Open Source culture to blame for e-book piracy!

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by kennyc

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

What concept? The concept that we, as a society, granted certain limited privileges to a group of people, in return for getting the results of those privileges for free to the society that granted the privileges in the first place, after the limit was up?

Because that was the deal. It wasn't to create a new perpetual aristocracy.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by kennyc

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

We're not talking about something that is physically unique which you have created. What we're really talking about here is ownership of an idea. No such right exists. You can not own an idea or prevent others from using it, except for what copyright grants you.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

We're not talking about something that is physically unique which you have created. What we're really talking about here is ownership of an idea. No such right exists. You can not own an idea or prevent others from using it, except for what copyright grants you.

A book is not an idea, but a concrete expression of that idea. "A boy discovers that he is a wizard and goes to a wizard school" is an idea which cannot be protected; "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" is a specific implementation of that idea which can be protected. It doesn't prevent anyone else from writing books about boy wizards, but it does prevent anyone from copying that specific, concrete implementation of the idea without the author's permission.

[neilmarr]

And don't overlook trademarking. Neil

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by neilmarr

And don't overlook trademarking. Neil

Certainly. But trademarks have traditionally been "use it or lose it". They aren't for use + 70 years.....

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

A book is not an idea, but a concrete expression of that idea. "A boy discovers that he is a wizard and goes to a wizard school" is an idea which cannot be protected; "Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone" is a specific implementation of that idea which can be protected. It doesn't prevent anyone else from writing books about boy wizards, but it does prevent anyone from copying that specific, concrete implementation of the idea without the author's permission.

Of course a book is an idea, it's just a very specific one. You're talking about what is protected by current laws, not what inherent ownership of an idea means. You don't think that two people could independently come up with the same specific idea? The odds are low, but there's nothing that would prevent it from happening.

Can two musicians write the exact same song, two authors write the exact same book, two inventors invent the exact same thing? Absolutely. Who owns it? Laws say that the first to register the patent/trademark/copyright would own it, but there's not an inherent right that would say one person would own it over another.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by markbot

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.

Okay, I know Pirates, especially down by Somalia, are costing the world economy about $15 billion a year but I think that view is a little strong.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

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

If you sell your work to me there is no inherent right for you to forbid me to do whatever I want with what you sold me.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by tompe

If you sell your work to me there is no inherent right for you to forbid me to do whatever I want with what you sold me.

Yes there is, that's what the laws are about or did you forget about that li'l legality thing?

[Krystian Galaj]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Yes there is, that's what the laws are about or did you forget about that li'l legality thing?

If you're talking about something "inherent", don't mention laws.

As long as the idea is in your head, it's yours. When it's out, it belongs to everyone it reached.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Yes there is, that's what the laws are about or did you forget about that li'l legality thing?

Exhaustion of rights.

You were saying? No, you sold it to me, now go away.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by tompe

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.

Originally Posted by tompe

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.

Ok, so what you really meant to say was that by the definition of "rights" that you personally believe in, one does not have any right to attempt to earn a living from ones creative output.

Got it.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by schex86

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.

Yes, very true.

And people used to live in tribes and share everything. Then later on kings ruled the world and effectively owned everything and everyone had to pay almost everything they had in taxes or be hung. Then along came capitalism and democracy and the concept of personal property. With that came the idea of earning a living doing what one likes.

Times have changed have they not? So why continue to argue from a concept and viewpoint rooted 200 years in the past? As so many argue regarding the publishers and the old way of business........times have changed and we all must change with them.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

If you're talking about something "inherent", don't mention laws.

As long as the idea is in your head, it's yours. When it's out, it belongs to everyone it reached.

Wrong. That's what law and morality and society are all about. How we get along, how we share things and how we work together.

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by schex86

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.

In Ben Franklin's autobiography he talks about a stove design that he developed. He was told that he could make a lot of money by creating a patent on it but decided not to. He was upset that someone in Britain created a patent from a modified design and made a lot of money but upon reflection still felt he made the correct decision.

To quote from his autobiography...

ﾠIn order of time, I should have mentioned before, that having, in 1742, invented an open stove for the better warming of rooms, and at the same time saving fuel, as the fresh air admitted was warmed in entering, I made a present of the model to Mr. Robert Grace, one of my early friends, who, having an iron-furnace, found the casting of the plates for these stoves a profitable thing, as they were growing in demand. To promote that demand, I wrote and published a pamphlet, entitled "An Account of the new-invented Pennsylvania Fireplaces; wherein their Construction and Manner of Operation is particularly explained; their Advantages above every other Method of warming Rooms demonstrated; and all Objections that have been raised against the Use of them answered and obviated," etc. This pamphlet had a good effect. Gov'r. Thomas was so pleas'd with the construction of this stove, as described in it, that he offered to give me a patent for the sole vending of them for a term of years; but I declin'd it from a principle which has ever weighed with me on such occasions, viz., That, as we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours; and this we should do freely and generously.
ﾠ
ﾠﾠAn ironmonger in London however, assuming a good deal of my pamphlet, and working it up into his own, and making some small changes in the machine, which rather hurt its operation, got a patent for it there, and made, as I was told, a little fortune by it. And this is not the only instance of patents taken out for my inventions by others, tho' not always with the same success, which I never contested, as having no desire of profiting by patents myself, and hating disputes. The use of these fireplaces in very many houses, both of this and the neighbouring colonies, has been, and is, a great saving of wood to the inhabitants.
ﾠ

Sherman Alexie could have said, “With the Ben Franklin culture on the Internet the idea of intellectual property ownership goes away. It terrifies me.”

Slashdot would have ignored him then but it probably wouldn't have made the impact he was going for.