Secret Copyright Law Reported

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

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.

You could just as easily argue the following....

When someone downloads anything that shows they want the thing. If they want the thing then they "should" pay for it and by illicitly downloading it they are not doing so. Ergo, every download is a lost sale.

For the point being made, all those people who download simply because they can and have no intention of reading it, or as a test or for any other reason don't matter.

How is that really any different?

I would say the structure of the argument(black and white, ignore the grey) is the same. If that structure is not suitable for one side to be engaging in then it should not be suitable for the other.

IMHO the only reason the argument is used is because it makes it nice and easy to denigrate and demonise any who may wish to make a living from their creativity rather than simply doing it for the pure joy of it. In this way we can lump those ignoble and sullied artists in with the evil publishers and wont have to deal with any issues about whether we should be paying a fair and equitable price for their creative works. Not to mention dealing with the idea that it is ok to leech off the creative efforts of others simply because they enjoy creating and would continue to create even if no one paid them.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

In this way we can lump those ignoble and sullied artists in with the evil publishers and wont have to deal with any issues about whether we should be paying a fair and equitable price for their creative works. Not to mention dealing with the idea that it is ok to leech off the creative efforts of others simply because they enjoy creating and would continue to create even if no one paid them.

But we're allowed to "leech" off their creativity with paper books. We can lend them to friends, or pick them up for a dollar at a yard sale--or get them for free at bus stops or through bookcrossing. Book appreciation has always included a lot of not-paying-the-author activity.

The argument, "if you wanted to read it, the author should be paid" says that libraries are unethical, that you should never borrow a friend's book, that dollar-a-bag book sales shouldn't be allowed. That universities shouldn't allow last year's books to be read for class credit; grammar schools shouldn't re-use books from year to year. Doctor's offices shouldn't have magazines in their lobbies.

If it's "leeching" to read without paying, then every book, every magazine, should have exactly *one* reader, and then be destroyed.

AFAIK, nobody's arguing for that. So... why are they claiming that's how ebooks should work? Why try to force people to follow a set of ethics that don't apply anywhere else?

I'm not saying it's a fine idea to send ebooks out on the torrentwebs to be copied into hundreds of machines. I'm saying that the reason that's a bad idea, is not "because people should pay for what they read."

People have never paid for everything they read. It's never been considered reasonable to destroy every book after a single person has read it.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

I would say the structure of the argument(black and white, ignore the grey) is the same. If that structure is not suitable for one side to be engaging in then it should not be suitable for the other.

The structure of the argument is completely different.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I'm saying that the reason that's a bad idea, is not "because people should pay for what they read."

I just read your post. Where should I send payment?

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

I just read your post. Where should I send payment?

I suppose, technically, to be pedantic (because these discussions do get bogged down in terminology debates) the stated argument should be "people should pay for what the author releases as pay-for-reading material," because nobody is saying that anyone is obligated to pay for reading Cory Doctorow's ebooks. (And I think that "pay for what the author wants to sell" is an interesting idea, even a useful one, but has never been a mandatory part of being an avid reader.)

I do wonder if anyone promotes the idea that "if the author disapproves of ebooks, you shouldn't buy them, even if the publisher sells them." The author signed a contract allowing this--but if people really cared about supporting the author and creative rights, wouldn't they avoid uses of the content that the author doesn't want?

That's probably a fairly convoluted thought. Odd, how it's about morality and ethics, until there's a contract involved, at which point it's about what's legally permitted.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

But we're allowed to "leech" off their creativity with paper books. We can lend them to friends, or pick them up for a dollar at a yard sale--or get them for free at bus stops or through bookcrossing. Book appreciation has always included a lot of not-paying-the-author activity.

The argument, "if you wanted to read it, the author should be paid" says that libraries are unethical, that you should never borrow a friend's book, that dollar-a-bag book sales shouldn't be allowed. That universities shouldn't allow last year's books to be read for class credit; grammar schools shouldn't re-use books from year to year. Doctor's offices shouldn't have magazines in their lobbies.

If it's "leeching" to read without paying, then every book, every magazine, should have exactly *one* reader, and then be destroyed.

