Piracy vs Bookstores

[sanders]

Originally Posted by spooky69

(...) 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.

Exactly. It is a painful realization I got from a previous thread on this subject: First, decide whether you're in the business of trying to improve other peoples' morals or of trying to maximize profits. In case of the latter, forget about the pirates. The only thing I'm worried about is the amount of effort I need to do to "keep the honest people honest". I haven't quite figured that out yet, because it's easy to bother the honest people with your DRM scheme, which I want to avoid.

[llasram]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Could one not use exactly the same argument about any drug use (and let's not forget that alcohol is a drug)? Should people who use cannabis or cocaine be "criminalised"?

I think you're perfectly correct that the analogy carries, although I’m not sure which direction you’re carrying it . I personally feel that drug legalization should be considered on a drug-by-drug basis as a public health issue (rather than as a moral issue). I think it’s very difficult to build a rational argument for banning marijuana – its illegality contributes to a massive black market economy and has the criminalizing effect discussed. Methamphetamine dealers on the other hand I’m all for draconian punishment.

[zelda_pinwheel]

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!).

wait, the TV detector vans are real ??? are the cat detector vans real too ???

[llasram]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Check out footage of a riot in any major city, and you'll usually see human nature assert itself in taking whatever people think thay can get away with carrying. That "innate sense of fairness" is a great concept which, unfortunately, has not been widely demonstrated in real life. That's why we have to have laws in the first place.

Psychology researcher Jonathan Haidt has done some fascinating work on uncovering the neurological and evolutionary underpinnings of morality. Here’s an article Haidt wrote for Edge magazine and a rather longer article Steven Pinker wrote for the New York Times.

I don’t think that morality exists by state imposition or is identical with the law. This seems to me the basic disagreement underlying our competing claims. If my Prohibition analogy doesn’t budge you here then I guess we should stop tilting at each other’s windmills .

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Your arguments seem to suggest your opinion is that as long as the author did not create the work you obtained for free, he is not impacted. I disagree.

I’m keeping to the separately-created-instance case in order to focus the discussion clearly on the issue of copyright and intellectual property. The fact that Moby Dick is in the public domain wouldn’t give me any justification for waltzing into Barnes & Noble and walking off with a copy. I wanted to make it clear that the author/publisher had not provided labor produce the e-book, and thus could claim only copyright on the content, not some moral right on the particular e-book form.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

You, the consumer, in fact do not have the right to reproduce another person's work without permission. When you do, you create another instance of that person's intellectual property, which, due to copyright law, is his to sell... not yours. When you make the decision for him, without his permission, you are violating his rights. That is both illegal AND immoral.

What does “another instance” mean? If I buy one of your books then scatter several copies of it around my hard drive am I guilty of immoral duplication? If I buy it to give as a gift, but keep a back-up copy, unread, because I know my friend accidentally deletes his files often, am I then guilty of immoral duplication?

I believe most of us share the notion that an author should receive compensation for their work in line with the number of people who read that work. Copyright was a remarkably effective system for achieving this during the reign of the printing press. In the era of the Internet there are many opportunities for copyright violations which do not interfere with the principle of popularity-linked compensation.

My point is that we should account for these case by modifying or replacing the copyright system, not by forcing consumers to treat digital media like physical media. And that until we do so there will be certain classes of “piracy” (not all – I am not saying that) which are not immoral, do not violate the popularity-linked compensation principle.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

I hear this a lot: "An e-book isn't really an object to buy or sell... it's a bunch of electrons, nothing like a real, physical object that I can hold in my hand. Therefore it should, by rights, be free to create, trade, or give away."

I’m almost forced to conclude that you’re intentionally misunderstanding me here. I’ve never said or implied anything of the sort.

My point is that we have very solid intuitions concerning the value, sale, trade, and theft of physical things. Copyright worked so well for so long because it makes informational products into physical things. Copyright is presently failing because the average consumer increasingly has the ability to deal with informational products as information and our intuitions about physical things no longer apply. The hardback-and-paperback analogy is flawed because it applies our intuitions about two physical products to an informational product.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

What an e-book is, is an intellectual property. Whether you can physically hold it is immaterial... that is a rationalization which, in fact, does not hold water (because electrons are material objects... they are the basic matter that makes up material objects... and the fact that you can't actually see them doesn't mean they don't exist. I know an elephant named Horton who can tell you all about that concept). The intellectual property is considered valuable, whatever the medium, and laws are written to protect its creator/owner. Again, those laws may need to be revised to better encompass digital files, but they do cover them by intent already.

