Open Source culture to blame for e-book piracy!

[cian]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Do you not think that laws (many laws, any way) are simply a legal codification of moral principles? Most people obey the law because they believe it's "right" to do so, I suspect, not because they fear the punishment if they are caught breaking it.

I think it depends upon the law. Speeding laws for example? Did you ever make a mixtape for someone? Drug laws?

[HarryT]

Certainly it depends upon the law, yes. Speeding laws? That's a dubious example to use. Doing 80mph on an empty motorway harms nobody. Doing 80mph along a road with a primary school on it, while the children are coming out of school, is obviously exceedingly dangerous and should be severely punished.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by cian

I think it depends upon the law. Speeding laws for example? Did you ever make a mixtape for someone? Drug laws?

Originally Posted by HarryT

Certainly it depends upon the law, yes. Speeding laws? That's a dubious example to use. Doing 80mph on an empty motorway harms nobody. Doing 80mph along a road with a primary school on it, while the children are coming out of school, is obviously exceedingly dangerous and should be severely punished.

Laws which can be broken without any wrong to one's neighbor are counted but a laughing stock; and so far from such laws restraining the appetites and lusts of mankind, they rather strengthen them. Nitimur in vetitum semper, cupimusque negata ["We always resist prohibitions, and yearn for what is denied us."]
— Baruch Spinoza (1623-1677), Dutch philosopher. Tractatus Politicus, ch. 10.

[balok]

Originally Posted by ttf

Your decision. It's against the contract and you know it.

Legally speaking, I would like to set things straight. First of all, breaking a contract doesn't make anyone a criminal. Secondly, there are limits to what you can put in a contract, especially when dealing with consumers. It is doubtful that such a contract can keep you from reselling the ebook you "bought." Big companies regularly put all kinds of abusive terms in their contracts and consumers follow them eyes closed. What makes a term or condition abusive, and thus illegal, depends largely upon the perception ordinary people. If you bought a paper book in a bookstore and read on the back of your receipt that as a condition to the sale you cannot resell the book, you would see that as absurd and wouldn't take it seriously. The same applies to ebooks.

However the direct way to fight it is not to buy it.
Plus, of course, the "classic" political ways to influence law making.

Damn right. Those are the two most effective ways of fighting DRM and abusive contracts that purport to keep consumers from reselling ebooks.

[cian]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Certainly it depends upon the law, yes. Speeding laws? That's a dubious example to use. Doing 80mph on an empty motorway harms nobody. Doing 80mph along a road with a primary school on it, while the children are coming out of school, is obviously exceedingly dangerous and should be severely punished.

I wasn't discussing the morality, merely making the point that people don't necessarily behave in the way that you suggest. Those are all laws that are routinely flouted.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by cian

I wasn't discussing the morality, merely making the point that people don't necessarily behave in the way that you suggest. Those are all laws that are routinely flouted.

Certainly, but it doesn't alter the point I was making. You said that you felt that people did not respect the moral rights of an author, but only their legal rights. I believe that the primary motivation for most people, when deciding how to act, is "moral" rather than legal. We obey laws because we think they are "right"; we may choose to ignore a law because we feel it to be "wrong".

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Do you not think that laws (many laws, any way) are simply a legal codification of moral principles? Most people obey the law because they believe it's "right" to do so, I suspect, not because they fear the punishment if they are caught breaking it.

Of course, the problem is that when laws are written that do not reflect what the majority of people consider moral principles, they are routinely ignored. Look at how many people speed. Most people don't obey the speed limit, but rather drive at a speed that they feel is reasonably safe.

One of the major unintentional side effects to the current copyright laws is that many people do not consider them fair. Copyright is a compromise between giving people access to various artistic works, such as books and movies, with making sure that the artist is compensated in order to encourage more works in the future. Copyright laws have been tilted so far in the favor of compensating artists (or the corporations that buy the rights to those works) that the compromise has been lost.

I would say that most people don't think that it's wrong to want to listen to music that you have purchased on any device that you may have, but the music industry would much rather force you to buy a copy for each device. The same for movies and books.

The issue that is going to really zap content providers is that the main thing that prevents real rampant piracy, the stuff that goes on in China and Africa rather than the trickle that the media companies are currently point at in the US and Europe, is the general moral consensus that it's the wrong thing to do. That moral consensus is starting to fade in the younger generation and if that spreads, then the media companies will reap the whirlwind.

If that happens, we will still have the arts, after all, copyright is a very recent invention (around 200+ years with rigid enforcement only over the last 40 years or so) and the arts have been around for thousands of years. The artists will simply have a different model for getting compensated. On the other hand, if the media companies start trusting their customers a bit and make it easy to purchase and use content in a manner that the customer wants to use the content be it ebooks, movies or music, then they can continue to make money and everyone will be happy.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

...The artists will simply have a different model for getting compensated. ....

So you wanna explain the details of what that might be, how it might work?

[cian]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Certainly, but it doesn't alter the point I was making. You said that you felt that people did not respect the moral rights of an author, but only their legal rights. I believe that the primary motivation for most people, when deciding how to act, is "moral" rather than legal. We obey laws because we think they are "right"; we may choose to ignore a law because we feel it to be "wrong".

