The $15 Boycott: Will you be participating?

[llreader]

Originally Posted by kennyc

I believe everything you said above is correct in a legal sense. I also despise DRM and think it violates my right to backup and view the product in the manner I desire on the display device I prefer. But I also believe that authors should be compensated fairly for my purchase of the book. And I do purchase legally all the books I own and read.

On this we agree. On both counts, actually, I don't promote pirating books, I just think we need to keep things in perspective.

One interesting question is, if copying is violating copyright, and DRM (and the DMCA) are violating fair use, why is one declared a criminal offense and the subject of a massive PR campaign, while the other is enshrined into law?

That is just a rhetorical question - the reason is that there are powerful moneyed interests behind the control of content, and very few people standing up for the rights of regular people.

I think we all want to see a fair system of compensation for creative artists, but I also think we would like it to be done in such a way that those very same artists that we enjoy and admire don't become the pawns of powerful corporations that ultimately don't have their (or our) best interests in mind.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by llreader

On this we agree. On both counts, actually, I don't promote pirating books, I just think we need to keep things in perspective.

One interesting question is, if copying is violating copyright, and DRM (and the DMCA) are violating fair use, why is one declared a criminal offense and the subject of a massive PR campaign, while the other is enshrined into law?

That is just a rhetorical question - the reason is that there are powerful moneyed interests behind the control of content, and very few people standing up for the rights of regular people.

I think we all want to see a fair system of compensation for creative artists, but I also think we would like it to be done in such a way that those very same artists that we enjoy and admire don't become the pawns of powerful corporations that ultimately don't have their (or our) best interests in mind.

Very good point(s).

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by cmdahler

If I write a book and you want to read it, you can pay me what I want for it or you can do without.

Or I can borrow it from a friend. Or buy a used copy. Or even stand in the store and read it. And as much as that might piss you off, and as entitled as you may feel, you can live with it or...well, you can live with it. I guess you could join the Author's Guild's Sisyphean campaign against used book sales, but don't expect anything but laughter from the audience when the rock rolls over you again on its way downhill.

This has nothing in particular to do with file-sharing as such. Just pointing out that 'you can pay me what I want for it or you can do without' isn't a realistic position to start from. Well, unless you want to start pushing for legislation to criminalize used-book dealers.

[llreader]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Very good point(s).

Thanks!

I wasn't trying to get on your case, and I know what you are trying to get at when you talk about "theft", but I think we need to be careful with words, because these kinds of terms have been used to try to stampede people into a situation that is unfair, with the reasoning that, if it is really theft, then you have to protect your property.

What is really going on is that there is a transaction in which all parties have certain rights, stipulated by law, contracts, and custom. In the current situation, the rights of one of the parties (the end consumer) are being squeezed out based on a misrepresentation of the transaction, in order to give an unfair advantage to another party (the middleman - record label, publisher, etc.) in the name of protecting the "intellectual property" of the people who originally created the works (and who always seem to get the shaft, no matter how many new powers the middlemen get).

In any case, the discussion has helped me understand much better what makes me uncomfortable about this situation. So, thanks again!

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by kennyc

semantics.

It's against the law, it's amoral, it's wrong.

End of story.

Semantics is the study of meaning. Meaning is important. Apparently, you intend the statement "semantics" to mean exactly the opposite, namely, "mere quibbling."

In addressing copyright law, and deciding what's "against the law," semantics are of the essence.

First of all, under the law, mere copying of a book which is copyrighted is NOT a copyright violation if, for example, you own the original of the book, and keep the photocopy for your own use.

Secondly, copying of portions of a book for certain specified uses does not violate copyright, even if the copies are given to other people.

Thirdly, copyright infringement in and of itself is not a criminal violation, but rather, a civil violation.

Finally, whether copyright infringement is criminal depends on some very strict definitions, including what is done with the copy that is made, and who is doing the act.

I take it that you believe that copyright violation is "wrong" if it violates either the criminal or civil aspects of the copyright law. I would agree with you, except for this:

People who have not actually read and understood copyright law have an overdetermined idea of when a civil violation actually has occurred. They also tend to confuse civil violations with criminal violations.

So they confuse legitimate copying with infringement, and infringement with criminal violation, and we are off to the races.

I think that what you are really trying to argue is that certain acts are immoral even if NOT prohibited by the copyright act. The copyright act does not prohibit me from accepting a photocopy of a book from you. It does not punish me, nor can I be sued for infringement, for the simple reason that mere possession is not infringement. Note that this would be the same result if you gave me a digital file of the book. YOU could be in violation, but not me.

