Confessions of a Book Pirate

[tompe]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Same could be said of most anyone posting here, pirates, republicans, thieves, or vampires.

Yes, but they are not repeating the posts ad nauseum.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Same could be said of most anyone posting here, pirates, republicans, thieves, or vampires.

Maybe even an honest man....

(Guess what movie that line came from...Hint, Sergio Leone)

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by tompe

What? Rights is a moral concept. All all libertarians believe in rights.

You know you're pretty good at intentional topic drift.

Just sayin'

[nekokami]

I think there is an aspect of creation that should be compensated, but I don't think "property" is the right legal construct to describe it. My brain seems to be a bit tired right now. Anyone else want to suggest a better metaphor?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by tompe

Yes, but they are not repeating the posts ad nauseum.

Hmmm, I think I know someone that does that.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by nekokami

I think there is an aspect of creation that should be compensated, but I don't think "property" is the right legal construct to describe it. My brain seems to be a bit tired right now. Anyone else want to suggest a better metaphor?

I think that aspect is exactly where copyright and patent protection came from. This issue as we all know is in changes brought about by digital media and the ease of making perfect copies. The problem is how we manage it and move forward in evolving that laws.

I don't have a better term or metaphor at this point, but my belief is that the product of creativity -- the book or artwork (this same discussion is relevant to digital artwork) etc. is conceptually (and rights-wise) no different than a printed book or painted image.

There is some overlap with photography in that an image is captured on a negative and then can be "reprinted" many times. If we move this in to the digital photography realm then the image file can (as above with other digital media) be copied flawlessly...

[guyanonymous]

A little blast from the past...

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I think that aspect is exactly where copyright and patent protection came from. This issue as we all know is in changes brought about by digital media and the ease of making perfect copies. The problem is how we manage it and move forward in evolving that laws.

I don't have a better term or metaphor at this point, but my belief is that the product of creativity -- the book or artwork (this same discussion is relevant to digital artwork) etc. is conceptually (and rights-wise) no different than a printed book or painted image.

There is some overlap with photography in that an image is captured on a negative and then can be "reprinted" many times. If we move this in to the digital photography realm then the image file can (as above with other digital media) be copied flawlessly...

Kennyc, we can't effectively manage it by treating it under the same rules as the old analog copyright. The underlying reality has changed, and the laws need to change to reflect the new reality, not try to force into the old reality.

[guyanonymous]

Laws don't shape society, society shapes the laws... would that be fair to say?

Laws in place can constrict society, but ultimately they're words on paper that can and do change.

If you want to talk morality - I'd say that, for the most part, laws are defined by a society's moral compass (which can change). Laws don't necessarily change morality. That happens, in my view, with education and exposure to different ideas.

[katysax]

There are a lot of arguments against the proposition that piracy is immoral or wrong. I'm not saying this to justify piracy but as a lawyer who is troubled by the current IP legal regime.

A. The Copyright Laws exceed the Constitutional Authority.

Article I Section 8 | Clause 8 - Patent and Copyright Clause of the Consitution.

[The Congress shall have power] "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

The Copyright laws as currently drafted are seriously problematical in Constitutional terms:

a. They extend the term beyond the life of the author, and
b. They undermine rather than promote the growth of the arts and sciences.

B. The Business Model of the Publishing Industry is Broken, that is the industry's problem, not the responsibility of the general public.

C. Just because the book industry pays a lot of money trumpeting that copying IP is stealing or morally wrong doesn't make it so. Lots of people break all kinds of laws every day (speeding, marijuana, sexual prohibitions, etc) while firmly believing or not caring about the "morality" of the law.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Kennyc, we can't effectively manage it by treating it under the same rules as the old analog copyright. The underlying reality has changed, and the laws need to change to reflect the new reality, not try to force into the old reality.

I never meant to imply anything otherwise. As far as the concept and ideals of what is intended by the law, the same should be true of new media.

I'm not claiming that I know the answer, but that we need to find it.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by guyanonymous

Laws don't shape society, society shapes the laws... would that be fair to say?

Laws in place can constrict society, but ultimately they're words on paper that can and do change.

If you want to talk morality - I'd say that, for the most part, laws are defined by a society's moral compass (which can change). Laws don't necessarily change morality. That happens, in my view, with education and exposure to different ideas.

Not necessarily. Many laws are defined by corporations or individuals that are scripting them to protect themselves. That is exactly what happened with the extensions to the copyright laws with the Disney corporation pushing the changes.

[guyanonymous]

I should have added in a $->laws modifying statement

Sometimes, things take time. Look at the history of marijuana laws in the US...from their initial implementation (arguably at the behest of corporate interests ($) and racial bias (morality of those in power)) to the present (legalization initiatives, an educated public who have become aware of the lies they've been fed AND the societal harm (morality) and costs ($))...it took time, but they're changing again.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by guyanonymous

I should have added in a $->laws modifying statement

Sometimes, things take time. Look at the history of marijuana laws in the US...from their initial implementation (arguably at the behest of corporate interests ($) and racial bias (morality of those in power)) to the present (legalization initiatives, an educated public who have become aware of the lies they've been fed AND the societal harm (morality) and costs ($))...it took time, but they're changing again.

Or the history of the automobile in Great Britain...

[guyanonymous]

I'll have to look into that. I've read some about the laws put in place during it's rise to prominence (getting out at every intersection, honking horns, waving flags, before proceeding) etc. Any suggested starting points?

I've recently read a bit about some of the various trends in the automotive world that were shut down, not because they were bad, but because they didn't fit in the business model of those in charge. And yep - these include the old electric cars which 100 years ago, still got better mileage on a charge than many current models, using hemp as a plastic-like material for the bodies of cars, steam cars, etc. I like some of the out-of-the-box thinking that's returning (though often it's just pulling ideas from the past that got shut-down) like the compressed air vehicles.