Court Rules That File-Sharing Service Infringed Copyrights

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

Of course any drain on profits is more than made up by the social benefit of having more things out there and available. I mean sure there are certain types out there who want to rape the pocketbooks of anyone who sees a printed word, on screen or elsewhere and doesn't instantly empty their wallet on the spot and then call them thieves to boot but sensible people would of course see that a handful less sales isn't the end of the world and a few more eyeballs on the books beats the hell out of being unknown. And, anyone interested in a legacy later on or just one who switches publishers might like some DRMless copies floating around, they may even download one themselves to save time and energy.

Think of it as the making lemonade scenario. It has to be better than just sucking on lemons but maybe some people prefer that, I dunno.

First let me say that I have absolutely no financial interests here (the opposite, I have to buy books!). But this offends my sense of justice. Who gives you the right to decide whose wallet is more "worthy"? Why should the downloader -- who has done nothing for society -- get a free ride and deprive the writer -- who is actually contributing something -- of what is rightfully his?

And why should society support those free loaders? Why is a handful of lost sales "no problem" but a downloader contributing a few bucks to put food on the table for those that provide his enjoyment is so difficult? Or, if the downloader thinks it is too expensive, why can't he just stay away?

The whole matter makes even less sense when you consider that if 10 people download the same book then each would only have to pay one time, but the author theoretically (!) loses 10 sales!

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

No, it affects it a lot more because it is so much larger. Writers and publishers don't make anything from the sale of second hand books, just as they don't make anything from what you call digital theft.

But you are still wrong. It not because it is bigger at all, it is because the ability to make perfect copies is simple and easy. If you could make a perfect (or reasonable) copy of a paper book the analogy would be the same, but you can't so it breaks down.

My point with this as always is that digital copies of creations must be treated legally the same as physical copies of creations and the laws must change to protect them as property in the same way as physical entities. And be enforced as per the O.P. here.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by kennyc

A big part of selling books (at least at the top end) is book tours with readings and signings and meet and greet...

But would that still work with ebooks?

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

If the unauthorized downloads really become the "unstoppable tide" some predict then the outcome above that you do not want to happen is exactly what will happen. (Some preassigned key to distribute the money -- and do you think the big corporations will go empty handed?) Being forced upon us by the filesharers.

Yes, I suspect that is what will happen too. Grants for creators would encourage new creations and be fair for everyone, but Greedycorp Inc would want the lion's share for themselves with none of that income going anywhere near a creator. Just like none of the music creators ever got any of the money from the RIAA's various profitable court cases against music fans.

But you can't blame me for dreaming can you? In the 70s in the UK we had grants for artists, including performance artists. There is no logical reason why you couldn't have something similar for writers, musicians, etc.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

The whole matter makes even less sense when you consider that if 10 people download the same book then each would only have to pay one time, but the author theoretically (!) loses 10 sales!

They may also gain 10 future sales, then another 10, then another 10 after that. Or they might not.

I've probably said this before on here, but there is basically 2 types of downloader -- try before you buy, and if it is free I will have it. Most people will fall into both camps to varying degrees. Try before you buy, you have the potential to make money from them either now or in the future, but only if they download (and read) your book.

The others, you won't make anything from them either way, and there's only a slim chance that they will read your book anyway. They are basically just collecting files for the sake of collecting them. The ones they do read, at worst some second hand dealer would be losing out on a few pennies.

I really don't see what the big deal is. You have nothing to lose, and everything to gain.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by kennyc

But you are still wrong. It not because it is bigger at all, it is because the ability to make perfect copies is simple and easy. If you could make a perfect (or reasonable) copy of a paper book the analogy would be the same, but you can't so it breaks down.

My point with this as always is that digital copies of creations must be treated legally the same as physical copies of creations and the laws must change to protect them as property in the same way as physical entities. And be enforced as per the O.P. here.

They already are. Anyone who objects to their intellectual "property" being "shared" on the internet can have it removed. There's only one site that will refuse to do that (not sure if I can name it here, but most people will know who it is).

But where it is just fans "sharing" amongst themselves, which is what it usually tends to be, a simple "Please stop doing this" on the forum where it is taking place will be enough. But it does need to come from the creator themself rather than through Greedymegacorp Inc acting on their behalf.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

there are no real monopolies in publishing, you can always buy a different book or read any of the millions of legally free books. Just as you can buy a different brand of car.

Cars drive along the same roads. Books tell different stories. It's intellectually dishonest to use that comparison.

[riemann42]

These arguments are great!

Ok. Limewire is busted. This proves that idiots can be caught and tossed in jail / fined / or otherwise justly punished. Now we just need to find a way to get smart people (like the insidious iphinome) to get tossed in jail / fined / or otherwise punished for "infringing" on the only capitalist way to produce good art.

I suggest the following:

* Increase enforcement
* Create IP blacklist and enforce them at ISP level (if the Chinese can use it to suppress thought, the american's can use it to suppress theft).
* And finally, start working on changing the culture. We don't want our children thinking that theft is OK.