AFAIK, nobody's arguing for that. So... why are they claiming that's how ebooks should work? Why try to force people to follow a set of ethics that don't apply anywhere else?

I'm not saying it's a fine idea to send ebooks out on the torrentwebs to be copied into hundreds of machines. I'm saying that the reason that's a bad idea, is not "because people should pay for what they read."

People have never paid for everything they read. It's never been considered reasonable to destroy every book after a single person has read it.

I quite agree actually. Though everything you have said would fall into that "grey" area that both sides of the argument seem to want to avoid. My interest and point was why one side of the argument seems so willing to cry foul when the other engages in this either/or, black/white ignore the grey, type argument but then does so themselves in order to make their point.

When I mention leeching it was directed more at those who "can't understand why anyone would pay for anything" and those that argue creative people will continue to create even if no money is forthcoming(and good riddance to any that don't or simply can't continue) so that makes it ok to not pay. As if by dint of the creator enjoying what they do and wanting to do it they shouldn't be paid for their efforts. I did not mean to imply that every single "read" should be paid for, that libraries are unethical or anything like that. Apologies for not being clearer.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

The structure of the argument is completely different.

Actually no, the structure is exactly the same as far as I can see. Present an either/or, black/white proposition and ignore the grey, specially if it tends to falsify the argument.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I suppose, technically, to be pedantic (because these discussions do get bogged down in terminology debates) the stated argument should be "people should pay for what the author releases as pay-for-reading material," because nobody is saying that anyone is obligated to pay for reading Cory Doctorow's ebooks. (And I think that "pay for what the author wants to sell" is an interesting idea, even a useful one, but has never been a mandatory part of being an avid reader.)

Yet, except for in a select few situations, anyone who says that their words (or speech) should be paid for before others are allowed to "understand" or listen to them will be laughed right out of the classroom. Except for when you're talking in a social setting called a "lecture", there is no way you could get people to pay for what you tell them.
The point being mostly that copyright is a very special exception to the rule of free speech, which is tolerated to a point, but deemed unworkable in pretty much any other situation. And that will never be determined solely by an author who chooses whether to release a statement of some sort or other as "pay for reading" or not, but just on the simple fact that the whole notion of it's ridiculous to think that everything an author says is worth paying for.
The point being mostly that there is no obvious "sweat/toil" argument to make that explains why copyright applies to some cases of speech production but not others. The right to profit from your "creation" is very much circumscribed, and only recognized in fairly few cases. It is, in any case, by no means inalienable, nor "natural". It is granted by society, although it has been legally buttressed to ensure these given rights were not ignored.
The problem, however, is that this allowed the authors to accrue money their readers do not have, at least in those amounts, which allows them to mount attacks (both legislative and legal) on those parts of those limited-time protected monopolies that they dislike, forcing people to "pirate" stuff that they previously could have gotten or done things with legally.
Intellectual Property Rights limited-time monopolies existed first and foremost to stimulate innovation and literary output, and now that it's there it's very hard to get rid of, because every author and his grandmother will claim that there will be "insufficient incentives" for new authors to do their thing. This claim is attacked left and right, however, but because their suggestions are so counter to earlier wisdom, they're deemed too unlikely to want to risk trying them.
I'm pretty tired of this conservatism, though, as well as of the lack of empirical data generally in this debate about "right and wrong".

[llreader]

The logical conclusion of some of these "rules" would be advertisement-based publication, ala Google. Run a site with ebooks, all free, with ads. Split up the proceeds by the popularity of the author. Or, to be even more obnoxious, put ads on every page, with a tracker. So people who just read the first few pages don't generate revenue for the author as much as those who read all (or reread - Pynchon would make a killing) of the book.

(FYI - This is not a serious proposal)

As a thought experiment, though, what would be the ideal way to remunerate an author? We assume they need to eat, and we want the good ones to be able to write more books, not spend all their time mopping floors or something in order to live.

How do we ensure that *good* writing is rewarded in such a way that more good writing comes of it?

[pholy]

All this discussion of authors rights has been interesting, but I haven't seen much mention of ACTA in the last couple hundred posts. What about ACTA? Do it's goals enhance creativity? How do you know? Is a secret trade agreement the way to rewrite copyright law all over the world, or should each country or common market use the traditional open legislative fora?