But I gather that you would say that my possession of the copy (digital or otherwise) is itself immoral.

Am I right about what your position would be? Can you defend it without relying on copyright, because if that's all you are relying on, you lose.

EDIT: I just read your post:

Originally Posted by kennyc

Where this whole discussion gets me going is when someone knowingly acquires a book illegally (i.e. without purchasing it through the normal channels). They fully well know that it is not right, that the author owns the rights and makes a living from selling the books. They KNOW they are doing wrong, yet they make up reasons and excuses to support their behavior. To me this is clearly morally wrong.

It's not illegal to acquire books without purchasing them through normal channels. It IS illegal to sell books without permission of the copyright owner. It may or may not be illegal to purchase books being sold without the permission of the copyright owner.

I think your fundamental argument - which is greater than a question of law - is embodied in the statement about the author's economic activities, for which he is entitled to be fairly compensated. That is a much deeper argument than an argument based on what copyright law says. It is an argument not about what copyright law is, but about what copyright law "should be."

Personally, and without regard for the practical accounting questions, I think that the European idea that the creator should get a slice of the pie for every sale and resale of the artistic creation, is the morally correct answer.

[Ben Thornton]

Re the OP, I put "Other" because the recent spat over Macmillan is not what prevents me from buying eBooks. What irks me is (1) geographical differences in pricing and availability and (2) the relative price of a physical book.

So, I'd pay more than $15 if that was the going rate (i.e. the physical book was a bit more) and it wasn't falsely cheaper somewhere else (i.e. I wasn't paying a massively inflated rate due to geographical restrictions).

It's when I feel that I'm being ripped off that I won't buy the book (or, obviously, if I don't value it enough to pay the price in an absolute sense).

Re the main (off!)topic, I'm surprised at how vehemently some people seem to react against the idea of any illegal copying at all. As many have pointed out, whether something is wrong is a matter of social consensus Some people seem to think that there is a social consensus that illegal copying, for any reason, is wrong. That isn't my experience of people's attitudes at all. Most people that I know and have known wouldn't think anything wrong about having some cassette tapes of vinyl albums, keeping videos recorded off the telly, swapping some mp3 files etc. My point here is not that it is morally right or wrong, but rather that I don't think that the social consensus is that any illegal copying is bad. My experience is that the majority of people infringe copyright on a regular basis and think nothing of it.

FWIW, I don't feel that I've done anything wrong if I illegally obtain a copy of a book that I've got physically, or that I can't find electronically, or even from a major author that I want to try out. It's not that I don't want to pay for books - I've bought several ebooks and will continue to do so. But, as with music, although I've bought hundreds and hundreds of CDs, I'll occasionally copy some too.

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by llreader

One interesting question is, if copying is violating copyright, and DRM (and the DMCA) are violating fair use, why is one declared a criminal offense and the subject of a massive PR campaign, while the other is enshrined into law?

Also because US courts have ruled that 'fair use' doesn't actually include, y'know. Fair use. At least not as understood by mere humans. IANAL, but see Universal City Studios v. Corley, on DVDs:

We know of no authority for the proposition that fair use, as protected by the Copyright Act, much less the Constitution, guarantees copying by the optimum method or in the identical format of the original. Although the Appellants insisted at oral argument that they should not be relegated to a “horse and buggy” technique in making fair use of DVD movies, the DMCA does not impose even an arguable limitation on the opportunity to make a variety of traditional fair uses of DVD movies, such as commenting on their content, quoting excerpts from their screenplays, and even recording portions of the video images and sounds on film or tape by pointing a camera, a camcorder, or a microphone at a monitor as it displays the DVD movie. The fact that the resulting copy will not be as perfect or as manipulable as a digital copy obtained by having direct access to the DVD movie in its digital form, provides no basis for a claim of unconstitutional limitation of fair use.

See also United States. v. Elcom, which dealt specifically with e-books, in which the judge decided that:

...the DMCA does not eliminate fair use, although it might make it less convenient.

Also Atari vs. Nintendo:

since “to invoke the fair use exception, an individual must possess an authorized copy of a literary work,” the creator of the transformative work can simply look at that copy while creating his transformative work, which should not require circumvention in violation of Section 1201(a)(1).

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

FWIW, I don't feel that I've done anything wrong if I illegally obtain a copy of a book that I've got physically, or that I can't find electronically, or even from a major author that I want to try out. It's not that I don't want to pay for books - I've bought several ebooks and will continue to do so. But, as with music, although I've bought hundreds and hundreds of CDs, I'll occasionally copy some too.

