The $15 Boycott: Will you be participating?

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

Yes, societal consensus is turning against IP.

The U of Chicago's free ebook for February was Piracy: the Intellectual Property Wars from Gutenberg to Gates. One of the subjects concerns the concept of intellectual property as an invention of Western Europe, and another is the impact of the concept in other societies.

It really is a moving target, and while I'm not sure that societal consensus is turning against IP, it seems pretty clear that the consensus about what IP actually is, and how it can be "owned," is in flux - as it has been for two or three hundred years.

[MrBlueSky]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Wrong. I have not authorized you to have my property or do anything with it, I have lost my rights. You can't say I have not been harmed. It is not your right to posses my property without my permission.

There are four inaccuracies in that statement

1. I, don’t require your permission.
2. No you haven’t.
3. Yes I can.
4. Information has rights too — it wants to be free.

Btw, having been granted a (temporary) monopoly does not mean that you have been awarded ownership rights too, Your so-called ‘property right’ (you really mean ownership) remains firmly in the public domain.


From a philosophical point of view, are you saying that every single monopoly holder in existence is now living under a constant barrage of actual mental harm caused by file-sharing? You can’t be referring to any physical or material harm — because I already don’t need your permission to read a library book, read a friends book or find a secondhand one.

No wonder authors tend to loose their marbles the more books they write The sheer pressure of not knowing with 100% certainty that their books are NOT being shared must indeed be a meddlesome burden to have to live under. Perhaps every monopoly licence should come with a health warning on the box!

On the other hand, If I don’t explicitly TELL you that I have indeed shared YOUR particular book, how does this imaginary ‘harm’ manifest itself in your mind? Your ‘right’, to your own knowledge, has not been disturbed. You remain, as it were, still living in a state of serene and blissful ignorance of my (real or imaginary) dastardly deed — so how has any ‘action at a distance’ on my part impinged on the mental map of your world?

[guyanonymous]

Originally Posted by Harmon

The U of Chicago's free ebook for February was Piracy: the Intellectual Property Wars from Gutenberg to Gates.

But we're in Feb and it's no longer available

Sounds like a fascinating read. Too bad about their DRM. I could take that on a free book...not on a costly one, though I appreciate they have a wide range of drm options to choose from.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Harmon

The U of Chicago's free ebook for February was Piracy: the Intellectual Property Wars from Gutenberg to Gates. One of the subjects concerns the concept of intellectual property as an invention of Western Europe, and another is the impact of the concept in other societies.

It really is a moving target, and while I'm not sure that societal consensus is turning against IP, it seems pretty clear that the consensus about what IP actually is, and how it can be "owned," is in flux - as it has been for two or three hundred years.

Yeah, I wanted to download it, but it was/is in PDF only. I am waiting to hear from the authors about an epub version.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by guyanonymous

But we're in Feb and it's no longer available

Sounds like a fascinating read. Too bad about their DRM. I could take that on a free book...not on a costly one, though I appreciate they have a wide range of drm options to choose from.

I think it was only a one-day thing - Feb 1st.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by MrBlueSky

There are four inaccuracies in that statement

1. I, don’t require your permission.
2. No you haven’t.
3. Yes I can.
4. Information has rights too — it wants to be free.

Btw, having been granted a (temporary) monopoly does not mean that you have been awarded ownership rights too, Your so-called ‘property right’ (you really mean ownership) remains firmly in the public domain.


From a philosophical point of view, are you saying that every single monopoly holder in existence is now living under a constant barrage of actual mental harm caused by file-sharing? You can’t be referring to any physical or material harm — because I already don’t need your permission to read a library book, read a friends book or find a secondhand one.

No wonder authors tend to loose their marbles the more books they write The sheer pressure of not knowing with 100% certainty that their books are NOT being shared must indeed be a meddlesome burden to have to live under. Perhaps every monopoly licence should come with a health warning on the box!

On the other hand, If I don’t explicitly TELL you that I have indeed shared YOUR particular book, how does this imaginary ‘harm’ manifest itself in your mind? Your ‘right’, to your own knowledge, has not been disturbed. You remain, as it were, still living in a state of serene and blissful ignorance of my (real or imaginary) dastardly deed — so how has any ‘action at a distance’ on my part impinged on the mental map of your world?

Copyright is an artificial monopoly which exists to promote the creation of new creative works.

Copyright controls the legal right to create and distribute new copies of a creative work. Selling a used book does not infringe copyright because it does not constitute making a new copy. Xeroxing a book does, because that does constitute making a new copy.

This is why file-sharing is both copyright infringement and a real threat to many authors. It's copyright infringement because it involves creating new copies. It worries authors because regardless of the exact percentages involved, it would be very surprising to presume that no one who downloaded a work would have bought it if they could not have got it for free. That's as ludicrous as assuming every download is a lost sale.

Given that some fraction of downloads are lost sales, this has two effects. First, the author may not earn out their advance, which can have a material effect on the advance on their next book, and second they may not generate enough sales to be offered a contract for the next book-- and so readers may never get to read the sequel.

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

It worries authors because regardless of the exact percentages involved, it would be very surprising to presume that no one who downloaded a work would have bought it if they could not have got it for free. That's as ludicrous as assuming every download is a lost sale.

