Open Source culture to blame for e-book piracy!

[schex86]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

The rights holders are the only ones who can make legal copies. But technological advances have enabled scrupulous people to make perfect, but illegal copies

This mirrors my thoughts pretty well.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Yes, they have that right. Because of a little thing called copyright.

No, the government has that authority, not the author. Big difference.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

The expression "artificial scarcity" was created to make people think that copies should naturally be free

Which is exactly how it would be without copyright laws.

Copyright is what creates the "artificial scarcity". Without it, abundance would be the natural state.

[Barcey]

For laws to be effective they need to be accepted by the majority of the population and they need a control point. The people that created the original copyright understood this and that is why they put the control at the point of copy.

It was effective because it was expensive to make copies and the people that were making the copies had money so they could be sued.

The control point has weakened over the years with cheaper copy technology and now with digital copies it has vanished.

People have turned to technology to save them. 'Yes technology protection measures will give us the control back' - Whoops doesn't work.

'OK TPM's will work but we just need tougher laws'. - Sorry still doesn't work. It can't be practically enforced and the general population will never accept draconian measures to protect a dead control point. This is where we are today.

I feel that we have to go back to the original intent when copyright was created and define new rights. For argument sake call them Digital Creative Work Rights. Now we need a new control point.

There isn't a perfect one but the best we have is at the point of sale. That's where taxes are collected, that's where records should be kept. Nobody should be able to sell the work without the owner getting compensated.

There should also be recognition of distribution rights and rights to derivative works but both can't be practically enforced unless there is gross violation.

I really feel the idea of digital "copy" rights need to go away. People are still grasping at the vanishing strands of the copy control point. To maintain the intent of the rights the definition needs to change.

My two cents.

[Dumas]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

I have read the definition before, thank you. The point being is that the abundance created by third parties who have no right to do so is artificial.

That is not my understanding. According to the concept, abundance is created not by third parties but "extreme increases in productivity and technology."

Originally Posted by HansTWN

The expression "artificial scarcity" was created to make people think that copies should naturally be free and the rights holders somehow "wronged" the public by withholding them. This, of course, turns reality on its head. The rights holders are the only ones who can make legal copies. But technological advances have enabled unscrupulous people to make perfect, but illegal copies, thereby creating artificial abundance. Therefore the expression is a deliberate attempt to mislead.

Your inference is unsupported by the concept as defined.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Dumas

That is not my understanding. According to the concept, abundance is created not by third parties but "extreme increases in productivity and technology."

Yes, and these "extreme increases in technology" are being abused by third parties for illegal purposes. And to justify such behavior the term "artificial scarcity" was invented.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by Harmon

The purpose of DRM is not to deal with pirates. Pirates break DRM for breakfast. They laugh at DRM.

The purpose of DRM is to erase the fair use rights of the non-pirating public under the copyright law. Rights that are clearly ours under the copyright law are foreclosed through the back door of DRM, because DRM keeps us from exercising them.

For instance, you have a clear right under copyright law to move media from one environment (television) to tape (VCR.) But DRM can prevent it. You have a clear right to take a Kindle book and move it to your Sony to read it. But DRM prevents you from doing so. If you are a teacher, you have a clear right to take a chapter from a DRM protected ebook, and distribute it to your students to read on their computers. But DRM prevents you from doing it.

Piracy may, indeed, be stealing. I tend to agree with you on that, but I have some reservations when I consider Cory Doctorow's observation that artists operate in their technological environment, and the technological environment of the 21st century has, at its core, free and open copying. That's how the internet works.

It is entirely possible that the concept of "piracy" is obsolete under our emerging technological conditions. In a world where water is hard to find, it could be a crime to fill your canteen. In a world where it rains all the time, the concept of a canteen makes little sense.

But don't kid yourself. We would have DRM even if every person in the world refused to pirate.

That seems to be a very cynical view, and I hate to think it's the only reason publishers put DRM into their products. It casts the publishers as pure villains with ulterior motives beyond simply the protection of their products. I don't care for this view at all, but I must admit the possibility exists that it may have the virtue of being correct.

However, even if this is true, I would still discourage piracy, not only because I believe it is a violation of ethics, but because the existence of piracy gives cover to publishers to continue to use DRM schemes.

As I've previously stated, I see nothing unethical about removing DRM for personal use from books that have been legally purchased.

Kudos to you for your well-thought out reply, however!

