Open Source culture to blame for e-book piracy!

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by cian

Libraries happened long before modern ideas about intellectual property really existed,

Not really. Public libraries were introduced in the UK during the 1850s, and copyright law at that time was pretty similar to what it is today; the copyright terms were shorter, but the fundamental concepts were the same. Britain was the world's leading industrial nation at the time, and it was the middle of the industrial revolution, so IP law, especially when it came to things like patents - was highly developed and extremely important. Read Dickens' "Little Dorrit" (published between 1855 and 1857) for a very amusing description of the complexity of English IP law at that time.

[cian]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Not really. Public libraries were introduced in the UK during the 1850s, and copyright law at that time was pretty similar to what it is today; the copyright terms were shorter, but the fundamental concepts were the same. Britain was the world's leading industrial nation at the time, and it was the middle of the industrial revolution, so IP law, especially when it came to things like patents - was highly developed and extremely important. Read Dickens' "Little Dorrit" (published between 1855 and 1857) for a very amusing description of the complexity of English IP law at that time.

Actually the first public libraries were opened in the early C17th. Bristol had one, and Manchester claims (falsely, probably) to have had the first in the 1650s. What you're referring to is the Public Libraries Act of the 1850s, but there were over 200 subscription libraries (some of which were widely accessed by the working man, and were intended for that purpose) in England, and about the same in Scotland. The Public libraries act made membership free, but that's more a matter of public funding, than anything to do with fundamental lending/borrowing rights. Many of the earlier libraries were owned and run by towns, even if membership was not free.

A similar thing happened in the US, which had much looser IP rights.

Incidentally, I think the money on lending books applies only to municipal libraries. If you borrow a book from a private library (which includes university ones), the author gets nothing.

[veysey]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

Piracy is stealing. It is unethical, immoral, and illegal. A crook’s a crook, and a low-life’s a low-life. Theiving, criminally-minded scum are the reason the rest of us are forced to contend with the evils of DRM.

I really can't see what piracy has to do with DRM. Guys in boats off Somalia? Big non-sequitor. I think you mean COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT, which, come to think of it is not stealing or theft. It's COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT. Different laws, you see?

Secondly, I think you can make a strong argument that "theiving [sic], criminally minded scum" are the reason we can now buy DRM-free mp3s at Amazon, Itunes, etc. Unless the "scum" refers to (eg) music company execs (payola, etc), you may have it backward.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by veysey

I really can't see what piracy has to do with DRM. Guys in boats off Somalia? Big non-sequitor.

Are you really unaware of the fact that "piracy" is the popular expression used to refer to the activity of unlawfully copyright copyrighted material, whatever other meaning the word may have? I'm sure you're not, so why try to pretend otherwise?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Are you really unaware of the fact that "piracy" is the popular expression used to refer to the activity of unlawfully copyright copyrighted material, whatever other meaning the word may have? I'm sure you're not, so why try to pretend otherwise?

It was obvious why. The text that was commented pretended that "piracy (copyright infringement) is stealing". So it was a natural reaction.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by cian

Actually the first public libraries were opened in the early C17th. Bristol had one, and Manchester claims (falsely, probably) to have had the first in the 1650s. What you're referring to is the Public Libraries Act of the 1850s, but there were over 200 subscription libraries (some of which were widely accessed by the working man, and were intended for that purpose) in England, and about the same in Scotland. The Public libraries act made membership free, but that's more a matter of public funding, than anything to do with fundamental lending/borrowing rights. Many of the earlier libraries were owned and run by towns, even if membership was not free.

Yes, thanks, I was aware of that . I used the term "public library" to mean a library that was free to use, as opposed to a subscription library which (obviously) one had to pay for. One might very reasonably say that it was the mass opening of public libraries after the 1850 Public Libraries Act which brought reading to the masses, since books were, at the time, extremely expensive. It was also, of course, the primary reason for the traditional 3 volume format of the Victorian novel - libraries were the biggest buyer of them, and the 3 volume format meant that 3 readers could be reading the same book simultaneously.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by tompe

It was obvious why. The text that was commented pretended that "piracy (copyright infringement) is stealing". So it was a natural reaction.

It is.

