Court Rules That File-Sharing Service Infringed Copyrights

[Krystian Galaj]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Guess what? The world isn't Sesame Street. There isn't enough of everything to go around. Sharing doesn't work when there are too many people, and not enough supplies.

No, but there is enough of some things. Like data, which can be copied at practically zero costs. So the only scarcity in that area is artificially introduced.

There are people in the world who want to get money for their creations. There are people who will create and share for free, using Creative Commons for example. Every year there is more and more creators around, and our ability to find good creations in the sea of bad ones is growing.

If this continues, even if nothing is done to change current laws, there will come a time when for almost all creations that aren't free there will be similar or better free alternatives available. Even assumming no copyright violation, just old public domain works and new creative commons ones. So only hardcore fans of the author will buy anything, and at some point no one will even look at paid works anymore. (Of course, there will be Dan Browns of the future with hardcore fans, but there'll be less of them than paper-published authors now). It will be more and more probable that next top bestseller comes from someone that gives it away for free.

The only way to stop this I see in going to great lengths to prohibit creating for free, extending the meaning of derivative works, length of copyright terms, taking many authors of works that would in the future be considered derivative to court and winning enough cases/bankrupting enough of them that people will be afraid to create. Attacking Internet forums where people gather and discuss and form communities which cause people to want to create. Making available public domain books illegal to possess. Only then authors will be able to get paid for their works - by removing competition.

Otherwise, what will it matter to people if you spent a year writing a book? What value is it to them, when it's just another drop in a bottomless sea? There will be enough trouble in getting them to choose your work at all.

Miracle of eradicating all piracy wouldn't change the outcome, it would just delay it.

[Kajti]

I didn't say that people couldn't have "different, yet perfectly reasonable, points of view" regarding copyright (as opposed to religion), Apeist. I'm less concerned with the content of the views as the way they interact. Or don't, actually. Do you think that intrusions that pop up in so many threads here – the repetitive, ever unresolved, neither side ever convinces the other "exchanges" on copyright – are NOT "pointless arguments... that tend to get inflamed"? Is anything accomplished in them except another turn around the dance floor, and another thread polluted to uselessness?

I was never a buyer of pirated content, mr ploppy. (The image of buying CDs out of a person's trunk at a flea market or whatever just strikes me as dirty and unsafe.) I bought paperbacks (about 10% new, 90% used, switching from physical stores to online ones over time), but have never bought music or movies, pirated or non-. So I suppose I've never been a good source for producers to get money from.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Dusty Bottoms

And I am saying that creators create in all kinds of economies for all kinds of reasons. When Solzhenitzyn wrote Cancer Ward or The Gulag Archipelgo, I would reckon the impetus wasn't 'putting food on the table' (horrible phrase) but because he had something to say and wanted to say it. People will create even if that means they are killed because of that creation. This low level, capitalistic drive that is far more prevalent in North America than anywhere else, is not universal. In Europe a lot of art and creativity is subsidsed or unpaid, local theater being only one example...art galleries etc. And again, as per what others have said in this thread, the copyright law we have now in it's abused and useless form, means nothing to the audience and even less to individual creators who cannot defend the copyright without access to expensive laywers.

I wondered how long it would be before this argument was made.

What it boils down to is......creators will always create. They do it because they feel the need, have something to say, to promote change and for many other reasons.

So if creators will always create regardless of payment.......why should we pay them?

And if they dare to admit that they would like to earn their living doing what they love and not have to work some other job then we can demean them by suggesting they are greedy capitalist pigs who should be happy to get a "real job" like the rest of us and create in their spare time if they really want to. If they are not willing to do so then we don't want their type of creation do we?

Originally Posted by Dusty Bottoms

No, we are seeing a fundamental shift in economics in the digital era. From scarcity to post scarcity. When the supply side of the economic equation is removed, then the suggested Economic laws of supply and demand no longer works as it should. The markets we see now are building on good will and community.

The supply side of the distribution model is moving towards post-scarcity. That is, data can be endlessly replicated at virtually no cost.

The supply side of the creation remains the same. That is, whilst everyone can pump out some trashy "novel", not everyone can turn out a novel worth reading.

The idea that there is no inherent value in the digital data totally disregards the time, effort and "scarcity" of the talent that went into creating it.

