Can e-Publishing Overcome Copyright Concerns?

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

The fact that I have not suffered a documented loss from the Darknet does not mean that the internet affords me any protection. It means no one's ripped me off yet (as far as I can document, probably an impossibility anyway without some form of--ahem--regulation), but there's nothing stopping them from doing so.

So what? What protection do you feel you need? Why?

But in the present internet, no practical way to enforce that law. So what good is it? There might as well be no law at all.

And in practical terms, there isn't. Yet many millions use the internet productively every day. Perhaps there's a lesson there...
______
Dennis

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

So what? What protection do you feel you need? Why?

I asked the same question multiple times, never got an answer.

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

<shrug> China has been around longer than we have...

With changing societies and a (admittedly stable) monarchistic cultures in between - that had a different approach then the actual regime.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by tirsales

With changing societies and a (admittedly stable) monarchistic cultures in between - that had a different approach then the actual regime.

You mean the current regime?

Scratch beneath the surface, and I think you'll find little change in the underlying social patterns.

When Chairman Mao took over mainland china, he simply becase the latest Emperor. It wasn't what he called himself, but it was what he functionally was. You can change the names by which things are called without changing the things themselves or the fundamental relationship between the things, and that's about what happened.

China doesn't have an Emperor now, but the rest of the social structure is largely intact.
______
Dennis

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

China doesn't have an Emperor now, but the rest of the social structure is largely intact.

That is correct so far. Nevertheless e.g. Mao tried to destroy the cultural heritage of the chinese people (e.g. religious parts).
One of the differences - a chinese has told me, I dont know if it is that important - the emperor should have viewed himself as being the "father" of the chinese people - what the actual regime does not.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by tirsales

That is correct so far. Nevertheless e.g. Mao tried to destroy the cultural heritage of the chinese people (e.g. religious parts).

He tried to do rather more than that in his "Great Leap Forward". He was ultimately unsuccessful. Cultures change at glacial speeds. Indeed, that's one of the problems. Practices arise to meet changes in the environment in which the culture exists. It's possible for the environment to change in such a fashion that a practice can be anti-survival, but the practice became a cultural pattern which persists long after its value no longer exists.

Cultures can become insane, just as individuals can.

One of the differences - a chinese has told me, I dont know if it is that important - the emperor should have viewed himself as being the "father" of the chinese people - what the actual regime does not.

I think your Chinese acquaintance is qute right. The critical social unit in China is the family, and the society is tied together by relationships between families. China as a whole can be viewed as a family of other families, and the Emperor is the father of that family, who should try to do what is in the best interest of the family.

It's the old conundrum of authority and responsibility. A society needs people in authority to make decisions that affect the society. The problem is making them responsible to the society so that authority doesn't become simply a means of securing their own power and furthering their own interests, with a means of removing that authority from those who aren't responsible.
______
Dennis

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by tirsales

I asked the same question multiple times, never got an answer.

Actually, I have provided an answer: That authors need to feel that their work will not be taken without payment, so they can make a living. I've also stated that I, at this stage, am NOT one of those authors (yet, if ever), so I am NOT a fair example to base an opinion of the Darknet's positive or negative aspects, but that does not negate the need of other authors for desired copyright protection.

Remember, a lot of these issues center around perception. If you perceive you are going to be ripped off in a certain market, you will take steps to secure or avoid that market. Right now, there's a perception among authors and publishers that their work will be ripped off in the Darknet. Whether or not there's a legitimate problem, it's the perception that has to be dealt with.

So, other than security measures, how do you combat the perception of an anarchic, loss-leader market?

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Remember, a lot of these issues center around perception. If you perceive you are going to be ripped off in a certain market, you will take steps to secure or avoid that market. Right now, there's a perception among authors and publishers that their work will be ripped off in the Darknet. Whether or not there's a legitimate problem, it's the perception that has to be dealt with.

So, other than security measures, how do you combat the perception of an anarchic, loss-leader market?

Whose perception?

Thus far, we have yours, which seems to assume people will rip you off given a chance. Is that your assumption? If so, why?

I'm not sure we can combat that perception among those who hold it, and it's not clear we should. Right now, there is no clear evidence one way or the other.

Some folks think they need protection like DRM to insure sales, and others think exposure is the key. Experiments are in progress. We'll see which work.
______
Dennis

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Cultures change at glacial speeds.

Or in a single step. Societies can change within a single war - and culture with them.

It's possible for the environment to change in such a fashion that a practice can be anti-survival, but the practice became a cultural pattern which persists long after its value no longer exists.

Or for a practise to get "over-evolved" or specialised.

I think your Chinese acquaintance is qute right. The critical social unit in China is the family, and the society is tied together by relationships between families. China as a whole can be viewed as a family of other families, and the Emperor is the father of that family, who should try to do what is in the best interest of the family.

And when a culture is based on the family - and the family as a political structure is destroyed - what remains? A system not anymore based on the culture?

It's the old conundrum of authority and responsibility. A society needs people in authority to make decisions that affect the society. The problem is making them responsible to the society so that authority doesn't become simply a means of securing their own power and furthering their own interests, with a means of removing that authority from those who aren't responsible.

Correct. And that is the risk of giving authorities too much power - if you had "the perfect system", the perfect ruler, etc there would be nothing wrong about Despotism. But - there can never be a perfect ruler - and even if the ruler was perfect, the whole system would need to be. That is not possible - thus Despotism cannot be functional.

