Regional restrictions now in the UK

[tompe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

as is the definition of 'ethical'

So I used the term "ethical system" which is pretty well defined. I meant the same thing as "moral system". You seemed to claim either that some thing hold in all ethical systems or that one particular ethical system was the correct one and something hold in that system.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

No it is not. You're quite wrong. A digital file is just that, a file, zeros and ones. You are not depriving anybody of anything when you copy a file. You are not stealing, ethically, morally or any other way, no matter how you might 'feel'. The worst that you can be accused of is 'copyright infringement', but even then, because no money is charged or profit made, it would never be taken too seriously (anywhere but America that is).

Clearly that is your belief, but just as clearly it is depriving the person that created the words/file/book/story of making a living at it. That is stealing, that is unethical, that is morally corrupt -- unless, as I've said, that person has given up their right to their creation.

If I take the air from around you that would be legal, right, you don't own it, it wouldn't be stealing cause it doesn't belong to you right? Must be ethical and moral too.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Clearly that is your belief, but just as clearly it is depriving the person that created the words/file/book/story of making a living at it. That is stealing, that is unethical, that is morally corrupt -- unless, as I've said, that person has given up their right to there creation.

If I take the air from around you that would be legal, right, you don't own it, it wouldn't be stealing cause it doesn't belong to you right? Must be ethical and moral too.

No, it's not a belief, I don't need faith for this to be the truth or a Bearded Cloud Captain. It's plain and simple fact.

Taking an object without permission in the physical world deprives owner of object the use of said object. This is theft. It is theft because the physical world is based upon scarcity. Scarcity is one of the factors that gives an object its value.

I COPY an object in the digital world, original object stays in place, nothing is lost. There is no scarcity in the digital world. This is not THEFT, and it never will be.


All the losses you ascribe to the copying of a digital object are phantom at best, they're assumptions on your part on what might have happened if the digital copy weren't available to me for free. But the digital copies are available for free, not only that, they are near to zero cost (factoring internet bills etc).

The author, the creator must, MUST understand that society can't operate the same in the digital as it does in the physical. When there is no scarcity, the whole idea of monetary value becomes far more abstract than it is now.

[Tuna]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

No it is not. You're quite wrong. A digital file is just that, a file, zeros and ones. You are not depriving anybody of anything when you copy a file.

If they made that file with the expectation that their efforts would be paid for by people who use copies of that file, then you are abusing their right to set the terms under which their work is made public.

Do you also think that a painter has no right to produce limited editions of their work? Or that a photographer should not be allowed to only sell single prints at a price they choose? Or that any band should be allowed to cover any other band's music without paying them? These copies aren't stealing, so by your logic how could the original creators be hurt?

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Tuna

Most of the people who work to bring you a physical book also work to bring you an electronic book. The author, editor, proof reader, cover artist, publisher and so on all contribute to create that work.

I've recently purchased A Hero of Our Time, The Double & The Gambler, The Brothers Karamazov, and The Portable Chaucer.
Of that list of minor classics (which you might hope went some care into), the first contained a few indentation issues as well as a few typos/errors, the second contained about a half-dozen glaring typos, as well as a (superfluous) whitespace following every first letter of every chapter (as well as numerous other issues), in the third the footnotes/endnotes were missing, and the last one I have not looked at yet. While Fictionwise promised to forward each of my issues to the respective publishers, there is no mechanism to tell me an updated version is available on their website, so I'll most likely 'just have to guess' (if it happens at all in my lifetime).
Pretty sad state of affairs, non?

[Tuna]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

The author, the creator must, MUST understand that society can't operate the same in the digital as it does in the physical. When there is no scarcity, the whole idea of monetary value becomes far more abstract than it is now.

It's becoming increasingly apparent that you're deliberately ignoring the fact that the work still cost some amount to produce. Scarcity or not, the cost of production remains. If that cost is not met, in future the work will not be produced.

It's not an abstract concept that an author who spends a year writing a book needs to feed, clothe and provide shelter for themselves whilst they do so. It doesn't matter how the book is reproduced - whether it's physical, electronic or (as you so kindly offered) tatooed on your backside - it still cost to produce it, and the author has the right to choose how or if they should be recompensed for doing so.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Tuna

If they made that file with the expectation that their efforts would be paid for by people who use copies of that file, then you are abusing their right to set the terms under which their work is made public.

I'm afraid all those expectations come up against the hard reality of the digital age. If it can be copied it will. If there's enough people who want it, it will be shared. If any creative type thinks they can protect their IP in the digital age from people who really want to share that with each other (not profit from it, SHARE) then they're in for a very rude shock. You might call it abuse. Most of us call it a return to common sense and away from ridiculous limits.

Do you also think that a painter has no right to produce limited editions of their work? Or that a photographer should not be allowed to only sell single prints at a price they choose? Or that any band should be allowed to cover any other band's music without paying them? These copies aren't stealing, so by your logic how could the original creators be hurt?

All physical objects, all aspects of the physical, all limited and controlled by real-world physicality and scarcity. And all have very little to do with reproduction digitally.

A painter can produce limited editions, why would I think otherwise? But he better expect a digital copy of that limited edition to crop up almost immediately on the internet if there's enough interest.

