Open Source culture to blame for e-book piracy!

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by kennyc

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.

The point being made is the laws governing the I.P "market" are what creates the artificial scarcity in a production sense (i.e. creating more copies of a product). They aid in reducing scarcity in a creation sense (creating new works). The ultimate question is, what is the optimum balance point between creation and production.

Many of us don't think that the current balance point is optimum, and discourages production in the name of creation. And also feel that just because a law is passed, that doesn't make it right, just, or optimum. It's just what the sum of the bribe money (past and present) pays for.....

[tompe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

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.

No, there is no inherent right in hindering copying.

[markbot]

Originally Posted by m-reader

An interesting article discussed on Slashdot this morning.



I couldn't read the CNN article (WebSense is on), but the discussion on Slashdot is robust as always

Because of piracy, our culture will not be as rich. It will lead to the stagnation and then decline of our culture, morals, and economy. I await the coming doom.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by tompe

No, there is no inherent right in hindering copying.

If it is my work, you have no right to it without my approval.

[schex86]

Because of piracy, our culture will not be as rich. It will lead to the stagnation and then decline of our culture, morals, and economy. I await the coming doom.

Certainly, rampant piracy, in the literal sense of the word, would lead to the conditions you describe. On the other hand, the sharing of useful knowledge, minus any propagandist labeling, tends toward the other direction.

[schex86]

Then kennyc, you have every right not to share it, or attempt to sell it. But once you do, don't attempt to infringe on my rights and the rights of everyone else.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

The point being made is the laws governing the I.P "market" are what creates the artificial scarcity in a production sense (i.e. creating more copies of a product). They aid in reducing scarcity in a creation sense (creating new works). The ultimate question is, what is the optimum balance point between creation and production.

Many of us don't think that the current balance point is optimum, and discourages production in the name of creation. And also feel that just because a law is passed, that doesn't make it right, just, or optimum. It's just what the sum of the bribe money (past and present) pays for.....

I disagree with the use of the term "artificial scarcity." The abundance or lack of any given product is simply the decision of the creator/producer of that product. If I write a book I may decide not to make it available at all. That is not an "artificial scarcity" it is simply my decision as the creator/owner of that product.

I don't necessarily think the laws are perfect either, particularly given the digital world, but the concept behind them is still correct. Right or wrong or even regardless of corruption the Rule of Law is what the country is built on and must follow. If the law is wrong we the people should work to change it. If corruption exists we the people should work to remove it. If the system as a whole isn't working, that's what the 2nd Amendment is for.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by schex86

Then kennyc, you have every right not to share it, or attempt to sell it. But once you do, don't attempt to infringe on my rights and the rights of everyone else.

Wrong again because that is exactly where the law comes into play.

You may not infringe upon my lawful rights as the creator of that product.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by kennyc

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

No. Copyright was created to grant those rights, not protect existing ones. There's a big difference.

[schex86]

When books were bound, literally, to the printed form, then, that physical form, was, by definition, scarce. The physical books produced by publishers and printing industries added value to our society by aiding in the conveyance of valuable knowledge & ideas.

However, the ideas themselves, were not bound to the physical medium, and transferred themselves freely, mouth to mouth, in journals, letters, songs, etc. They still do. Is it the inherent right of an author to control all these various means of transmission throughout, apparently, the entire world??

Unfortunately, the publishers and printers, with the advent of IT, see their powerful roles in this exchange of ideas lessening, and so have taken actions to preserve themselves at the expense of everyone else by attempting to extend copyright controls beyond their original intent, which was, I believe, to ensure that only the author (and his agents) were authorized to sell his book.

Hence, we now have artificial scarcity created through legislation that was no doubt proposed originally by these very same publishers. How can these laws, which prop-up a shrinking industrial sector by giving it unjust control over the actions of others, possibly lead to any net gain for our society?

If there were no publishers, can you say with absolute certainty, given the current technological status, that various authors with important ideas would not have shared them in some form or fashion? If so, then why is the publisher so necessary and why must I give up my liberty, my rights, to use this information as I see fit, once I have received it?

As long as I am not violating the true intent of the copyright laws, by selling or attempting to credit the work to myself, I am merely participating in that age old human activity, the transmission of ideas, even if those ideas happened to be contained in a digital file.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

No. Copyright was created to grant those rights, not protect existing ones. There's a big difference.

No. If I create something it is my right to do with as I please.

The copyright laws would not exist if not for the creation of the product in the first place.

Copyright was created to protect the creator of intellectual property while allow it to be shared.

Any activity which corrupts that ideal is bad.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I disagree with the use of the term "artificial scarcity." The abundance or lack of any given product is simply the decision of the creator/producer of that product. If I write a book I may decide not to make it available at all. That is not an "artificial scarcity" it is simply my decision as the creator/owner of that product.

What does it take to produce anything? Raw materials, tools, and technique. It doesn't matter what you're creating, those are the requirements. If you place legal restriction on any of those items, you are artificially restricting production. The more abundant the materials are, the more restrictions to production are embedded by legal restrictions.

Give me a forge, a lump of iron, (raw materials) and tools and I'll make you an axe. The technique is thousands of years old. However, if you limit the use of the technique to members of the blacksmith's guild, then I can't. And that restricts production of axes.

What does it take to produce a copy of something in the digital world. A source of information (raw materials), a computer and a copying program, (tools), and a mouse click (my labor, as required to forge an axe). But if you make laws (I.P. laws) that say I can't copy something, that's an artificial restriction to production, same as the axe example above. Limited by law, not by ability to produce another copy...

