Do you consider it to be unethical...

[DJHARKAVY]

Originally Posted by TGS

I think the argument is that if you want it on a ereader then it is more ethical to buy the second hand copy and scan it and then put it on an ereader than it is to swipe it off the darknet.

What about borrowing it from the library, scanning it and reading it on an ebook reader?

a) How does the author lose out, compared to our borrowing it and reading it on paper?
b) How does this differ from downloading it from the darknet?

Originally Posted by Hitch

Not one whit more than if I decide that I "need" your car and take it, just because I can't get it elsewhere.

If you 'need' my car and take it, I cannot still use it.
If you 'need' my essay on Hamlet and copy it for your own use, I can still use it.

Originally Posted by Hitch

How is this any different than the guy who breaks into your house and steals your TV, because you didn't make it available to him?

Because I won't then have a TV.

This is more akin to a person linking their computer to my TV somehow. They can watch and I can watch at the same time.

It is illegal, and I am paying for his ability to watch, but I am paying no more than I am for my own ability to watch.

Originally Posted by Hitch

If it's not immoral to "find an alternative source" to steal someone's property--his book--then it's not immoral to rob your house. Period.

Nope. Different types of property. The latter deprives me of its use. The former MAY deprive me of some of the income from it, but not deprive me of it directly.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by Hitch

and piffle.

I like saying the word "piffle."

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by HamsterRage

I think it's a red flag whenever a society has a significant percentage of its population ignoring the laws, just as we seem to have here. What it probably represents is a shift in how society views intellectual property - eventually the shared morality of such a large number of people who don't view copyright violation as wrong is going to have some effect on society as a whole.

I would frame it differently. It is not so much that we are ignoring the laws, as it is that we are taking back what we had in the first place, and which has been stolen from us through the very laws that are suppose to protect us.

The "copyright clause" of the Constitution says that the Congress is empowered: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

The first thing to notice is that the purpose of this clause is NOT to protect anyone's "intellectual property rights." The purpose of the clause is to increase the amount of intellectual property in existence, because that property belongs to everyone. "Intellectual property" is merely an artifact of the legal mechanism intended to accomplish this purpose. From here on out, I'm going to call it IS, meaning "intellectual stuff."

The second thing to notice is that the rights that are to be granted are supposed to be for a limited period.

Now, I realize that this is just US law, but I suspect that at the time the Constitution was written, this reflected the general understanding about the nature of IS.

And that understanding is that the rights to IS were owned by the community at large, just like our language is. Nobody owns language. New words and usages are invented all the time, and they belong to everyone. It's the same with ideas and stories, or at least, it was.

So "copyright laws" represent the mechanics, in the form of a contract between society and writers, that says to the writer: "you have a monopoly right to the economic benefits you can get out of any IS you come up with, for a limited period, after which the IS belongs to all of us."

But what has actually happened? The duration of copyright has been extended to the point that if I write a book today, NOBODY ALIVE NOW will ever have any rights involving that book. Whatever "limited times" means, it surely does not mean "until everyone alive today is dead."

In effect, the rights of the society in which the IS is created have been legislated out of existence. "Copyright" has morphed into "copywrong." This IS is community property, not to be individually owned and controlled, except for a limited time in order to accomplish the purpose of bringing more IS into existence. Our representatives have sold us out, in this as in so many other ways (tea, anyone?)

So what people are doing now actually reflects what we have thought all along. Our views have not shifted, it's just that the technology has made it supremely easy to put those views into action.

I suspect that most people would agree that the Constitution has it right, and that we need to have some workable copyright laws to increase the production of IS.

In the case of books, it may be that we need to deconstruct the book rights.

For example, perhaps the law should provide that if a printed work is not made availble in electronic form within a certain period of time, the electronic rights - but not the paper rights - are released into the public domain.

We also need a law that says that a book, once sold in any form, must be registered for the copyright to be protectable.

And we need a law that no protectable copyright period can extend for more than 10 years from the date of registration.

Pie in the sky, I'm afraid. But I have no qualms about taking a bite out of the pie if I get a chance...

