DRM poll: How do you deal with it.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

Copyright infringement is not the same thing as theft. This does not make copyright infringement good, it simply makes it a different infraction. Assault is not theft; that doesn't make it either acceptable or legal.

Sigh... Here is the problem, one half of this argument keeps insisting on using the legal definitions of terms (which by the way can vary from country to country), the other half is arguing it in terms of ethical distinctions.

Laws ideally intersect with ethics, but unfortunately, they often do not. Even when they do intersect, laws often make distinctions that ethically do not exist (for example, assuming no physical harm is done, there is no ethical distinction between armed robbery and simple robbery, but legally there is; likewise, there are also lots of different legal distinctions regarding murder, even though ethically the act killing a person is pretty clear cut).

Ultimately the ethical (not the legal) question behind whether copyright infringement is theft depends not just on whether copyrighted material is deemed property under the law, but also upon the question of the effects that such infringement has upon the holder of said copyright.

I think a safe definition of the ethical concept of theft is the taking of something of value by one person from a second person who legitimately owns that thing of value without the second person's consent.

Now how does that apply to copyright?

1. The copyrighted text is clearly owned by the creator of the text for a set term that is defined by the laws of a given country.

2. Said text clearly has some perceived financial and or personal value for the person who created the text.

3. The unauthorized copying of said text removes some potential value, either personal, financial or both, from the text. The value lost might be tiny, but it doesn't mean that in some sense value has not been lost. It also does not matter that the current copying might ultimately result in an increase in sales for said text (that would be like arguing that even though you stole money from your Mom to bet on a horse, and then you replaced the money with interest after the horse won that you were not guilty of stealing), for the moment value has been lost.

Now, some are going to argue that you would never have bought the text in the first place, and that therefore no financial loss has occurred. That may be true (but on the macro scale it is almost certainly not.. at least some of the downloaders would have ultimately bought the work if they had not downloaded it). However, it does deprive at least some personal value from the person who created the text. As a legal copyright holder, I have the right (without infringing on fair use) of specifying how my work is to be used. By copying the text, you have ultimately reduced the value of that right to me.

So legally it might not be stealing, but ethically if you copy my work without my permission, you have stolen from me because you have reduced the personal value of the text I have created.

--
Bill

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Borrowing something without permission has nothing to do with copyright violation.

It does if you want to photocopy my notes without my permission.

This is an excellent example of why using the wrong terms is just confusing you. They did not steal your notes, they photocopied them. You still have the notes and can sell them if you want to. Yes, the person photocopying your notes has deprived you of a potential sale, but it was money that you never had in the first place and may never have gotten anyway. That is absolutely not taking money from your wallet. Removing money from your wallet is stealing something that you already have.

The reason that people on here are objecting to throwing the terms 'theft" and "stealing" around when talking about copyright infringement is because it causes a lot of confusion and misunderstanding of the real issue. You are a perfect example of that.

As I have pointed out here, there are two issues, legal and ethical. Copyright is a legal term. Theft is both a legal and an ethical term.

I will point out that both depriving someone of economic incentive to work and depriving them of a fair wage for their work are both discussed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church under the section dedicated to stealing. Obviously I will not insist that anyone accepts the Catholic Ethical framework; however it does show that I am not an ethical radical for considering the denial of economic incentive and wages before they are received to be ethically equivalent to theft.

If copyright violation does not meet the legal definition of theft, but I think one is one rather shaky ground to try to claim that it is in a different ethical realm than theft.

--
Bill

[HappyMartin]

I agree with the above post. Theft is an ethical issue and copyright a legal term. Ethics are a very personal thing.

So lets separate it. Start with ethics. Start by defining terms. Pointless to argue if a thing is theft if we have yet to decide what theft is. My definition of theft comes from Tibetan Buddhism. Theft is taking that which is not offered. Clever arguments can and are wrapped around this but I think the intention is pretty clear.

To argue what is theft versus copyright will get real complicated as different countries have different legal definitions.

