Copyfraud - public domain's fate?

[Ankh]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Actually, he doesn't exactly distribute calibre for free. He lets the buyer set the price. If the buyer sets the price at zero, then that's what he's willing to accept.

You got that wrong. The opening sentence of "About" tab on calibre web site states(emphasis mine):

calibre is a free and open source e-book library management application developed by users of e-books for users of e-books.

One can freely download the source. Donations are optional, and left to the good will and conscience of the users.

[unsonia]

The US copyright and patent laws suck big time. This nation has its blood sucked by lawyers...

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Ankh

You got that wrong. The opening sentence of "About" tab on calibre web site states(emphasis mine):

One can freely download the source. Donations are optional, and left to the good will and conscience of the users.

Well, for one thing, Kovid, who was following my comments, didn't correct me, and I expect he would have if I had it wrong.

For another, what I said was entirely consistent with the sentence you quote. He's leaving the payment up to the buyer.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

t is not a requirement of any seller to either tell you their costs; or to base the price off of costs; or to inform you of cheaper alternatives.

Yet again: If I'm at Tourneau Corner and I spend $100 more on a watch than I would have somewhere else, was that an ethical failing on the store's part? Heck, they're taking me for a $100 ride. Isn't that ten times worse than dropping $10 for a book I could get elsewhere for free?

And if you still think the watch pricing is ethical while the PD book is unethical, then yes, you're reacting irrationally to "the power of free." Because from a rational perspective, paying $100 extra is definitely ten times worse than paying $10 extra.

Your "rational perspective" is rational only within the context of a market based analysis. Kovid's argument is that there are ethical obligations which transcend economic (or legal) analysis. You do not address that argument; you merely return to your economic analysis.

Assume that you are selling the ebook to your friend. Would you sell it without letting him know that it's a public domain ebook that he can get for free? I would hope not. So is your position that your ethical obligation to your friend is different than your ethical obligation to a stranger?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by Harmon

In the real world, of course, one cannot ignore the "convenience factor," nor can it be true that the product does not cost the seller something, if only the labor involved, to put up for sale. But under those circumstances, I think that an ethical seller would say something along the lines of "This product is in the public domain, and the identical product is available for free elsewhere. It is being made available here for charge of $X if you wish to have it immediately."

I disagree. Retailers are under no obligation - legal, ethical, moral, or what have you - to inform consumers that the same product is available elsewhere for free or less money. That obligation falls squarely upon the consumer.

For example, I recently purchased a Kodak PlaySport pocket camcorder from Amazon for $109. I checked prices at all the usual tech stores before going with Amazon. At the time of my purchase, Target was selling the same exact item for full retail ($150). Was Target being unethical by not informing customers that the same item was available at Amazon for only $109?

[charonme]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

You are entitled to demand whatever reward you like for your effort, except in the case when the effort is zero.

setting up a website, paying for a domain and hosting, maintaining an e-shop, downloading PG content and maintaining bank transactions is not zero effort. But even if the effort was truly 0 (which it will never be in real world), you still have not established that anything immoral is going on.

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

repeating the same argument

unfortunately you are not repeating an argument, you're repeating an unfounded allegation without giving any reasons or arguments why what you claim should be so.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

@Ankh: Glad to hear it. I just want this to proceed in steps. Lets first all agree that it is wrong.

No.

So please, I promise we can have the discussion about what should be done after we are all agreed that duplicating a PD text and then selling it without informing the customers that it is a duplicate is wrong.

People have read and understood what you say, and still disagree with you.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Petra Systems

Why disagree? I think he has right.

And some of us don't.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Petra Systems

Why disagree? I think he has right.

Am I not allowed to hold a different view?

[queentess]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

@Ankh: What does calibre have to do with anything? If you insist on using calibre as an example, the correct example would be if someone renamed calibre to sat halibre and then setup a website that sells downloads of halibre for $10.

As a matter of fact, I did pay $10 for calibre, even though I knew it was available for free. Was this wrong of me? I rather like paying things I value.

It's unfortunate that someone would use PG books to make money from them, but the PG volunteers know they cannot prevent people from redistributing their work because it doesn't belong to them. Is it ethical to profit from someone else's work that they made freely available? I don't think it's ethical. So there's your agreement. But I also see no way to prevent it from happening. I'm not sure why you insist on trying to remove all legal arguments. Once you believe something is "wrong", the natural next step in thought process is "how do I stop it from happening?"

All that said, I find that the PG books are horrendously formatted with line breaks and missing italics, etc. I will gladly pay someone a couple bucks to either 1. sell me a collection so I can conveniently download it all at once, or 2. format the text better so that it fits my definition of "readable".

[queentess]

Originally Posted by kovidgoyal

Because the paper copy is not an effortless duplication. You are entitled to demand whatever reward you like for your effort, except in the case when the effort is zero. That is because zero is qualitatively different from non-zero. If you make any profit whatsoever from something that costs zero you are making an infinite profit, and that is a disproportionate reward for your effort.

