Open Source culture to blame for e-book piracy!

[schex86]

Originally Posted by HarryT

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"?

I know these issues may have been answered in other posts, however, I just noticed that the questions were directed to me.

First, the thought that writing books to "aid your fellow men" is "strange" is a recent phenomenon, and the unfortunate consequence of unending attempts by the publishing companies and their beneficiaries to indoctrinate and coerce the general public using any means available. Hence you have the insanity of modern copyright legislation now coupled with the modern propagandist equivalencies of theft and, strangely enough, sea-borne piracy, when all that is really being discussed is the terms of a social contract in its relation to copying.

I would contend that, prior to the advent of large-scale adoption of copyright "protection" for the benefit of the publishing industry, there is, at the very least, a 1:1 ratio (probably much greater) of books that were published, either by hand or with a printing press, which were created with the very "strange" goal of bettering mankind as the primary purpose of their making.

And certainly, this ratio is maintained among the literary classics of all cultures which have stood the test of time. From Aristotle to Sun Tzu, there is a clear indication that authors who earnestly desired to share their thoughts and ideas for the betterment of others, found in writing many levels of fulfillment, all done with financial compensation, apparently, being among the least of their concerns.

So, strange though it may indeed be, this impulse to transmit our ideas throughout our respective societies, is to mankind's great benefit, part of his nature. Man certainly does maintain many strange characteristics when you compare him to other forms of animal phenomena.

Which brings to mind your other question, which was "would I work for "free", and if not, how can I possibly expect others to do so?".

If an author can earn his living through the natural act of expressing his ideas and sharing them with others, then this is a good thing. It provides FURTHER incentive, certainly, to this type of behavior and allows him to become more specialized in his endeavors.

However, I am of the, perhaps, antiquated position that my occupation does not define who I am. In my case, while I serve in the military, and would not, by my own choice, render that service without payment, I would not, on the other hand, expect the public to be forced to pay my salary if, by my actions, I was not providing a service worthy of my hire. If such were the case, I expect that I would, either voluntarily or not, be required to seek an alternative form of employment, which in a free market system would direct me to employers willing to pay for the skills I possessed thereby resulting in a net increase to my nation's economic capital. You notice, this benefit has occurred, even though I could not, at this speculative point claim the "Military" designator.

And I may be way off base here, but IMO, every man, woman, and child who can type on a keyboard or write with a pen is worthy of the designation of "Author", and that this concept is the key to mankind fulfilling its true potential. If you agree, then why focus on the perpetuation of a long obsolete publishing industry? While it of course provides the benefits of "book" distribution, it also harms society with its ridiculous demands of artificial scarcity of information. It insists that only publishers be paid for producing copies, when the reality is that for an ever growing segment of society, copying is free, and such services are no longer required.

Publishers, if faced with an ever shrinking market, should consolidate where necessary and reallocate their capital in a manner beneficial to the societies that produced them in the first place.

[kennyc]

But how do you make your living and do you work for free?

Oh wait, I see:

In my case, while I serve in the military, and would not, by my own choice, render that service without payment,

[HansTWN]

We knew all along, everybody should work for free except him! He probably is a soon to be unemployed soldier who can peddle bootleg DVDs at a street corner. Or maybe he can apply for a job at a publishing house?

Besides, I want to nominate "artificial scarcity" as the official nonword of the century. It is very similar to "Endloesung". Created by a ruthless mind to justify what can never be justified. Not the scarcity is artificial, the abundance is, since only the rights holder can legally make copies.

[Dumas]

Originally Posted by schex86

And I may be way off base here, but IMO, every man, woman, and child who can type on a keyboard or write with a pen is worthy of the designation of "Author", and that this concept is the key to mankind fulfilling its true potential. If you agree, then why focus on the perpetuation of a long obsolete publishing industry? While it of course provides the benefits of "book" distribution, it also harms society with its ridiculous demands of artificial scarcity of information. It insists that only publishers be paid for producing copies, when the reality is that for an ever growing segment of society, copying is free, and such services are no longer required.

Publishers, if faced with an ever shrinking market, should consolidate where necessary and reallocate their capital in a manner beneficial to the societies that produced them in the first place.

I suggest this argument may become more clear if distinctions are clearly made between a work's creation (authorship - phase one) and a works subsequent digital duplication/dissemination (publication - phase two).

Artificial scarcity applies only to phase two, not phase one.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Dumas

I suggest this argument may become more clear if distinctions are clearly made between a work's creation (authorship - phase one) and a works subsequent digital duplication/dissemination (publication - phase two).

Artificial scarcity applies only to phase two, not phase one.

So all works of sane authors would stay at phase one! Seriously, the author's work is his or hers alone. If it is published or not has no impact on his rights -- only if he or she assignes you additional rights by contract. It is just like a physical object. Yes, perfect copies can be created, but they are illegal.

You know how your "solution" sounds? Phase 1, I buy a car. Phase 2 I take it out in public to take a drive and then everyone can legally take it.

