Piracy vs Bookstores

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Actually, I have been speaking in very straightforward terms, trying to emphasize the fact that a product that an author makes money on should be paid for, whatever its format. The fact that e-books can easily be copied and disseminated by others, thereby creating instances of the product independent of the author's efforts, does not change this one fact (yes, I personally consider this a fact). And finally, that copyright law should be written/rewritten to indicate and protect this fact.

But this is not a fact. It is not a natural law that every person should be able to sell whatever that person choose to sell and make money. You are motivating copyright from something that is totally different from the original motivation (which was a utilitarian motivation) and the fact is that many people (most?) do not agree with you fundamental beliefs here.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

They have a legal right to forcibly enter your home and search it for TV sets (seriously!).

Really? In Sweden they cannot forcible enter you home if the crime cannot lead to prison. And normally not paying the TV license fee cannot lead to prison so they cannot forcibly enter the home.

[Lemurion]

It sounds to me like I'm hearing a lot of "two wrongs make a right," and while three lefts do make a right, two wrongs don't.

We've always been charged again to purchase content in different formats. I have a 20 yr. old trade paper copy of DC's Watchmen graphic novel. I just paid $50 (I got a good deal) for the over-sized recolored hardcover "Absolute" edition. Just because I own one copy of the content doesn't give me the right to another for free.

Having said that, I don't like DRM either. It doesn't do a good job of its stated function (preventing piracy) and primarily harms legitimate customers rather than copyright infringers or illegal downloaders.

So what's the answer? Make legitimate content available at a reasonable price without undue restrictions. In the case of ebooks that means in a format that can be read on whatever device one has at the time-- and if you have two or more devices on whichever one you have with you.

One problem I see is that there's a large lobby group that has a vested interest in demonizing copyright infringement and some of their claims have gone so far as to become ludicrous. It's like they're applying the reductio ad absurdum to their own position.

The way I see it, there are two forms of copyright infringement which I think of as civil and criminal. What I think of as "civil" copyright infringement is primarily file-sharing and illegitimate downloading with no financial gain, where "criminal" copyright infringement is that done for profit such as selling truckloads of copied CDs and DVDs. Many content lobbyists appear to be trying to equate the two, and apply the appropriate penalties for the latter to the former. They are also seeking to convince the world that "civil" copyright infringement is a crime on the order of murder and kidnapping.

It hurts their case.

"Civil" copyright infringement is more like petty theft than grand theft, and should be treated as such. It is wrong and no amount of rationalization is going to make it right. Yes it's a minor crime in comparison, but that doesn't excuse it.

I've said this for a while now; the only way to get non-DRM content into the market is to prove to the providers that consumers will pay for it. Support retailers that offer it. Until then the "piracy" argument will trump all as far as the accountants are concerned.

Any solution that doesn't involve some sort of payment, whether direct with each transaction, or indirect such as a levy or advertisement, is not a solution.

Yes you can download illegal versions of many books instead of buying them, but it's the very thing that's doing the most to prevent the free availability of un-crippled legal content.

You get a lot better results with the carrot than the stick--especially when the other side relies entirely on the stick.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

Really? In Sweden they cannot forcible enter you home if the crime cannot lead to prison. And normally not paying the TV license fee cannot lead to prison so they cannot forcibly enter the home.

Yes, really. It's a curious anomaly in this country that the TV licencing authorities have such "draconian" powers, and that it's a criminal offence, not a "civil" one, not to pay your licence fee. Many people think that it's "over the top" and should be changed, but that's the way it is at the moment.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by tompe

But this is not a fact. It is not a natural law that every person should be able to sell whatever that person choose to sell and make money. You are motivating copyright from something that is totally different from the original motivation (which was a utilitarian motivation) and the fact is that many people (most?) do not agree with you fundamental beliefs here.

There's a saying from the Bible: "...the workman is worthy of his hire." Writing a book is work, it's hard work, and those who do it deserve to be compensated for that work.

In Britain, which is from where US and Commonwealth copyright laws derive, the original purpose of copyright was to strike a balance between the right of the creator to control and profit from their creation and that of the public to have free and unfettered access to it to do with what they will. As far as I know, most other countries base their copyright laws on similar principles.

I personally think the bar has swung too far on the rights-holder's side and needs to be re-adjusted, particularly as regards to terms.

Having said that, the right of the writer to compensation for and control of their own work for the duration of the copyright term is vital. Without this right the entire publishing industry would cease to exist as we know it.

