interesting NYT article on "copyright morality"

[mrkai]

Originally Posted by nekokami

And no, I don't think the darknet is driven by the crumbling morality of today's youth. The drivers are much more interesting, and much more possible to address.

Which is the only reason I keep participating in these discussions, despite all the name-calling and not-listening that goes on.

It's funny....one man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter. The situation really is more like this than say...the Barbary Coast.

Understanding the "why" in fact goes a long way towards understanding the "different moral outlook" of the so called "darknet" really.

Of course, if as far as you can walk is "its a den of thieves" then you might as well stay indoors. There is nothing to see.

If you look at it the way neko, and many others do, it is a world full of politics, economics, war, generosity, sacrifice, villains, heroes, humility and hubris.

Of course, this has all been going on since punchcards, tapes and modulator-demodulators. The same core personality groups have been engaged in this sort of thing.

And you know, its funny...the "gift economy" of The Underground seems to have more structure, accreditation and checks and balances than its "above board" enemies give them credit for.

Personally? I think its going to come down to a "line in the sand" sort of standoff between these two "opposing" forces and be a stalemate. They will do their thing and you will do yours. Of course they will be more clever and agile because they look far into the future...

Many people have suggested many, many ways to get folks that "don't pay now, but would if..." and pretty much all of them are summarily ignored by those that wish the market was (still) a seller's market.

DRM at its core is "immoral"...it punishes the innocent because someone ELSE committed a crime. It punishes the law abiding customer because they have the technology to not be. Pre-crime. Nice.

It is predatory, prejudicial, speculative and exploitive.

It seeks to eliminate ownership of purchased goods, to set up an electronic version of usury.

Now, if you are a religious person, your morals generally are based on these religious beliefs and further formed by the society in which you live.

I don't know ANY school of thought, any religion that purports to encourage positive, good clean living via the teaching of "good morals" that believes prejudice, exploitation, usury, preying on those weaker than oneself, gambling and denying people of their belongings are "good morals" to live by.

So yeah, when you call these "thieves" names and mock them and spite them in the name of the "morality" you defend, whose agents and machinations fit the above description...try to have a bit of perspective.

The persecution of people that do whatever it is they do in opposition of the aforementioned "moral" qualities are viewed by many, MANY people as immoral, hypocritical and in some views, downright *evil*.

Runteldat

[tompe]

Originally Posted by nekokami

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

In other words, we're not discussing forcing someone to compensate the laborer for arbitrary labor, we're talking about whether someone who enjoys the fruits of someone else's labor has a moral obligation to compensate the laborer -- in some form. If you like, we can also debate who sets the value of the compensation: the laborer, the one who enjoys the labors, a negotiation between the two of them, or a third party, e.g. "the state." Supposedly, in a free market, the value is negotiated by the laborer and the consumer, whereas in communism the value is set by the state.

Well, if I have a moral principle I use it is some kind of utilitarism and then it is an empirical question if you always should compensate the labor for something you enjoyed but I am neraly totally sure that you do not have to do it always when maximizing the utility.

(In any case, posting on a public forum definitely counts as donating labor. That's implied by the nature of a public forum. But you could set up a private forum in which you could post your words of wisdom and you could ask for compensation from those who would read your posts.)

What i am wondering then is why publishing a book then is not automatically a donating of labor morally speaking? Can you really make something publicly available (like in my garbage picking example) without donating the labor?

[Kajti]

Originally Posted by MaggieScratch

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

Most authors already have day jobs. Very few make their living writing. Yet they still write, and I think a fair chunk still would, even when it's admitted that copyright is a bust in a digital age. (Isn't there some quote about essentially unenforceable laws merely serving to engender contempt for laws?) "If you're read and liked this, paypal a euro to..." could work, maybe even better than the present system. Or pre-writing, collecting subscriptions for the author's next work, refunded if it's not released by a certain date. I think there are a range of systems that could work, and that worrying about one that's maladapted to reality is a waste.

And, yes, much fan fiction is tripe. But there exist forums that rate the stuff, so it's not all that difficult to see that a particular author is a good or bad risk. Reviews are a useful thing. Rather than trusting a publisher, you trust intelligent reviewers. You may find out that if JZ and RD and FT like a work, it's all but guaranteed you will, too.

For-profit publication assumes that the work is good and someone will want to read it

The latter, yes; the former, no. Popular doesn't mean good. Rather the reverse, IMO: a bestselling book or top-rated TV show is more often than not something I have zero interest in.

[Liviu_5]

Originally Posted by nekokami

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

In other words, we're not discussing forcing someone to compensate the laborer for arbitrary labor, we're talking about whether someone who enjoys the fruits of someone else's labor has a moral obligation to compensate the laborer -- in some form.

