Misleading Metaphors That Drive The War On Online Sharing

[MrsJoseph]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

They don't have to "buy into" the system if they don't want to. They just have to be prevented from taking actions that corrupt that system.

We come back to the cable metaphor: Don't like your cable company? Don't buy cable, no one's got a gun to your head. Of course, in that case, there are legal alternatives to cable (satellite, airwaves, DVDs, theaters, etc) as well as not watching TV. Perhaps ebooks need an alternative delivery medium that can be more easily controlled, such as embedding them on hard storage medium as movies are embedded on DVDs. Not ideal for such a wonderfully digital medium, but perhaps in the name of practical legality, it might be desirable for many.

What I was trying to say is that there is no way to make everyone in the world to do what you think they should do. No matter what you do there will always be someone wearing fake Prada or rocking a fake Louie. The fake Rolex is so well known that it's become a joke. Have you ever been to NYC? It's awash with people on the side of the street selling every fake thing you can ever imagine.

There is no way to get everyone to buy into the system so start ignoring everyone and start focusing on your customer. That's where your sales are and those are the people you want to think about you and the quality work you produce. It's also become about branding. Publishers and booksellers need to brand themselves with quality and great customer service - which (with the exception of Amazon) they do not do.

Copyright Infringement is wrong and should come with punishment...but spending all the time and money looking for a thief behind every bush instead of polishing your product makes little to no sense.

I think that giving bootleg books the same social stigma of wearing fake christian louboutins would work. The idea of being a pirate is cool and invokes the idea of going against the establishment. You even get a cool skull and crossbones logo to go with it. The idea of toting a fake Louie invokes the vision of cheap and/or tacky. The same basic idea applies - if you can't afford it, don't pretend.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Problem is that there's no difference between a legit shook and a bootleg, so no reason to denigrate one over the other.

I think, as opposed to trying to give bootleg books a bad stigma, a better approach would be to lionize authors themselves. They are independent entrepreneurs and craftspeople; the cream of the world's crop; they deserve support, they don't deserve to be stolen from.

[Soldim]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

It's possible. Resistance from those who embrace unaccountability and anonymity are what's preventing it.

Whereas I fully agree that illegal downloading is unethical and immoral, I am appalled to see what freedoms you are willing to give up (and want others to give up) in exchange for a few bucks.

Personally, I value the anonymous expression possibilities, both for those in repressed countries as for those in relatively well functioning democracies above the (perceived!!) financial interests of any author or creator.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

The potential market for illegal downloads is much smaller than the market for legal sharing and lending.

Plus, anyone who would buy a second hand ebook is someone who definitely WOULD have bought it, so there's no wishy-washy "well they might have bought it so it still might be a lost sale."

BTW, here's what a music industry veteran had to say about Amazon's new cloud service:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.co...w.google.co.uk

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

I think, as opposed to trying to give bootleg books a bad stigma, a better approach would be to lionize authors themselves. They are independent entrepreneurs and craftspeople; the cream of the world's crop; they deserve support, they don't deserve to be stolen from.

Do you remember this thread?

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

"well they might have bought it so it still might be a lost sale."

Truly the cornerstone of publishers/music and entertainment industry's big lie.

I liken this to the image of Nero fiddling whilst Rome burned. Certainly that image fits.

[Skip_intro]

Computer Games manufacturers have tried and failed, in the main, with their DRM. Most of the games are cracked and copied within a short time of release, sometime even before release.

It would be remarkable if publishers came up with something to protect books that hasn't been tried already.

A Blue Sky solution to lending your own books would be to implement some variation on the OverDrive program that lending libraries use. You could lend your copy to someone else via a Sony / B&N / Amazon library server, for a specified time.

[Pinecone]

Originally Posted by Thasaidon

From today's BBC news.

There is a small cafe near where Tolkein used to live in the UK called "The Hungry Hobbit". It has used the name for six years.

The lawyers for the big US corporation which purchased the copy right to Tolkein's work has written to them telling them to stop using the name. They say "it could cause confusion" and was an infringement of copyright (theft?).