I'm a freelance writer and I make my living from copyright. Even work-for-hire is only possible because of copyright. Without copyright there would be no rights to sell.

[spooky69]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

This has nothing to do with

You don't need to convince the people here that stealing is wrong...well, most of the people here. You seem pretty willing to attack the righteously indignant pirates, and I can't exactly slap you on the back for arguing with a group of people who wantonly abandon the accepted norms of the goods-and-services plan.
Onnnn the other hand, the goods-and-services plan doesn't ever really hold up in a market where the good can be perfectly replicated down off the block and beyond. I know you're just the sassy wild wild west librarian-with-a-charge at heart, but if you aren't going to adapt your service to anticipate the pirate dynamic then you aren't going to be viable in the long term, because there will eventually just be too many jerks like me who can get your project for free.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

Darknet grows, and the ways for the end-user to get to ebooks multiply, and it gets easier and easier to find any text you seek. I see two possible futures.

One is that the publishers make a system (or systems) that will give the people easier access to texts better put together than there are on Darknet soon, and this system will grow into something people become accustomed to, like Windows or iTunes.

The other is that is won't happen - then next generation will know the Net well enough so everybody will be able to access the texts without any problems, enough good search engines and programs will be made, freeware, that it'll be easy to access any title by simply writing it, like on Google, and everyone's acceptance of that will grow to the point when the laws will observe the reality and adjust to it. Then no one will pay any money to make ebooks - or paper books.

What I see as far as the darknet is concerned is that most eBooks being shared were eBooks that were not available when they were being first shared. So if publishers were to release more books as eBooks, then the need to create illegal eBooks would not happen as much.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The TV licencing authorities have a database containing all the addresses in the UK which DON'T have a TV licence, and a fleet of "detector vans" which detect the emissions from a TV (ie wonder if they work with LCD screens?). They have a legal right to forcibly enter your home and search it for TV sets (seriously!).

She had already moved to the USA when she got these emails.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

She had already moved to the USA when she got these emails.

Yes, I got that, Jon . I assume, however, that she appeared on the last UK census, or the electoral register, or something like that, in order for her to have been sent them?

[Patricia]

Not necessarily, Harry. Once you are on the TV licence database they will chase you for a long time.
What has probably happened is that Mrs Wolf's address is either currently empty, or the new occupants haven't bought a tv licence. So the licencing authority haven't got any record of a new occupier and think that she is still there. (Or they may just be incompetent,)

[HarryT]

Probably a bunch of students living there now. Students NEVER buy a TV licence .

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Probably a bunch of students living there now. Students NEVER buy a TV license .

I think it's more like their records showed she was due to renew her license and never did. Though if they had wanted to come visit us in the US, we'd have let them come.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by tompe

It is not a natural law that every person should be able to sell whatever that person choose to sell and make money. You are motivating copyright from something that is totally different from the original motivation (which was a utilitarian motivation) and the fact is that many people (most?) do not agree with you fundamental beliefs here.

I didn't say it was a natural law, which is what you are arguing for. It is a social law, which is often fundamentally different from natural law.

Natural law, i.e., Every man For Himself, simply does not work when you are talking about large and complex societies, no matter how much human nature may want to force it to. Social law enables large and complex groups to function as fairly and efficiently as possible, even when human nature at its base urges individuals to ignore it (which is why social law requires rules and enforcement to succeed).

Originally Posted by spooky69

You don't need to convince the people here that stealing is wrong...well, most of the people here. You seem pretty willing to attack the righteously indignant pirates, and I can't exactly slap you on the back for arguing with a group of people who wantonly abandon the accepted norms of the goods-and-services plan.

Many posters here act as if I don't know what's really going on around here. On the contrary: It is painfully clear to me that many of the posters here have consciously and subconsciously wrestled with the differences between social law and natural law, and natural law has won out in their minds. Whereas I have wrestled with the exact same issues, and in my case, social law has won out. I understand human nature very well, and I know how tempting it is to throw off the needs of the society you live in, and do whatever pleases you. I also know how incredibly well-adapted the human mind is to rationalize a justification for anything it does, regardless of its social, natural or moral implications. This thread, and many others like it, have been a veritable study in these physiological and psycho-social issues, of which I have been glad to participate in and contribute to.

"Piracy vs Bookstores" is just another phrasing of "Human Nature vs Society." It's a debate that has gone on since humans first started cooperating to survive, and it will continue to go on long after we're all gone. And the Devil, as it has always been, is in the details.

