Misleading Metaphors That Drive The War On Online Sharing

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I've got a teenager with an ebook reader; she can't legally buy any ebooks because she has no credit cards & isn't eligible for most bookstores' TOS. (Not able to sign a contract in the US; not over 18.) According to most bookstores, I'm not allowed to buy books for her.

However, you're permitted to share them with her.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I've got a teenager with an ebook reader; she can't legally buy any ebooks because she has no credit cards & isn't eligible for most bookstores' TOS. (Not able to sign a contract in the US; not over 18.) According to most bookstores, I'm not allowed to buy books for her.

A child is by definition a second- class citizen. Their whole existence is centered around twelve years of education. How does this require access to an e- reader, or any other piece of advanced technology?

[Freeshadow]

Originally Posted by Ntsimp

I associate the word "piracy" with robbery, rape, and murder.

with you are partly wrong too: P. is just robbery on sea, if you kill or not is irrelevant. the main key is using violence for obtaining the somebody else's goods.
(if you do sink the ship you command or own yourself and snatch the cargo it's barattery) the need to differ between plain robbery and piratcy is the place where it happens: The idea that high sea is exteritorrial is not a new one: mare liberum, mare apertum. H. Grotius The countries powers 'd have therefor no legal right to interfere as they can with robberies on their own ground, were pirates not declared an universal enemy as they are by international contracts.

The distinguishing between copyright infridgment and theft has several another reasons:
theft means very basically to take something from the owners possesion/radius of influence with the will to treat it as if the taker would be the owner - copying does not remove something from the owners possesion. Thus it cannot be theft, it is analogous to it, but this isn't enough since analogous aplying of legal poenal norms is also prohibited by several laws (amongst others the Eurpean Convention of Huma Rights) nulla poena sine lege unless it is in favour of the accused.

Some legal systems require that the item stolen is corporeal (Germany) so they need an additional norm defined for theft of electricity (and apart of the fact it's energy and not an item the rest fits: once taken it's gone and not just copied)
Legal language is strict face it, live with it and be happy about it, because were it different, you could be imprisoned any time just with the reasoning "Well what you have done isn't verbatim declared as illegal or forbidden, but it is kind of similar to the things which are." - just think about that and shiver.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by teh603

There was creativity before copyright law, and it also hasn't stopped the worst abuses on either end; for example, Eli Whitney having all his inventions ripped off by other manufacturers, and Thomas Edison legally stealing patents from inventors like Tesla. I don't know if we'd be better off without it, but the system we've been using is so broken its unbelievable.

Examples of law-breaking incidents don't invalidate the law... they only make it clear that the law must be improved and upheld to be functional.

Originally Posted by teh603

I was referring to the example of societies mutually assisting one another and the arguable theft of a primary sale from the tool manufacturer... Ultimately, the metaphor of "theft of sales" is the same, isn't it?

You're right in that it is arguable. But again, you're comparing the handling of used physical products to the handling of an ebook file, and I contend that it's a bad analogy: A used physical product is by definition no longer new, and according to law, cannot be sold as "new"; an ebook cannot be considered used, since its "used" state is essentially the same as "new."

I fail to see what this has to do with societies "hanging together," or how copyright somehow breaks that assumption. These laws are designed to prevent theft and financial chaos, which are counter to society. If they don't work properly, they must be improved to the satisfaction of society.

[teh603]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

You're right in that it is arguable. But again, you're comparing the handling of used physical products to the handling of an ebook file, and I contend that it's a bad analogy: A used physical product is by definition no longer new, and according to law, cannot be sold as "new"; an ebook cannot be considered used, since its "used" state is essentially the same as "new."

The analogy still works, because the argument is still the same; the guy who sold the use tool is "stealing" a sale from the company that makes them. That's the argument against ebook piracy, isn't it? That people who download them don't buy them?

I fail to see what this has to do with societies "hanging together," or how copyright somehow breaks that assumption. These laws are designed to prevent theft and financial chaos, which are counter to society. If they don't work properly, they must be improved to the satisfaction of society.

What about the example of the parent who's unable to share their ebook with their child because of copyright infringement concerns? Or if the law were to somehow evolve into a situation where letting someone borrow a computer or laptop with software or ebooks installed would become a crime? Its only one bad court decision away.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by teh603

The analogy still works, because the argument is still the same; the guy who sold the use tool is "stealing" a sale from the company that makes them. That's the argument against ebook piracy, isn't it? That people who download them don't buy them?

What about the example of the parent who's unable to share their ebook with their child because of copyright infringement concerns? Or if the law were to somehow evolve into a situation where letting someone borrow a computer or laptop with software or ebooks installed would become a crime? Its only one bad court decision away.

Lost sales are just one part. But downloading is just as bad if no sale is lost because the pirate never would have bought a copy anyway. How can that be a viable excuse for taking something you have no right to?

As far as the issue regarding sharing within the family is concerned there are several possibilities:

1.)You can share an account with that person and that person can then read the book on another registered device.

2.)You can hand your reading device to that person, or swap devices.

3.)You can remove the DRM (the word on the legality of this is, of course, still out, but few would object if the file is not being distributed outside the immediate family.)

