interesting NYT article on "copyright morality"

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by sanders

Remember that books in libraries are paid for. Either by your subscription money, or via taxes if library access is free.

Yes, tax payers are forced to pay to cough up for books they do not want.
A moral problem publishers are curiously silent about.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

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!

If I buy and read a still-in-copyright pbook second-hand, it doesn't benefit the original producer, but you argued:

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

It seems that second-hand bookshops are violating your moral principle (if it applies to pbooks as well as ebooks - maybe there's a distinction I'm missing).

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

If I buy and read a still-in-copyright pbook second-hand, it doesn't benefit the original producer, but you argued:

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

It seems that second-hand bookshops are violating your moral principle (if it applies to pbooks as well as ebooks - maybe there's a distinction I'm missing).

Selling a book in a 2nd hand bookshop is no different to passing it on to a friend; the author has still been paid for the book. The difference between a pBook and an eBook is that the pBook can only be physically read by one person at a time; it's rather different to 1000 people downloading a copy of one original eBook, don't you think?

Moral principles are never entirely "black and white" - one has to be sensible about applying them. In the case of 2nd hand bookshops I think that their benefit to society (that of keeping out of print books in circulation) outweighs any potential loss to an author of a lost sale as a result of someone buying a 2nd hand book rather than a new one. Don't you agree?

[deviant]

Originally Posted by sanders

Then either the store is too lazy to do so, or the book is out of print. Any book still in print which has an ISBN, can be ordered by the store.

That might be the case in developed Western countries but it's foolish to say it applies to the whole world. Also, how would the reader be compensated for waiting?

I don't think the publishing industry is a rip-off. Brick-and-mortar book stores have amazing liberties (which date from the great depression) taking over half of the cover price of books, and not even taking much risk at that (since they can usually ship back unsold copies to publishers for a full refund - even if these copies are damaged and can not be sold anymore). Publishing is not a Get Rich Quick industry.

It would be strange if you called yourself a ripoff What I'm trying to point out is that they don't serve a purpose that cannot be easily substituted by the author himself. I don't mind if the ebook has no cover page. Editing and proofreading doesn't need two specialists to do, it's not rocket engineering. Most readers can set their own typography if need be (and I assume the author is capable of using paragraphs and chapters).

As far as payment goes, a PayPal account is good enough, so there's no need to do contact Credit Card companies. The web aspect, as you said, can be learned. Furthermore, most search engines rank pages by content - so what's more likely to reach the top page - a site with torrents of all kinds or the specific book website of the authors?

Still though - if you think you are being ripped off, in my view you should simply say "thanks but no thanks" and not take things into your own hands. If an exquisite restaurant thinks it can get away with asking $100 for an entree, you should simply not eat there if you don't think that's worth it. Of course, this gets us back into the "copying is not stealing" argument. Just out of curiosity - do you sneak into movie theaters and/or hitch free rides on trains?

I don't agree with your view of "just walking away". You forget that piracy also has an effect on the market regardless of whether you want it or not. Unlike before, there is now a third option - get a pirated copy.

As far as sneaking into theaters goes no, no I don't. Thankfully the city was nice enough to issue all students free cinema theater tickets. I'm happy to say that now I go to the theater once or twice a month unlike before when I went there only if there was a really big hit. And what's more, I tend to purchase popcorn and thus boost the theater's revenue somewhat.

As far as trains go, I haven't been on one since I was a kid. Nowadays I usually use buses or planes.

So what does the publishing industry do? They feel there is no good DRM, so they'd rather not venture into ebooks at all.

Believe me: if there was a solid DRM which both publishers and consumers would both be happy with, publishers would jump into it feet first. Their biggest pain in the neck is currently the book stores with their outrageous margins. I'm sure they'd love to cut them out.

They can venture into it or not - their call. Regardless of their choice there will be an ebook copy on the internet if there is a demand for it, the only question is whether they'll earn any money off of it.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Moral principles are never entirely "black and white" - one has to be sensible about applying them. In the case of 2nd hand bookshops I think that their benefit to society (that of keeping out of print books in circulation) outweighs any potential loss to an author of a lost sale as a result of someone buying a 2nd hand book rather than a new one. Don't you agree?

