Open Source culture to blame for e-book piracy! - Page 9

HansTWN · 01-05-2010, 10:32 PM

I would rephrase your statement -- you have a right to be given an opportunity to make a living doing what you love. If a writer cannot cut it because nobody wants to read his work, tough luck. However, if a lot of people love his work but just want to exploit him by taking his work for free, then that is not right. Unless that is what the writer wants. Why should people value those who bring them knowledge/entertainment less than those who repair their toilets (no disrespect to plumbers intended!)?

tompe · 01-05-2010, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HansTWN

I would rephrase your statement -- you have a right to be given an opportunity to make a living doing what you love.

Do you mean a positive right or a negative right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativ...ositive_rights

And what does it mean to have such a right in practice? If it is a negative right and an opportunity does not exist then you do not have the opportunity. But since you wrote "be given" I assume you meant a positive right or?

PKFFW · 01-05-2010, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tompe

Do you mean a positive right or a negative right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativ...ositive_rights

And what does it mean to have such a right in practice? If it is a negative right and an opportunity does not exist then you do not have the opportunity. But since you wrote "be given" I assume you meant a positive right or?

As a matter of interest tompe, what makes you argue that someone does not have the right to attempt to make a living from their creative output? At least in any modern, western society.

Cheers,
PKFFW

HansTWN · 01-05-2010, 11:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tompe

Do you mean a positive right or a negative right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negativ...ositive_rights

And what does it mean to have such a right in practice? If it is a negative right and an opportunity does not exist then you do not have the opportunity. But since you wrote "be given" I assume you meant a positive right or?

Given the definition from that wiki entry it would be a negative right, the right that others don't take his/her work without the writer's permission. That does not guarantee the writer can make a living, but that he or she could make a living if others consider him or her good enough so that they would want to read his works. By the very action of taking the work for free
the opportunity is being denied. This is the same for a physical product. If you invent something and I just copy it, can I argue it never would have sold anyway?

schex86 · 01-06-2010, 06:43 AM

This thread inspired me to register on the forums here.

First, on the issue of libraries, its seems the concept of the public library available to all was originally formulated by Ben Franklin. I may be wrong on this, but, I am reading, or actually listening via TTS, to his autobiography on my Kindle, via Project Gutenberg.

And based on what he said, the whole purpose of libraries was to address the problems stemming from the scarcity of books. In his time, they were indeed scarce, so he utilized his intelligence and his excellent abilities of persuasion and social organization to create the beginnings of the library system, or put another way, Franklin utilized the best technology of his time to make the collected intelligence of humanity available to as many people as possible, for he apparently saw a great value and unlimited potential in this.

Now, Franklin did solicit donations for this undertaking in the form of a yearly subscription, but he was never very fond of collecting money, and were he given the opportunity to do so, he would have avoided it entirely. And nowhere in his memoirs do I see an overriding concern for proper compensation of the authors, publishers, proofreaders, editors, janitors, etc. ad nauseum, to the effect of a set stipend paid to them each time their book was read, as today's DRM schema seems to be leaning towards.

It seems that authors of that time wrote their books as means of expressing thought, of telling stories they wanted told, and they did so freely and apparently without the incentive of potentially vast amounts of financial compensation.

kennyc · 01-06-2010, 06:56 AM

Welcome to MR schex86! Where in Alaska are you? My son is in Soldotna.

schex86 · 01-06-2010, 07:11 AM

Hi kennyC. I hail from the Delta Junction/Fort Greely metropolitan area.

Back to scarcity, today's technology has overcome this hurdle. There is now no "real" scarcity due to the difficulties of production and distribution, which were Franklin's main concerns. All that remains is artificial scarcity, forced on us by industries whose services have become exponentially less relevant in the terms of value added to society in general.

Had Ben Franklin, founder of the public library, had such technology available, I make the assertion that he would have utilized it to its maximum benefit. Were the argument made to him that authors or publishing incorportations would be adversely effected in a financial sense, I believe he would have countered that the benefits to society in general, to its education, to its cultural refinement, would far outweigh such petty concerns.

Why are we now so afraid to embrace technology. To preserve author's "rights"?? Yes, I completely agree, authors have the right to write whatever and whenever they so choose, and also the right to hope and pursue contracts and arrangements in which they might receive compensation for their writing.

However, once they have placed their works in the public sphere, and allowed such to become part of a society's cultural identity, it now moves beyond their individual rights to control how other individuals interact with, share, or improve upon their work. And it is certainly not within their individual rights to perpetuate and impose an antiquated business model based on an ineffectual and generally harmful concept of artificial scarcity on all other individuals.

