"The book industry is gonna get Napstered..."

[carld]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Theft involves depriving someone of their property. In the case of the illicitly copied file the owner still has it. Thus, it is not theft.

That's bull, you have no right to own that file, and you've stolen the owner's IP in copying it. He owns that copy that you have, it isn't yours, it's his.

[carld]

Originally Posted by Jaime_Astorga

But it was argued that the problem with copyright infringement was that it caused financial harm. Yet here we see an accepted way to cause monetary harm. Is monetary harm not the issue at stake? And, if not, then what is?

That's not the ONLY problem with copyright infringement. You do not have a right to own a file just because the actual owner keeps his original. And your proposition is still absurd.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

You cannot argue, in the general case, that all files have value that will be diminished if illicitly copied becuase value can only be shown in the individual case. In the general case this is not true.

Let me put it in very simple terms. Let us say you wrote a great book. You can expect to sell 1 million copies at 10 bucks each. So that file with the book is worth 10 million dollars at the beginning. Now I get hold of the file. I distribute it for free on the internet and everybody decides to download for free and not to buy. The value of that file just dropped from 10 million to ZERO. And only because of what I did to you. Morally you just stole 10 million dollars and distributed the proceeds to darknet users -- maybe you will be out in 40 years because you didn't keep any money for yourself? That would be justice.

Another example. The government of the country you live in decides tomorrow that all money will become worthless and they will distribute new money. Have they hurt you? Not according to you, you still have the old money, just as before. Nobody has physically taken anything away from you. And you may save on years of buying toilet paper.

A third example. Let us say you and I work together. You have a great idea. You tell me about it. I go to our boss and get a raise and a promotion. No problem, you still have the original idea on that hard disk in your head! No harm done.

Sorry, the argument "they still have the original file" therefore no crime has been committed, no wrong has been done, just blows my mind.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by carld

That's bull, you have no right to own that file, and you've stolen the owner's IP in copying it. He owns that copy that you have, it isn't yours, it's his.

I buy a book at Barnes and Noble. I own it, not the author. The book is mine. I can read it, read it to my kids, loan it to a friend, give it away to a co-worker, sell it at a yard sale, or tear the pages out and use them for paper mache. Legally, I can do any of those things with my property: a physical book.

I buy a USED book from a yard sale. I own it, not the author, who got no money from that sale. I can read it, read it to my kids, etc. The author and publisher get no money whatsoever from my use of this book, but I still haven't broken any laws.

I buy an ebook from Fictionwise.com. I own it, not the author. I can read it. I can read it aloud to my kids. I am *legally* permitted to loan it to a friend, give it away, or sell it. I can copy & paste the text into my digital art project. Plastering DRM on the book doesn't remove those legal rights; they are inherent in the purchase. If Fictionwise intends its sales to be limited-purpose leases, it needs to say so in very clear language. Saying "this is a sale, except you can't do X Y and Z with it," has been held unenforceable in court. A seller may not put such conditions on sales.

I do not have the legal right to publish a sequel based on that book, nor to copy it in a larger font & resell that, nor to translate it to Esperanto and sell that version. However, I do have the right to write & publish a parody of the book, or a scathing review that convinces thousands of people not to buy the book. I have the right to make transformative use of the book to create a new work of art that surpasses the original so much that nobody will buy the book.

I am legally allowed to do a great many things that prevent the author from getting future sales from his book. He has no inherent right to payment for his work, nor to be paid for every pair of eyes that read it. He has the right to a limited monopoly on the use of his book, which is strongly related to, but not directly linked to, money-per-reader.

Do you think that libraries and yard sales are theft as well, since those involve readers who aren't paying the author? Are free books also "theft?"

Theft, legally, doesn't just mean "you get something you're not entitled to." It means "someone else DOESN'T have it." It doesn't mean "you prevented someone from making money." There are lots of ways to prevent people from making money, some legal, some not.

I own all of the Harry Potter books. I've got a friend who hasn't read the last two. If I loan her my copies, have I "stolen" money from JKR? How is that *morally* (not legally, not technically) different from making a copy of an ebook? The end result is the same: two people have read content that only one person paid for.

[Jaime_Astorga]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

A third example. Let us say you and I work together. You have a great idea. You tell me about it. I go to our boss and get a raise and a promotion. No problem, you still have the original idea on that hard disk in your head! No harm done.