I think the argument is risible and just another way big corporations try to extend "their rights". As far as I am concerned is a potential PR disaster for the company. Similar to the Harry Potter domain owned by a young girl who was similarly approached by the film company who claimed exclusive "rights" to the domain name.

How does the above add to the income of J. R. Tolkein as he died at a ripe old age some years ago?

Worse, years ago there was a Filipino restaurant in Baltimore, MD. Called Sonie's. The owner's name was Sonie. Sony Corporation actually sued her to change the name of her restaurant due to the possible "confusion."

Hmm, I would have never thought of a Philippine resaurant as being connected the the Sony Electronic corporation.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Pinecone

Hmm, I would have never thought of a Philippine resaurant as being connected the the Sony Electronic corporation.

In the UK, at least, the courts have ruled that trademark conflicts can't prevent someone from using their own name on a business. There was a case in Scotland not so long ago where Macdonald's tried to force a local business called something like "Macdonald's Cafe" (I forget the details) to change their name; they lost on the grounds that, as the cafe was run by a Mrs Macdonald, she was perfectly entitled to use that name in her business.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Soldim

Whereas I fully agree that illegal downloading is unethical and immoral, I am appalled to see what freedoms you are willing to give up (and want others to give up) in exchange for a few bucks.

Personally, I value the anonymous expression possibilities, both for those in repressed countries as for those in relatively well functioning democracies above the (perceived!!) financial interests of any author or creator.

This again.

As I've pointed out earlier, most of us have already given up those freedoms for our driver's licenses, credit cards, store cards, cellphones, health plans, mortgages, vehicles, internet access, etc, etc. Will this one straw on that pile really break the camel's back?

So, feel free to tell us all about these "freedoms" we presently have, that ebooks will cause us to lose.

I realize that anonymity is useful to protect those rightly in fear of persecution. However, most of those interested in buying and selling ebooks are not in that situation. In fact, most of those on threads like this are more worried about telemarketers than threats to their freedoms.

And as you are clearly don't understand how an author could have "financial interests"--but seem sure about your own "perception" of privacy--I'll be glad to hear your description of a system that will encourage writers to write anything at all for people like you.

[Sil_liS]

Speaking of freedom:
EU law precludes the imposition of an injunction by a national court which requires an internet service provider to install a filtering system with a view to preventing the illegal downloading of files

It is true that the protection of the right to intellectual property is enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. There is, however, nothing whatsoever in the wording of the Charter or in the Court's case-law to suggest that that right is inviolable and must for that reason be absolutely protected.
[...]
Consequently, the Court finds that, in adopting the injunction requiring Scarlet to install such a filtering system, the national court would not be respecting the requirement that a fair balance be struck between the right to intellectual property, on the one hand, and the freedom to conduct business, the right to protection of personal data and the right to receive or impart information, on the other.

So it was decided yesterday that ISPs don't have the legal obligation of helping people with the moral dilemma on the subject of illegal downloads.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

And as you are clearly don't understand how an author could have "financial interests"--but seem sure about your own "perception" of privacy--I'll be glad to hear your description of a system that will encourage writers to write anything at all for people like you.

I've got no interest in money myself, otherwise I would write about young wizards and vampires, but plenty of writers make a living from their writing despite piracy. They do it by writing things that people want to read, and jumping on bandwagons at the right time.

[Freeshadow]

nope steven
anonymity is useful to protect the average from becoming a transparent citizen

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

I've got no interest in money myself, otherwise I would write about young wizards and vampires, but plenty of writers make a living from their writing despite piracy. They do it by writing things that people want to read, and jumping on bandwagons at the right time.

That really doesn't address the dilemma of writers who could make a living writing but cannot because of piracy (unless your answer really is "If you want to make money, write pop crap").

Originally Posted by Freeshadow

nope steven
anonymity is useful to protect the average from becoming a transparent citizen

Sorry, but that didn't really translate over.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Steven Lyle Jordan

That really doesn't address the dilemma of writers who could make a living writing but cannot because of piracy (unless your answer really is "If you want to make money, write pop crap").

If piracy was stopping writers from making any money JA Konrath wouldn't be making any money because his books are literally everywhere (including the one that came out a couple of days ago).