That sound suspiciously like fudging the moral principle so that it fits what you intuitively believe. The whole point of a moral principle is that it should be a principle that you apply strictly and if it contradicts your intuition you have to change the principle or change the intuition.

I agreee with your benefit argument but I also believe the benefit argument is correct in a lot of cases where you would call people thieves.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by sanders

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."

Why do you call that a truer gift economy? I think that the open source community is much less a gift economy than the pirate scene community. I write free code because I believe it makes the world a better place to live in. I do not do it because I expect something in return. What I have glimpsed from pirate scenes is that peoples main motivation is that they get something back. The thinking is more based on the shareware mentality and not the open source mentality.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

In the case of 2nd hand bookshops I think that their benefit to society (that of keeping out of print books in circulation) outweighs any potential loss to an author of a lost sale as a result of someone buying a 2nd hand book rather than a new one. Don't you agree?

Yes, I'd agree with that. So would it be fair to say your response to nekokami's query:
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?

Is 'not always'?

[sanders]

Originally Posted by tompe

Why do you call that a truer gift economy? I think that the open source community is much less a gift economy than the pirate scene community. I write free code because I believe it makes the world a better place to live in. I do not do it because I expect something in return. What I have glimpsed from pirate scenes is that peoples main motivation is that they get something back. The thinking is more based on the shareware mentality and not the open source mentality.

I think we are in agreement here - I didn't mean to imply that giving a gift includes the expectation that you'll get one in return.

[sanders]

Originally Posted by deviant

That might be the case in developed Western countries but it's foolish to say it applies to the whole world. Also, how would the reader be compensated for waiting?

If a country is developed enough that you can access the internet and download a copy of an ebook, then surely it is developed enough to order a book? Also, do you seriously feel that you need to be compensated for waiting?

Originally Posted by deviant

What I'm trying to point out is that they don't serve a purpose that cannot be easily substituted by the author himself. I don't mind if the ebook has no cover page. Editing and proofreading doesn't need two specialists to do, it's not rocket engineering. Most readers can set their own typography if need be (and I assume the author is capable of using paragraphs and chapters).

Wouldn't you argue that this is up to the author though? If an author signs a contract with a publisher in which the publisher trades an author advance, the costs for editing and proofreading etc., in exchange for a percentage of the proceeds? Why do you feel that you have the right to bypass both the author and the publisher?

Originally Posted by deviant

As far as payment goes, a PayPal account is good enough, so there's no need to do contact Credit Card companies.

Let's go with the PayPal example. On a $5 ebook, PayPal will take $0.30 + 2.9% - that's $0.45, or almost 9%. Fair?

Originally Posted by deviant

I don't agree with your view of "just walking away". You forget that piracy also has an effect on the market regardless of whether you want it or not. Unlike before, there is now a third option - get a pirated copy.

And this whole thread (I thought ) was about the morality of that. I'm not arguing piracy doesn't exist. I'm not arguing that you can't get a pirated copy. Neither am I arguing that you can't buy clothes which are sewn together by 6-year-olds in damp basements in 3rd world countries for significantly less money than union-organized workers in my own country. (I feel that I can make this comparison if people can say that not having free books is equal to starving.)

[sanders]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Yes, tax payers are forced to pay to cough up for books they do not want.
A moral problem publishers are curiously silent about.

Tax payers are forced to pay for roads they don't drive on, for military actions they don't support, and for loads of other things. Vote for a different party.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by sanders

Tax payers are forced to pay for roads they don't drive on, for military actions they don't support, and for loads of other things. Vote for a different party.

So publishers have no responsibility to ensure the money they take is morally legitimate.
They're happy to take money from hard-pressed tax payers who have been coerced into paying it against their will.

A tax payer who is obliged to pay for books they don't want, might consider getting some books they do want for free as a way of balancing of the books (excuse the pun ).

It seems to be human nature to use the 'wrong's done to us, to justify doing 'wrong' back - it's the motivation behind DRM after all.

[deviant]

Originally Posted by sanders

If a country is developed enough that you can access the internet and download a copy of an ebook, then surely it is developed enough to order a book? Also, do you seriously feel that you need to be compensated for waiting?

Country? Yes. The whole country? Well no. Should I pay the travel expenses so that I can order a book? I'm not asking to be compensated for waiting. I am however, pointing out that piracy is providing readers what the legitimate industry fails to because it puts itself and its profit before the customer. There'd be no need for me to download pirated copies if they were available over the internet for a fair fee, now would I?