That's about plagiarism, not copyright; though to be fair, plagiarism IS a horrible thing to do.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Jaime_Astorga

That's about plagiarism, not copyright; though to be fair, plagiarism IS a horrible thing to do.

It is about right and wrong. The unfair use of somebody's intellectual work, his ideas

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I buy a book at Barnes and Noble. I own it, not the author. The book is mine. I can read it, read it to my kids, loan it to a friend, give it away to a co-worker, sell it at a yard sale, or tear the pages out and use them for paper mache. Legally, I can do any of those things with my property: a physical book.

I buy a USED book from a yard sale. I own it, not the author, who got no money from that sale. I can read it, read it to my kids, etc. The author and publisher get no money whatsoever from my use of this book, but I still haven't broken any laws.

I buy an ebook from Fictionwise.com. I own it, not the author. I can read it. I can read it aloud to my kids. I am *legally* permitted to loan it to a friend, give it away, or sell it. I can copy & paste the text into my digital art project. Plastering DRM on the book doesn't remove those legal rights; they are inherent in the purchase. If Fictionwise intends its sales to be limited-purpose leases, it needs to say so in very clear language. Saying "this is a sale, except you can't do X Y and Z with it," has been held unenforceable in court. A seller may not put such conditions on sales.

I do not have the legal right to publish a sequel based on that book, nor to copy it in a larger font & resell that, nor to translate it to Esperanto and sell that version. However, I do have the right to write & publish a parody of the book, or a scathing review that convinces thousands of people not to buy the book. I have the right to make transformative use of the book to create a new work of art that surpasses the original so much that nobody will buy the book.

I am legally allowed to do a great many things that prevent the author from getting future sales from his book. He has no inherent right to payment for his work, nor to be paid for every pair of eyes that read it. He has the right to a limited monopoly on the use of his book, which is strongly related to, but not directly linked to, money-per-reader.

Do you think that libraries and yard sales are theft as well, since those involve readers who aren't paying the author? Are free books also "theft?"

Theft, legally, doesn't just mean "you get something you're not entitled to." It means "someone else DOESN'T have it." It doesn't mean "you prevented someone from making money." There are lots of ways to prevent people from making money, some legal, some not.

I own all of the Harry Potter books. I've got a friend who hasn't read the last two. If I loan her my copies, have I "stolen" money from JKR? How is that *morally* (not legally, not technically) different from making a copy of an ebook? The end result is the same: two people have read content that only one person paid for.

You are comparing loaning out a book sequentially to several individuals to putting a book on the internet. You are doing what "private use" laws allow. I personally have no problems with that, some may have. However, if one of your friends then distributes the copy on the internet, then you may be liable! I personally even feel that I am within my rights to break DRM so that I can shop around for the best price and use any file on my device (and any future device I will have). But what has been suggested is that you don't even have to buy the book when it is in ebook form. You can just download it and the author would be a barbarian to demand money for it.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

You are comparing loaning out a book sequentially to several individuals to putting a book on the internet.

Yes, because both actions result in the authors not getting paid for the content they've created. Is there a moral difference between those actions, rather than a legal or technological difference?

But what has been suggested is that you don't even have to buy the book when it is in ebook form. You can just download it and the author would be a barbarian to demand money for it.

I don't believe that's been suggested.

It has been suggested that authors cannot expect to be paid by every person who reads their work, and that persuading people to pay may be more complex than chosing a DRM-laden publisher. But nobody's said "authors should produce everything for free because digital copies cost nothing to make." (There has been a suggestion that, given the cost of digital copies, publishers need to take a good hard look at their pricing structures, because when goods of any sort are perceived as overpriced, the public finds ways around those prices, whether that's "theft" or just buying from the competition. And that if publishers won't reconsider their pricing, authors are going to suffer until it becomes obvious to them that their current methods aren't working.)

It's also been pointed out that, just because a free version is available, doesn't mean people won't pay.

I'm aware of the darknet. I know how to torrent. I know that most or all of Baen's books are out there, and I know how to fetch them. Still, I buy books from Baen; I don't torrent them. This is partially because I approve of Baen's business model and want them to succeed, and partially because the versions on the torrents are usually letter-sized PDFs, which are definitely not my preferred format.

I pay for the convenience of formats of my choice, and a download site that's free of viruses. And at Baen's prices, I'm happy to pay for those conveniences--even for content I could easily get for free.

