Court Rules That File-Sharing Service Infringed Copyrights

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Are you being funny? If so, throw us a few emoticons and help us out.

I don't see anything fringe nutty in the statement "In the end, not wanting to pay for other people's efforts is greed." There's nothing crazy about paying for the products and services you benefit from... especially when the people who provide those products and services ask to be paid for their work. This is a reality that any person on the planet can understand.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Are you being funny? If so, throw us a few emoticons and help us out.

I don't see anything fringe nutty in the statement "In the end, not wanting to pay for other people's efforts is greed." There's nothing crazy about paying for the products and services you benefit from... especially when the people who provide those products and services ask to be paid for their work. This is a reality that any person on the planet can understand.

He is using the word greed as an insult. I find it alienating.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

He is using the word greed as an insult. I find it alienating.

When is greed used as a positive attribute? What would you call "not wanting to pay for other people's efforts"?

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

When is greed used as a positive attribute? What would you call "not wanting to pay for other people's efforts"?

Steve, you wanted me to explain why I made that post before. I have. Please take a moment and try to understand why people would find HansTWN's post insulting and alienating.

I'm trying to bridge the divide here and help some of you understand what your statements sound like. And yes, Steve, I am talking to you too because you can't see what's wrong with what he said.

The people who he called greedy are, at the very minimum, potential customers (some of them, anyway). Insult them and they will never be a customer. Thus, his post is self-defeating.

And if you think he's only referring to pirates, sorry Steve, but I feel he also hit me with that label (and I pay for my content whenever I can).

[vaughnmr]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Steve, you wanted me to explain why I made that post before. I have. Please take a moment and try to understand why people would find HansTWN's post insulting and alienating.

I find the comments by both Steve and HansTWN rather distressing. Neither has really offered any proof that ebook piracy is a real big problem; like the MPAA and RIAA, when asked for proof by the US gov, they really had nothing to offer. They are always talking about stealing from the authors, but really how big a problem is it? I've looked on the Pirate Bay, and there's just not that many ebooks to even pirate, unless you count the sex and get rich schemes.

And both of them dismiss the possibility that people are downloading the ebooks because they have already bought the book, but need a drm-free copy to put on their other devices. In fact, both of them seem to dismiss drm as a "problem".

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by vaughnmr

In fact, both of them seem to dismiss drm as a "problem".

As you and others seem to similarly dismiss "piracy," without providing more than heresay, anecdotal evidence and "possibilities" for your points, and suggesting that the world will somehow magically reward authors who start giving their work away. IOW, you're not the only one who's "distressed."

Of course, this did not start out to be a DRM/anti-DRM thread... it was steered in that direction by others, not me. I don't create or use DRM, but I don't condemn it either... it's just a tool, and like any tool, it can be used properly or improperly (or not at all)... EOL.

This is a thread about copyright infringement, and the stance taken by the courts to uphold it.

Nate: Yes, we're talking about potential customers... but if they also happen to be potential customers who are, at the moment, knowingly taking content they are expected to pay for... well, I'm sorry, but I'm only going to speak so kindly about people like that, and I'm not going to object to anyone else who decides to call a spade a spade.

But again, if you want to come up with a nice, PC word for "not wanting to pay for other people's efforts," you're welcome to do so.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

As you and others seem to similarly dismiss "piracy," without providing more than heresay, anecdotal evidence and "possibilities" for your points, and suggesting that the world will somehow magically reward authors who start giving their work away. IOW, you're not the only one who's "distressed."

I don't see what the fuss is about. Writers lose more money from people buying second hand books than they ever will through piracy. I don't think I've ever seen anyone have a fit about that and demand that all the second hand book shops be burnt down and all the second hand book buyers be locked away in jail.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

But again, if you want to come up with a nice, PC word for "not wanting to pay for other people's efforts," you're welcome to do so.

Unauthorised content consumers. Or in the case of books, just "readers" will suffice.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

I don't see what the fuss is about. Writers lose more money from people buying second hand books than they ever will through piracy. I don't think I've ever seen anyone have a fit about that and demand that all the second hand book shops be burnt down and all the second hand book buyers be locked away in jail.

Not really: Those books were bought once, and the author made their money from that sale. That book may be sold again through used markets, but only (in most cases) a few times before the book finds its permanent home, or is trashed.

An ebook can potentially be reproduced and shared with thousands of your closest friends, with no money going to the author beyond the first file. Authors stand to lose orders of magnitude more on e-book sharing compared to used book buying.