Of course it is up to each individual to decide for themselves if they are going to value someone elses work because it brings them joy in the reading or if they are going to deem it valueless simply because it can be copied easily.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Kajti

I was never a buyer of pirated content, mr ploppy. (The image of buying CDs out of a person's trunk at a flea market or whatever just strikes me as dirty and unsafe.) I bought paperbacks (about 10% new, 90% used, switching from physical stores to online ones over time), but have never bought music or movies, pirated or non-. So I suppose I've never been a good source for producers to get money from.

Can you tell me what your motivation is for downloading pirated content, if it isn't financial?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

And if they dare to admit that they would like to earn their living doing what they love and not have to work some other job then we can demean them by suggesting they are greedy capitalist pigs who should be happy to get a "real job" like the rest of us and create in their spare time if they really want to.

I don't think anyone is saying they don't have a right to make money from their writing if that is what they wish. But the reality is, they are not going to make it from selling digital books. Not in the long term, at any rate, and certainly not if they insist on giving away 90% of their income just so that someone can upload their books to sales sites for them.

I'm not really convinced that future writers will see free content as the big threat that past and present writers see it as though. Having grown up in a society where digital content is free, and seen how individuals and corporations are making money from free content now, they are more likely to see it as an opportunity. Just like the young musicians and film makers are doing now.

[Dusty Bottoms]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

I wondered how long it would be before this argument was made.

What it boils down to is......creators will always create. They do it because they feel the need, have something to say, to promote change and for many other reasons.

So if creators will always create regardless of payment.......why should we pay them?

And if they dare to admit that they would like to earn their living doing what they love and not have to work some other job then we can demean them by suggesting they are greedy capitalist pigs who should be happy to get a "real job" like the rest of us and create in their spare time if they really want to. If they are not willing to do so then we don't want their type of creation do we?

The supply side of the distribution model is moving towards post-scarcity. That is, data can be endlessly replicated at virtually no cost.

The supply side of the creation remains the same. That is, whilst everyone can pump out some trashy "novel", not everyone can turn out a novel worth reading.

The idea that there is no inherent value in the digital data totally disregards the time, effort and "scarcity" of the talent that went into creating it.

Of course it is up to each individual to decide for themselves if they are going to value someone elses work because it brings them joy in the reading or if they are going to deem it valueless simply because it can be copied easily.

Cheers,
PKFFW

I believe you're assigning to me wishes and motivations that I do not have. If anything, my arguments and assumptions are quite reserved. If I took my observations to their logical conclusions I'd have to say that there will be zero money in fiction within fifteen years, from any source and using any business models.

That taken into account, I don't believe I, or anyone else for that matter suggested that you can't 'try to make money', just that the old world models of making that money are diminishing and must be replaced with new models.
The time effort and 'scarcity' as you put it, of the authors endeavour cannot be gauged with the end product any longer. These metrics of value are subjective, unlike a physical book which has weight and substance and has inherent value as a physical object. I don't see why this is so hard to grasp. Bullet point time:


1. Digital objects cannot be locked down.

2. More and more people share digital objects.

3. Digital objects have a perceived value of zero and a near-to-zero cost to reproduce.

4. Writers must find ways to keep audiences and monetize their digital products.


Seems logical to me that any action taken to criminalize, ostracise or generally piss-off a potential digital audience is counter-productive, considering the list above. DRM, lawsuits, abrasive copyrights, lack of understanding of the file sharing world, all these factors will diminish any market you might want to cultivate and the monetization of that market.

Also, every single time we hear one of these file sharing=theft, you're taking food off my table arguments, it just pegs the owner as some old codger and makes them tragically unhip to any new audience. Why would any writer want to shoot themselves in the foot like that, when their very livelihood might depend on building fan bases and working tightly within the communities they create?

[kennyc]

Or maybe digital publishing will just be a big bust and we'll go back to hardcopy only. And maybe encrypted hardcopy that requires special glasses to read or maybe......

Heck the possibilities are endless

Maybe it's even the end of the world as we know it and the entire human race will collapse into anarchy......interesting if it should all end that way....

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

I don't think anyone is saying they don't have a right to make money from their writing if that is what they wish. But the reality is, they are not going to make it from selling digital books. Not in the long term, at any rate, and certainly not if they insist on giving away 90% of their income just so that someone can upload their books to sales sites for them.

I agree this is likely the case.