Wouldn't you argue that this is up to the author though? If an author signs a contract with a publisher in which the publisher trades an author advance, the costs for editing and proofreading etc., in exchange for a percentage of the proceeds? Why do you feel that you have the right to bypass both the author and the publisher?

Of course, I'm all for free will. However, I also feel that all consequences of that choice should be accepted - in this case piracy. Why do I feel what I have the right to bypass both? Because I feel that neither the publisher nor the author have my best interest in mind - hence, their personal interest do not concern me just as my own plights don't concern them.

Piracy didn't spring up out of the blue for no reason what-so-ever. It emerged to fill the needs and wants legitimate publishers failed to address. There wouldn't be piracy if these issues were addressed but it seems ever so easier to complain and lobby than to improve upon these shortcomings.

Let's go with the PayPal example. On a $5 ebook, PayPal will take $0.30 + 2.9% - that's $0.45, or almost 9%. Fair?

Compared to the 92% publishers take? You tell me.

And this whole thread (I thought ) was about the morality of that. I'm not arguing piracy doesn't exist. I'm not arguing that you can't get a pirated copy. Neither am I arguing that you can't buy clothes which are sewn together by 6-year-olds in damp basements in 3rd world countries for significantly less money than union-organized workers in my own country. (I feel that I can make this comparison if people can say that not having free books is equal to starving.)

It's a changing market and the sooner sellers adapt the better for them. It's like the Industrial revolution and the huge layoffs - this is the Information age and the Information Revolution so adapt or go extinct.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

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.

The fact that they chose to expend this effort and money on their front garden rather than their back garden (assuming they have both and both are arable) says something about what their motives might be. Perhaps they want to give some beauty to the neighborhood. Perhaps they want to be admired or envied by their neighbors or by visitors. Perhaps they have an even nicer garden in the back that they charge visitors to see. Perhaps they sell plants and garden ornaments, and the front garden serves as a sales display. But a public display has a purpose, just as posting in a public forum has a purpose, and that purpose is by its nature not to generate income directly.

If you want parallels to writing, then I might write a book and post it for free on my website, either with a CC license or not, just because I think my book contributes in some way to the community and I want it to be free. Or I might post the book because I want to impress potential agents or publishers, or because I want my friends and family to see that I actually finished a book. I might post just the first chapter and ask someone to pay for the rest of the book. I might give that book away, but offer other books for sale. The point is, by posting it myself in a public place, I'm effectively donating it, just as someone who plants a garden in front of their house is donating that effort. But that doesn't mean the owner of the garden wants people trespassing in back of the house to see the prize roses they're preparing for a competition, and it doesn't mean I want people hacking into my website to take books I'm not offering for free. (Not that I'm offering any books at this time-- I'm still trying to decide what to do with my writing.)

I agree with you about the wind-blown seeds, though. There have been some interesting court cases involving agribusiness firms like Monsanto and contamination of neighboring fields with their genetically modified seeds (or even pollen) in which Monsanto has tried to sue the owners of the fields for deliberately using their IP (genetic engineering) without paying for it. I think that's absurd. If Monsanto wants to sue anyone, they should sue those who bought and planted their seeds and didn't put nets over their crops or didn't leave a wide enough border around their fields to prevent escape of the seed, but I think that's futile. The neighbors can't control what the wind blows onto their land. It's not the same as the darknet where you can decide whether or not to download something. This would be more like being sued because a virus dumped a copy of a cracked book into your ebook reader.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by deviant

Compared to the 92% publishers take? You tell me.

With all the discussion we've had on this forum about where the costs of publishing are, there's really no excuse for this. The book stores are taking nearly half the profit (but they're also paying facilities and staff costs). Printing also takes a chunk. The "greedy publisher taking advantage of the poor defenseless writer" is a myth we can lose. Maybe the contracts should be more in the writers' favor, but the imbalance isn't much in favor of publishers, either.

And I personally would much prefer to read fiction that's been attended to by a professional editor.

[mrkai]

Originally Posted by sanders

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?

At what point did I say i downloaded cracks of commercial books?

HRM.

Originally Posted by sanders

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

I haven't written any books. Pay attention. I write commercial software for a living.