Originally Posted by kennyc

I don't necessarily think the laws are perfect either, particularly given the digital world, but the concept behind them is still correct. Right or wrong or even regardless of corruption the Rule of Law is what the country is built on and must follow. If the law is wrong we the people should work to change it. If corruption exists we the people should work to remove it. If the system as a whole isn't working, that's what the 2nd Amendment is for.

Meanwhile, all cheer the status quo. Sorry it was people who didn't cheer, and broke the law, who caused Plessey 1890 to be overturned...

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

...

What does it take to produce a copy of something in the digital world. A source of information (raw materials), a computer and a copying program, (tools), and a mouse click (my labor, as required to forge an axe). But if you make laws (I.P. laws) that say I can't copy something, that's an artificial restriction to production, same as the axe example above. Limited by law, not by ability to produce another copy...



..

The process or raw materials needed are irrelevant. It's the concept that matters.

[cian]

I think there's a need to seperate morality from practicality on this thread. One can argue about what <i>should</i> be all one likes, but unless one can enforce that behaviour (be it through persuasion, cultural codes, legal enforcement or "technology") then its not terribly relevant. For a short period in the C20th publishing largely erradicated piracy. That period is ending. DRM can always be broke, file sharing will mutate to meet the latest attacks. So it doesn't achieve its desired purpose, unless its desired purpose is to get people visiting dubious sites to download "interesting" tools. It may even piss off your customers when they realise 5 years down the line that their color e-ink device will not read any of their old e-books. If people want to share copyrighted materials then they can, unless publishers prevent them from accessing it (tricky if you want to profit from it), or use proprietory formats that can not be reverse engineered (tricky also). The other solutions are so draconian and damaging to wider society (effectively locking down and policing the internet s.t. it no longer will exist in its present form) that hopefully they won't come to pass, or just unlikely to succeed (persuasion, or "education" as the music industry used to call it). And if you think the law can save you...well look at the success of the drug war.

For those who want to profit from writing (and really, most writers do not making a living from writing. If writers are financially motivated, then they're remarkably cheap) will just have to find ways of dealing with this reality. Which sounds harsh, and it is. The current publishing industry will not survive in its current form (it may of course survive in changed forms), simply because its current state exists purely due to the convergence of technology (distribution, retail and the physical nature of books and printing). As those change, it will change (or be replaced by something else) Many people will lose their jobs, but then that's been true in publishing for a long time. Hopefully something will emerge which will be better for readers and writers.

Secondly copyright is a completely artificial right that was created by society. There's nothing innate about it, and if its not enforcable, or not widely respected (and thus ignored), then there's not much that authors can do. The fact its been enforcable up till now is because pirates are largely commercial concerns who can be sued/shut down - and because books are physical objects that cannot be shared easily. That's changed, and its likely that copyright will change due to this, as the impracticailities of its current incarnation become more and more apparent (probably kicking and screaming; and slowly).

Thirdly, the idea that books generally are particularly valuable is kind of dubious. Most books make money in the first couple of years of publication, and most make very little money. Most books make almost no money after a couple of years. Books that do make money after a couple of years do so, <i>despite</i> being freely available (from the perspective of the publisher) in libraries and second hand bookstores. Which is interesting and something publishers should be reflecting on. The value of most second hand books in the UK, incidentally, is quite small now and has been steadily decreasing for a while. Which is also interesting.
Literary authors (including many famousish ones) typically survive on teaching/arts grants, journalism and the like. Many non-fiction books are more useful to the author as publicity (journalism/consulting/repuation), than as a source of income.
And academic publishing is messed up and has been for a long time.

The economics of publishing are weird, not terribly good for many people involved and inefficient. There are quite large warehousing and distribution costs, which ebooks will eliminate. So while piracy <i>may</i> be a problem, it may well be outweighed by the various advantages to publishers and writers of ebooks. I suspect different types of book will see different types of model opening up. We may well see more free books in certain areas. I suspect we'll see a return to the C19th model of installments that you subscribe to. We may see variants on the subscription model of the C18 and C19th century (only with sophisticated searches and social networks), and DRM may be socially acceptable there (much as it is for Cable/satellite TV). We may well see a resurgence of short fiction in places where people commute via public transport. Or essayists. Things will change, which will be fun and interesting.

And I suspect that the way to beat the pirates will be to provide excellent access (good search, lots of material, good meta stuff/community stuff), with prices that are effectively too cheap for <i>most</i> people to quibble about (the price of a magazine -> a cheap novel). The way to beat pirates is to make them redundant to all but the time rich/cash poor. And seriously, who cares about them?

[schex86]

Cian,

Good post, and you hinted at a problem that the current copyright scheme will not be able to solve. Throughout history, there have been many writings, but many, if not most of them, have been forever lost.

What if we had a system of "free-publishing" in which no work of any significance could ever suffer the same fate, because multiple copies were maintained on millions/billions servers throughout the world? Well, we do have such a system, but we have failed to utilize it to its maximum effectiveness by artificially restricting the distribution of information. If this capability had somehow been available throughout history, just think of how quickly mankind could have advanced, and how many questions about the past would have been unequivocally answered, as opposed to the guesswork now employed by modern historians.

If we fail to take advantage of this moment of singularity, I am quite certain our posterity will only be able to shake their heads in wonder at our stupidity.