Given that some fraction of downloads are lost sales, this has two effects. First, the author may not earn out their advance, which can have a material effect on the advance on their next book, and second they may not generate enough sales to be offered a contract for the next book-- and so readers may never get to read the sequel.

I'm not convinced by the idea that an author must sell fewer books if people copy them illegally. It may be that people are more likely to pay for their books if they discover them through an illegal copy. J A Konrath's blog seemed to suggest that he took that view.

Note that I'm not saying that authors will definitely sell more copies if their work is copied illegally - rather that I don't think that saying "some of the pirated copies would have been a sale" is the whole story, because some pirate copies lead to more sales. How it all balances out would require some stats which I don't have. With music, I've bought plenty of albums by artists that I discovered because somebody made me a tape.

[Kolenka]

I think Lemurion hit the important issue here... but there are inaccuracies in your own statement.

Originally Posted by MrBlueSky

There are four inaccuracies in that statement

1. I, don’t require your permission.
2. No you haven’t.
3. Yes I can.
4. Information has rights too — it wants to be free.

There are laws in place that handle certain sticky issues with copyright like the concept of First Sale, and so on... In that case, you are right that you don't require the author's permission to resell the copy. The fact that the author is offering a copy for sale to you is implicit authorization to have a copy of their work. There is nothing in copyright that says they MUST sell it to you or let you have a copy, so in fact you do need their permission. But under the law it is implicit, rather an explicit in most cases. This is a key distinction.

Producing copies outside of what implicit authorization is given to you via law is a copyright violation. A lot of the rationale behind this concept in law is that if 10,000 copies being made without permission can kill an individual's livelihood, than 1 copy is still harmful (just a fraction as much). If you start getting in the business of trying to set the bar for what is harmful and what isn't, you open loopholes to be gamed.

Personifying 'information' doesn't help an argument either way. Does information being freely accessible benefit society? The original concept behind copyright seems to agree that it does. That is what is important when it comes to the concept of the public domain. We can argue that the terms of copyright have been extended to harm the public domain, and I'd agree... but I don't think that makes the concept of a time limited monopoly as a carrot to give someone an incentive to turn education and entertainment into a career any less valid. It's a balancing act, and views at the extremes ignore the benefit they get from the other side. The time limited monopoly encourages people to actually make a full-time career out of things like research, book writing (educational, editorial, and entertaining), and so on. This provides more content for public domain than volunteers and part-timers could do alone. But without the expiration of copyrights, then the public domain is left in the same state as if you had no copyright in the first place.

[kennyc]

Well said Lemurion and Kolenka.

[Connallmac]

Remember kids Lars Ulrich says:

[Krystian Galaj]

Originally Posted by kennyc

semantics.

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

End of story.

But it's still not theft :P Semantics are important. When you say it's against the law, amoral and wrong, I may disagree but I understand you. When you say it's theft it makes people ignore what you really mean and explaing why it's not. Why have the same explanations in response in every thread?

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Again, the individual files do not belong to you. You own the copyright. So long as you still own the copyright, you have lost no property.

Perhaps "taking without permission" needs a different analogy.

During rape, rape victims temporarily lose the ability of free movement, and things are done without their permission. Of course, after it's done, there might be no physical damage requiring any costs, no physical loss, and the victim has free control of movement again. But does that mean there's no harm done, and it was simply an act of sharing?

If one does believe in "intellectual property", of course. I guess it's enough for the copyright owner to believe to feel harmed - beliefs do tend to hurt people.

[Connallmac]

I was hoping perhaps Lars stepping in was enough of a hint, but suffice to say I think we have gone as far with the topic at hand.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by guyanonymous

But we're in Feb and it's no longer available

Sounds like a fascinating read. Too bad about their DRM. I could take that on a free book...not on a costly one, though I appreciate they have a wide range of drm options to choose from.

Yeah, there's only a one day window to grab them when they come out. But the price is right...

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Yeah, I wanted to download it, but it was/is in PDF only. I am waiting to hear from the authors about an epub version.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it works okay on the Sonys. I'm reading it on my 303 in landscape.

[Lemurion]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

I'm not convinced by the idea that an author must sell fewer books if people copy them illegally. It may be that people are more likely to pay for their books if they discover them through an illegal copy. J A Konrath's blog seemed to suggest that he took that view.

Note that I'm not saying that authors will definitely sell more copies if their work is copied illegally - rather that I don't think that saying "some of the pirated copies would have been a sale" is the whole story, because some pirate copies lead to more sales. How it all balances out would require some stats which I don't have. With music, I've bought plenty of albums by artists that I discovered because somebody made me a tape.

I agree with the point that it's very complicated, and that as with music illegal downloads can lead to future sales. They don't always, but they can. However, many people only read a book once, but they listen to albums many times.

What this means for illegal or other free downloads is that a person may read one book and get hooked, but rather than buying a copy of the one they have already read, they will go out and buy the author's other works. This is wonderful, and the author does get paid for those purchases. The problem is that these numbers aren't going to the current book, which is the one the publisher is counting when figuring the author's next advance.

So while I completely agree that saying that some downloads will lead to lost sales is not the whole story, but it is part of the story, and for an author's career it can be an important part.