[Jadon]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

So if large numbers of people cheat on their income taxes, the laws should be changed to make it legal? If large numbers of people believe in discrimination of some kind, the civil rights laws should be changed to allow it? If large numbers of people speed in school zones, the laws should be changed to make it legal?

Short answer? Yes.

Long answer: if lots of people stop paying taxes, then the government has lost its legitimacy, and the tax system should be reworked. There are countries where the black market is bigger then the white market, because doing business above ground is simply too slow and costly.

Discrimination is a bit different in theory, less in practice. State referendums on gay marriage, for example: clearly discriminatory, and to many people wrong (unless you think that the abolition of slavery or women's suffrage should have been put up for state vote), but acceptance and comfort with the notions depends on individual feelings more than law, and forcing laws ahead of their "natural" progression rates often leads to backlash.

School zone speeding? I don't think it's something "large numbers" of people do, but if they did, then the law is clearly deeply flawed and unpopular, so it merits looking into changing it.

If large numbers of people have no problem copying songs and movies and ebooks, then clearly copyright and the laws around it no longer fit the body politic very well, and should be changed. Several US states still have blasphemy laws, but when was the last time anyone cared?

[carld]

This repeated hair-splitting still sounds like mealy-mouthed word games to me.

[GA Russell]

Originally Posted by Fbone

I like saying the word "piffle."

The Saskatchewan Roughriders' ballpark has for the past few years been called Mosaic Stadium. But its original name was Taylor Field. It was named after the Saskatchewan legend Piffles Taylor.

[GA Russell]

Originally Posted by Harmon

I would frame it differently. It is not so much that we are ignoring the laws, as it is that we are taking back what we had in the first place, and which has been stolen from us through the very laws that are suppose to protect us...

The first thing to notice is that the purpose of this clause is NOT to protect anyone's "intellectual property rights." The purpose of the clause is to increase the amount of intellectual property in existence, because that property belongs to everyone...

The second thing to notice is that the rights that are to be granted are supposed to be for a limited period...

And that understanding is that the rights to IS were owned by the community at large, just like our language is. Nobody owns language. New words and usages are invented all the time, and they belong to everyone. It's the same with ideas and stories, or at least, it was.

So "copyright laws" represent the mechanics, in the form of a contract between society and writers, that says to the writer: "you have a monopoly right to the economic benefits you can get out of any IS you come up with, for a limited period, after which the IS belongs to all of us."

But what has actually happened? The duration of copyright has been extended to the point that if I write a book today, NOBODY ALIVE NOW will ever have any rights involving that book. Whatever "limited times" means, it surely does not mean "until everyone alive today is dead."

In effect, the rights of the society in which the IS is created have been legislated out of existence...

Well said, Harmon. Just so.

[HamsterRage]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

So if large numbers of people cheat on their income taxes, the laws shouold be changed to make it legal? If large numbers of people believe is descrimination of some kind, the civil rights laws should be changed to allow it?

Well...actually, yes.

There's a rather large country in the middle of North America, south of where I live, that came into existence for just that reason. And for the for the first 150 years of its history seemed to have laws that reflected that kind of discrimination.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

The Saskatchewan Roughriders' ballpark has for the past few years been called Mosaic Stadium. But its original name was Taylor Field. It was named after the Saskatchewan legend Piffles Taylor.

Cool. I think Piffles Field sounds better

[HamsterRage]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

Then why do people spend so much time and effort trying to rationalize it? At least we have at least a couple of people here who had the background to admit what they are doing is illegal and they don't care (not that it exonerates them).

Once again, I have to object to the characterization of the arguments as "rationalization", for the reasons I've already pointed out.

I think you need to at least acknowledge that the people on the other side of this debate might honestly believe that what they are supporting, although illegal, isn't immoral. That's the message I'm getting from them.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

Unfortunately, that same preciseness can cause people to lose awareness of the general concept the precise term falls under (accidentally or otherwise). Copyright violation and theft, while legally are two separate things, are the illegal taking of something that doesn't belong to the taker. Lawyers make a mint capitalizing on those distinctions.