Of the two, legal and ethical, I pay more attention to ethical. I have lived under many laws that were fundamentally unethical. If the law allows me to do something that my ethics say I should not do I will follow my ethics.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HappyMartin

So lets separate it. Start with ethics. Start by defining terms. Pointless to argue if a thing is theft if we have yet to decide what theft is. My definition of theft comes from Tibetan Buddhism. Theft is taking that which is not offered. Clever arguments can and are wrapped around this but I think the intention is pretty clear.

The default is that it is offered. Copyright is a restriction on this. A time limited restriction. So if you think that the time this restriction hold is unethical then according to your definition it is not problematic morally to copy something.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

1. The copyrighted text is clearly owned by the creator of the text for a set term that is defined by the laws of a given country.

Well no. Or what do you mean by "owned"? I really do not think you can own ideas.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

That being said, I am at least aware of most of the major ethical systems. Certainly I was aware enough of utilitarianism to show that even under a utilitarian ethic, profiting from another man's work without paying for it is wrong.

And that is simply not the case. I always depends on the situation. Unless you are thinking about some specific rule-based utilitarianism but you can argue that this kind of system is not really a true consequence ethics system.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

If copyright violation does not meet the legal definition of theft, but I think one is one rather shaky ground to try to claim that it is in a different ethical realm than theft.

Well, I guess I'm on that shaky ground. I really do think copyright infringement is in an entirely different ethical realm than theft. To me, theft is about depriving someone else directly of something they possessed. Copyright infringement may dilute the value a creator receives from work, but does not directly deprive the creator of anything. I'm not saying I think it's right, only that the ethical problem is completely different from theft. It's not only that every legal system I can think of treats copyright infringement differently from theft. I think the legal systems are a reflection of a widespread understanding that the two are not equivalent. Based on my readings of these rather repetitive arguments over the past couple of years, I strongly suspect that most of our MR members see it the same way.

I have noticed in these DRM/Piracy discussions that often people become entrenched in particular arguments more because they are attached to the conclusion than because the arguments hold up logically. One person may be convinced that downloading an unauthorized copy of a work is simply wrong, and will find any argument that seems to support that conclusion and cling to it. Another person will think that downloading copies is fine, and will seek and repeat any arguments that seem to support that point of view. There are also a number of factors that play a part in this ethical decision about which we are not all in agreement, such as the concept of idea ownership, the effect of copying on creator motivation to produce, and the appropriateness of civil disobedience in different circumstances. Frankly, I don't think we are going to agree on many of these issues. We come from a variety of different cultural backgrounds and have different priorities in our lives.

Each of us may feel that we want to explain our position, and that's fine. We may hope that our arguments will convince someone else to change their position. But we need to understand and respect that most other people here have heard all of these arguments and their variations before. I have seen several people shift their positions somewhat on these issues (and I've done so myself) on the basis of a particularly clearly stated chain of reasoning, but simply hammering away at the same point isn't likely to change anyone's mind, and in fact, may cause other participants to simply stop reading one's posts.

Thus ends today's lecture. Please, carry on.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by tompe

The default is that it is offered. Copyright is a restriction on this. A time limited restriction. So if you think that the time this restriction hold is unethical then according to your definition it is not problematic morally to copy something.

Actually, you are incorrect; the default position is that the copyrighted work is not offered. I write a novel; it now exists. But unless I choose to publish it (in other words offer it for public consumption) in some fashion, either in paper or ebook format, it is not available to the public in any way shape or form.

If I do publish it, a social contract is established, under which I agree to offer the work under the understanding that the specific time limited restrictions and rights are retained by me under which I can control (to a limited extent) how people access my work. I also agree that at the end of that period of time, that my work will then be offered freely and without any controls on the work what so ever.

As citizens of democratic states, we agree to abide by the social contracts established by law. Even if we find the terms of the social contract objectionable, we are (I feel) bound to them ethically unless the terms of the social contract represent an object evil in their own right (i.e. Jim Crow and Slavery in the United States, anti-semitic policies of Nazi Germany, etc.) that exceed the evil done by breaking the contract.

Now I think it is clear that the current term of copyright is excessive; however, as long as it is for a fixed term, I can't see it as an objective evil. Further, even if it is an objective evil, its hard to see how that evil exceeds the evil of ignoring the social contract; far less harm is done by waiting for 100 years for a book to enter the public domain than is done by the breakdown of the social contract that ignoring copyright law represents.

