E-reads and Curtis Agency Declare War on Piracy

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Harmon

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?

Well, an electronic file is not a physical property.

But, if the thief have put in a car stereo in the car you have to allow the thief to remove it. You do not own the car stereo. If it is something that cannot be removed the question becomes more complicated but that situation can never happen for an electronic copy of the book. For an electronic copy you should only be able to stop distribution. You should not be able to just take the electronic copy and sell it.

[molman]

Originally Posted by Harmon

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

Even if I said No it wouldn't matter because this story is not the same. I don't know why we keep going back to these examples that are not the same thing. Your example would be like me stealing one of your books and fixing the binding because I noticed the glue was coming loose.

[Sil_liS]

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.

I was talking about the ethical claim of the writer.
But tell me this: what happens if the one who digitized the book wasn't the same person that uploaded it? If they did the work for personal use, and someone took it and posted it, would it still be OK for the writer to make use of this work?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by tompe

Well, an electronic file is not a physical property.

But, if the thief have put in a car stereo in the car you have to allow the thief to remove it. You do not own the car stereo. If it is something that cannot be removed the question becomes more complicated but that situation can never happen for an electronic copy of the book. For an electronic copy you should only be able to stop distribution. You should not be able to just take the electronic copy and sell it.

Let's be a little clearer. Did the scanner sell the "pirated" copy of the book? If he didn't, then he released it for free. If it was released for free, then he has no economic claim to it.

If he did try to sell it, he would be legally and morally taking money from the copyright owner. Only the copyright owner has that right. That is the purpose of copyright.

At least under English law constructs. Should somebody tunnelling under a bank to rob, and eventually gets caught, be allowed to keep ditch digger wages for the work he put in digging the tunnel? I don't see how that is moral, nor do I see the moral reason for being able to control an illiicit copy of a copyright work just because I illegally did the work. Most ethic bases don't allow the paying of labor used to do an illegal act...

That's where harmon's "clean hands" (legally called larches) comes from.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I was talking about the ethical claim of the writer.
But tell me this: what happens if the one who digitized the book wasn't the same person that uploaded it? If they did the work for personal use, and someone took it and posted it, would it still be OK for the writer to make use of this work?

Good question. I think the answer is yes, it would be okay.

The reason is actually the same as the one we often get when the question about "stealing" digital items comes up. Usually, it's in the context of questioning what has been "stolen" when a digital copy is made.

In your hypo, the person who digitized the file still has his digital file, i.e., the fruits of his labor. So what has he lost when the author appropriates the uploaded copy? He has been deprived of nothing, not even his labor. And unlike the author, he has no claim based on having created the content.

I think the hardest question is to take your scenario, and have no uploading at all. The digitizer makes a digital copy from a physical copy he already owns - something I believe he can do both legally & ethically - and somehow this comes to the attention of the author. Can the author demand that the digitizer hand a digital copy over to the author?

My own conclusion is (1) the digitizer has no obligation to hand over a copy of the file to the author and (2) once the file gets out into public, I don't see how the digitizer can say that the author has an obligation to give it back, even if somehow it's the only digital copy.

[sourcejedi]

I've put a fair amount of effort into reporting errors in purchased books.

Shockingly, I've never been asked to grant a copyright license for these corrections! (Or given any other sort of explicity permission to re-distribute). Absolutely illegal and immoral. All I was asking was that _my_ copy be fixed, heh.

I don't think the average pirate upload is much different. It's not done in the expectation of making money. It's done in the hope that it will be more convenient for others to read the book they themselves enjoyed. At most, you've got a community where each pirate's labour encourages others, to the benefit of each. (Ignoring the scenario where their favourite authors discover they're not making enough money and need to go back to the day job...) starrigger's not detracting from any of that; I suspect most individual uploaders would treat this as a complete honour.

I would feel conflicted if the author took the electronic copy, sold it, and at the same time sued the original uploader for everything they had. But if the pirate book is showing up as a HTTP download, in the first page of non-piratical Google searches (or in searches _suggested_ by Google), then I don't see a problem with sending takedown notices.

Contradict me: show me a single pirate upload that says "copying is permitted provided no fee is charged; the original author is invited to pay me a nominal wage for my time in return for a commercial license". Perhaps it's a a failure of my imagination, but I just don't see how that could work.