If you persist in being honest you could kill the discussion.

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by Harmon

It IS illegal to sell books without permission of the copyright owner.

Well, except when it isn't. I'm not aware of any jurisdiction in which selling a book second-hand is illegal.

[MrBlueSky]

Originally Posted by cmdahler

I suppose, in the selfishness that is increasingly the hallmark of thought in this day and age, you never stopped to consider in the midst of your rationalization that the author might perhaps care about the lost royalties from this "it doesn't hurt anyone" scheme. You are focusing on the reading public, as though they are the ones who even matter, as though, when an author spends months or years creating a work, that the public has some kind of God-given right to read it. That's complete and utter horse manure. If I write a book and you want to read it, you can pay me what I want for it or you can do without. I couldn't care less if you want to move along rather than paying the fee, but I would care very much if you replied that you had no intention of paying me for the privilege of reading my work and instead would just go illegally copy it from someone else. Sugarcoat it however you want in an attempt to justify it, but when you illegally copy or distribute a copyrighted work that you would have otherwise had to pay for, then you are indeed stealing from the author for your own convenience.

Theft vs. Infringement - why is it so hard to distinguish the difference?

Mr. Author creates a work. The moment it is fixed in a tangible format it automatically belongs to society (it is now firmly in the public domain). After all, as Mr. Author has has created his work in close co-operation with society it follows that naturally, Mr. Author cannot claim exclusive rights over his creation. He has utilised the education society has given him, made use of the conventions of the culture of the society he lives in and his creation is inseparable from the norms and values of others (past and present) who live in the same society. We thank Mr. Author for his gift.

Now, government in it’s wisdom (?) may have granted Mr. Author a limited time monopoly in which he can attempt to exploit his creation for monetary gain, but this license he has been allowed is not his guarantee of making any profit for himself. All it does is temporarily stop any other Tom, Dick or Harry from engaging in the very same exploitation that Mr. Author is attempting to practice.

Truly, for if society does not own the said creation, his government would not have the ability to take it away from society (the public domain) and licence it exclusively (for a limited time) to Mr. Author.

That is the basis for the difference between infringement and theft. Licence vs. ownership.

As a member of society — you cannot steal something that belongs to you in the first instance.

The monopoly hoarders with their stupid DRM keep telling you the same thing — you may have LICENSED this e-book, but you don’t OWN it!

Well Mr. Author, you may be attempting to exploiting whatever it is you have created under a licence given to you on MY behalf by the government — but you sure as hell don’t OWN it.


Oh and by the way, yes I have stopped and considered that Mr. Author might perhaps care about his lost royalties — but I have always been under the impression that authors produced their best and most notable works when they starving in a garrett somewhere. They tell me it’s inspirational or something

I’m only doing my bit to inspire you!

[Grandma Aubbie]

On some polls I might not have been able to "figure out" what I'd do, but this one was easy, since I'm already doing it.

Kay Hooper's latest book is still $14.30 on Sony. It completes a long-awaited "trilogy." It is still sitting on my wishlist waiting for the price to drop.

However, I have recently purchased Dear John by Nicholas Sparks for $9.99 and The Murderer's Daughters by new author Randy Susan Myers for $9.99.

For normal books, under $10 makes it worth paying a little extra to get it sooner.

There have only been a small handful of fiction novels I was ever willing to pay hardcover price. I have normally waited for paperback, simply as a matter of policy. I will continue to do that when it comes to electronic books.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Semantics is the study of meaning. Meaning is important.....
In addressing copyright law, ....

....
But I gather that you would say that my possession of the copy (digital or otherwise) is itself immoral.
...

First and foremost I am not talking about law. I'm talking about morals and ethics and knowing what is right and wrong and still doing the wrong thing. I don't give a huff what the law says, I do care about people knowing and doing the right thing regardless of law. Exactly as I stated it.

Your possession of my property without my authorization is immoral yes, it's wrong, you have stolen something from me.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Pardoz

Well, except when it isn't. I'm not aware of any jurisdiction in which selling a book second-hand is illegal.

True.

[guyanonymous]

So kennyc, are you saying that morals are immutable (never changing)?

Or just that yours are the only correct ones?

Can you provide me with the list of the morals we must all follow, so that I can know which laws don't actually matter?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by MrBlueSky

Theft vs. Infringement - why is it so hard to distinguish the difference?

It's not, neither is knowing that you have stolen something without paying a fair price for it.

Why is it so hard for you to comprehend it is wrong?