It is up to the society to decide how such public works will be treated, and unfortunately, esp. over the past century, financial compensation with special interest in preserving the publisher system, seems to be the one and only consideration, with the other, arguably greater goods to society left totally out of the equation.

kennyc · 01-06-2010, 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schex86

Hi kennyC. I hail from the Delta Junction/Fort Greely metropolitan area.

Back to scarcity, today's technology has overcome this hurdle. There is now no "real" scarcity due to the difficulties of production and distribution, which were Franklin's main concerns. All that remains is artificial scarcity, forced on us by industries whose services have become exponentially less relevant in the terms of value added to society in general.

Had Ben Franklin, founder of the public library, had such technology available, I make the assertion that he would have utilized it to its maximum benefit. Were the argument made to him that authors or publishing incorportations would be adversely effected in a financial sense, I believe he would have countered that the benefits to society in general, to its education, to its cultural refinement, would far outweigh such petty concerns.

Why are we now so afraid to embrace technology. To preserve author's "rights"?? Yes, I completely agree, authors have the right to write whatever and whenever they so choose, and also the right to hope and pursue contracts and arrangements in which they might receive compensation for their writing.

However, once they have placed their works in the public sphere, and allowed such to become part of a society's cultural identity, it now moves beyond their individual rights to control how other individuals interact with, share, or improve upon their work. And it is certainly not within their individual rights to perpetuate and impose an antiquated business model based on an ineffectual and generally harmful concept of artificial scarcity on all other individuals.

It is up to the society to decide how such public works will be treated, and unfortunately, esp. over the past century, financial compensation with special interest in preserving the publisher system, seems to be the one and only consideration, with the other, arguably greater goods to society left totally out of the equation.

Thanks that's up in the interior.

As far as your thoughts on publishing and rights. There is a vast difference in public domain and author/publishing rights and I think you are mixing the concepts a bit.

An author has inherent rights to what he produces and the copyright laws were created to protect those rights. (certainly there are divergent opinions about changes, particularly extensions to those laws). But the core intent is to allow the creator of intellectual property to share their work while being protected/provided with a means of gaining benefit from those works.

The idea is to find a medium ground to protect both the creator and to benefit society. To claim one or the other is more important is not useful both sides of the equation must balance.

The digital revolution has thrown many wrenches into the works but we will eventually get through it and move on as both individuals and society.

tompe · 01-06-2010, 08:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Given the definition from that wiki entry it would be a negative right, the right that others don't take his/her work without the writer's permission. That does not guarantee the writer can make a living, but that he or she could make a living if others consider him or her good enough so that they would want to read his works. By the very action of taking the work for free
the opportunity is being denied.

No, it is not denied. He have the opportunity to try to sell his book. If nobody buys it it was not a viable opportunity. Notice that it was the right to have the opportunity you argued for.

Also, the authors try to sell his book. Nobody is stopping him from trying to sell his book. So if we talk about negative rights nobody is stopping him from the act of trying to sell his book.

Copyright is a positive right that give a monopoly. But is it not motivated by a positive right to earn a living on something you are good at.

tompe · 01-06-2010, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PKFFW

As a matter of interest tompe, what makes you argue that someone does not have the right to attempt to make a living from their creative output? At least in any modern, western society.

Did you read the wikipedia entry before asking that? Do you in this question talks about moral rights? It seems to me you are asking about the current status of the laws in a country. Since that was not what we discussed I have not had an opinion about this.

tompe · 01-06-2010, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kennyc

An author has inherent rights to what he produces and the copyright laws were created to protect those rights.

If you believe he have an inherent right or not depends on if you believe in inherent rights. Personally I do not think inherent rights can exist or is a concept that is coherrent. And copyright was not created to protect those rights.

Quote:

But the core intent is to allow the creator of intellectual property to share their work while being protected/provided with a means of gaining benefit from those works.

Yes, that is correct. So why did you write the paragraph above that you know people have very different opinions about?

kennyc · 01-06-2010, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tompe

...

Yes, that is correct. So why did you write the paragraph above that you know people have very different opinions about?

Same reason you continue to beat a dead horse.

Someday, someday....

schex86 · 01-06-2010, 09:04 AM

However, in the case of libraries, at their founding at least, the intent was purely to negate the harmful effects of scarcity for the betterment of all mankind. Implementing a system of artificial scarcity to protect an industry, whether or not that industry is dependent on the efforts of so-called artisans, is overall harmful and detracts from the general betterment of everyone else as, in this case, it unnecessarily restricts their access to useful information. While this may benefit a specific group, the effect on the whole will always be a net loss.

And an author, as an individual, does have inherent rights. But these do not include imposing his will on society at large with the sole intent of bettering himself and his compatriots in a financial sense. It is rather, as I've already stated, up to the society in general, or its government specifically, to make determinations on how it will handle its collective knowledge.