I really don't think you can generalise in that way.

To take an example. Some people obey the speeding laws because they think its the right thing to do (I'm one of them). A lot of others obey it because they don't want to get points on their license, or a ticket. I've noticed that in areas where its aggressively enforced, compliance is far greater. Drink Drive laws are similar. However here there was also a cultural change caused by education/social pressure.

Other laws have structural effects. I'm sure some people obey the drug laws simply because they make it sufficiently inconvenient to acquire drugs compared to alcohol.

In the case of copyright law, where it has been trivial to violate people have done (mix tapes, photocopying articles). Where it was harder (entire books) they haven't. There seems to be considerable confusion as to whether copying is stealing (attachment to physical object, other information contained) or borrowing (physical object is only a container for information contained within). I suspect borrowing will win out as older people die out.

[cian]

So you wanna explain the details of what that might be, how it might work?

Predicting the future is a mug's game. Who would have predicted the eventual model(s) of the motion picture industry in 1895?

I can suggest a solution. Legal laws creating the concept of an e-library. Such institutions are regulated, have to keep records of what is borrowed and compensate authors for each time a book is borrowed (which would probably have to connect in some fashion to the typical retail price on the high street when borrowed). More than what libraries currently give them, possibly with some maximum limit (ideally the limit would be defined by the number of members of a library). These books have to have some form of DRM on them (for practical purposes it doesn't matter how good it is, of if its cracked. Most people won't bother, any more than they steal library books). If publishers sell books in a region in any format (paper, electronic, doesn't matter) they cannot prevent libraries from lending their e-books.

You'd also need to allow publishers to negotiate more favorable terms (to libraries) if they so wished, to allow for alternative business models to evolve.

Then at the same time you aggressively persecute illegal filesharing and filesharing sites. Even if the risk is low of being caught, most people aren't going to take it if there's a good enough alternative out there.

[random50]

Originally Posted by cian

I'm not sure that necessarily follows. The quality of the best science blogs is very high indeed, as is the quality of the best financial/economic blogs. And in terms of quantity...

I agree it's not a given, but I'm not sure this is a great example. First, the quality taken as a whole is pretty mind-numbingly awful. Second, isn't the main driver in the explosion of blogging of all kinds the financial incentives? OK, only a tiny proportion become financially viable, but believing their creation will rise above the masses is a common blogger's delusion.

Without the potential ability to cash in, I don't think we'd be seeing anywhere near as many of these things.

[cian]

Originally Posted by random50

I agree it's not a given, but I'm not sure this is a great example. First, the quality taken as a whole is pretty mind-numbingly awful. Second, isn't the main driver in the explosion of blogging of all kinds the financial incentives? OK, only a tiny proportion become financially viable, but believing their creation will rise above the masses is a common blogger's delusion.

Without the potential ability to cash in, I don't think we'd be seeing anywhere near as many of these things.

1) The quality as a whole is pretty awful, but that's okay because most blogs aren't read. The best science and financial blogs are very good indeed, and are widely read. Many of the science blogs are written by scientists purely to educate. The cream seems to rise to the top, despite the predictions to the contrary. There has been a trend, which is wonderful when you think about it, for experts to write on their area of expertise simply for the love of it.

2) I don't think the vast majority of blogs are written out of financial expectations, at least directly (possibly in terms of exposure, career advancement, consulting, speaking engagements, etc). I certainly see no evidence for this, though maybe that just reflects my personal tastes.

[cian]

I just want to kind of state where I'm coming from personally.
My own take on the problem of authors/copyright is that its a pragmatic problem. What we want is a way to maximise the availability of "stuff", while making it possible to make a reasonable (with respect to demand) income. There's never going to be a perfect solution to this.

With regards to e-books, what you have is a wonderful opportunity. Access to e-books is practically unlimited. The problem is how can you provide incentives to authors, without damaging too much the wonderful possibilities of new technologies (and they are wonderful, just as the equally frightening printing press was wonderful). So far, everything authors and publishers have suggested would simply reduce the possibilities with regards to existing technologies (dead tree books). Not only do I think that is practically impossible, but the loss to society has a whole would massively outweigh the benefits. The existing system is (or was. Existing copyright lengths are insane) a reasonable system for what it existed for the last 100 years. I think a new system is needed to reflect technological, and the inevitable social, changes to come.

[random50]

It was the quality on average I was referring to. I'm much less convinced about the quality side of the argument anyway, aside from in relatively trivial ways such as typos.

The quantity side seems straightforward. If you remove the ability to profit from a labour intensive activity, you're surely certain to see less output, simply because the creators will have to spend their time on other things to earn a living. This is not so relevant to blogs, by the way, because whilst they may be time consuming to keep running, the initial creation of the blog and the creation of each article is a short project. This also makes them much easier to create from a psychological point of view than books, film, art, etc.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Do you not think that laws (many laws, any way) are simply a legal codification of moral principles? Most people obey the law because they believe it's "right" to do so, I suspect, not because they fear the punishment if they are caught breaking it.

Most laws in the last several centuries have been written to advantage a particular group over another, either economically or socially. Most of what you consider legal codification of moral principles had been done long before that....