Yes, that's precisely correct. The argument here seems to be that the pro-"infringement" crowd think that because it's not called "theft," it doesn't amount to theft. But the ability of humans--particularly lawyers--to craft obfuscatory language is legendary. Who here would argue that "Child Molestation" isn't "Rape?" Anyone? No. Because you know damned well that it is, even if little Suzie was "only" penetrated by a finger. (My favorite: Whoopi Goldberg's infamous "Well, it wasn't RAPE-rape." She should read the transcripts before she opens her mouth on THAT one again.)

So as I understand this discussion, the "pro" crowd seems to believe that since they're only "using" the author's work, that's okay; it's not the same as stealing an OBJECT and using it. It's a fascinating linguistic distinction; that it's okay to not pay license fees to "use" someone else's work; that it's okay because you're not actually taking an object from someone's hands.

Ergo, the argument is:

• It's not okay to "steal" an object, that someone bought with the proceeds from their job, or their work. That would be BAD.
• But it's okay to "infringe" a copy of a book, thereby depriving the author of the proceeds from his job, so he can't buy the object in the FIRST place. THAT is okay.
• What's the difference between this and mugging some guy on his way back from the check-cashing store? What, that's different because then you'd have to get your hands dirty, AND you could actually SEE the money you're taking, and the guy you're robbing? Is that the logic here?

I'm gobsmacked by the incredibly creative interpretation of the Constitutional clause protecting copyright as meaning that IP "belongs to everyone." That's Marxist horsepucky. Whatever I write belongs to me. I can license it or not as I see fit, just as can anyone else. I'm under no obligation to "give" what I write to anyone. It's ironic to think that this argument means that if I write something, and DON'T copyright it, it's mine forever; but if I do copyright it, somehow that means that "it belongs to everyone." And while I agree, absolutely, that copyrights should not exist in perpetuity, they do NOT. The fact that they don't expire soon enough to suit you doesn't make them any less valid. Because that, it seems, is what the argument is entirely about; that you're entitled to, errr, "infringe" any OOP book that you want, just because you want it NOW.

Moreover, only ARTISTS--authors and others--are somehow obligated to give their efforts to "the public," in however many years. You don't have to; if you build cars in your backyard and want to hand them down through generations, you can do that. You can hand your money down through generations. Or a house you build. All real and personal property other than intellectual property is essentially protected in perpetuity...but an author HAS to give his work to "the public." (Who promptly turn around and SELL that public domain work on Amazon, iPad, etc.--so don't tell me it doesn't have VALUE.)

The mere fact that you want it means it has value. It has value to YOU, because you WANT IT. If it was an object, you'd have to a) buy it or b) steal it. It's even more ironic to me that none of you realize that the very basis of this discussion--that you want this thing--means that it does have value, and therefore, it has a value to which its creator is entitled.

Thus your perspective is that you want it; you don't want to wait for it; it demonstrably has value to you, because you've made an effort to obtain it; but the person who created it is not entitled to compensation for it because...wait for it...it doesn't have any "real" value. And because it's not "really" theft, because the criminal act you're committing has some other name.

Really. Self-gratification at someone else's expense. It obviously has value to you--but not to the guy who broke his back writing it?

Wow. That's quite a "have your cake and eat it too" argument you have going on there. Or perhaps it's just a self-serving double standard, not sure which.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Hitch

I'm gobsmacked by the incredibly creative interpretation of the Constitutional clause protecting copyright as meaning that IP "belongs to everyone." That's Marxist horsepucky.

It was not an interpretation of a Constitutional clause. It was the citation of the clause as evidence of the legal fact that at the time of the Constitution, the idea that you owned something you wrote and could prevent other people from copying it was very nebulous indeed. There were some statutes in England, and probably in the colonies if only by virtue of their having been English territory, that dealt with some aspects of who could print stuff. But it was not at all what we think of as establishing ownership rights in property these days. At that point, the King of England was undoubtedly of the opinion that when push came to shove, HE owned it all. In fact, I expect that if I researched the Federalist Papers, I'd find that this clause was intended to make sure that the Congress didn't try to grab off such rights for the federal government.