Cool, we’re in complete agreement here: information has value, and the laws designed to ensure compensation for information-producers need to be revised.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

I don't mean to say that Joe can't rip the CD he owns to an MP3 for his own use. Almost every government on the planet gives an implicit okay to do this (even if it is just looking the other way). But Joe does not have the right to sell, or even give away, that MP3 to another, without the author's permission (in the U.S., and in some other countries). That is illegal (in the U.S., and in some other countries) and immoral (to anyone who believes that Thou Shalt Not Steal).

And we continue to agree! The distribution is illegal and indiscriminate distribution is immoral. My contention is that receiving the illegitimately-distributed content is not always immoral.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

This [library royalties] has been mentioned throughout this site, in many threads.

I searched mobileread for “library royalty” and didn’t see any likely-looking threads. I looked at a few of the search results and found only one relevant example, but which was claiming the opposite (that the author received their royalty for each copy sold, but that copy could be placed in a public library and read any number of times). Could you direct me to a specific reference?

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Strictly speaking, you are violating the law to do so. Practically speaking, as long as neither of you sell your copies... the law couldn't care less. (Unless they catch you. Then you'll be fined, and wished you never heard of e-books. That one's up to you.)

I agree it’s illegal – I was more curious about your take on the morality of this transaction.

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

wait, the TV detector vans are real ??? are the cat detector vans real too ???

TV detectors are certainly real but only Monty Python could device a cat detector. TV detectors work by detecting the signal emitted inadvertently by a local oscillator inside the receiver that is used to help isolate and select the desired channel in the incoming signal which is then sent to an amplifier. It does not detect the screen itself so it will work on LCD TV sets or any other screen display.

Dale

[rationalbiker]

Originally Posted by Halk

So what does that mean? It means that I'll do what I feel is right, rather than what others believe is right. In other words, as long as I'm happy that I'm keeping to my own standards I'm fine.

As unpopular as I suspect my opinion will be, I will render it anyway.

It seems to me that you are operating under the same premise that most 'pirates' operate under. If item x is a) hard to find, b) too expensive, c) in a format I don't like, d) I can't afford it, etc. etc. etc., that is justifcation for me taking what I want.

The question should seriously ask yourself is this; why do I think I have a right to take something that I have not earned nor sought proper permission from the owner to take? And if you recognize that you don't have a right to take it to begin with, then you have already answered your own question; it's wrong.

Typically the answer is, insufficiently, because I want it.

We could probably argue over the meaning, usefulness and purpose of copyright law all day, but in the end the moral right or wrong comes from the earned or unearned, the permission or lack thereof.

My experience has been that virtually all 'pirates' are happy rationalizing why they should be able to take that which does not belong to them. For the most part I've given up trying to convince them that taking what they haven't earned and haven't sought permission to take is morally wrong, that it impacts their life negatively, and in the end not in their long term best interest. Rational people do not need to steal or take things that do not belong to them. Rational people understand the value that earning things offers their life. Rational people understand that the end does not justify the means and that morality is not determined by what is done, but by what should be done.

Man's peaceful existence among other men depends on the recognition of rights. Men survive by use of reason and by voluntary trade; animals survive by use of force, by taking what they need to survive without regard for the other animals. Taking something from someone without their permission and without duly compensating them is just another form of force, making that 'man' no better than an animal.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by llasram

I think you're perfectly correct that the analogy carries, although I’m not sure which direction you’re carrying it . I personally feel that drug legalization should be considered on a drug-by-drug basis as a public health issue (rather than as a moral issue). I think it’s very difficult to build a rational argument for banning marijuana – its illegality contributes to a massive black market economy and has the criminalizing effect discussed. Methamphetamine dealers on the other hand I’m all for draconian punishment.

My personal view is that all drugs should legalised and that manufacturers should be licenced to produce them. The crime resulting from drugs is almost exclusively due to their illegality and the health effects largely due to their adulteration by street dealers. Adults should be allowed to decide for themselves whether to take drugs, just as we are allowed to decide at present whether to use alcohol or tobacco. Cocaine, for example, is not physiologically addictive (unlike tobacco); heroin kills a tiny fraction of the number of people that alcohol does. The present situation is competely ludicrous, IMHO. We have drugs which are "socially acceptable" and then much less harmful ones that one is made a criminal by using.