The reason I agree is because as I mentioned in my previous post, it is up to each individual to decide whether to value the creators work for the joy it gives them or deem it valueless because it is easily copyable. As you so rightly point out, the younger generation has grown up deeming digital content valueless and perceiving it as their right to access it for free if they so choose.

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

I'm not really convinced that future writers will see free content as the big threat that past and present writers see it as though. Having grown up in a society where digital content is free, and seen how individuals and corporations are making money from free content now, they are more likely to see it as an opportunity. Just like the young musicians and film makers are doing now.

The only way I see any individuals or corporations currently making any sort of sustainable income from "free" digital content is through ad support. I'm not convinced the idea of stuffing books full of ads is a good one or one that will work.

The 5% pay for the rest idea I see falling apart as more and more people decide if it's digital it is valueless and should be free. As you point out, the younger generation already see it like this and before long the baby boomers and gen X will decide to stop paying for what gen y accesses for free and already deems to be valueless.

As for musicians and film makers.....totally different market with totally different revenue opportunities. I really don't see the idea of an author giving a live reading of their book taking off and being a big income source like concerts are for bands.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by perversity

Your arguments against copyright are my reason for copyright

Well that's that then isn't it? You want laws that do not benefit the people providing the legal protections. Would you also like a tax on widows and orphans to be used to build swimming pools for CEOs? Why have copyright at all? If someone gets a short term monopoly in exchange for a bigger better public domain that's great, if they get a permanent monopoly what reason does anyone have to respect it? Ideas aren't property, things are property and when someone makes more of a thing the one you have doesn't go away so don't come at me with property rights.

If this is where we stand, everything for you forever and nothing for the society that made it possible then I'm just plain not interested. To hell with you.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

Well that's that then isn't it? You want laws that do not benefit the people providing the legal protections. Would you also like a tax on widows and orphans to be used to build swimming pools for CEOs? Why have copyright at all? If someone gets a short term monopoly in exchange for a bigger better public domain that's great, if they get a permanent monopoly what reason does anyone have to respect it? Ideas aren't property, things are property and when someone makes more of a thing the one you have doesn't go away so don't come at me with property rights.

If this is where we stand, everything for you forever and nothing for the society that made it possible then I'm just plain not interested. To hell with you.

Registered ideas are a form of property. We want a society where everyone, including writers, has a chance to make a living by one's work. Stop chasing windmills (and rant about permanent copyrights, nobody here is arguing in favor of that), why should a writer work for free when you don't? The way to advance society is not by ensuring that you get a free lunch. Society would never have these works without them, so how can writers owe society something, other than taxes?

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Dusty Bottoms

I believe you're assigning to me wishes and motivations that I do not have. If anything, my arguments and assumptions are quite reserved. If I took my observations to their logical conclusions I'd have to say that there will be zero money in fiction within fifteen years, from any source and using any business models.

Maybe I am assigning those things.

It's just to me, the argument of "creators will always create", especially when coupled with the argument "the author needs to find ways to add value to their book" seems to indicate that the person making those arguments does not place any inherent value on the creation of the book itself.

Originally Posted by Dusty Bottoms

That taken into account, I don't believe I, or anyone else for that matter suggested that you can't 'try to make money', just that the old world models of making that money are diminishing and must be replaced with new models.

Others have belittled members of this site for having a "money money money" attitude after such members expressed a desire to be paid, somehow, for their creations.

Others have suggested authors have no right to make a living from their creative endeavours. That writing is a priviledge and they should be happy to be creative in their spare time around their "real job".

I agree, trying to make any money from digitised works will require a new model of business though.

Originally Posted by Dusty Bottoms

The time effort and 'scarcity' as you put it, of the authors endeavour cannot be gauged with the end product any longer. These metrics of value are subjective, unlike a physical book which has weight and substance and has inherent value as a physical object. I don't see why this is so hard to grasp.

I never said it was hard to grasp.

I merely pointed out that the idea of "it is in digital form and therefore is inherently valueless" does not take into account the value of creative the work itself.

Yes, placing a value on the creative process may be difficult but that is not my point. My point is that the creative process does have value. Without that process there would be no creative products, whether in an inherently valueless digital form or otherwise.