I do not go that with abstract questions because the real world has a habit of throwing up too many twists and turns. However in this case the answer is a resounding NO because we as a society by definition depend on lots of stuff done by the others.

For example when we use computers, we can start with the inventor of the transistor that allowed computers to appear, or with the guys who shaped quantum mechanics that allowed transistors to appear, or with the guys that did calculus that allowed qm to appear, just on the theoretical side of things. A long list to compensate...

I understand where the question comes from and I do not want to be facetious, but to me all these abstract questions are mostly exercises in "how many angels fit on the head of the pin". I'd rather discuss concrete situations, concrete responses of real people (as for example the article I pointed in the beginning of the thread referred to - the fact that lots of people, with percentage increasing inverse with age have a given response to some questions and what it pertains for the future of publishing, music...)

And about my views on the original article: I do not believe the sky will fall as implied there, I think there will be enough paying customers to support music, books, movies, and the pie will increase but will be distributed differently with more and more power switching to the authors/creators. When kids will have more disposable income they will pay for more content, but they may also download more content for free and so what. This happened always (substitute for download - use the library, book clubs, read in bookstores) and the pie kept increasing due to increased prosperity, increased number of people and so on...
No reason to expect any of these to change.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by nekokami

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

No.
Someone might spend a lot of time and money making their front garden beautiful.
They haven't done that work for anyone but themselves; but that doesn't mean passers-by are obliged to pay for the privilege of admiring the efforts of their labour - which enrich their lives to some extent.
If I asked them to come and work on my garden, they'd be entitled to reimbursement for the inconvenience the work would entail.
If I asked for a cutting, I should be prepared to pay for the work and the (slight) impairment caused to their garden as a result.
But if a seed blows across the fence, and I end up with a copy of one of their beautiful plants, I don't think I should be made to pay for it (there was no inconvenience or cost to them), nor should I have to destroy it (pointless) - I'd feel no moral qualms about letting it grow and flower (adding beauty to the world).
If they resent the fact other people might get windblown seeds for free - they could put up fences, or cover their flowerbeds, or take whatever measures they feel necessary to deprive others of the fruits of their labour. But if those measures end up besmirching the neighbourhood (cutting out the light to other gardens, looking hideous etc.) - then others equally have their right to voice objections to the consequences to them of such methods.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

They haven't done that work for anyone but themselves; but that doesn't mean passers-by are obliged to pay for the privilege of admiring the efforts of their labour - which enrich their lives to some extent.

I think one has to make a distinction between work done for the worker's own pleasure, and work done specifically for commercial purposes. For example, the people who create e-books and upload them to this forum certainly don't do so for commercial gain, and no "reward" is expected. People who create e-Books for commercial distribution do so for commercial gain, and deserve to be rewarded if one reads their books.

[sanders]

Originally Posted by Mambo

You get 0.45 for a book and you say that downloaders hurt you? Man, do you know what are you talking about? How long it takes to recognize your actual enemy?

At least you should get 50% in a healthy world order. A downloader may have taken 0.45 from you but your publisher steals 3.3 per copy. (If there is book for 7.5 that is 6%, which I doubt if you can get a good book for that much.)

Heartily agreed. In the current system, the author arguably does not get a fair share. Like I've posted before, more than half of the cover price goes to the book store.

So the publisher doesn't steal 3.3 per copy, it gets compensation for financial risk.

If your book sells 1M copies, you can negotiate quite a different contract with your publisher for your next book. The publisher will be open to this negotiation, because their risk is lower, too.

The major fallacy in the reasoning I see here is that people think it's unfair that a publisher gets a bigger cut than the author, and therefore it's "just" to make sure neither gets a dime. This does not help the "poor oppressed authors" in any way.

Remember that an author has signed a contract with the publisher, which they were free to negotiate about, or simply not sign. An author feeling that a publisher doesn't really add value could instead invest in a bunch of post-it notes with his email address on it, and spend a day or two sticking these to the notice boards of all shops, universities, and wherever his potential audience was likely going to see them, with the offer of sending them a xeroxed, stapled copy of their manuscript in exchange for two dollars in an envelope.

An alternative for the author would be to self-publish. It takes reading a few books and some research, and he would be all set.

[sanders]

Originally Posted by Mambo

I did not know that reading books in the library for free is like sneaking into movie theaters. Or what should someone do if he/she is poor in your opinion? Not reading anything and similarly not eat and die?