The argument then seems to be, the concern for the government, that lacking financial incentive, less artists will produce art. However, that is extremely lacking in historical support, as really, any type of art is simply a condition of human behavior, and it will continue on inexorably in one form or another.

Incentive is comprised of much more than financial compensation. Prestige, influence, self-fulfillment, helping others, bettering society, are all critical aspects of art that IMO far overshadow the purely economic motive. And where is it decreed that artists must only "do" art, and not employ themselves gainfully in other fields? Is this their right?? At the expense of what and whom??

You see, when you remove scarcity, you open up a wealth of possibilities that heretofore were unimaginable. And though there may be many wrenches currently clogging the potentials of the digital revolution, it is my position that we, as a society, MUST look past petty concerns, kind of like what Ben Franklin did with his library, in our efforts to fully leverage the benefits of our collective knowledge and understanding.

If publishing companies no longer existed in their current form, if less authors wrote solely for financial gain, yet more wrote with the intention of aiding their fellow man, and the net effect was that through the benefit gained by all, more and more people had the time to contribute their own writings, their own art, to their society, then I ask, what have we lost? But more importantly, what have we gained or what will we gain?

It is, really, up to us.

HarryT · 01-06-2010, 09:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schex86

If publishing companies no longer existed in their current form, if less authors wrote solely for financial gain, yet more wrote with the intention of aiding their fellow man, and the net effect was that through the benefit gained by all, more and more people had the time to contribute their own writings, their own art, to their society, then I ask, what have we lost? But more importantly, what have we gained or what will we gain?

One question for you: I don't know how you make your living, but, whatever it is, do you give it all away for free? If you have an expectation that you will be paid for your work, why do you suggest that authors should not? Writing a book is just as much "work" as any other means of earning your living.

This strange concept that people should write books "to aid their fellow man", rather than to make money, has always slightly puzzled me. Should restaurant owners serve meals to aid their fellow man, rather than to make money? Should plasterers plaster walls to benefit people rather than to make money? Why should authors be somehow "different"?

kennyc · 01-06-2010, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by schex86

... Implementing a system of artificial scarcity to protect an industry, whether or not that industry is dependent on the efforts of so-called artisans, is overall harmful and detracts from the general betterment of everyone else as, in this case, it unnecessarily restricts their access to useful information. While this may benefit a specific group, the effect on the whole will always be a net loss.

And an author, as an individual, does have inherent rights. But these do not include imposing his will on society at large with the sole intent of bettering himself and his compatriots in a financial sense. ...

This is simply wrong. There is no artificial scarcity only the free market and the laws that govern it that have developed to meet both needs of the creator and the consumer.

Neither has presidence over the other with the exception that he creator of something has inherent rights of whether and how to share his creation with others.

01-05-2010, 10:32 PM	#121
HansTWN Wizard Posts: 4,538 Karma: 264065402 Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: Taiwan Device: HP Touchpad, Sony Duo 13, Lumia 920, Kobo Aura HD	I would rephrase your statement -- you have a right to be given an opportunity to make a living doing what you love. If a writer cannot cut it because nobody wants to read his work, tough luck. However, if a lot of people love his work but just want to exploit him by taking his work for free, then that is not right. Unless that is what the writer wants. Why should people value those who bring them knowledge/entertainment less than those who repair their toilets (no disrespect to plumbers intended!)? Last edited by HansTWN; 01-05-2010 at 10:34 PM.

