E-reads and Curtis Agency Declare War on Piracy

[molman]

Originally Posted by Harmon

One reason I don't agree with that position is that it assumes that the content creators are holding up their part of the deal. They aren't.

Broadly speaking, the deal is that the creators have a limited period of time in which to profit from their creation, after which it enters the public domain.

Obviously, there's a spectrum along which the proper point of "limited period" might occur, but basically, in the United States, we have reached the point that for practical purposes, nothing enters the public domain during the lifetime of any adult alive at the time it is created.

When you add to that an attempt by the creator to extract a disproportionate price for the content, leveraging off of the extended time frame of copyright, I think it's fair to say that the deal is off.

That's not a legal argument, so YMMV.

This may be a philosophically nice position to take (and trust me my sentiments are probably closer to this than I may express), but unfortunately it does not match the current situation we find ourselves in. The other thing to remember is that you mention profit, and whilst a major factor copyright and similar laws more broadly provide legally enforceable rights that can include me never selling my creation should I choose.

Originally Posted by Harmon

But there's another point that is a legal one. You are assuming that it is unquestionable that downloading files from pirate sites is illegal. People tend to confuse the clear illegality involved in the unauthorized distributing of copyrighted material, with the downloading of that material for personal use. While the matter is not indisputable, I think that there is a very strong case - stronger than the contra - for the proposition that, legally speaking, merely downloading a file from a pirate site for personal use is not a copyright violation.

You do have to be careful, though, that you are not downloading in a PTP situation, because (as I understand the way the technology works) that involves you with distributing at the same time you are downloading.

My appreciation of this was that it had more to do with the element of harm which it easier in the case of distribution of copyrighted works verses having a copy for private use. I can't say I've looked into it enough, nor could I comment with regards to US law.

Originally Posted by Harmon

Well, without going down the rathole, I would observe that maybe the problem is with the physical abstracts in the first place, not with the translation. I think that the concept of intellectual property is incoherent, but it works well enough to be useful in the physical world. I think that the digital world exposes that incoherence.

This is definitely an element of the challenge with the current approach though even for the physical space I still feel that law isn't without its issues including in my eyes excessive length of protection, but then that’s a different debate.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by molman

I do, but that's me nor do I judge your choice to. What I'm actually more curious about is why you would need to when you have access to the original work (surely already as a digital text file)?

He would only have his original manuscript, he wouldn't have access to the fixed final version because the publisher would own that. And depending how long ago it was written he might not even have that.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

He would only have his original manuscript, he wouldn't have access to the fixed final version because the publisher would own that. And depending how long ago it was written he might not even have that.

Doesn't that mean that technically the person who digitised the novel was infringing the copyright of the publisher as well when they uploaded it? Would the Curtis Agency do the work on behalf of the publishers as well?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by tompe

But it was not a public domain contribution.

Yes, but the labor of the scanning/proofing, regardless of the copyright status of the underlying material, was pro bono.

The question was the ethics of Starrigger of using that labor for free. Starrigger could use it because he owns the copyright. The person who did the labor had no claim, as he/she did it for free anyway.

Not saying that the scanner had the legal right to do the scanning...

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Yes, but the labor of the scanning/proofing, regardless of the copyright status of the underlying material, was pro bono.

The question was the ethics of Starrigger of using that labor for free. Starrigger could use it because he owns the copyright. The person who did the labor had no claim, as he/she did it for free anyway.

Not saying that the scanner had the legal right to do the scanning...

That you do it for free does not imply that people can use the work commercially (ethically).

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by tompe

That you do it for free does not imply that people can use the work commercially (ethically).

Tompe, I think you missed a point. The scanner gave a copy to Starrigger directly. That implies (to me) that he wanted Starriger to make the work commercially available...

But when I scan a P.D. work and make it available through commonly available P.D. sources, I have inherently quitclaimed any limits on commercial use. See the Project Gutenberg fine print.

If somebody is dumb enough to try to make a buck off of my Red yarns, theat's their business. I marked them Public Domain. And I meant it.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Tompe, I think you missed a point. The scanner gave a copy to Starrigger directly. That implies (to me) that he wanted Starriger to make the work commercially available...

No, the scanner isn't the one who gave a copy to Starrigger:

Originally Posted by starrigger

In the real case, what was handed to me (not by the "torrent specialist" who scanned and uploaded my book, but by a kindly fan) was a digital compilation of my own words, in the exact order in which I put them down.

[dmikov]

Originally Posted by starrigger

Makes no difference whether it's digital or physical.

Yep, you lost me and any chance of logical discussion right there.

And yes I am taking something that doesn't belong to me all the time when I borrow a book from a friend.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by molman

This may be a philosophically nice position to take (and trust me my sentiments are probably closer to this than I may express), but unfortunately it does not match the current situation we find ourselves in. The other thing to remember is that you mention profit, and whilst a major factor copyright and similar laws more broadly provide legally enforceable rights that can include me never selling my creation should I choose.

No, it's more than philosophy, at least in the US where the copyright laws are grounded in a Constitutional provision that strongly implies the need for an element of public benefit that is increasingly missing from the laws Congress has passed.

And although you are correct that the effect of the laws seems to be that a creator can decide NEVER to sell a creation, I wasn't making a legal argument. I was pointing out that there is a moral basis for breaching the law, in that there is an implicit deal underlying the law which creators who wish to make a moral, rather than a legal, appeal cannot ignore.

My appreciation of this was that it had more to do with the element of harm which it easier in the case of distribution of copyrighted works verses having a copy for private use. I can't say I've looked into it enough, nor could I comment with regards to US law.