[veysey]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Are you really unaware of the fact that "piracy" is the popular expression used to refer to the activity of unlawfully copyright copyrighted material, whatever other meaning the word may have? I'm sure you're not, so why try to pretend otherwise?

Sure, and that's really the point of my post. As you state, piracy in this context is not theft. It's the unlawful duplication of copyrighted material. Material theft of a finite good is not legally equivalent to copyright infringement. The original poster goes beyond the use of the generic term "piracy" and brings theft into it, further reinforcing this implied equivalence, and leading to my need to respond.

I chose to point out this factual inaccuracy through sarcasm, as you are probably aware.

Words are weapons, and buying into the rhetoric of one side or the other undermines our ability to have meaningful discussions of right and wrong, of illegal and legal. And those are important discussions, since copyright is a balance of liberties and incentives between creators and broader society. We all have a stake, since the collective act of granting or extending copyright also infringes on the liberties of each and every one of us.

Not saying that limited copyright is wrong, but I am saying that I'm as entitled as anyone to care deeply about rhetoric that equates theft and copyright infringement. These words have real impacts that are played out in politics and government. Sadly, the fact that the word "piracy", as you say, has been misappropriated to refer to copyright infringement has certainly contributed to a number of laws that take away rights from all of us.

In fairness to the OP, I must also commend him or her for a number of thoughtful subsequent comments on the issue.

[cian]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes, thanks, I was aware of that . I used the term "public library" to mean a library that was free to use, as opposed to a subscription library which (obviously) one had to pay for. One might very reasonably say that it was the mass opening of public libraries after the 1850 Public Libraries Act which brought reading to the masses, since books were, at the time, extremely expensive. It was also, of course, the primary reason for the traditional 3 volume format of the Victorian novel - libraries were the biggest buyer of them, and the 3 volume format meant that 3 readers could be reading the same book simultaneously.

Okay, but I was talking about libraries. And prior to the 1850s, there were libraries in existence that ordinary people could (and did) access. From memory, some of these were run/operated by working mens organisations of some kind. I'm really operating from quite an old memory here, but I think one of the reasons given for public libraries is that it would provide a control on the kinds of books that working people read/accessed (the idea being it would be less dangerous than the kinds of subversive material, or low-brow material, that was otherwise available). There were a couple of others that were run as charities, for which I don't think subscriptions were required. I could be wrong on that though.

In the US there non-subscription libraries available prior to the 1850s.

[cian]

Piracy isn't stealing. You can make an argument for it being wrong, or illegal, but I think an argument for being "theft" as strictly defined is much harder. And I think that matters for both sides. For the side against "piracy", calling it theft devalues their argument as an awful lot of people don't see it as theft unless somebody is deprived of something, that the thief gained. These people need to work more strongly on defining "why it is wrong" and making that case. Simply trying to extend social taboos to new types of activity won't work.

[cian]

You know, I'm yet to meet, read about, hear about or in any other way come to know about any author who writes a book soley for a financial incentive. I know about many who hope and dream and attempt to gain financially from their writing but none who write solely for financial gain. Do you see the difference?

And yet, even it there is one,(and if you know of one could you please point them out for the sake of the argument) that is their prerogative. If it goes so against your beliefs for them to do that then by all means don't buy their book.

I'm not sure this is the killer argument that you think it is. Author's wishes for their works are overriden all the time. Sometimes legally, sometimes illegally (but universally). So for example, in the UK timeshifting is illegal, but everyone does it. Making archive copies of movies shown on TV and keeping them is definitely illegal, but its also universal.

For years we've been told that copying music (tapes, CD-Rs and now MP3s) and given them to friends/family is illegal. Its also pretty universal. The moral argument, if there is one, has made no traction, indeed is seen as risible (anybody British remember the derision with which "Home Taping is Killing Music" was treated?). Region coding on DVDs is seen as an irritant, that moderately sophisticated people buy players to get round, despite this also being quasi-legal. Anecdotally, backing up DVDs is seen as perfectly acceptable, despite this also being technically illegal and requiring special software. Photocopying is a very limited right, that is routinely flouted.

So illegal flouting of the authors intentions is fairly routine, and socially seen as okay.