Originally Posted by Dusty Bottoms

Bullet point time:


1. Digital objects cannot be locked down.

2. More and more people share digital objects.

3. Digital objects have a perceived value of zero and a near-to-zero cost to reproduce.

4. Writers must find ways to keep audiences and monetize their digital products.


Seems logical to me that any action taken to criminalize, ostracise or generally piss-off a potential digital audience is counter-productive, considering the list above. DRM, lawsuits, abrasive copyrights, lack of understanding of the file sharing world, all these factors will diminish any market you might want to cultivate and the monetization of that market.

I never argued otherwise.

Still doesn't change the fact that if the creative process is deemed valueless then no amount of talk about the evils of DRM or excessive copyright means much of a damn anyway. It's all smoke and mirrors to justify the disire to pay nothing for "valueless digitial products".(note, I'm not suggesting you personally are arguing this)

Originally Posted by Dusty Bottoms

Also, every single time we hear one of these file sharing=theft, you're taking food off my table arguments, it just pegs the owner as some old codger and makes them tragically unhip to any new audience. Why would any writer want to shoot themselves in the foot like that, when their very livelihood might depend on building fan bases and working tightly within the communities they create?

I never made those arguments.

Having said that, every time we hear the arguments of "I would never have bought it anyway so no sale is lost" or "I'm downloading this one for free but fully intend to buy something else by the author in future" or "most downloaded books are never read so no sale is lost" or "it is digital and therefore easily copyable and therefore should be free" it makes the person making the argument seem like they just want free stuff.

Cheers,
PKFFW
P.S: I'm off to enjoy my honeymoon so wont be able to respond for a couple of weeks.

[Kajti]

I download content I think I'll enjoy consuming, mr ploppy, and prefer to do so without expending money or effort, which I think makes my motivation at least partially financial. I never valued physical content for stuff like movies or music, because I don't think music or movies worth the cash, or worth the bother of leaving the house for. Books were worth that double expense; other content, not so much.

Given an internet connection that's being paid for anyway, digital content is available "free" for the downloading. Since I can download ebooks, audiobooks, comic books, audio and radio plays, TV shows from other countries or pay channels I don't get, and movies with minimal effort, I do so. Buying an ebook reader was worth the cost, since it meant I'd not have to pay for books in future, they now being convenient and "free". I never bought, or even tried, audiobooks before, but when they became accessible at no money and minimal effort, they were worth trying, and I found I liked them. Even for free, music and games aren't something I find worth downloading, and I rarely watch movies, but other family members like them.

Basically, I have lots of time, far less money, and more than a little social anxiety. Pirated content lets me fill my time without emptying my pockets, and do so without having to deal with unnerving people.

[HansTWN]

Here is another idea that might come to Europe at some time in the near future (since they already have to pay a surcharge on all storage media that is then distributed to the media companies -- you have to pay even when you just buy a DVD to store business/personal files!). A huge surcharge on all internet connections. And then everybody will be legally free to just download whatever they want. And society pays. Someone always does. At the moment it is those of us who pay for content.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Registered ideas are a form of property. We want a society where everyone, including writers, has a chance to make a living by one's work. Stop chasing windmills (and rant about permanent copyrights, nobody here is arguing in favor of that), why should a writer work for free when you don't? The way to advance society is not by ensuring that you get a free lunch. Society would never have these works without them, so how can writers owe society something, other than taxes?

Again someone tries to frame the argument about free (beer) stuff. I didn't say anyone had to work for free, I said copyright needs to enhance the public domain. After a period of time in which the person who holds the copyright can try to turn a profit the copyright needs to expire so things can be used freely (libre) by the next person who wants to create. The copyright peroid needs to be as short as possible while still getting people to actually create things. When you argue for long copyrights and telling people they can still create as long as they pay up you defeat the purpose because copyright is not for the artist it is there to get more stuff into the public domain.

The statue of ANNE where this all came from broke a permanent monopoly publishers had over books and said after a period of time its open to anyone. Not protect writers, but to break monopolies. A 70 year copyright defeats the purpose a life+70 year copyright is absurd and it takes something from the people without paying THEM for it. Who's courts are being used, who's library of congress, who's FBI is putting up the warning on dvds, who's customs and border patrol are seizing bootlegs? The people pay for copyright with the understanding that the public domain will grow in exchange. That just isn't happening right now

So again, why should I respect copyright when the people who profit from it aren't holding to their side of things and growing the public domain?

[kennyc]

We're rumblin' now....