Not as I read the US law. There is an assumed harm, resulting in statutory damages, in the case of any distribution, even if there is no actual provable harm. (I believe that this is only if the copyright has been registered, though.)

But if there is no distribution, the law does not prevent copying of legally obtained files, and arguably does not prevent copying of illegally obtained files. This is less clear, though, and it does appear that the courts have the authority to order the destruction of copies of illegally obtained files.

This is a little difficult to explain except tediously, and at length. If you are not a lawyer, your eyes will glaze. But the bottom line is that there is no prohitibition against private copying, just a bunch of obstacles placed in the way of your getting the tools to do the copying.

This is definitely an element of the challenge with the current approach though even for the physical space I still feel that law isn't without its issues including in my eyes excessive length of protection, but then that’s a different debate.

I think it has a lot to do with the instinctive sense that many people have that the law as presently constituted is unfair. And once people decide a law is unfair, they start avoiding, evading, & ignoring it whenever practical.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by tompe

That you do it for free does not imply that people can use the work commercially (ethically).

In the case of scanning or otherwise producing a copy of a copyrighted work, the creator is not "other people." He is the owner of the work. And if you make an unauthorized transcription, the resulting product belongs to him.

Putting it in physical terms, if you borrow a book from the library and photocopy it, the author can go to court and make you turn the photocopy over to the court. The court can decide to destroy the copy, or give it to the author. This is unquestionably true if you made the photocopy with the intent of passing it on to someone else, even for free. In fact, if you do that, you will also be liable for fines, penalties and damages. You don't get to get paid for your effort and costs in making the copy.

It is no different than if you took the unpublished manuscript of the book, copied it, and returned it to the author. The author owns the copy you made. And you have no claim against the author for your time & trouble in making the copy.

And so with the pirated ebook - it does not make any difference that it is a file rather than a photocopy.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Doesn't that mean that technically the person who digitised the novel was infringing the copyright of the publisher as well when they uploaded it? Would the Curtis Agency do the work on behalf of the publishers as well?

Depending on the amount of rewriting the publisher did, and the contract that was signed, the writer might also be violating the publisher's copyright by releasing their version of the book. Unless stated otherwise in the contract, he would only have the rights to his original manuscript version. First time writers don't tend to get much leeway in what is included in contracts, and a lot will sign anything just so that they can become a published author. That's why a lot of the people who switch to self-publishing release expanded/revised versions of previously published books.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

Depending on the amount of rewriting the publisher did, and the contract that was signed, the writer might also be violating the publisher's copyright by releasing their version of the book. Unless stated otherwise in the contract, he would only have the rights to his original manuscript version. First time writers don't tend to get much leeway in what is included in contracts, and a lot will sign anything just so that they can become a published author. That's why a lot of the people who switch to self-publishing release expanded/revised versions of previously published books.

But no publisher would follow this because of possible bad publicity.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Harmon

In the case of scanning or otherwise producing a copy of a copyrighted work, the creator is not "other people." He is the owner of the work. And if you make an unauthorized transcription, the resulting product belongs to him.

I think I was pretty clear about not talking about what hold legally. I am talking about ethical behavior and comparing the different variants of taking something from somebody else.

If I release software under a license that forbids commercial use then it is unethical to take this software and sell it even if the license was not valid so that I had no legal protection.

So taking the book and making an electonic copy and release it againts the authors will seems to me to be equally bad to the author taking the electronic copy against the maker of the copies will. In both cases a persons wishes is not respected.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by tompe

I think I was pretty clear about not talking about what hold legally. I am talking about ethical behavior and comparing the different variants of taking something from somebody else.

If I release software under a license that forbids commercial use then it is unethical to take this software and sell it even if the license was not valid so that I had no legal protection.

So taking the book and making an electonic copy and release it againts the authors will seems to me to be equally bad to the author taking the electronic copy against the maker of the copies will. In both cases a persons wishes is not respected.

This is an instance where the legal outcome and the ethical outcome are the same, because the law defers to the ethics of the situation. In both situations, the basic question is whether a person who has violated an ethical duty ("don't make copies") can assert an ethical claim ("you owe me for the work I did making the copies") against the person he has wronged. The answer is framed in terms of the copier not having "clean hands." Since the copier does not have clean hands, he cannot impose an ethical obligation on the author whose rights he has violated.

View it from another angle. Suppose someone steals my car. It's dirty & filled with ancient McDonald's wrappers. So he goes to the car detailer & buys the super fantastic detailing job. Two hundred bucks. A minute after the thief pays for the detailing, I show up with the cops, the thief is arrested, and I drive off. In my sparkling detailed car.

Do you think for a minute that I owe the thief $200?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Harmon

This is an instance where the legal outcome and the ethical outcome are the same, because the law defers to the ethics of the situation. In both situations, the basic question is whether a person who has violated an ethical duty ("don't make copies") can assert an ethical claim ("you owe me for the work I did making the copies") against the person he has wronged. The answer is framed in terms of the copier not having "clean hands." Since the copier does not have clean hands, he cannot impose an ethical obligation on the author whose rights he has violated.

Eh? According to which moral system? I am pretty familiar with a lot of different moral systems and "clean hands" is not a concept that is there as a basic principle. And it does not seem obvious that it follows in different consequence ethics either.

And here he might have wronged a person. But taking buying the book and producing a proofed electronic copy is not doing anything wrong. So producing the copy was not wrong. So I do not see how taking this copy and selling it against the wishes of the person that have totally legally and lorally produced the copy can be right. Making the copy available to other people seems to me not related to the work of producing the copy. So a different wrong does not make taking the copy right.