[moz]

One reason for taking: the owner is dead. I mean that in all seriousness. It does not matter how much we reward Arthur Clarke for his books, he will never, ever write another. No amount of money will change his mind. So, what possible justification is there in terms of "encouraging creative output"? Sure, there's the "my ideas are my property and I take them to my grave" response, but I don't think even the mammon-worshippers are demanding that extreme. Even in the USA, dead people cannot own property, so if you argue that copyright is property, why should it persist after death? No other ideas are given legal force after death...

Another reason: I have arguments that make sense to me for breaking whatever laws are involved. For example, I have no problem at all ignoring US copyright law. I have never been under its jurisdiction[1] and don't anticipate that changing.

Alternatively: I believe the laws are unjust, and am breaking them as an act of civil disobedience. I do not deny breaking them and would even accept Ghandi's approach if that eventuated.

[1] I realise that the USA regards its laws as universal and has repeatedly kidnapped foreign nationals and applied "USA justice" to them. I regard that as abhorrent.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by moz

One reason for taking: the owner is dead. I mean that in all seriousness. It does not matter how much we reward Arthur Clarke for his books, he will never, ever write another. No amount of money will change his mind. So, what possible justification is there in terms of "encouraging creative output"? Sure, there's the "my ideas are my property and I take them to my grave" response, but I don't think even the mammon-worshippers are demanding that extreme. Even in the USA, dead people cannot own property, so if you argue that copyright is property, why should it persist after death? No other ideas are given legal force after death...

If you ran a company, you would be allowed to pass the ownership of that company - and the income from it - on to your heirs. Writing a book is just as much work as starting a company. Why should you not be allowed to pass the income from a book on to your heirs?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

If you ran a company, you would be allowed to pass the ownership of that company - and the income from it - on to your heirs. Writing a book is just as much work as starting a company. Why should you not be allowed to pass the income from a book on to your heirs?

Why should you? Copyright is a right and not property so why should the same intuitions hold?

Personally I think passing property to heirs should not be allowed but it is probably impossible to implement such a system. With copyright or other granted rights it is easy to implement a system were you cannot pass it along when you die.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by rationalbiker

The question should seriously ask yourself is this; why do I think I have a right to take something that I have not earned nor sought proper permission from the owner to take? And if you recognize that you don't have a right to take it to begin with, then you have already answered your own question; it's wrong..

You have a natural right to make copies or use whatever idea you want. The government have introduced limitations in this right with copyright laws

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

Why should you? Copyright is a right and not property so why should the same intuitions hold?

Personally I think passing property to heirs should not be allowed but it is probably impossible to implement such a system. With copyright or other granted rights it is easy to implement a system were you cannot pass it along when you die.

The concept of "ownership" of a company is not "property" either; it is, in fact, very similar to the idea of copyright. In both cases, you are given the right to "control" something and make money from it. I don't think anyone would say that people shouldn't be able to pass on shares in a company in their will, so why single out copyright in this way? It is discrimination against people who create "ideas" rather than a physical object. Why should that discrimination exist? Creating a story is just as make a creative endeavor as creating a physical entity.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

(Funny: I replied to this last night, but it didn't take. Let's give it another try.)

Originally Posted by llasram

I don’t think that morality exists by state imposition or is identical with the law. This seems to me the basic disagreement underlying our competing claims. If my Prohibition analogy doesn’t budge you here then I guess we should stop tilting at each other’s windmills .

It isn't identical. A society is always formed by morality, but at the same time, it often has to bend morality to its own ends.

The Prohibition argument has some parallels with e-books, but only some. Prohibition would have succeeded if not for so many people who did not believe they needed to be protected from alcohol, and they actively fought the law until it was repealed. But Prohibition was in essence a religion-inspired public health issue, not a commercial issue like e-books... and we are not trying to ban all e-books... so I'd say the analogy has some problems.

Originally Posted by llasram

I’m keeping to the separately-created-instance case in order to focus the discussion clearly on the issue of copyright and intellectual property.... What does “another instance” mean? If I buy one of your books then scatter several copies of it around my hard drive am I guilty of immoral duplication? If I buy it to give as a gift, but keep a back-up copy, unread, because I know my friend accidentally deletes his files often, am I then guilty of immoral duplication?

Okay: An e-book is an Intellectual Property, or IP. An Instance is a copy of that IP. The point (or at least the intent) of copyright law is that every instance of an IP should pay the owner of that IP, whether the owner created that instance or not. In this case, the law makes an exception for an instance created by someone who already owns it, for their own use only (format-shifting). But if one of those copies gets out of your hands, you are considered liable for disseminating an instance of the IP without permission.