So the real issue, here, is to find the compromise in the details, the human desires, and the social requirements, that make up this battle. Tools like "cassette taxes," for instance, represent one of those compromises. Fines and jail time, in other cases, are also examples of compromises. And finally, keeping a person from being paid for the things they create, is another compromise.

The trick is to figure out which, of your available choices of compromises, will best serve the majority of people... the society at large. And the only way to do that is to discuss those choices, and to attempt to explain to others why your choices make more sense than others. My preferred compromises are, IMO, better for society at large than some of your compromises. So far, the compromises I've heard from many posters here are better for individuals... themselves... than they are for society... everyone. I maintain that those individually-favored compromises won't work, specifically, because they are anti-social. And I have been trying to explain why.

That's all I've been trying to do here.

Originally Posted by spooky69

Onnnn the other hand, the goods-and-services plan doesn't ever really hold up in a market where the good can be perfectly replicated down off the block and beyond. I know you're just the sassy wild wild west librarian-with-a-charge at heart, but if you aren't going to adapt your service to anticipate the pirate dynamic then you aren't going to be viable in the long term, because there will eventually just be too many jerks like me who can get your project for free.

I've pointed out before that an e-book should not be thought of as a physical object. It is an intellectual property, set free of physical constraints. Creators of intellectual property deserve as much protection as physical craftspeople (more, since, as you say, it's so easy to copy their work). A society understands this, and sets up copyright laws to make it happen... because human nature is effectively incapable of making it happen without them. A successful society does not let human nature overcome the need for societal order. And a pro-social individual accepts society's needs and follows its direction.

And, if eventually there does turn out to be "too many jerks," and society cannot rein them in... than I will stop producing books for anyone to read. So will a lot of people. Think about how enriched life will be... the individual's, and society's... when good writers cannot make a living. Americans who watch TV just had a taste of this, when the television writer's strike brought some TV shows to a halt, and reduced many others to airing old material, or material that was unscripted and not up to its usual par. That is what happens when artists cannot create, and stop providing the rest of us with creations. I, for one, do not look forward to a society like that.

[Krystian Galaj]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

What I see as far as the darknet is concerned is that most eBooks being shared were eBooks that were not available when they were being first shared. So if publishers were to release more books as eBooks, then the need to create illegal eBooks would not happen as much.

I agree. Personally I hope it will be the case, as more and more eBooks are published and is will be easier to buy them.

Today, the fact that the book is available in an online store doesn't mean that everyone can buy it. In most of the countries of the world it's now quite easy to get access to a high speed internet connection (at least in heavier populated areas). But it's very hard to get access to any means that make online purchase available. You need to have at least a PayPal account, and more often one of the commonly accepted credit cards, like Visa or Mastercard - and those either don't offer their services at all in many countries, or you need to have much more money to get a credit card than you need to buy a book.

In Poland, I had access to Internet with reasonable speed (20 kB/s dl) on the university I was studying at for the last 10 years. First possibility to get a credit card for online shopping turned up around that time, but you had to have some thousands of dollars (in Polish currency) on your account for the bank to consider such service. Only 5 years ago Paypal started offering its services in Poland - and that's supposed to be Europe. People here still prefer to get their money from their employer directly, in bank notes, and many people I know don't have a bank account, as that can be traced and taxed by the state, when it needs money again.

Please take into account all those people who can see all the books in the online stores, but can't buy them - and perhaps won't have a bank account ever in their lives. Yet darknet is available to everyone who happens to sit in front of the keyboard in an online cafe.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

Please take into account all those people who can see all the books in the online stores, but can't buy them - and perhaps won't have a bank account ever in their lives. Yet darknet is available to everyone who happens to sit in front of the keyboard in an online cafe.

The economic gap between countries is perhaps one of the last significant issues that we, as a people, must deal with in order to bring true equality to the planet. As someone who would love to be able to offer my e-books to people in other countries, I, too, wish there was an alternative method of delivery where PayPal-type services and credit cards are not available.

This is an argument for finding workable methods of selling an e-book, perhaps through middlemen who are capable of bridging the gap to broker a transaction across disparate economic boundaries, or by other creative marketing and selling methods. If such middlemen existed, I, for one, would be more than willing to offer my novels for sale through them, at prices that were more appropriate for other countries' financial realities. I extend to anyone who believes they can accomplish this an invitation to make my books available. I also extend to anyone in such a situation to e-mail me directly, in order to work out a suitable method of transaction.

However, it is still not a rationalization for accepted piracy via the Darknet.