It is not so much that IP belongs to everyone as it is that IP, absent laws on the subject, does not belong to anyone, even the writer. In colonial times, it was illegal to steal the physical book someone wrote, but if I sat down with the copy he carelessly left lying around, and copied every word of it out, there was no law to stay my hand, or to prevent me from publishing & selling copies myself.

Whatever I write belongs to me. I can license it or not as I see fit, just as can anyone else. I'm under no obligation to "give" what I write to anyone. It's ironic to think that this argument means that if I write something, and DON'T copyright it, it's mine forever; but if I do copyright it, somehow that means that "it belongs to everyone."

It might be ironic if your premise were correct, but it's not. You do NOT own what you write, outside of the actual physical object, unless there is a copyright law to say so. In the absence of copyright, nobody needs your license to copy your writings. Oh, you can put your book in the safe, and try to keep anyone from copying it if you can, but if someone manages to copy it, they can - again, in the absence of copyright law - print it & sell it & keep the cash.

Your presentation of the law of copyright is exactly backwards. Copyright is an exception to the general rule that the writer does not, in common law, own what he writes write. He owns the paper, he owns the ink, but he does not own the words, nor the ordering of the words, nor the story, nor any of the things that are protected by the enacting of copyright laws.

One does not "copyright" things. The existence of copyright is established by the copyright laws, and applies to everything that is an original writing. This post that I am writing is copyrighted, although it might be that under the terms of service of Mobileread, I give up that copyright, or maybe it even belongs to Mobileread. I don't have to do anything to create the copyright - it exists whether I want it to or not. The only control I have is whether I want to enforce my copyright.

The whole structure of copyright is tottering, because it does not reflect reality anymore. And the concept of "intellectual property" is an increasingly incoherent legal concept. The only reason copyright ever really worked is that it was so difficult and costly to actually print and sell books. You needed supplies, a printing press, a distribution system, &c. But you don't need any of those things to publish and sell an ebook.

And while I agree, absolutely, that copyrights should not exist in perpetuity, they do NOT. The fact that they don't expire soon enough to suit you doesn't make them any less valid. Because that, it seems, is what the argument is entirely about; that you're entitled to, errr, "infringe" any OOP book that you want, just because you want it NOW

.

You seem to be saying that since the current copyright duration is not perpetual, it is by definition "limited." While that is logically true, it is not necessarily legally true.

When the Constitution states a purpose for giving Congress a power, it is entirely reasonable to inquire whether the power is being exercised within the limitations stated. The Supreme Court will defer to Congress, but not abandon all judgment. The Constitution does not say "for such period as the Congress may determine." It says "for limited times." These two phrases do not have precisely the same meaning. The latter is more restrictive.

In interpreting what "for limited times" means, the courts will consider what the purpose of the Constitutional clause is. I say that since the purpose of the clause is to foster innovation, it is reasonable to conclude that the innovation that the Constitution is seeking to foster should happen sooner rather than later, in the present generation rather than in our grandchildren's. The entire purport of the clause is "faster, please." A limitation protecting many - indeed most - works for a century or more is not "fostering" innovation - it is retarding it. We'd be better off without the clause, interpreted your way, if the object is to foster innovation.

For those who want to read a very interesting article, written by a novelist, which touches on some of the things I have posted without delving into the legalities, check out The ecstasy of influence: A plagiarism By Jonathan Lethem at http://harpers.org/archive/2007/02/0081387

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Hitch

The mere fact that you want it means it has value. It has value to YOU, because you WANT IT. If it was an object, you'd have to a) buy it or b) steal it. It's even more ironic to me that none of you realize that the very basis of this discussion--that you want this thing--means that it does have value, and therefore, it has a value to which its creator is entitled

But it's not an object. It's an idea.

On what basis do you conclude that the creator is entitled not merely to the physical embodiment of the idea he has made up, but to every possible commercial exploitation of the idea, which you refer to as "value?"