Oh darn, I think I just gave away my bias!

So those of you who want to see a 'war on drugs' style 'war on copying' need do nothing. You'll probably get your wish.

What about the rest of us? What can we do to make more people aware of the importance of balanced copyright law? The "new Canadian government" (almost as partisan as American politics, for those unfamiliar) has promised to bring in new copyright legislation this year, so the question is kind of urgent here in Canada. We could sleepwalk our way to a made-in-Hollywood-DMCA - and I think that would be a tragedy. Of course, that could spark 'the revolution' - and that would be another tragedy.

So what can we do to prevent all that?

[Krystian Galaj]

Originally Posted by pholy

What about ACTA? Do it's goals enhance creativity? How do you know? Is a secret trade agreement the way to rewrite copyright law all over the world, or should each country or common market use the traditional open legislative fora?

I believe that in this time copyright law blocks more creativity by disallowing people to reuse content they find all over the Net than it enhances it by making sure the creators have a means of existence. I understand that ACTA goes toward making copyright laws the same everywhere, which might simplify some administrative tasks - however, if it means lengthening average copyright protection duration, it goes against creativity.

[Greg Anos]

The underlying purpose of ACTA is to provide a way to all corporate copyright holders a single way to control all I.P. access, under rules that they can easily control. Corporation are immortal, because even when they fail, other corporations take over their assets. They want their I.P. to be immortal as well. Since law and custom don't permit that, They are "boiling the frog slowly" to get their long term goal.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by pholy

All this discussion of authors rights has been interesting, but I haven't seen much mention of ACTA in the last couple hundred posts. What about ACTA? Do it's goals enhance creativity? How do you know? Is a secret trade agreement the way to rewrite copyright law all over the world, or should each country or common market use the traditional open legislative fora?

Oh darn, I think I just gave away my bias!

Try James Boyle's The Public Domain: Enclosing the Commons of the Mind. It's a nice book.

What about the rest of us? What can we do to make more people aware of the importance of balanced copyright law? The "new Canadian government" (almost as partisan as American politics, for those unfamiliar) has promised to bring in new copyright legislation this year, so the question is kind of urgent here in Canada. We could sleepwalk our way to a made-in-Hollywood-DMCA - and I think that would be a tragedy. Of course, that could spark 'the revolution' - and that would be another tragedy.

The most foolproof way to prevent is to become insanely rich (at least $40 Billion), then "fund" most of the senatorial reelection campaigns, and then demand they stop. Sadly, I don't really know of any other way. Grass-roots campaigns over these ephemeral issues are very hard to organize, as people don't see how much it will affect them, whereas the companies have every reason to push for extensions. So if you can get lots of people to write their representatives, it might do something (US policymakers seem to be the main force pushing the treaty), but then again, it might not.
It's really very hard. In a way we might need ACTA to get people to actually care about these issues, as the more draconian the law, the more likely it will be repealed 10-15 years down the road, but OTOH, nobody's even touched the DMCA yet, so it might take a bit longer too.

Something that has me wondering, though, is why there is no way to test the constitutionality of a law in the US. For instance, HADOPI-1 was rejected because it was deemed unconstitutional before it was made into law, but in the US there seems to be no such check/appeal possible (apart from a test case that takes years to wind its way through the courts before it gets to SCOTUS).

Anyway, sorry I can't be of more help.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Actually no, the structure is exactly the same as far as I can see. Present an either/or, black/white proposition and ignore the grey, specially if it tends to falsify the argument.

As I said before, in one case the grey is directly relevant to the point of the argument, in the other case it is irrelevant to the point of the argument.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by pholy

All this discussion of authors rights has been interesting, but I haven't seen much mention of ACTA in the last couple hundred posts. What about ACTA? Do it's goals enhance creativity? How do you know? Is a secret trade agreement the way to rewrite copyright law all over the world, or should each country or common market use the traditional open legislative fora?

The problem is that nobody knows what's in ACTA, so we can't really have a meaningful discussion about it. The only reports are either pure speculation, or based on an analysis of the content, not the actual content.