@Steve: Again the problem remains of the first step. Who will make the first step? Publishers will have to realize that society, that the market is changing and evolving even as we speak. This change cannot be stopped or slowed. Thus they have to adopt to the new situation.
I agree that society has to be aware of the situation of e.g. the authors - but not through biased (and unpopular) companies that are doing it today (sorry, forgot the name in the USA), but through single authors stating the nature of their problem directly and unbiased.
And authors have to realize that demands for a control that tries to stop every single copy are simply unrealistic - and counterproductive. You simply have to accept a given level of "loss" in order to keep the normal market going.
Perhaps you even have to accept the Darknet (and similar) as advertising platform or as a chance - not as a danger?

Changing laws (or the internet or similar) wont change the problem as it is. It already is forbidden to copy books.
There is no technical approach that could possibly stop the darknet from working - apart from a total control over every single network-connection and computer-system, which again is neither feasible nor possible nor acceptable.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Whose perception?

Thus far, we have yours, which seems to assume people will rip you off given a chance. Is that your assumption? If so, why?

This is the article's perception... the point of the thread. The article presents points in which the authors perceive themselves to have been ripped off. Though I cannot back up the article's perception with personal data, I agree with the article that it is an issue that should be addressed.

Lack of hard data is not conclusive of anything. What do you think is going on on the Darknet? All those copywritten documents are being posted there, and absolutely no one is downloading them? Is lack of hard data a good reason to turn a blind eye to a potential loss to a person's income... to the extent that you're not even interested in investigating the possibility? Or is it just not important because it's not happening to you personally?

I assume it is a possibility... because no one has given me a good reason to assume that all those Darknetted files aren't being downloaded. I think it's important to find out... because only when we know the extent of a problem can we either take steps to deal with it, or ignore it, as appropriate. And I think it's worth our time, even if it does not affect us directly... because it's only fair to those whom it does affect.

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Lack of hard data is not conclusive of anything.

That is correct so far. But lack of hard data can never be a reason for e.g. filtering or restricting peoples rights

What do you think is going on on the Darknet? All those copywritten documents are being posted there, and absolutely no one is downloading them?

They are downloaded - quite often. I just dont believe that it leads to a (significant or otherwise) loss of sale.

Is lack of hard data a good reason to turn a blind eye to a potential loss to a person's income... to the extent that you're not even interested in investigating the possibility? Or is it just not important because it's not happening to you personally?

I am investigating the possibilities - otherwise I would discuss here. I simply came to another conclusion.

I assume it is a possibility... because no one has given me a good reason to assume that all those Darknetted files aren't being downloaded. I think it's important to find out... because only when we know the extent of a problem can we either take steps to deal with it, or ignore it, as appropriate. And I think it's worth our time, even if it does not affect us directly... because it's only fair to those whom it does affect.

As I said - they get downloaded, but they otherwise wouldnt have been bought in most cases and they get you (or whoever) some advertising for free.
I accept that this is mostly a good thing for people who are already big - but there were some (IMO good) proposals what not-that-big authors could do to increase the public interest using those new techniques. Creative common licensing, P2P, etc

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by tirsales

There is no technical approach that could possibly stop the darknet from working - apart from a total control over every single network-connection and computer-system, which again is neither feasible nor possible nor acceptable.

Acceptable, that is debatable... people accept many things, usually because they feel they've gained something else. Even the internet has examples of closed systems that people embraced due to the perceived value they gained (AOL, iTunes, etc).

Feasible or possible... hells, yes. It may be tough, but don't be fooled that it isn't possible.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by tirsales

As I said - they get downloaded, but they otherwise wouldnt have been bought in most cases and they get you (or whoever) some advertising for free.

This gets said a lot... but again, without hard data, it's pure hindsight-based supposition. Again, there is no hard data that supports the idea that the Darknet is making any author or publisher more money through exposure.

[tirsales]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Feasible or possible... hells, yes. It may be tough, but don't be fooled that it isn't possible.

Okay. I encrypt the total P2P-system on basis of P2P-Encryptions using RSA-keys with a high strength. I then route this traffic over Proxies or similar.
Now - how would you filter that? You could empower this system however you like - you can build counter-measures, I can build counter-counter-measures, etc
You simply dont have the computational power required. You cant even filter a small part of the unencrypted, not-steganographed internet traffic for given grammars (filtering for words is not sensible as it is too easy to circumvent).
For a similar problem see spam filtering.

Again, there is no hard data that supports the idea that the Darknet is making any author or publisher more money through exposure.

There are e.g. studies showing a raise of P2P-downloads of some songs and afterwards a raise of sells of those songs. That is not an evidence, but at least it hints that those P2P-songs didnt hurt the sells. I need to search for that study, its been a while since then.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Acceptable, that is debatable... people accept many things, usually because they feel they've gained something else. Even the internet has examples of closed systems that people embraced due to the perceived value they gained (AOL, iTunes, etc).

Feasible or possible... hells, yes. It may be tough, but don't be fooled that it isn't possible.

How are you going to get everybody in the US to turn in their computer and modems? Door to door search? Radiation snoopers? Informant bribes? Not in Texas, unless you like swallowing lots of bullets. We haven't stopped drugs, illegal immigration, or tax evasion. Do you really think everybody will turn in their computers? Might as well put a stack beside them for everybody to turn in their guns (fat chance) while you're at it.

Closed systems can thrive, but they never eliminate open systems. Example - IPOD vs. Creative Designs, ARCHOS, ect. They have around 25% of the hardware market for music players, and are open software systems. (Turn those in too?)

It's only possible at the point of a gun, and Americans have never taken too kindly to that...