You tell me a story you made up. I think it's a damn fine story, though poorly told, so I go over to some people who didn't hear it and say "for a buck apiece, I'll tell you the story ol' Hitch just told me." They've heard your stories before, and btw, they know I tell them better than you do, so they pull out their wallets.

Why should the mere fact that you made up the story mean that you should be able to stop me retelling it?

Why should you profit from all the hard work I put in turning your stories into something people will pay me to hear?

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Yes, that's precisely correct. The argument here seems to be that the pro-"infringement" crowd think that because it's not called "theft," it doesn't amount to theft.

The argument is that "theft" is a specific crime, and other crimes and torts, even if they are financially damaging, are not "theft." The corollary is that people who can't tell the difference between "theft" and "violation of a legal right to control distribution" might not be able to tell the difference between "unethical behavior" and "behavior that makes me personally uncomfortable."

Ergo, the argument is:

• It's not okay to "steal" an object, that someone bought with the proceeds from their job, or their work. That would be BAD.
• But it's okay to "infringe" a copy of a book, thereby depriving the author of the proceeds from his job, so he can't buy the object in the FIRST place. THAT is okay.

• No, the argument is that that is NOT THEFT.
  
  If I write a scathing review of Stephen King's new book, a dozen of my friends may decide not to buy it. Is that theft? I have taken his ideas, and used them in a way that prevents him from making money.
  
  If I visit a friend who bought the book, and read his copy, I have gotten access to the content without paying for it. King & his publisher make no money from me. Is that theft?
  
  If I view the Google preview of the book, which is missing about 1 page in 10, and never buy it, is that theft? What if I then write a scathing review based on those pages, with highlighted screencaps showing the parts I think are most ridiculous, and convince people not to buy it? Is *that* theft?
  
  If I type the whole book into my computer from a library copy, is that theft?
  If I feed that typewritten version into my friend's read-aloud program, because there is no accessible legit version, is that theft?
  If the friend donates my text version to the local school for the blind, has theft occurred yet?
  If the original disc he used to bring it to them is lost, and someone else loads it onto their computer, is that theft? Who did the stealing--me, my friend, or this stranger?
  
  And--this is the *important* part--who is *out* 1 text copy of an ebook? Whose property is *missing?*
  
  Because that's what theft is. One person's property, in the hands of someone who doesn't have permission to have it. And that text version is *not* Mr. King's property. It wasn't created on his computer. He's never heard of it. He doesn't know it exists. He certainly can't sell it or will it to his heirs.
  
  He has the *right to say how it's used,* with some limitations. A right-to-use, or a right-to-manage-use, is not the same as ownership.
  
  I get to say when my kids wake up. What they eat. Where they attend school. What religious practices they may do. Who they spend time with. What toys they can use. I get to control pretty much every aspect of their lives.
  
  But I don't own them. If someone else steps in and takes those decisions away from me--if a neighbor feeds them foods I forbid, takes them to movies I don't allow, attempts to convert them to a religion other than mine--I have legal recourse, but nobody will take me seriously if I try to claim the neighbor "stole" my children. (The claim would work for casual conversation, but it wouldn't be acceptable to a court.)
  
  If you visit my house and leave with three of my books without my permission, you have stolen them. If you visit, read them & memorize them, and go home & type up what you remember, you may have violated my privacy somehow, but you have not "stolen" from me.
  
  

  What's the difference between this and mugging some guy on his way back from the check-cashing store? What, that's different because then you'd have to get your hands dirty, AND you could actually SEE the money you're taking, and the guy you're robbing? Is that the logic here?

The difference is that mugging takes away *money in his pocket.* Torrenting takes away money he hoped to get in the future... maybe.

There's been no proof that downloading, even massive downloading, cuts into sales. It *does* mean "there's a whole bunch of people reading without paying." (Not as many as are torrenting, but some at least are reading.) But there have *always* been people reading books without paying.

If it's "theft" to download & read, it's equally "theft" to get a used copy from a friend. The result to the author is the same: no payment for that read.