--
Bill

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by tompe

Well no. Or what do you mean by "owned"? I really do not think you can own ideas.

Of course you can; not in the sense of owning physical property, but as I pointed out before, an idea, particularly a complex one such as a novel or a piece of music, can unique to an individual. If I choose not to share it (and note, you can really only share something you own), then the idea remains unique to you.

Remember, ownership is as much a legal construct as it is an ethical one. Some states were constructed such that private ownership of anything does not exist. Since our modern world recognizes the notion of intellectual property, it does in a sense recognize the concept that it is possible to own ideas.

--
Bill

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Further, even if it is an objective evil, its hard to see how that evil exceeds the evil of ignoring the social contract; far less harm is done by waiting for 100 years for a book to enter the public domain than is done by the breakdown of the social contract that ignoring copyright law represents.

I disagree, strongly. The current copyright laws encourage works to fall out of print and into obscurity, impoverishing the culture as a whole. These laws also enforce an unfair standard by which content companies (e.g. Disney) are able to take advantage of common cultural content now in the public domain, while ensuring that their own contributions to culture (such as they are) cannot similarly be incorporated into new works, further undermining the implied social contract of fairness. An environment is created in which many people cease to care about the contractual rights of authors, because they perceive that the whole system is unfair. I am not advocating piracy, but I find it unsurprising that pro-piracy attitudes exist given the current imbalance of legal protection for content "owners" vs. consumers.

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by nekokami

I disagree, strongly. The current copyright laws encourage works to fall out of print and into obscurity, impoverishing the culture as a whole. These laws also enforce an unfair standard by which content companies (e.g. Disney) are able to take advantage of common cultural content now in the public domain, while ensuring that their own contributions to culture (such as they are) cannot similarly be incorporated into new works, further undermining the implied social contract of fairness. An environment is created in which many people cease to care about the contractual rights of authors, because they perceive that the whole system is unfair. I am not advocating piracy, but I find it unsurprising that pro-piracy attitudes exist given the current imbalance of legal protection for content "owners" vs. consumers.

i could not agree more.

[Kris777]

Is it true that mobipocket stopped licensing their DRM to new licensee?

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by nekokami

I disagree, strongly. The current copyright laws encourage works to fall out of print and into obscurity, impoverishing the culture as a whole. These laws also enforce an unfair standard by which content companies (e.g. Disney) are able to take advantage of common cultural content now in the public domain, while ensuring that their own contributions to culture (such as they are) cannot similarly be incorporated into new works, further undermining the implied social contract of fairness. An environment is created in which many people cease to care about the contractual rights of authors, because they perceive that the whole system is unfair. I am not advocating piracy, but I find it unsurprising that pro-piracy attitudes exist given the current imbalance of legal protection for content "owners" vs. consumers.

Well lets remember that ultimately it is the choice of the author if he or she wants to let a work fall into obscurity. Any author, at any time, can choose to forgo the protections that copyright offers and place their work into the public domain or at least make it more public than the default (via the creative commons license for example).

With respect, my argument is that the length of copyright itself is not a justification for violating copyright, the idea that the length creates an environment where people cease to care about contractual rights is not a justification, in and of itself for the breaking of the social contract, only an explanation of why it happens.

Ultimately there is one reason, and one reason only why people in a democratic company have to put up with such ridiculous copyright terms; we let them get away with it. Only a small percentage of the population cares enough to even say anything, and few work meaningfully to have copyright laws relaxed. Instead, people will complain and they will break laws that they themselves played a part in letting them get passed.

If we really want to see reasonable copyright terms, then we need to start working towards it in a meaningful way; violating copyright only undermines our position by making it look like we simply want books for free. Write your comgressman, MP, etc.

--
Bill

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by Kris777

Is it true that mobipocket stopped licensing their DRM to new licensee?

Where did you hear that? OverDrive can also license new licensees with Mobipocket DRM.

Dale

[Kris777]

Originally Posted by DaleDe

Where did you hear that? OverDrive can also license new licensees with Mobipocket DRM.

Dale

I read about it here:
http://www.mobipocket.com/forum/view...?p=48710#48710
and it was also discussed on http://www.the-ebook.org/forum/