Oh, and if you have a problem with me using the term theft to describe the acquisition of an item without payment, I apologize. It's just that no other term is both (a) pejorative enough and (b) polite. Yes calling such lowlifes "infringers of copyright whose goal is acquisition of material without payment rather than expansion, derivation, or other new creative work" a thief is polite. Feel free to disagree with copyright terms. Feel free to disagree with pricing. But don't you dare justify stealing by calling it things like sharing. Admit that you are a lowlife or a communist. Admit that you don't value art, artists, or a society based on capital.

[Dusty Bottoms]

Originally Posted by riemann42

These arguments are great!

Ok. Limewire is busted. This proves that idiots can be caught and tossed in jail / fined / or otherwise justly punished. Now we just need to find a way to get smart people (like the insidious iphinome) to get tossed in jail / fined / or otherwise punished for "infringing" on the only capitalist way to produce good art.

I suggest the following:

* Increase enforcement
* Create IP blacklist and enforce them at ISP level (if the Chinese can use it to suppress thought, the american's can use it to suppress theft).
* And finally, start working on changing the culture. We don't want our children thinking that theft is OK.

Oh, and if you have a problem with me using the term theft to describe the acquisition of an item without payment, I apologize. It's just that no other term is both (a) pejorative enough and (b) polite. Yes calling such lowlifes "infringers of copyright whose goal is acquisition of material without payment rather than expansion, derivation, or other new creative work" a thief is polite. Feel free to disagree with copyright terms. Feel free to disagree with pricing. But don't you dare justify stealing by calling it things like sharing. Admit that you are a lowlife or a communist. Admit that you don't value art, artists, or a society based on capital.

Seriously, all this post needed was the title 'REDS UNDER THE BED' and it would have made my night. Hilarious. And if any of what you said is actually serious (please let our debate not fall into this Bush-level IQ stupidity), then you're breaking the TOS of this site by name calling and using inflammatory language.

In any case, your misguided, ill-informed, hyperbolic and shamefully knowledge-retarded rant, reminded me of this:

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by riemann42

Admit that you don't value art, artists, or a society based on capital.

Because there has to be a WAR on customers, right alongside the war on drugs, they have to have ever more restrictive DRM and ever more limits on what they can do with the content they've merely licensed for ever higher prices!

...

Oh grow up. Treating the customer as the enemy is precisely why the dark nets got off the ground in the first place, and your attitude will drive people who would otherwise have paid to them.

The correct term is copyright infringement, and you are simply handing the darknet communities a tool to use against reasonable businesses with that sort of histrionic over reaction (Communists lol).

All "clamping down" will do - since it'll be spectacularly ineffective - is ensure that in 20
years time there WILL be a private copy exemption.

(oh and hint: I know some real communists, unlike you. They live in Israel, in little communist societies, and are quite nice people. I decided it wasn't for me, but they're quite entitled to live as they want, and the Kibbutzim act as small umbrella companies in Israel's perfectly capitalist economy. And they have a more respectful attitude towards IP than many capitalists I know.)

[Iphinome]

The more you tighten your grip, riemann42, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.

[Dusty Bottoms]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

The more you tighten your grip, riemann42, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.

I believe a lot of those people so tightly-wound over sharing, are so because they don't understand the fundamental shift that's taking place from the analog to the digital. They really can't grasp that the internet won't allow restrictions, that by its very nature it will circumvent all attempts at lock down (that was its main benefit to the military after all). They honestly believe that somehow, some way, we're going to go back to some halcyon day that never truly existed to begin with. It's a shame, really, because it's these attitudes, these misinformed people who are still in control for the most part. These are the people who are retarding progress, who are holding back innovation and the inevitable growth of what is the single most important societal shift since some sloped-foreheaded hairy cave dweller rubbed two sticks together and didn't run away when they caught fire.

Actually, that's quite a fitting analogy. I will use it the next time I'm taking tea with the Queen. *Gentlemen! The Queen! God save her and all who ride in her!*

[Dr. Drib]

Play nice, please, or we will close the thread.

(This is mainly directed toward two people. I would seriously advise these two to re-read the Guidelines. We will not tolerate rude behavior and personal attacks. Take some time to cool off, please.)

It's really that simple.



Don
(Moderator)

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by riemann42

And finally, start working on changing the culture. We don't want our children thinking that theft is OK.

If by theft you mean unauthorised content consumption, good luck with that. The generation that you allowed to grow up with free downloads will be raising their own children soon, and they will almost certainly be passing on their habits.

Those children will grow up with instant access to any information they want, so just saying that downloading is like stealing a car, mugging an old lady, or killing kittens, isn't going to get you very far. And anything to the contrary that you teach them at school will just be debunked by their parents as soon as they get home. It would be like teaching religion to the child of an atheist.

[Iphinome]

I might worry that teaching them that copying is theft will make them think nothing of stealing cars and killing kittens.