In one case, there are multiple copies going around. But "theft" does not mean "made so many extras that the original source can't sell them anymore." If you're selling bottled water for $1 each, and I give away water from the same spring for free and you can't sell yours anymore, I haven't stolen anything from you.

Note that bottled water is a multi-BILLION dollar industry. People will indeed pay for what's available for free.

I'm gobsmacked by the incredibly creative interpretation of the Constitutional clause protecting copyright as meaning that IP "belongs to everyone." That's Marxist horsepucky.

No, that's Jeffersonian economics. Ideas belong to everyone; they're licensed for exclusive use for a short time in order to encourage sharing them.

Whatever I write belongs to me. I can license it or not as I see fit, just as can anyone else. I'm under no obligation to "give" what I write to anyone.

If you publish, it belongs to the public. The public has limited usage rights for a while, after which, they get all rights to it. You are under no obligation to publish, or to write at all. If you want total control of your writing, do it in a language nobody else understands, on a medium nobody else has access to.

And while I agree, absolutely, that copyrights should not exist in perpetuity, they do NOT.

Got any proof of that? I mean, there's a law that says "they expire in X years," but there was a previous law that said that, and it was overruled.

Moreover, only ARTISTS--authors and others--are somehow obligated to give their efforts to "the public," in however many years.

They're only obligated to allow the public to use their ideas. They may hand down their manuscripts, their paintings, their photographs; the public doesn't take ownership of their pages, hard drives & memory sticks. Just like house builders: the house is theirs to keep; the method of fixing shutters to the windows can be freely copied.

You get to keep your *property*. It's your uniqueness that goes away after a while.

that you want this thing--means that it does have value, and therefore, it has a value to which its creator is entitled.

I want a copy of the recent ruling for the Perry v Schwarzenneger case about Prop 8 in California. It was written by Judge Walker. It has value to me. How much is he entitled to for that value?

[Strolls]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

So if large numbers of people cheat on their income taxes, the laws shouold be changed to make it legal? If large numbers of people believe is descrimination of some kind, the civil rights laws should be changed to allow it? If large numbers of people speed in school zones, the laws should be changed to make it legal?

The rule of law requires the consent of the people, otherwise it's a tyranny.

So if everyone is cheating on their income taxes? Yes, it could well mean that those taxes are too complicated and allow too many loopholes. That's how lots of people get away with cheating the system, in actual fact today.

If enough people speed in school zones? Well, I don't believe that the majority of people would intentionally endanger schoolkids, so maybe we should examine if the school zones are clearly marked, or if they are too large or actually necessary where they're marked.

In a free country the will of the people is important - just because something makes perfect sense from one perspective doesn't mean it's inherently right. So when the majority of people engage in casual copyright infringement, then yes, I do think that a democracy needs to accept that the electorate doesn't actually agree with the law. I think this shows that the law needs re-examining.

We've already seen in the past what can happen when government grants an unjust monopoly: revolution!

I think it's disingenuous to compare copyright infringement to slavery or civil rights issues. No-one's forcing writers to write. Without copyright, art will still be created, as it has been in the past. We might equally compare intellectual property protection to welfare - what? Beyonce enjoys singing, so she shouldn't have to work for a living? You're going to argue that that's ridiculous - in the free market we're all happily paying for her CDs, but in fact this intellectual property with which we provide her is an artificial construction of government. The law is saying "you've bought that Beyonce CD, but, no, you can't do what you like with it; you can't make copies of a CD that you own".

Is that crazy? It's no more crazy than comparing copyright infringement to slavery, because you've set up an argument that lots of people once thought slavery was ok.

Intellectual property is not a natural right, the way freedom and the pursuit of happiness are natural rights; we have a natural right to expect not to be assaulted or physically interfered with in our daily business. Intellectual property is not like that that - it's far more complicated, and you do injustice to your arguments by claiming copyright infringement is "theft" or in any way so simple and clear cut. The problem cannot be solved so easily - in shouting down all disagreement with such a blind statement you show yourself unworthy of the debate.