Secret Copyright Law Reported

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Sonist

Most people will pay for good content and good design, and for convenience. This is how iTunes works.

In fact, I don't think Amazon is far off the mark, as many of the titles I've purchased seem to be about $6-7, which for a good portion of purchasers, would invite at least some impulse shopping, when combined with the convenience of instant acquisition. DRM is the main drawback for me, because it still takes a little effort to strip the DRM (and to download a sample, to make sure it's not Topaz.)

You'll never stop "piracy," but this has never been the case before - some copied audio and video tapes, some photocopied books. For all desirable stuff, there was always a balance, at a certain price-point, where enough potential purchasers bought a title, for the content creators to realize profit.

What this contemplated treaty appears to attempt, is to tip the balance in favor of the content creators, in what is essentially a non-competitive market field.

So, not only would corporate interests police our internet use, but without the threat of "piracy," they can more freely engage in price-gouging.

Great post!

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

.... I wouldn't trade all the money in the world for the exciting times we live in right now. God, but it's good to be alive and writing and on these here internets.

"May you live in interesting times."

[tompe]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

This sounds so great-until your kids grow up & realize that you can't combat unethical behavior by being unethical yourself. (Hopefully you're teaching them that, along with these beliefs.)

In a consequence ethical systems you just look at the consequences. Nothing is inherently unethical. So of course it is allowed to use the method to combat bad behavior that gives the best consequences.

An example of what I mean is the very common excuse: It's unethical that they charge so much so I'll just steal it. Even if it actually is unethical on the owner's part (questionable-do you also teach your children tolerance for people who have other beliefs?) it's also unethical on the thief's part.

That depends on what type of ethical system you are following.

And before somebody claims that copyright infringement isn't theft, this is about an excuse that's used as often for actual theft as it is for 'theft of IP'.

Notice that the fact that copyright infringement is not theft is not an excuse for anything. Remember that when people here state this fact they do not imply that copyright infringement is legal or ethically correct.

Doesn't matter whether the creator is ethical or not-the person taking it without payment is definitely unethical, IMO.

Even rights based moral system have exceptions to that motivated by self defense. So I find it hard to find a motivation for your strong statement that it is "definitely unethical".

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by tompe

Even rights based moral system have exceptions to that motivated by self defense. So I find it hard to find a motivation for your strong statement that it is "definitely unethical".

Taking something you want but can't afford to pay for (or just don't want to pay for) is "self defense"??? You are a troll, right? Or could you actually be serious? If you are serious, can I set up an appointment to come to your house and haul away some of your stuff?

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Taking something you want but can't afford to pay for (or just don't want to pay for) is "self defense"??? You are a troll, right? Or could you actually be serious? If you are serious, can I set up an appointment to come to your house and haul away some of your stuff?

He didn't say anything of the sort, and now you're trolling.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

This sounds so great-until your kids grow up & realize that you can't combat unethical behavior by being unethical yourself. (Hopefully you're teaching them that, along with these beliefs.)

An example of what I mean is the very common excuse: It's unethical that they charge so much so I'll just steal it. Even if it actually is unethical on the owner's part (questionable-do you also teach your children tolerance for people who have other beliefs?) it's also unethical on the thief's part.

"It costs too much so I'll steal it" is not ethical. But "it costs too much so I will legally work toward the financial and social ruin of whoever's charging so much" is ethical.

I teach my children awareness of other ethical systems, including the consequences of clashing with the ones most common; I don't teach them to attempt to adhere to them unless they're trying to avoid a particular consequence.

Doesn't matter whether the creator is ethical or not-the person taking it without payment is definitely unethical, IMO.

Depends on what "taking" means.
A lot of copying is legal--for parody, for review, for transformative works.
And none of that copying is "taking" because it's not removing anything from the original owner.

If your "ethics" say that all copying-without-permission is wrong, then parody is just as wrong as unauthorized sequels or audiobook versions.

If I buy a table: I can chop it into pieces, reshape them into a chair, and sell the chair. I can make plans to make fifty more chairs, from raw materials that I'll shape like the table was shaped. I can take a lot of photos of it and post them on my blog, both before & after the chopping.

If I buy a book, and cut it into pieces and rearrange them, and sell them... I can do that once. I can't do it with 50 more books that I'll type onto new paper without getting sued. I can't take pictures of the pages and post them on my blog, either.

You're trying to claim that IP both should, and should not, be treated like physical property. You're claiming "theft" about actions that are not "theft" when done to physical property.

Plenty of people agree that copyright infringement is *wrong.* They just don't agree that it's *theft.* Just like they agree that stealing someone's wallet from his pocket is wrong--but it's not "assault."

OTOH, maybe IP infringement should be treated like "theft." You can't get fined $150,000 for stealing a single physical CD; no reason you should be fined that much for putting a single copy of it on a server somewhere. Limit the copyright penalties to the physical theft penalties, and we'll have a basis for using the same word to describe the crimes.

[Barcey]

Some more information on the ACTA leaks. European Commission analysis.