[Jaime_Astorga]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

It is about right and wrong. The unfair use of somebody's intellectual work, his ideas

Using another person's ideas is not wrong; it is the basis of all human cultural and scientific progress. CLAIMING to be the person who came up with an idea when one didn't, on the other hand, is wrong. All the more so if, by doing so, one receives rewards which could have gone towards the original creator.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Jaime_Astorga

Using another person's ideas is not wrong; it is the basis of all human cultural and scientific progress. CLAIMING to be the person who came up with an idea when one didn't, on the other hand, is wrong. All the more so if, by doing so, one receives rewards which could have gone towards the original creator.

You are making extremely arbitrary distinctions between very similar situations to justify the unjustifiable. You use somebody else's work for your own gain (and if just to save a few dollars in buying a copy) and that is progress. If someone uses your ideas and makes money of it, then it is wrong.

And the basis of all human progress is that you can reap some kind of reward for your work. No matter what kind of work. That is the reason you do it in the first place. If we don't protect that, then progress is dead. The reward doesn't necessarily have to be monetary, it can be just recognition. But that should be up to the person who created the piece/work/idea in question.

[HansTWN]

[QUOTE=Elfwreck;531300]Yes, because both actions result in the authors not getting paid for the content they've created. Is there a moral difference between those actions, rather than a legal or technological difference?

The moral difference is that this is commonly accepted (including by the authors and publishers under the fair use doctrine). Even under DRM schemes you can make 4-6 copies. It is moral because the copyright holder expressly allows you to do it.



I don't believe that's been suggested. Yes, Jaime suggested in an earlier post that the simple fact that an author has the audacity to demand any payment is "barbaric"



It's also been pointed out that, just because a free version is available, doesn't mean people won't pay. I am all for versions with no DRM. But I think what we need is the general acceptance that not paying is wrong (beyond the limits of fair use, similar to pbooks). And the idea that everything "should" be free because it is digital is taking hold among many, that is the problem. I do believe that publishers and authors should take a long look at pricing. Low distribution costs and a wide audience, should allow for much lower pricing. And I hope that it will go this way, generally low prices for ebooks that people are willing to pay rather than download for free.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Jaime_Astorga

Why should all things be thrown out? The principles of economics do not change; all that has changed, in this digital era, is that the supply of a work is insanely abundant once the original has been created. Try as people might to enforce artificial scarcity with such things as DRM, those can and will be defeated by individuals of enough inclination and/or skill, who then proceed to distribute the "unlocked" work to everyone else.

Change or not change I don't really care.

Why I bring it up is because I think it is very hypocritcal for people to be spouting off about how the "old ways" don't work........authors should move with the times man, publishers are big greedy corporate vampires draining every cent from customers, self-publishing is the way of the future, no barriers between creator and audience, adapt or die etc etc..............and then in the next breath use the "old way" of supply and demand in order to support their argument that digital media has zero value.

If the "old ways" don't work in the digital era then don't use the "old way" of supply and demand as the determining factor in establishing value.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Jaime_Astorga

I never suggested anything of the sort. Authors who don't wish to write without the ability to hold their works ransom for money are perfectly entitled to not write, if they don't consider it worth their time. But when someone makes a work public to the eyes of the people and then tries to prevent them from copying and spreading that work unless a fee is paid, that is barbaric.

Barbaric? Truly?? So an author says "hey I put alot of time and effort into this and apparently it is good because people want to copy it and spread it and read and therefore I'd like those people to pay a fair and equitable price for the priviledge" and that is barbaric?? Really?

And it isn't barbaric at all to say "I really don't give a toss how much time and effort you put in, I want it for free and so I'm going to get it for free no matter what I have to do"?(discounting fair use policy, libraries etc which are concepts already agreed to by the author)

Cheers,
PKFFW

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by ahi

In other words children need to be taught that it is wrong to share what you have with others.

Can we start teaching them that right in Junior Kindergarten?

- Ahi

How exactly is teaching children it is wrong to take from others without paying the same as teaching them it is wrong to share?

Cheers,
PKFFW

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by ahi

I'm looking forward to stuff from Moejoe though, who seems to actually enjoy writing and does it as artistic exercise that mustn't be financially compensated to be worthwhile.

- Ahi

1: How did anything Steve Jordan post give the impression he did not "seem to actually enjoy writing"?

2: The fact he does it as an "artistic exercise that mustn't be financially compensated to be worthwhile" makes his writing any better or any more worth reading how exactly?

Cheers,
PKFFW