Regarding your friend, what you should do is gift him the book, and tell him to make a backup copy. If you make a backup and keep it, then the law will consider you in violation (2 people now hold 2 instances of an IP that was paid for by only 1). If he makes a copy of the book he's got, you're both in the clear.

Originally Posted by llasram

My point is that we should account for these case by modifying or replacing the copyright system, not by forcing consumers to treat digital media like physical media. And that until we do so there will be certain classes of “piracy” (not all – I am not saying that) which are not immoral, do not violate the popularity-linked compensation principle.

My point is that we have very solid intuitions concerning the value, sale, trade, and theft of physical things. Copyright worked so well for so long because it makes informational products into physical things. Copyright is presently failing because the average consumer increasingly has the ability to deal with informational products as information and our intuitions about physical things no longer apply. The hardback-and-paperback analogy is flawed because it applies our intuitions about two physical products to an informational product.

Here's the point I'm making: "Intuitions" have to go out the window here. "Intuition" suggests that ideas want to be free, that the creator didn't actually make the copy and therefore doesn't deserve to profit off of it, etc. But "Intuitions" have not yet evolved to take into account the reality of digital media. Copyright law was created to bend morality, or Intuition, into a form that allowed for profit from IP. Until our intuition, or morality, catches up to reality, we need copyright law to guide us.

Originally Posted by llasram

I searched mobileread for “library royalty” and didn’t see any likely-looking threads. I looked at a few of the search results and found only one relevant example, but which was claiming the opposite (that the author received their royalty for each copy sold, but that copy could be placed in a public library and read any number of times). Could you direct me to a specific reference?

Not off the top of my head... but there are others here who will back me up that when libraries obtain a book for their collection, their payment includes a royalty fee designed to cover the people that are expected to borrow the book.

Originally Posted by llasram

I agree (format shifting is) illegal – I was more curious about your take on the morality of this transaction.

Basically, I stand with the law on this: Although format-shifting is technically illegal, as long as the new Instance is used by the person who bought the original Instance, and does not get passed on to another person, I have no problem with that. So sure, make a hundred copies of my e-book. Just don't give 'em to anybody without paying the creator (me), and we're cool.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by moz

Alternatively: I believe the laws are unjust, and am breaking them as an act of civil disobedience.

What do you believe is unjust? The idea of paying a creator for the item they've created and that you've obtained? Or just the idea that that person's heirs (who may be minors, and otherwise bereft of income if their parent/the creator dies prematurely) may be deserving of some of the proceeds provided by copyright after the creator has died?

[llasram]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The concept of "ownership" of a company is not "property" either; it is, in fact, very similar to the idea of copyright. In both cases, you are given the right to "control" something and make money from it. I don't think anyone would say that people shouldn't be able to pass on shares in a company in their will, so why single out copyright in this way? It is discrimination against people who create "ideas" rather than a physical object. Why should that discrimination exist? Creating a story is just as make a creative endeavor as creating a physical entity.

Why will no one pay fair wage for my mashed-potato-and-human-hair sculptures? They are creative endeavors each involving months of dedicated effort as a shape each starchy curve with infinite care. It must be discrimination!

In a pure market economy the value of a product is a function of supply and demand and nothing else. The creativity and effort involved are irrelevant. The “supply” of a purely informational product like the content of a book is infinite. This makes the pure-market value of book-content approximately the same as that of my undemanded sculptures: nothing.

Copyright works by granting creators a legislated monopoly on the content of their creative work, allowing them to artificially scale supply against demand and turn a profit. But informational content is not a physical product – treating it as such is an entirely artificial construct for the purpose of compensating creators in a market economy.

Copyright was effective for so long because the means to distribute creative content was so expensive and time consuming, thus not widely prevalent, and thus easily controlled. The core contention of the “pro-freedom” side of this “debate” is simply that this is no longer the case. The technology for costless duplication and distribution makes the copyright system’s legal imperative to treat information like a physical product as sensible as a legal requirement to sell liquids by their color. Our laws and institutions can do better, and until they do there will be a lot of moral edge cases.

So with the case of inheritance (wow, I got carried away), I’m not sure how I feel... (Questioning the very concept of property inheritance I do think goes a bit far.) An artist might inherit their parent’s brushes and paints, but that doesn’t give them a right sell new paintings if they don’t have the talent for it. I at least like the idea of a system of voluntary contributions intended to subsidize future (freely distributed) work, like the system primarily used by comic artists on the Web. Definitely no inheritance in that model.