A photographer can sell single prints, but if someone likes that print, they'll share that too whether its through Tinypic or Flickr. And the photographer can do whatever they like, but they can't expect not to be copied in the digital age.

YES all bands should be allowed to cover ANY song as long as its not for profit.


Your logic on this matter seems seriously flawed, no, more than that, outmoded.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Tuna

It's becoming increasingly apparent that you're deliberately ignoring the fact that the work still cost some amount to produce. Scarcity or not, the cost of production remains. If that cost is not met, in future the work will not be produced.

It's not an abstract concept that an author who spends a year writing a book needs to feed, clothe and provide shelter for themselves whilst they do so. It doesn't matter how the book is reproduced - whether it's physical, electronic or (as you so kindly offered) tatooed on your backside - it still cost to produce it, and the author has the right to choose how or if they should be recompensed for doing so.

And it's becoming increasingly clear that you're ignoring the fact that digital objects have little perceived value as a 'thing'. They are not objects. And if that cost isn't met in the future, it will mean that we'll just find another way to create (which a lot of us are already doing by distributing through Feedbooks).

And here it is again, the old 'put food on the table' argument. It doesn't matter if the author has to put food on the table, doesn't matter how long it took to write, the expectation of payment is rapidly disappearing, and the backstory of poverty and starvation cannot be attached to the file itself. Authors who understand this and understand how our society is changing, have a better chance of flourishing in the future. Not once in this whole argument has anybody said 'don't pay the author' or 'I don't want authors making a living' (publishers are a different matter altogether). You seem to equate file-sharing with stealing and that's all she wrote as far as you're concerned.

But it's not. The file-sharing culture is a natural culture, a human culture, as you should know by now considering the site you're at and the software that powers that very site. The web itself is based upon ideas of sharing, not monetary profit. If everyone needed to 'get paid' for every creative endeavor, we wouldn't have the awesome 'Calibre', or 'Sigil' both created by MR members. I wouldn't have been introduced to Moxie Mexcal or Small Stories of Nick Name's work if they hadn't been progressive enough to share their works freely. We wouldn't have had the entire works of Franz Kafka (published after his death).

[kennyc]

I've said all I need to say in this regard.

[veysey]

I'm joining this fray. But hey ...

There is a lot of imprecise argument and verbiage here. Plus some ... um ... impatience. I don't know that I can avoid the former, but I shall try to be civil!

First ....

>Clearly that is your belief, but just as clearly it is depriving the person that
>created the words/file/book/story of making a living at it. That is stealing,
>that is unethical, that is morally corrupt -- unless, as I've said, that person
>has given up their right to their creation.

There is, as moejoe has been contending a legal and physical distinction between theft and copyright infringement. I don't really understand why this is even argued. The common law interpretation of "theft" is the taking of another's property. Physical property. These law predates even the idea of "intellectual property". Indeed, an examination of (eg) US law shows that the penalties for copyright infrigement are substantially different (more severe) than those for physical theft. They are not the same crime.

But there are two undercurrents to this conversation which puzzle me. First is the quote above - the idea that you can steal a creative work and deprive the author of an inalienable right. How can intellectual property exist outside of a contract involving more than one individual? Doesn't a person "gives up a right" to their creation simply by sharing it with others?

Once the creator has done so, their limiting MY ability to talk about it (eg) is an abridgment of my rights. Yet simply talking about it an idea could limit the creator's ability to make a living of the idea. Is it more or less ethical for the author to limit my right to free speech or me to limit his/her "right to make a living"? One is a human right, the other is the product of a social contract.

It seems that in many ethical systems, humanity mostly favors the right to free speech. (The announcements tacked on to sporting event broadcasts notwithstanding ... "Forbid any pictures, descriptions, or account without express written permission ...")

But the question is one of how to balance the rights of individuals and the good of society. We have copyright laws to give some incentive to creators to produce works that benefit society as a whole, and we have limits on those copyrights to preserve the rights of individuals to (e.g.) quote a poem or build on ideas that came before.

Judging an act of copying to be right or wrong is a matter of how it fits in that balance, ones ethical system, and possibly the moral foundation of ones government. Note that right and wrong are not the same as illegal and legal.

All of the charged words --- theft, corrupt,unethical! --- used in this debate are an attempt to color the reader's judgment in this matter.

Myself, I think it's complicated. I think copyright law has been distorted too far towards the creators (or, more explicitly, the owners of a copyright), and away from the public good and my rights. Disney's successful attempts to change US copyright law seem pretty darn unethical, particularly since Walt created his characters knowing the set of incentives that existed in 1923. He ain't becoming more incentivized with each extension!

But on the other side, I DO want to see good works created. Authors should be rewarded and be able to make a living. And middlemen can add value.

But I also know this: the price of an ebook MUST be less than the pbook. Yes, one must account for editing, etc. But it costs less to move electrons than to cut down a tree (since I'm paying separately for the electron moving infrastructure).

So what do I do? Kill trees? Dunno. Try to buy direct and support independents where possible. Try to avoid the corporations that unduly influence my democracy and deprive me of my rights. (if I were to be cavalier about terminology, I might even say they were stealing something from me ...).