Oh come on. I find it hard to take people seriously who insist they can't afford the price of books, yet are downloading them from the internet. For the money spent on a computer and internet connection, you can buy a lot of books. Books are not food. You will not die if you don't read. Besides, in most civilized countries, public libraries are (nearly) free.

Originally Posted by Mambo

My view is Copying = electronic library. As long as somebody does not set up a real electronic library. And I don't think that it should be my problem that there is no infrastructure or monetary interest for such a business/service?

It shouldn't be my problem either, should it?

Remember that books in libraries are paid for. Either by your subscription money, or via taxes if library access is free. Either way, if it were standard practise that people borrowed books from libraries, made exact copies from them (rendering them just as valuable as the original) and started distributing those, you can bet that the library system would collapse.

I'm all for a digital library. But publishers would like to see that all reasonable effort is spent to make sure you "return" your copy after it's "expired".

And since the DRM issue hasn't been properly solved yet, don't expect to see digital libraries anytime soon.

[sanders]

Originally Posted by mrkai

Understanding the "why" in fact goes a long way towards understanding the "different moral outlook" of the so called "darknet" really.

(...)

And you know, its funny...the "gift economy" of The Underground seems to have more structure, accreditation and checks and balances than its "above board" enemies give them credit for.

It's funny how word play is used to defend the stance that "depriving of potential income isn't stealing", and you can "give something away" which isn't yours to begin with.

If you want to see true "gift economy" on the internet, you could much better look at the Open Source community. These people put their money where their mouth is. Instead of saying "It's ridiculous I have to pay for Microsoft Word, so I'll download a crack instead", they say "Let's team up and write a free replacement."

So, instead of trying to justify your up- and downloading of cracks of "commercial" books, why don't you post the URL at which I can download your book for free?

Please don't tell me you haven't written any.

[Trenien]

Random thoughts and half-remembered things that came about as I was reading the latest posts:

- Although the DRM issue is still trashing about, DRMs are going the way of the dodo. Their first and foremost proponents (music majors) are coming about and realizing they don't work and albeit slowly, they're letting that particular idiocy behind, period.

- wanting to prevent the copying of files (books, songs, videos, soft) is wanting to reintroduce the scarcity that exists in the physical world to the digital medium where the very idea makes no sense.

- Going back to the article and the various outraged reactions that arose because of it. My personal conviction is that because of the various abuse because of them, copyright's laws don't have much time left.
In any case they've been there for a pretty short time, so those who believe they're here forever delude themselves.
The best people who want copyright to keep being is for something like the Creative Commons licenses.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

People who create e-Books for commercial distribution do so for commercial gain, and deserve to be rewarded if one reads their books.

Applying that argument to pbooks implies that second-hand bookshops are immoral for selling still-in-copyright pbooks (but I'm not sure if that would actually be your view).

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Trenien

- wanting to prevent the copying of files (books, songs, videos, soft) is wanting to reintroduce the scarcity that exists in the physical world to the digital medium where the very idea makes no sense.

With respect, Trenien, you're confusing "scarcity" with "having value". The fact that you can make 10,000 copies of an e-Book trivially does not mean that the e-Book has no value to the reader or to the author, and that the author is not entitled to fair recompense for his or her work. Whether the book is distributed digitally or on paper does not alter that basic principle.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Applying that argument to pbooks implies that second-hand bookshops are immoral for selling still-in-copyright pbooks (but I'm not sure if that would actually be your view).

Sorry Sparrow, I'm don't follow your argument. Why do you consider 2nd-hand bookshops to be immoral? They are a valuable source of out-of-print books!

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If my friend did not have a device which supported MobiPocket, then they wouldn't be able to read the book which I'd bought REGARDLESS of whether or not it had DRM.

Which proves that DRM is not "common sense".

Originally Posted by HarryT

Most people DO have a device which supports MobiPocket - a Windows PC.

Ahhh... So you are saying that I need to use a closed, proprietary operating system made by an abusive monopoly to use a closed, proprietary eBook format...

Sorry, but I still fail to see where this is "common sense".

Common sense tells us that closed, proprietary formats create monopolies.
Common sense also tells us that monopolies are bad. Immediately bad for the consumer and, in the long term, bad for the industry.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

Ahhh... So you are saying that I need to use a closed, proprietary operating system made by an abusive monopoly to use a closed, proprietary eBook format...

Yes, that's right.

Common sense tells us that closed, proprietary formats create monopolies.
Common sense also tells us that monopolies are bad. Immediately bad for the consumer and, in the long term, bad for the industry.

Capitalism encourages companies to try and gain monopolistic positions in their market sectors, and yet punishes them when they actually succeed in their goal. I've never been a big fan of capitalism .