One of the justifications for piracy is that an official ebook just isn't available, or is full of errors. From that POV, I think starrigger's doing exactly the right thing.

I don't think anyone's mentioned Rowena's discussion with Jap in the comments. It looks like she's actually succeeded with Muso, at least for the time being. A naive searcher at the moment will find a lot of links that don't work, underneath a legitimate free sample. (Her official free sample even shows up on some of the file search sites!). For whatever reason, she's had very bad experiences with pirates in the past, so if this makes her feel happier about publishing ebooks, I think that's a good thing. (If you like that sort of book :P).

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by sourcejedi

I would feel conflicted if the author took the electronic copy, sold it, and at the same time sued the original uploader for everything they had.

Well he didn't find the uploader so he couldn't sue anybody, but he did complain about pirates, and later called uploaders parasites. This is what I feel conflicted about.

Originally Posted by sourcejedi

But if the pirate book is showing up as a HTTP download, in the first page of non-piratical Google searches (or in searches _suggested_ by Google), then I don't see a problem with sending takedown notices.

This is not the case for Starrigger (a fan pointed him to the copy) or for the Curtis Agency (who will send something to actively search the web for copies).

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Harmon

In your hypo, the person who digitized the file still has his digital file, i.e., the fruits of his labor. So what has he lost when the author appropriates the uploaded copy? He has been deprived of nothing, not even his labor. And unlike the author, he has no claim based on having created the content.

And what has the author lost by having his novel on pirate sites? He still has the fruits of his labor. I know that it's not illegal for the author to use the digital copy the same way that it isn't illegal to sell PD works for profit. But I still think that both are equally immoral.

[molman]

Originally Posted by Harmon

The digitizer makes a digital copy from a physical copy he already owns - something I believe he can do both legally & ethically.. <snip>

This hasn't always been the case in the world at large. You have to remember that the US has Fair Use provisions and the position that when in conflict the public interest should come first (not that you would know it ).. in many other countries specific conditions have had to been put in place to facilitate such things. The UK for example is only recently set to legalise the copying of CD's. Other countries have been similar though the UK lags on this.

[molman]

Originally Posted by Harmon

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.

I hear what you are saying, but if I appreciate your system correctly there is no 'deal' beyond the interpretation of your legal system which manifests in the position you find your selves in. Obviously you are welcome to interpret yourself all you like, but it is still a philosophical position if it doesn't match reality.

For reference the constitutional clause I believe you are referring to is;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Originally Posted by Harmon

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.

I understand the copying of legally obtained files (backup, fair use etc) though if it has DRM I assume you then run afowl of the DCMA, but you are telling me that if I have a HDD of lets say DVD Movies I've ripped by borrowing them from the Video Store, and I only use these for personal use (no distrubution) that within the current US framework I have no liability for this infringement?

Originally Posted by Harmon

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

I find the area of where law (which often moves slowly) fails to match the sentiment of societies at large an interesting junction.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

And what has the author lost by having his novel on pirate sites? He still has the fruits of his labor. I know that it's not illegal for the author to use the digital copy the same way that it isn't illegal to sell PD works for profit. But I still think that both are equally immoral.

The difference is that the author owns a copyright and the digitizer/pirate owns nothing. Because of the copyright, the fruits of the author's labor include the right to control distribution and to make money. The fruits of the digitizer/pirate's labor do not extend to those two things.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by molman

This hasn't always been the case in the world at large. You have to remember that the US has Fair Use provisions and the position that when in conflict the public interest should come first (not that you would know it ).. in many other countries specific conditions have had to been put in place to facilitate such things. The UK for example is only recently set to legalise the copying of CD's. Other countries have been similar though the UK lags on this.

True. What I have written about the law is only what I know about US law.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Harmon

The difference is that the author owns a copyright and the digitizer/pirate owns nothing. Because of the copyright, the fruits of the author's labor include the right to control distribution and to make money. The fruits of the digitizer/pirate's labor do not extend to those two things.

The digitizer owns the book that they bought. I know that we don't really own ebooks, but we do own pbooks.

[molman]

Originally Posted by Harmon

True. What I have written about the law is only what I know about US law.

Any comment on my question re: the possession of illegally copied files without distrubution being ok (see above). Curious.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by tompe

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.

If he hadn't distributed the copy, it would never have got back to the author.
The author didn't break into his house and take a copy he made for his personal use.