Legal flouting also happens. I'm sure some authors, if given the choice, would prevent their books from being available in public libraries. Not an option. Many authors would love to ban the sale of second hand books, as would publishers (and with DRM may, at least in their minds, get their wish). They receive nothing from these sales. They used to be an irritant, but has now become competition thanks to first the internet, and now Amazon selling second hand copies on the same page as the new copies. A couple of years ago some publishers tried to pressure Amazon to stop this practice, with little success. If publishers could control what you could do with books, second hand books would disappear, and this is probably one of the intents of DRM.

Society has granted authors certain rights, but society could equally renounce those. There's no natural right there, and they only exist to the extent that they're enforcable. So far the evidence suggests they're not enforcable in the private space, and people largely see them as only applicable to the commercial space. On the other hand I think most people see commercial piracy as wrong, even those who might buy the odd cheap DVD from a market stall feel they probably shouldn't. That's crossing a boundary that doesn't seem to exist for other forms of copying/sharing. Socially, there seems to be a consensus that commercial copying (For profit) is wrong, and amateur/social copying is okay. And laws, and technologies, that go against that are probably doomed to fail one way (being flouted/bypassed), or another (the technology is ignored/not bought).

What's changed in recent years is that networks have made it much easier to share, and technology has made copying painless and free. And so these informal ideas about sharing have extended into a wider space. So now you can share MP3s on blogs, put videos on youtube, articles on your website. You could do all these things before, but it was harder and with a much smaller network of people known to you personally. This is all illegal, but most people (because they don't profit from it, and do it simply for the love of the thing) don't see it that way. And that is unlikely to change. People like to share the things they love with the world, which is actually a good instinct. Telling people that they're stealing when they do this isn't going to work, because they don't feel like thieves.

New technologies change social practices, together with what's seen as acceptable. And publishers are going to have to deal with that. People talk as if its a total loss for publishers/authors, but I don't think that's true. And I think publishers have, along with music industry, damaged their moral case by overreaching with the technology. DRM damages them because it reduces what you can do with media, at a time when technology increases the possibilities. Telling people there's an (effective) time limit on how long you can listen to your music (X media players) is insane, when people have record collections going back years. Preventing them from sharing with friends, when this is what they've done for years, is simply not going to work. Yes they will lose to piracy, but they've lost revenues to second hand book stores, remainder stores, private lending and libraries for years. Somehow they survived. There may be more sharing with digital culture, but there will also be reduced overheads, less commercial competition (no more second hand book stores) and much easier promotion. There will be new forms of revenue (renting, subscriptions), and people with money will be quite happy to pay reasonable amounts for convenient access and high quality. And the quicker publishers act to give people what they want, the less time amateur piracy will have to become socially acceptable.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

A library is an advertisement for the author/publisher. And they decide if they want to sell to libraries or not.

No, they certainly do not "decide". Library lending is an explicit exemption in copyright laws in the vast majority of countries, and libraries are as entitled as anyone to purchase books!


PKFFW - No, again, there are less than 30 countries with any form of "public lending right". In the vast majority of countries, it's a plain loss, and most PLR's are heavily capped and only pay authors with citizenship in that country.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by veysey

Sure, and that's really the point of my post. As you state, piracy in this context is not theft. It's the unlawful duplication of copyrighted material. Material theft of a finite good is not legally equivalent to copyright infringement. The original poster goes beyond the use of the generic term "piracy" and brings theft into it, further reinforcing this implied equivalence, and leading to my need to respond.

That's very true but, if we're being accurate about the meaning of words, what the chaps in Somalia are doing isn't piracy either, or theft. Piracy is "robbery at sea". The Somali "pirates" kidnap ships and their crews and hold them to ransom. That is not, technically speaking, piracy. Nor is it theft, since there is no intention to permanently deprive the owner of their property, but merely to remand the payment of a ransom for its return. It's kidnapping.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by veysey

Sure, and that's really the point of my post. As you state, piracy in this context is not theft. .....

Only in a strictly legal sense as currently defined. It is theft, it is theft of intellectual property. It is wrong, it's a crime, and immoral as well depending on the specifics.

[DawnFalcon]

Theft requires deprivation. Copying an ebook does not deprive. It's not theft, it's not piracy, it's unauthorised copying. It's a civil offence.