It's pretty easy to rationalize copyright infringement as undermining unjust laws and evil corporations. Sometimes it does. Maybe that rationalization is even correct, and the world will be a better place in 100 years if we all infringe away to destabilize the status-quo. I have no idea. For instance, we can now buy non-drm music at the itunes store.

I do know that I've lost money when itunes blanked my paid-for music. Call me a morally corrupt thief, but I feel just fine about downloading those tunes from p2p sites!

My $0.34

[Tuna]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

All physical objects, all aspects of the physical, all limited and controlled by real-world physicality and scarcity. And all have very little to do with reproduction digitally.

Good job no-one invented the colour photocopier then... oh, hold on.



Anyway, deja vu has set in with this conversation, so we'll agree to disagree I hope.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by Tuna

You're a smart person Ahi, so I can't quite understand what value you place in deliberately misinterpreting what other people are trying to get across?

Thank you, Tuna! And I hope it is indeed clear that I am deliberately misinterpreting it.

I found your interpretation of the situation unreasonably harsh, and wished to juxtapose it with an example that was clearly ludicrously harsh but, I thought, had broadly similar reasoning at its roots.

Suggesting that a "lost purchase" can have criminal or moral implications seems as senseless to me as I hope my over the top example seemed to you.

Of course, doubtless we disagree... but it seemed like being wacky was a better option than being confrontational.

- Ahi

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Tuna

Good job no-one invented the colour photocopier then... oh, hold on.



Anyway, deja vu has set in with this conversation, so we'll agree to disagree I hope.

Again you cite another example of a real-world thing, and in this case it doesn't even make sense. Sure you can photocopy things, but it costs money, lots of money. You're paying for toner, electricity, the machine, the paper. You can't compare a photocopier to the copying of a digital object. Not now, not ever. Doesn't work, can't work. The photocopier is ruled by the laws of scarcity, whereas the digital file has no scarcity.

You can agree to disagree, but you're wrong on every argument you've put forth. Wrong about the technology, wrong in your analogies, wrong about the economics. Your reaction is emotional and is clouded by your initial, and erroneous assumption that copying = theft. The MAFIAAA want you to believe that, their whole corrupt existence rests upon your believing that lie.

[Tuna]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Again you cite another example of a real-world thing, and in this case it doesn't even make sense. Sure you can photocopy things, but it costs money, lots of money. You're paying for toner, electricity, the machine, the paper. You can't compare a photocopier to the copying of a digital object. Not now, not ever. Doesn't work, can't work. The photocopier is ruled by the laws of scarcity, whereas the digital file has no scarcity.

Umm.. OK, so on the one hand you have the Mona Lisa. Pretty high on the scarcity front. On the other hand I can walk round the corner to a copy shop and pay a couple of quid for a pretty good colour reproduction. In the case of a photographic print, the quality can be extremely close, if not indistinguishable from the original. By your use of the term 'scarcity', the photocopy costs a tiny, tiny fraction of the value of the original. It has almost non-existent scarcity. How is that different, apart from in your head?

Regardless, scarcity is a piece of misdirection on your part. Scarcity doesn't dictate the value of creative works. Harry Potter books don't cost 5p because they've printed fifteen billion of them. Your £4 that you pay to see a movie largely comes down to the cost of filming it, not the cost of building the cinema - by your logic cinemas are scarce and expensive to build, so we should be paying a hundred times over for the privilege of going there.

One digital copy or a billion doesn't change the cost of production, nor does it change the value someone might assign to being entertained for however many hours it takes to read the book. We pay for the creative work, not the effort of cutting down a tree and scribbling on it.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

You can agree to disagree, but you're wrong on every argument you've put forth. Wrong about the technology, wrong in your analogies, wrong about the economics. Your reaction is emotional and is clouded by your initial, and erroneous assumption that copying = theft. The MAFIAAA want you to believe that, their whole corrupt existence rests upon your believing that lie.

No emotion here - I work in this area and see the possibilities and problems that digital distribution introduces. I'm fairly pragmatic about it, but disappointed that digital copying is seen as a 'victimless crime', when it is having a very definite effect on the creative landscape.

Talking of which, I was reading this week about Lilly Allen's decision to quit music after producing two very well received albums. Her take is that she cannot make a living from music when the vast majority of her fans get digital copies rather than buying the album legitimately. She toured like crazy this summer, but it appears not enough. If we can ignore whether or not her music is any good, how do you feel about that?

I guess you could say there will be half a dozen new artists to fill her shoes, willing to release their first album for free just to get the exposure. What happens when they come to record their second or third album, but cannot justify doing something for free when it has become their career?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Tuna

Talking of which, I was reading this week about Lilly Allen's decision to quit music after producing two very well received albums. Her take is that she cannot make a living from music when the vast majority of her fans get digital copies rather than buying the album legitimately. She toured like crazy this summer, but it appears not enough. If we can ignore whether or not her music is any good, how do you feel about that?

Well she does not seem to be quitting:

http://www.vancouversun.com/entertai...356/story.html

It seems to be a publicity stunt.