Is ebook piracy on the rise?

[axel77]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm not entirely certain that's true. Anyone know for sure?

Yes I am, a time ago I was reading quite somewhat on that subjects, and coca cola is more than once brought as case in point of a trade secret. With the explanations that trade secrets do have the advantage to potentially go forever, but the disadvantage once it slips its over.

Yes in case of someone making industry spionage they might sue for a compensation, but once its out of the box its out of the box. Otherwise also coke would not make such drastic meassurements to keep it secret. If they had any law ensuring them only they may use that formula, they just could print it on their walls.

This openess was after all the original idea behind copyright/patents, as before this legal inventions (copyright/patents, and yes they *are* "legal inventions" and not naturalistic things "given by nature" like some people want to showcase them) existed most people were very secretive about anything...

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

...

But the fact is that broadcast has still worked out a lot of the problems we still debate here... adopting their guidelines would at least free us up to concentrate on the stickier issues.

I think that you are mixing two very different legal issues with regards to the broadcast industry. The first issue is the thief of signal issue, i.e. getting decoders to receive satellite or cable signal you didn't pay for. This is no different than taping into a power line, or water main. That issue is a very different issue that recording something on your VCR and giving the tape to people, which is purely a copyright issue.

One thing to keep in mind is that copyright is simply a limited right to keep others from copying a given work. It's not really considered a tangible object per se. Copyright is written into the Constitution of the US as a trade off. Authors are given a limited right to control who can make copies of their work for a given amount of time (originally 14 years and was only 28 years prior to the 1978 Mickey Mouse standard, i.e. anything published since Mickey Mouse) as an encouragement to produce more. It was never considered a tangible property that can be stolen. Intellectual property is a term that was originally coined by a lawyer who was trying to persuade a jury to buy into the then novel legal theory that something was being stolen from his client.

My personal guess is that ebooks will more likely go in the direction of audio content (iTunes for music and audible.com for audio books), than it will in the direction of broadcast (radio and tv). Broadcast depends on advertising for it's review stream. Unless you think that advertising supported web sites will eventually offer ebooks for free, I'm not sure how ebooks fit in that mold.

I don't know if you have ever checked out audible, but both audible and itunes have shown how successful you can be if you make it easy for the customer to find, pay for and download content. I can very easily see Amazon being equally successful with ebooks once the ebook readers standardize on a format.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

I think that you are mixing two very different legal issues with regards to the broadcast industry. The first issue is the thief of signal issue, i.e. getting decoders to receive satellite or cable signal you didn't pay for. This is no different than taping into a power line, or water main.

Very respect, it's very different.

If you tap into a power line or water main you are taking away a limited physical resource. Every litre of water that you take is 1 litre less for other people.

If you build an "unauthorised" receiver for electromagnetic signals broadcast from a satellite, you aren't taking anything away from anyone else. That is a situation precisely analogous to book piracy - you're taking something without paying for it, but you're not taking it away from other people. Of course that doesn't mean that it's not "wrong", but it is different from taking water or electricity.

[pwalker8]

Axel is correct. If someone released the secret formula for Coke, then Coke could sue the person who released it for either contract violation or breaking and entering (the exact legal remedy would depend on who released it, how they got the formula and where it occurred), but there isn't a thing they could do to anyone who used that formula to manufacture Coke.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Axel is correct. If someone released the secret formula for Coke, then Coke could sue the person who released it for either contract violation or breaking and entering (the exact legal remedy would depend on who released it, how they got the formula and where it occurred), but there isn't a thing they could do to anyone who used that formula to manufacture Coke.

They couldn't call it "Coke", though; that is protected - by trademark law. People ask "what's in a name". In the case of something like Coke, the answer is "a very large amount of money". The name is, I suspect, a lot more valuable than the exact recipe (which, in any event, changes from time to time, and is different in different countries).

[pwalker8]

From a legal point of view, tapping into a cable signal and tapping into a power line are exactly the same. At least that is the case in the US. It's totally different from book piracy or to use the legally correct and less emotionally loaded term, copyright infringement. A completely different set of laws are involved.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

From a legal point of view, tapping into a cable signal and tapping into a power line are exactly the same. At least that is the case in the US. It's totally different from book piracy or to use the legally correct and less emotionally loaded term, copyright infringement. A completely different set of laws are involved.

I wasn't referring to the law, but the actual effects of what you were doing - taking something "physical" as opposed to using something intangible without paying for it.

[axel77]

Originally Posted by HarryT

They couldn't call it "Coke", though; that is protected - by trademark law. People ask "what's in a name". In the case of something like Coke, the answer is "a very large amount of money". The name is, I suspect, a lot more valuable than the exact recipe (which, in any event, changes from time to time, and is different in different countries).

Well they could call it "Coke" the trademark is on "Coca Cola" :-) Which they are not allowed to use. Thats why any Coca cola employee is teached very painstainkingly to never say "Coke" but always "Coca Cola".l. (a friend of mine did some advertisment for them, and they were near to brainwashed never to say "Coke").

You could sell it under "Harry Coke" altough... Tastes just like the coke you know, but cheaper.

Altough its correct that a name is much worth, you see it in generica in medicine where the patent has runned out. People still buy, and doctors still give the well known names, altough cheaper products are available which consist of exact the same formula.

Heck even I buy "Aspirin" out of habituation and/or lazyness altough I know there are cheaper replicas out there, equal in quality, I never asked tough.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by axel77

Well they could call it "Coke" the trademark is on "Coca Cola" :-) Which they are not allowed to use. Thats why any Coca cola employee is teached very painstainkingly to never say "Coke" but always "Coca Cola".l. (a friend of mine did some advertisment for them, and they were near to brainwashed never to say "Coke").

That's interesting, thanks. Most "generic" brands seem to use the word "Cola" in their names, which is probably why I was under the impression that the name "Coke" was protected.

[axel77]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's interesting, thanks. Most "generic" brands seem to use the word "Cola" in their names, which is probably why I was under the impression that the name "Coke" was protected.

Umm I'm not so sure, maybe you are right it was the otherway around. Sorry. I just know they were trained to always say the full name.

Okay better sell it under "Harry Cola" Then :-)

[zelda_pinwheel]

actually i believe the origine of the name "coca-cola" is two of its (original) ingredients, cocaïne, and cola (from the cola plant). cola is the name of the plant so anyone can make a drink called "cola."

[Damn - sorry Zelda - just edited your post by mistake. Terribly sorry. Harry]

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

actually i believe the origine of the name "coca-cola" is two of its (original) ingredients, cocaïne, and cola (from the cola plant). cola is the name of the plant so anyone can make a drink called "cola."

That's actually back to front.

The plant which cocaine comes from is called the "coca" plant; the original formulation of Coca Cola contained cocaine and was sold as a medicinal health tonic. The word "cola" is just a generic word, as far as I know.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coca

[Sparrow]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cola#Etymology

"The word cola as part of the Coca-Cola trademark may have originated from the kola nuts that were originally used as the source of caffeine, or from when the original recipe contained coca (from which cocaine is derived)."

[HarryT]

Thanks, Sparrow!

[pwalker8]

Whither or not something is physical isn't really germane to the issue. From a practical point of view, one person tapping into an electrical line or water line isn't going to prevent someone down the line from getting electricity or water except in the most extreme situations. That's why from a legal point of view, it's considered thief of service.