were busy doing something else to pay the bills--it's not greed that drives people to write for pay. We all have busy lives and have to set priorities, and for some people, work and family come before writing if they're not making a living at it. I write fan fiction, believe me, I'm not prejudiced against it at all, but so much of it is so bad, it's not really a matter of simple supply and demand. For-profit publication assumes that the work is good and someone will want to read it--and that more people want to read it than not. Most fan fiction is the other way around.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by nekokami

In your mind, is it morally necessary to compensate someone for their labor, assuming they have not voluntarily donated that labor?

It's common practice to lend books to friends, let someone else read an article in a magazine you've purchased, allow visitors to your home watch your DVDs. I don't think many people see a moral necessity to compensate producers for work received second hand in such circumstances.

All that has changed is the scale of sharing that can take place; and whether that is enough to make us reassess what is morally legitimate.

I can sympathise with producers who see the sheer scale of 'global sharing' as a threat. But I also want to defend my right to 'common-sense sharing' - and ultimately my interests as a consumer are more important (to me) than their interests as producers. I am a long way from being convinced that a world of Draconian DRM restrictions is less 'evil' than a world of laissez-faire pirating.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I can sympathise with producers who see the sheer scale of 'global sharing' as a threat. But I also want to defend my right to 'common-sense sharing' - and ultimately my interests as a consumer are more important (to me) than their interests as producers. I am a long way from being convinced that a world of Draconian DRM restrictions is less 'evil' than a world of laissez-faire pirating.

Most DRM schemes allow for "common sense" levels of sharing. For example, if you and I both have a MobiPocket device, we can share books by encoding those books with each other's device ID. Sharing a book with a couple of friends is a completely different thing from posting a copy of a book on the internet where anybody in the world can download it. That's like burning 1000 copies of a CD and putting them on a stall on the street with a sign saying "free CDs".

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Sharing a book with a couple of friends is a completely different thing from posting a copy of a book on the internet where anybody in the world can download it.

I don't see that distinction quite as clearly; but, in terms of nekokami's query:

In your mind, is it morally necessary to compensate someone for their labor, assuming they have not voluntarily donated that labor?

Would your answer then be "No", there is no moral necessity? Since your friends are under no obligation to reimburse the producers of the work you lend.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Most DRM schemes allow for "common sense" levels of sharing.

"Common sense" in England must be different from here in the U.S.

Going back to what Sparrow said:
"It's common practice to lend books to friends, let someone else read an article in a magazine you've purchased, allow visitors to your home watch your DVDs."

DRM doesn't permit us to lend the eBook to a friend.
It doesn't let someone else read an article that I've paid for.
It doesn't let someone else watch my legally purchased DVD (if they live in another DVD region).

I have yet to see any DRM scheme that permits common sense levels of sharing.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

DRM doesn't permit us to lend the eBook to a friend.
It doesn't let someone else read an article that I've paid for.

Please read what I wrote. Mobi DRM allows you to do both these things, by encoding the book or article for the PID of your friend's device.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I don't see that distinction quite as clearly; but, in terms of nekokami's query:

In your mind, is it morally necessary to compensate someone for their labor, assuming they have not voluntarily donated that labor?

Would your answer then be "No", there is no moral necessity? Since your friends are under no obligation to reimburse the producers of the work you lend.

If you are reaping the benefits of that labour then yes, I believe that you have a moral obligation to reward the labourer.

[Trenien]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If you are reaping the benefits of that labour then yes, I believe that you have a moral obligation to reward the labourer.

What if you only access (read, watch, whatever) the result of said labour because you can get it for free?

In other word what if you'd never had spent a penny to access it if there had been no other way to read, or watch, or listen to it?

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Please read what I wrote. Mobi DRM allows you to do both these things, by encoding the book or article for the PID of your friend's device.

And if your friend doesn't have a device supported by Mobipocket (like most people)?

Again, not "common sense".

DRM relies on a closed, proprietary format to work. A closed, proprietary format does not permit common sense uses.