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4575

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

If your "ethics" say that all copying-without-permission is wrong, then parody is just as wrong as unauthorized sequels or audiobook versions.

I don't know why you should bring parody into this. Parody turns the original work into something completely different, a separate work of art (if it is well done). And may actually help the owner of the original work because the parody works like an advertisement. Free publicity.

Copying a file ads nothing. Of course not every copy is a lost sale, some people just download because they can without ever bothering to read the items in question. They don't count in this context. But when people who actually want to read the books or listen to the music turn to free downloading then someone does get hurt. And no, not just the evil publishing corporations but their employees, the authors, bookseller employees. The list goes on and on. What you should teach your children is the concept of saying no.

You try to claim the moral high ground, "those who charge too much should be punished. Apple charges obscene prices, so what have you done to put them out of business? Don't companies have costs? Wages, rent, interest, ads, etc? What is a fair profit? How do you know what is fair?

[Jonas777]

Originally Posted by Barcey

Some more information on the ACTA leaks. European Commission analysis.

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/4575

With comments from one european politician: http://christianengstrom.wordpress.c...cument-leaked/.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Taking something you want but can't afford to pay for (or just don't want to pay for) is "self defense"??? You are a troll, right? Or could you actually be serious? If you are serious, can I set up an appointment to come to your house and haul away some of your stuff?

Read what I wrote again. Are you familiar with the philosophical discussion about different kind of ethical systems? What is annoying in this thread is that people want to make ethical or moral argument but they seem not to have read any philosophy at all and makes all the mistakes you do then.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

I don't know why you should bring parody into this. Parody turns the original work into something completely different, a separate work of art (if it is well done). And may actually help the owner of the original work because the parody works like an advertisement. Free publicity.

It's still "taking" without permission. Using the characters and settings of the original to tell a new story. Ethically, no different from creating a sequel, which is considered a violation of copyright.

Translations also add something, aren't a direct copy, but aren't allowed w/o permission.

Copying a file ads nothing.

It also works as free advertising, especially if the copy isn't competing with purchased files. Plenty of people would buy the Harry Potter books in ebook format. Instead, they have bootleg digital versions... and paid print versions.

Copies can also be arranged in a set, in a way that creates a new meaning that wasn't possible in the original context. Fanmixes--collections of songs around a single theme--are an example of this. An anthology of stories can be made to showcase an idea or ethic; this is common in print literature, and is just as applicable to the ebook world.

A set of short stories "where the villain wins" or "wherein buildings are destroyed by acid" or "wherein lost children save the day" can change the way the reader relates to any of the stories in the collection; putting them together gives a context that was lacking in their original sources.

You try to claim the moral high ground, "those who charge too much should be punished. Apple charges obscene prices, so what have you done to put them out of business? Don't companies have costs? Wages, rent, interest, ads, etc? What is a fair profit? How do you know what is fair?

Exactly what is "fair" depends on individual circumstances.
What is *not* fair:

• The RIAA using copyright law as a tool for intimidation, and insisting that they don't have to prove any infringement actually took place,
• False DMCA reports that go unchallenged,
• Amazon stealing content from thousands of Kindles because they illegally sold content they didn't have the rights to sell,
• Ebook publishers who put false copyright info in their books ("no part of this book may be reproduced without permission" in public domain works),
• Software publishers who claim you are "licensing" programs that are legally purchased.

Copyright law should be used to enhance the creative works available to the public by protecting the interests of artists, not the people who make money marketing their works.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Agreed, it is easier to ignore the grey.

It is also much easier for the discussion to equate every pirated download with a lost sale and every downloader as a criminal freeloader unwilling to pay for anything. Yet arguing that doesn't seem to be acceptable.

Those are very different things. They are ignoring the grey because for the hypothetical point being discussed, the grey doesn't matter. Essentially, what it boils down to in the argument they are making is that people will fall into one of two categories. Those that would continue to create without monetary incentive, and those that wouldn't. Yes, most artists are going to fall somewhere in the middle of the "love of the art" versus "want to make money" scale, but if you turn off the money you'll end up with people who stop and people who don't. Their particular place on the scale no longer matters. The grey area isn't relevant to the specific point being made.

Equating downloads to lost sales is entirely different. That is directly relevant to the arguments people make when they talk about the losses due to piracy.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by kennyc

You have to encourage and allow the honest people to be honest. We must teach our children ethics instead of the current culture of 'whateveryoucangetawaywithislegal.' For the others we break out the bazookas, the rack, the iron lady....

Does this apply to corporations as well, or only to the consumer? Copyright law is supposed to be a balance between artists and society. Both the "content industry" and "pirates" are trying to swing the power to their side. You can't claim one is being unethical without examining the other just as critically.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I never understood the 'convenience' argument, when piracy is more convenient and has better quality.

...

The only barrier to entry with piracy is knowledge.

Don't underestimate the convenience of ignorance.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Copyright law should be used to enhance the creative works available to the public by protecting the interests of artists, not the people who make money marketing their works.

I wish more people understood this very important difference.