This hints at one of the matters that would make sharing more palatable to authors/creators: Establishing a way for them to make some money off of each new iteration of their book, no matter who duplicated it or who got it. If, as has been suggested in another thread, we have the technology to solve many of the problems of the new market of ebooks, we should be able to solve this.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Is DRM annoying? Maybe. So are closed stores when you want to shop at 3AM. Doesn't mean you have a God-given right to break a window and take what you want. Some things in life are annoying. Get used to it.

Closed stores are keeping me away from other people's property. DRM keeps me away from *my* property.

Even for property I'm required to keep in a particular way for safety, I get choices about how to apply those safety measures. My house may be required to have a fire-resistant roof, but I get a selection of materials, styles & colors. I may be required to keep a gun in a locked case, but I get to pick the case. If I work with hazardous chemicals, I can't just throw them down the kitchen drain, but I get to decide whether to keep them in a glass or ceramic container, and how often to take it somewhere for disposal.

And DRM prevents legal uses of what I've paid for. Closed stores at 3am don't prevent me from using what I've bought.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

An ebook can potentially be reproduced and shared with thousands of your closest friends, with no money going to the author beyond the first file. Authors stand to lose orders of magnitude more on e-book sharing compared to used book buying.

Is there evidence of this, as opposed to panic? Any actual studies that indicate that massive file-sharing cuts down on sales?

Massive pirating of Avatar doesn't seem to have cut into box-office profits.

This hints at one of the matters that would make sharing more palatable to authors/creators: Establishing a way for them to make some money off of each new iteration of their book, no matter who duplicated it or who got it. If, as has been suggested in another thread, we have the technology to solve many of the problems of the new market of ebooks, we should be able to solve this.

This, definitely. Until ebooks can be legally and *easily* loaned and transferred, filesharing will continue to be the only way to reproduce one of the best and most important aspects of books: when you're done with one you've liked, you hand it to someone else to read.

It's possible that publishers are fighting against that tech not just because they *want* to lock people into a "1 purchase = 1 reader" pattern, but because they're aware that's one of the last few stumbling blocks that prevents ebooks from starting to replace print. As soon as someone can sell her used Harlequin ebooks for $.50 each, just like the physical ones at used book stores, the printed versions are in big, big trouble.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Why? Because it prevents you from taking someone else's work without paying for it, and denying the creator a chance at an honest income?

Well aren't you just insulting. Because copyright terms should be a fixed length and only last as long as it takes to encourage more creation, anything beyond that defeats the purpose of to promote science and the useful arts.

Life+copyrights last longer than an average human lifetime and are effectively unlimited the people who provide the protection never get to see the benefits of it. Let me be clear, the benefit isn't you selling a bunch of books, its the public domain.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Do you know that when you say fringe nutty things like this you alienate quite a few moderates? You make it impossible for us to be on your side.

Is your goal to win people over to your viewpoint, or is it your goal to annoy everyone?

I don't think it's nutty at all and agree with it as I said above.

[perversity]

I find it preposterous that a mod for a sight dedicated to the proliferation of ebooks would drop into the the discussion in defense of pirating. The comment about greed was spot on, and not directed at anyone in particular.
If my post is deemed as offensive, and I'm blocked from this site, that is fine as your response has seriously cracked the credibilty of this site(to me)

[Iphinome]

perversity pay closer attention. The argument went well beyond piracy and into anyone who didn't like publisher pricing or tactics being greedy for wanting a better deal. Are you trying to say objecting to something being overpriced is the same as piracy?

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Closed stores are keeping me away from other people's property. DRM keeps me away from *my* property.

Even for property I'm required to keep in a particular way for safety, I get choices about how to apply those safety measures. My house may be required to have a fire-resistant roof, but I get a selection of materials, styles & colors. I may be required to keep a gun in a locked case, but I get to pick the case. If I work with hazardous chemicals, I can't just throw them down the kitchen drain, but I get to decide whether to keep them in a glass or ceramic container, and how often to take it somewhere for disposal.

And DRM prevents legal uses of what I've paid for. Closed stores at 3am don't prevent me from using what I've bought.

...

If the price is right, and there is no DRM, the vast majority of those who actually want the product, will buy it.

But if a title is DRM-ed, so that it cannot be used upon change of hardware or software, and if the price of an e-title is higher than the printed version, then it may be tempting for many to search for a "liberated" copy.

Simple as that.

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by perversity

I find it preposterous that a mod for a sight dedicated to the proliferation of ebooks would drop into the the discussion in defense of pirating. The comment about greed was spot on, and not directed at anyone in particular.
If my post is deemed as offensive, and I'm blocked from this site, that is fine as your response has seriously cracked the credibility of this site(to me)

I didn't defend piracy. I criticized a member's argument and the manner in which he presented it. That' not the same thing.