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by teh603

The analogy still works, because the argument is still the same; the guy who sold the use tool is "stealing" a sale from the company that makes them. That's the argument against ebook piracy, isn't it? That people who download them don't buy them?

The guy selling the used tool is not by law expected to compensate the company from whom he bought the tool when it was new, any more than I have to compensate Hyundai when I sell my car to my neighbor. That's by the laws governing physical products.

But I repeat: Ebooks are software without physical packaging. Software assumes different legal expectations than physical property. There is no absolute requirement for software to be resellable, and there are legal precedents for software agreements that prohibit unconditional resale. There are even legal precedents prohibiting resale of physical products (like a car lease), so the idea isn't that far-fetched.

The analogy simply does not apply to ebooks. There's no such thing as a "used" ebook. Every ebook downloaded, shared, traded or resold is "new," and if the copyright owner states that anyone who wants the ebook should pay them for it, and no one can resell the ebook, that's what's expected by law.

Originally Posted by teh603

What about the example of the parent who's unable to share their ebook with their child because of copyright infringement concerns? Or if the law were to somehow evolve into a situation where letting someone borrow a computer or laptop with software or ebooks installed would become a crime? Its only one bad court decision away.

It is also one good court decision (or one good appeal) away from being a non-issue... let's not obsess about extreme laws that don't exist, when we are still in a position of making sure they don't.

There is a middle ground between "only your eyes can view this" and "it must be available to everyone." Part of that middle ground involves mutual agreement over what should and should not be permissible, and better document and usage security, in the same way that cable TV has established mutual agreement and uses built-in security measures (but, of course, everyone's afraid of discussing security, so we'll leave it for now).

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Lost sales are just one part. But downloading is just as bad if no sale is lost because the pirate never would have bought a copy anyway. How can that be a viable excuse for taking something you have no right to?

Let's just stop saying that, okay? It's bunk. There are people out there who will illegally download a digital file for free if they can, but who will also buy that digital file if they cannot find a source to illegally download it... just because they want it. A pirated copy can equal one sale.

[DJHARKAVY]

Originally Posted by sabredog

Why?

Our referee prefers 3.5e. Apparently most D&D gamers do.

There should be no reason why older rules versions could not be sold as PDF's. They take up bugger all space on a modern server hard drive.

Shouldn't have to. But if you can't get the pdf's, switching to a similar system where you CAN get the pdf's seems the way to go...

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Fbone

However, you're permitted to share them with her.

Fictionwise says:
"You may download eBooks that you have bought for your personal use, but may not distribute them to other people using email, floppy, or any other method. You may not print copies and distribute those copies to other persons. Doing any of these things is a violation of international copyright law and would subject you to possible fines or imprisonment."

Emphasis added. I can't buy YA books and load them on her Kindle instead of my PEZ; if I bought it, it's for my use only. (Nevermind that no, copyright law doesn't make any rules about sharing a legitimate copy. Their site terms say "no sharing.")

Smashwords says:
"all Work furnished by Smashwords is licensed for the use of the End Users of the Site and may not be sublicensed or resold. If you purchase a work, you hold a non-exclusive, non-transferable, and non-distributable right of use. In other words, you are free to enjoy it for your own use, but you are not authorized to share, sell, or distribute the work to others."

Again, no allowance for sharing, even within the same household.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

Let's just stop saying that, okay? It's bunk. There are people out there who will illegally download a digital file for free if they can, but who will also buy that digital file if they cannot find a source to illegally download it... just because they want it. A pirated copy can equal one sale.

People like that will be very much a minority, and if you get the price and convenience factors right they won't even bother looking for a free copy. Most unauthorised downloading is done on impulse — you see it, you download it. Most are never even read after download.

[Pinecone]

Originally Posted by Hellmark

United States No Electronic Theft Act of 1997 or NET Act for sort. It was a kneejerk reaction to the dismissal of the US v. LaMacchia case.

Has it been tested in court?

[Pinecone]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

This is Indiana law, but it's based on the Model Penal Code.

Doesn't mention printed works, just sounds.

[Pinecone]

BTW the Dalek is more likely trademarked than copyrighted. Trademarks are permanent. Copyrights is (or is supposed to be) limited in duration.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

I understand the analogy, but it's not germaine here; the discussion is about redistributing easily-duplicated products, not reselling used products; and as I said earlier, trying to draw comparisons to physical products is an example of the bad metaphors that have driven this decade-plus-long argument.

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

The guy selling the used tool is not by law expected to compensate the company from whom he bought the tool when it was new, any more than I have to compensate Hyundai when I sell my car to my neighbor. That's by the laws governing physical products.

Some producers of physical products are trying to prevent or devalue second hand sales and lending in the same way that producers of virtual products are, to cut down on the lost primary sales. Essentially they are making their physical product partly virtual.
There is an increasing trend in video game sales for part of the game to be locked behind a license key, with a single-use version of that key provided in the game box. So the first person who buys the game gets to enjoy all of it for no extra cost. If he sells the same to someone else, they need to pay an extra $10 to the producer to unlock that portion. Third buyer has to do the same again.
Clever attempt to monetise second hand sales, and/or erosion of first sale doctrine?