01-06-2010, 09:04 AM	#133
schex86 Enthusiast Posts: 48 Karma: 766 Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Alaska Device: Kindle 2, Blackberry Mobipocket Reader	However, in the case of libraries, at their founding at least, the intent was purely to negate the harmful effects of scarcity for the betterment of all mankind. Implementing a system of artificial scarcity to protect an industry, whether or not that industry is dependent on the efforts of so-called artisans, is overall harmful and detracts from the general betterment of everyone else as, in this case, it unnecessarily restricts their access to useful information. While this may benefit a specific group, the effect on the whole will always be a net loss. And an author, as an individual, does have inherent rights. But these do not include imposing his will on society at large with the sole intent of bettering himself and his compatriots in a financial sense. It is rather, as I've already stated, up to the society in general, or its government specifically, to make determinations on how it will handle its collective knowledge. The argument then seems to be, the concern for the government, that lacking financial incentive, less artists will produce art. However, that is extremely lacking in historical support, as really, any type of art is simply a condition of human behavior, and it will continue on inexorably in one form or another. Incentive is comprised of much more than financial compensation. Prestige, influence, self-fulfillment, helping others, bettering society, are all critical aspects of art that IMO far overshadow the purely economic motive. And where is it decreed that artists must only "do" art, and not employ themselves gainfully in other fields? Is this their right?? At the expense of what and whom?? You see, when you remove scarcity, you open up a wealth of possibilities that heretofore were unimaginable. And though there may be many wrenches currently clogging the potentials of the digital revolution, it is my position that we, as a society, MUST look past petty concerns, kind of like what Ben Franklin did with his library, in our efforts to fully leverage the benefits of our collective knowledge and understanding. If publishing companies no longer existed in their current form, if less authors wrote solely for financial gain, yet more wrote with the intention of aiding their fellow man, and the net effect was that through the benefit gained by all, more and more people had the time to contribute their own writings, their own art, to their society, then I ask, what have we lost? But more importantly, what have we gained or what will we gain? It is, really, up to us. Last edited by schex86; 01-06-2010 at 09:34 AM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
TomeRaider to go open source	MatYadabyte	News	27	11-18-2012 12:23 PM
Open source	bradrice	Kindle Formats	2	12-21-2009 09:30 AM
Has open source helped or hindered the e-book industry?	kjk	News	31	12-15-2009 08:53 PM
iRex and Open Source	jrial	iRex	8	03-03-2009 10:34 AM
Bookworm Gives a Boost to Open-Source ePub E-Book Format	Kris777	News	7	02-18-2009 09:16 PM

01-06-2010, 06:43 AM	#125
schex86 Enthusiast Posts: 48 Karma: 766 Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Alaska Device: Kindle 2, Blackberry Mobipocket Reader	This thread inspired me to register on the forums here. First, on the issue of libraries, its seems the concept of the public library available to all was originally formulated by Ben Franklin. I may be wrong on this, but, I am reading, or actually listening via TTS, to his autobiography on my Kindle, via Project Gutenberg. And based on what he said, the whole purpose of libraries was to address the problems stemming from the scarcity of books. In his time, they were indeed scarce, so he utilized his intelligence and his excellent abilities of persuasion and social organization to create the beginnings of the library system, or put another way, Franklin utilized the best technology of his time to make the collected intelligence of humanity available to as many people as possible, for he apparently saw a great value and unlimited potential in this. Now, Franklin did solicit donations for this undertaking in the form of a yearly subscription, but he was never very fond of collecting money, and were he given the opportunity to do so, he would have avoided it entirely. And nowhere in his memoirs do I see an overriding concern for proper compensation of the authors, publishers, proofreaders, editors, janitors, etc. ad nauseum, to the effect of a set stipend paid to them each time their book was read, as today's DRM schema seems to be leaning towards. It seems that authors of that time wrote their books as means of expressing thought, of telling stories they wanted told, and they did so freely and apparently without the incentive of potentially vast amounts of financial compensation.

01-06-2010, 06:56 AM	#126
kennyc The Dank Side of the Moon Posts: 35,897 Karma: 119230421 Join Date: Sep 2009 Location: Denver, CO Device: Kindle2; Kindle Fire	Welcome to MR schex86! Where in Alaska are you? My son is in Soldotna.

01-06-2010, 07:11 AM	#127
schex86 Enthusiast Posts: 48 Karma: 766 Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Alaska Device: Kindle 2, Blackberry Mobipocket Reader	Hi kennyC. I hail from the Delta Junction/Fort Greely metropolitan area. Back to scarcity, today's technology has overcome this hurdle. There is now no "real" scarcity due to the difficulties of production and distribution, which were Franklin's main concerns. All that remains is artificial scarcity, forced on us by industries whose services have become exponentially less relevant in the terms of value added to society in general. Had Ben Franklin, founder of the public library, had such technology available, I make the assertion that he would have utilized it to its maximum benefit. Were the argument made to him that authors or publishing incorportations would be adversely effected in a financial sense, I believe he would have countered that the benefits to society in general, to its education, to its cultural refinement, would far outweigh such petty concerns. Why are we now so afraid to embrace technology. To preserve author's "rights"?? Yes, I completely agree, authors have the right to write whatever and whenever they so choose, and also the right to hope and pursue contracts and arrangements in which they might receive compensation for their writing. However, once they have placed their works in the public sphere, and allowed such to become part of a society's cultural identity, it now moves beyond their individual rights to control how other individuals interact with, share, or improve upon their work. And it is certainly not within their individual rights to perpetuate and impose an antiquated business model based on an ineffectual and generally harmful concept of artificial scarcity on all other individuals. It is up to the society to decide how such public works will be treated, and unfortunately, esp. over the past century, financial compensation with special interest in preserving the publisher system, seems to be the one and only consideration, with the other, arguably greater goods to society left totally out of the equation.