[Dumas]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

We knew all along, everybody should work for free except him! He probably is a soon to be unemployed soldier who can peddle bootleg DVDs at a street corner. Or maybe he can apply for a job at a publishing house?

I must have missed this part. Where did schex86 claim that everybody should work for free?

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Besides, I want to nominate "artificial scarcity" as the official nonword of the century. It is very similar to "Endloesung". Created by a ruthless mind to justify what can never be justified. Not the scarcity is artificial, the abundance is, since only the rights holder can legally make copies.

Please elaborate on how you think artificial scarcity is similar to Endloesung.

Your pejorative comments towards schex86 are in poor taste and unproductive to the discussion at hand.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Dumas

I must have missed this part. Where did schex86 claim that everybody should work for free?



Please elaborate on how you think artificial scarcity is similar to Endloesung.

Your pejorative comments towards schex86 are in poor taste and unproductive to the discussion at hand.

I have explainded it. It is a word create by someone, not schex86, to whitewash an activity that is not justifiable. I did not want to imply that the ACTIONS are the same. I just want to make clear that both words were created with that same goal in mind. I see how it could easily be misinterpreted, but I was referring to the motive for creating the word, only. I am not trying to imitate Kaufman .

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Guns4Hire

You keep making all this sense you are going to kill the thread.

Don't worry. Intelligent arguments never deter the lunatics. I'm sure we'll continue to keep having this same discussion over and over on many threads.

[schex86]

Actually, the term you're taking such issue with is composed of 2 words, both with relatively discrete meanings. When combined they create a concept that I found useful, and maybe even a little entertaining, at this point...

But comparing this to Hitler's Final Solution?? I too am struggling with the parallels you presented... "Created by a ruthless mind to justify what can never be justified. Not the scarcity is artificial, the abundance is, since only the rights holder can legally make copies"

I wasn't talking about cloning the master race or anything so crazy, but please, do elaborate...

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by schex86

Actually, the term you're taking such issue with is composed of 2 words, both with relatively discrete meanings. When combined they create a concept that I found useful, and maybe even a little entertaining, at this point...

But comparing this to Hitler's Final Solution?? I too am struggling with the parallels you presented... "Created by a ruthless mind to justify what can never be justified. Not the scarcity is artificial, the abundance is, since only the rights holder can legally make copies"

I wasn't talking about cloning the master race or anything so crazy, but please, do elaborate...

As I said, I had no intent to compare the actions, if anybody misunderstood me, I apologize.

[schex86]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

So all works of sane authors would stay at phase one! Seriously, the author's work is his or hers alone. If it is published or not has no impact on his rights -- only if he or she assignes you additional rights by contract. It is just like a physical object. Yes, perfect copies can be created, but they are illegal.

You know how your "solution" sounds? Phase 1, I buy a car. Phase 2 I take it out in public to take a drive and then everyone can legally take it.

Only if a magic car replicating machine was freely available to everyone else, and the only input they required was your original car, which would be retained by you after the replication process was instantly completed.

And another thing, authors, whether they like it or not, do not have the authority to assign me rights. They, or their legal representatives, can attempt to bind me to contractual obligations, but that is another matter entirely.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by schex86

And another thing, authors, whether they like it or not, do not have the authority to assign me rights. They, or their legal representatives, can attempt to bind me to contractual obligations, but that is another matter entirely.

Yes, they have that right. Because of a little thing called copyright.

[Dumas]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

So all works of sane authors would stay at phase one! Seriously, the author's work is his or hers alone.

If I understand you correctly, then sane authors would only be writing diaries/journals. I'm okay with that, but find it unlikely.

Originally Posted by HansTWN

If it is published or not has no impact on his rights -- only if he or she assignes you additional rights by contract. It is just like a physical object. Yes, perfect copies can be created, but they are illegal.

You might have missed this post by charleski from earlier today re: rights.

Originally Posted by HansTWN

You know how your "solution" sounds? Phase 1, I buy a car. Phase 2 I take it out in public to take a drive and then everyone can legally take it.

I didn't realize I had proposed a "solution". I had attempted to describe a process for the purpose of furthering discourse. I fail to see how your analogy applies to the process I described.

[Dumas]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

I have explainded it. It is a word create by someone, not schex86, to whitewash an activity that is not justifiable. I did not want to imply that the ACTIONS are the same. I just want to make clear that both words were created with that same goal in mind. I see how it could easily be misinterpreted, but I was referring to the motive for creating the word, only. I am not trying to imitate Kaufman .

It might help if you understood the concept of artificial scarcity (link provided again here).

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Dumas

It might help if you understood the concept of artificial scarcity (link provided again here).

I have read the definition before, thank you. The point being is that the abundance created by third parties who have no right to do so is artificial. The expression "artificial scarcity" was created to make people think that copies should naturally be free and the rights holders somehow "wronged" the public by withholding them. This, of course, turns reality on its head. The rights holders are the only ones who can make legal copies. But technological advances have enabled unscrupulous people to make perfect, but illegal copies, thereby creating artificial abundance. Therefore the expression is a deliberate attempt to mislead.