Oh, so you see it as "unfair". I understand your position now. I don't particularly agree with it from an economics or business perspective, but I do understand where you're coming from.

I would also probably be indignant if I put a lot of working into something, received no profit, and someone else did in my stead. However, the PG people are all volunteers. They're doing it "for the greater good". They have chosen to waive their ability to profit from their work. I don't think this should prevent someone else from doing so. It's not particularly ethical of a person to do that, and I wouldn't do it myself, but I also don't think I should impose my ethics on everyone else.

[Kali Yuga]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Your "rational perspective" is rational only within the context of a market based analysis. Kovid's argument is that there are ethical obligations which transcend economic (or legal) analysis. You do not address that argument; you merely return to your economic analysis.

First, I'm constantly pointing out that you/we have the right to do whatever you want with PD content, except re-copyright it or plagiarize it. I mean this both legally and ethically.

Second, I'm saying that the ethical claims are bogus, and are a thin veneer over the emotional reaction.

Yet again: The PD seller is withholding information that costs me an extra $10 and benefits him. Tourneau is withholding information that costs me an extra $100 and benefits Tourneau. Seriously, what's the difference -- except that Tourneau is taking me for a much bigger ride? Why is Tourneau allowed to "rip me off" ten times worse than a PD bookseller?


Or, consider the following thought experiment. The government decides to levy a 10¢ tax on all public domain downloads of ebooks. Even if you give away the ebook for free, you still need to pay 10¢ every time a copy is downloaded from your site. If you sell the PD book through Amazon or Smashwords, they pass the cost on to you.

Henceforth, every distributor pays 10¢ every time they sell a PD ebook. It is no longer free; it carries a cost. Is it now acceptable to charge for the PD book? Does it now make sense that, since you do have a cost associated with the book, that you can charge, say, $1 for it?

If you think it is unacceptable to charge anything when the costs are $0.00 but acceptable to charge when the cost is $0.10, then that's an emotional reaction to gratis, not a rational analysis.

Originally Posted by Harmon

Assume that you are selling the ebook to your friend. Would you sell it without letting him know that it's a public domain ebook that he can get for free? I would hope not. So is your position that your ethical obligation to your friend is different than your ethical obligation to a stranger?

Let's say I walk into a bookstore with my friend. On one aisle are well-made hardcover PD classics, and in the next are cheap paperback versions of the same book. Is it my obligation to tell my friend in advance that the content is identical? Or is it insulting to assume she can't work it out for herself?

As to ebooks, I would tell my friend "this version is free, and that version costs a small amount but has better formatting and a bunch of essays, by the way caveat emptor."

Plus, just about every ebook retailer is trumpeting free ebooks. Google has a big section on their books front page for "Best of the Free," Amazon has a separate "Free Bestsellers" and also lists all the other prices, etc etc. In a lot of cases, you kinda have to be working at it not to know there's a free version available.

And while there will be much overlap, clearly the ethical obligations are certainly different between friend and friend, individual and stranger, seller and buyer.

[Ankh]

Originally Posted by Harmon

For another, what I said was entirely consistent with the sentence you quote. He's leaving the payment up to the buyer.

No, it isn't, at least it isn't for me. The source of calibre is licensed under the terms of GPL 3. It is "free as freedom", not necessarily "free as beer". The software CAN be sold.

I do Linux drivers for living, and have used free and open source code for long time. My contribution to the community was:
a) reporting bugs
b) submitting patches when I have need to overcome that issue,
c) providing user-to-user help with the installation, configuration and operation of FOSS software.

Other than that, I am using FOSS software as "free as beer". Now, with calibre I haven't done much of "a" and "b", and kicked in to help only in one instance with "c". The reason? I don't use calibre much. My collection is mainly outside of Calibre, (calibre collection is "to read" list), no need for format-shifting (I'am crafty enough with vim, perl, sed and awk), don't use newsfeeds... The mighty software serves as a preview of metadata, for all practical purposes.

Nowhere on the calibre web page have I found a reference to "purchase", "buy" or any other term that suggests that calibre is sold. If it is, I refuse to devalue others work by offering to pay $0 dollars, even for a nonexistent use, and will remove calibre immediately from my machine. What I really, really need to do, and was postponing until now, is to have ADE running under wine. Calibre, despite my respect for a myriad of functions and all work that was thrown into it, serves only as an alternative to the vmware machine running MS Windows, ADE and Sony software.

Yes, Kovid has not corrected you, but neither has he reacted to my interpretation. Maybe this message will trigger his reaction. The difference between "free download" and "pay what you want" is significant.

[charonme]

Originally Posted by Ankh

I am using FOSS software

I like to use free open source FOSS software software too

[Ankh]

Originally Posted by charonme

I like to use free open source FOSS software software too

Free or Open Source Software. I stand corrected.