[schex86]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Yes, and these "extreme increases in technology" are being abused by third parties for illegal purposes. And to justify such behavior the term "artificial scarcity" was invented.

So, if at some point I used my newly developed car-ray to produce an infinite amount of Toyota Priuses (or is it Priui?), and distributed them free of charge throughout the entire world, thus providing real wealth and carbon emissions nirvana to boot, I assume you'd consider that abuse as well?

[Dumas]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Yes, and these "extreme increases in technology" are being abused by third parties for illegal purposes. And to justify such behavior the term "artificial scarcity" was invented.

Your inference is unfounded by definition.

I don't see where artificial scarcity has anything to do with behavior, but instead recognizes an economic situation that exists whereby abundance is possible due to technology.

Through coercion and legal means, scarcity is created where abundance could otherwise exist, hence the scarcity is artificial in nature.

Any abuses/behaviors you allege are independent of the economic condition.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

That seems to be a very cynical view, and I hate to think it's the only reason publishers put DRM into their products. It casts the publishers as pure villains with ulterior motives beyond simply the protection of their products.

What other reason would there be, except to keep the customer from using the product in any fashion other than that required by DRM, which is the effective elimination of the legal right to fair use? I'm unaware of any implementation of DRM that fully recognizes fair use. I'm not even sure that there could be one. The essence of DRM is anti-fair use.

I don't think that what the publishers are doing is protecting is their product. They are protecting their business model, and attempting to expand the zone of profitability by denying customers rights previously associated with their product.

The internet changes everything. Publishers are going to have to come up with a new business model for their new internet product. Attempting to sell the new product using old methods will work for a while, but eventually someone will figure out how the new business model should work, and everyone will have to move to it.

About the only thing I'm confident of is that the essence of the internet lies in digital copying. So any new business model is going to have to leverage off of copying, not restrict copying.

However, even if this is true, I would still discourage piracy, not only because I believe it is a violation of ethics, but because the existence of piracy gives cover to publishers to continue to use DRM schemes.

Yeah, but what we call "piracy: isn't going away. It existed before copyright laws, and will exist after the current ones are obsolete - what we call "piracy" is nothing other than copying. What turns it into piracy is our sense that the author/creator should control the financial benefits and artistic life of his book. From that perspective seems to me that often, publishers are the real pirates, because they take control of those things for a pittance. Just remember the sad tale of the two kids who came up with Superman. Perversely, copyright law screwed them.

As I've previously stated, I see nothing unethical about removing DRM for personal use from books that have been legally purchased.

Heck, it's not even illegal (in the US, at any rate.)

Kudos to you for your well-thought out reply, however!

Aw, shucks...

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Dumas

Through coercion and legal means, scarcity is created where abundance could otherwise exist, hence the scarcity is artificial in nature.

You could say that for any private property -- in digital or in physical form, coercion by the state is needed to prevent others from stealing. I don't see anything wrong with that. What is so natural about taking what is not yours and not paying for it? That makes only sense if there is no private property whatsoever.

[random50]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

You could say that for any private property -- in digital or in physical form

Not really. If you remove all legal and ethical concerns, it will still require non-trivial resources to create an abundance in the case of most physical products.

[schex86]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

What is so natural about taking what is not yours and not paying for it?

You mean by taking away my natural right to make copies of useful information that I might like to archive and share with others? I've received no payments to date...

[DawnFalcon]

HansTWN - No, it's a term commonly used in economics.

Hyperbole of the sort you just indulged in doesn't help in any way.

[Dumas]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

You could say that for any private property -- in digital or in physical form,

Well no, you really can't say that since abundance doesn't exist in the context you suggest.

Originally Posted by HansTWN

... coercion by the state is needed to prevent others from stealing. I don't see anything wrong with that.

For the benefit of this discussion unless you choose to define otherwise, coercion is the practice of forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, intimidation, trickery, or some other form of pressure or force.

Coercion by the State might be a key component in creating artificial scarcity, but it hardly prevents infringement. It seems that the RIAA and MPAA trade groups have made coercion part of their business model as it relates to music and film. Whether that will happen w/eBooks remains to be seen. I include this comment as it relates to forcing people to refrain from sharing which they would otherwise naturally engage.

Originally Posted by HansTWN

What is so natural about taking what is not yours and not paying for it? That makes only sense if there is no private property whatsoever.

I can see where you would have a problem since it seems you do not acknowledge current technology makes abundance possible.