Open Source culture to blame for e-book piracy!

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Dumas

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

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.

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

LEGAL abundance is impossible with current technology. Free copying hurts the creators and their agents, and thus society. Therefore I think calling it artificial abundance is correct. Just because something is possible doesn't make it right.

Again, I see nothing wrong with coercion by the state when the cause is just and action as to be taken to avoid people's rights being trampled on. What should be wrong with coercion to prevent crime? It should be hoped that it isn't necessary, but that's what law enforcement is for.

Sharing always sounds great. The question is, why share what belongs to others, how can that be right? They have not agreed to let you share it. And few of us here see anything wrong if you break the DRM and do with the ebook you paid for exactly what you had done with a pbook. Share the book and do not keep the original. Actually you are even allowed to hand out 4-6 copies, legally. What is not right is downloading the book without paying and uploading.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

..
Besides, I want to nominate "artificial scarcity" as the official nonword of the century. It is very similar to "Endloesung". Created by a ruthless mind to justify what can never be justified. Not the scarcity is artificial, the abundance is, since only the rights holder can legally make copies.

[kennyc]

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. 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.

Agreed. It's the same as saying anti-piracy.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

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

And the government is composed of the will of the people(corporations). But that is irrelevant because the law is the law and we've already agreed to abide by it.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by schex86

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?

Potentially, because then everyone would have a car and no one would be able to go anywhere because the roads would be too crowded with accidents that kill people and the would not be enough road repair crews to keep them running and the electricity required would pollute the planet moreso than efficient gasoline engines and we would all suffer and die.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Dumas

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.

Doesn't matter though. The owner of the product can decide at what level to produce and distribute it. That is the way capitalistic economy works. To do it any other way requires complete and total changes to all business and human society.

There have been about a billion science fiction stories written warning of the dangers of such changes.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by schex86

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...

And that is exactly the issue. Your right to take any given action ends when it conflicts with my rights to my creations.

This is how it always has been, always will be, laws or no laws, governments or no governments. This is what war is about, this is what property ownership is about this is why governments and armies exist. This is why you have a job.

[huari]

I love all the ideas and have been challenged and moved by all the arguments and tangents. It's nice to see everyone copying large chunks of other people's 'work' and not be encumbered having to draft a license to exchange these arguments and ideas. I had to stop around page 18 though.

Surprisingly, I learned more about Ben Franklin than I would have imagined that want to check out his autobiography at manybooks.net.

I too wish there was a middle ground. I find polarization discouraging.
I want to reward authors for the quality work they provide and do so by purchasing their books. It feels good.
I appreciate publishers like O'Reilly who offer their books in convenient digital formats unhindered by DRM so that my devices can view them.
I love our library and the fact I can sideload some stuff that would cost $10 on my Kindle but 'free' for my better half's Sony.
Hard to resist the free-Borg.

On the other hand, my recent experience with DRM with my spouses new Sony was frustrating and cost me much time and resources. Luckily, I was able to benefit and share these experiences with the MobileRead community.

Nevertheless, if I enjoyed a book I bought, I may tend to buy more or different goods from that same author because I've become a fan.

Maybe authors and/or their agents can find a way to generate incentive with value added features (signed copy, site membership, special video edition, magic decoder ring) or as some say learn to accept infringement as a loss leader/reseller in this new digital economy.

Unfortunately, I echo a concern of a previous poster about cultural decline or stagnation. I can't prove it, but the reign of mediocrity from a saturation of universal collectivism would sadden me. Heck, such monoculture appears to be motivating the current crop of e-readers at CES. I mean even the pundits are getting tired of reviewing these 'same' things. No wonder people flock to a Apple iSlate (tm) Luckily, maybe these things will go down in price and they'll starting giving out these samplers away for FREE I see enough MickeyDs and Starbucks. I hope it doesn't happen to creative works. The noise to signal would be mind numbing for generations.

There's always going to be pirates. Let's hope they are nice and friendly like Johnny Depp.

Best,
tony

If you enjoyed this post, feel free to remit payment to tony

All content Copyright (C) tony

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by huari

...

If you enjoyed this post, feel free to remit payment to tony

All content Copyright (C) tony

Karma sent.

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

LEGAL abundance is impossible with current technology. Free copying hurts the creators and their agents, and thus society.

Yes, because music artists are making less mo...

...wait, they're making more money since the industry switched to MP3's and dropped DRM?

Ah, I think we have a striking counter-example which neatly disproves your theory.

[Krystian Galaj]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Free copying hurts the creators and their agents, and thus society.

1. That's simply not true.
2. Even if it was, what hurts creators and their agents (if we mean by this only the fraction of creators that won't produce without monetary payment) may benefit the society.

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Sharing always sounds great. The question is, why share what belongs to others, how can that be right?

I think this needs to be rephrased, as books don't belong to their authors after they've been published; authors only possess the copyright to them, guaranteed by the regime - which is temporary. After it expires, the book is free to stay in public domain forever.

And unauthorized copying is something people currently do, and knowledge of sociology makes it very improbable that they'll ever stop. I don't want to muddle the discussion by using terms like "right" and "wrong" which every person has internally defined differently.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

....


I think this needs to be rephrased, as books don't belong to their authors after they've been published; ...

....

And this is where we disagree. Most if not all aspects of the product still belongs to the author under the terms of law. End of discussion.

[DawnFalcon]

No, they do not. First Sale Doctine / Doctrine of Exhaustion of Rights

The author retains only VERY limited legal rights.

[kennyc]

I think lotto should be illegal as it takes advantage of the hope in all humanity.

The profits should be shared equally.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by huari

I love all the ideas and have been challenged and moved by all the arguments and tangents. It's nice to see everyone copying large chunks of other people's 'work' and not be encumbered having to draft a license to exchange these arguments and ideas. I had to stop around page 18 though.

Surprisingly, I learned more about Ben Franklin than I would have imagined that want to check out his autobiography at manybooks.net.

I too wish there was a middle ground. I find polarization discouraging.
I want to reward authors for the quality work they provide and do so by purchasing their books. It feels good.
I appreciate publishers like O'Reilly who offer their books in convenient digital formats unhindered by DRM so that my devices can view them.
I love our library and the fact I can sideload some stuff that would cost $10 on my Kindle but 'free' for my better half's Sony.
Hard to resist the free-Borg.

On the other hand, my recent experience with DRM with my spouses new Sony was frustrating and cost me much time and resources. Luckily, I was able to benefit and share these experiences with the MobileRead community.

Nevertheless, if I enjoyed a book I bought, I may tend to buy more or different goods from that same author because I've become a fan.

Maybe authors and/or their agents can find a way to generate incentive with value added features (signed copy, site membership, special video edition, magic decoder ring) or as some say learn to accept infringement as a loss leader/reseller in this new digital economy.

Unfortunately, I echo a concern of a previous poster about cultural decline or stagnation. I can't prove it, but the reign of mediocrity from a saturation of universal collectivism would sadden me. Heck, such monoculture appears to be motivating the current crop of e-readers at CES. I mean even the pundits are getting tired of reviewing these 'same' things. No wonder people flock to a Apple iSlate (tm) Luckily, maybe these things will go down in price and they'll starting giving out these samplers away for FREE I see enough MickeyDs and Starbucks. I hope it doesn't happen to creative works. The noise to signal would be mind numbing for generations.

There's always going to be pirates. Let's hope they are nice and friendly like Johnny Depp.

Best,
tony

If you enjoyed this post, feel free to remit payment to tony

All content Copyright (C) tony

Ummm, Tony. If you're claiming copyright, we'll need to take down your post because of copyright infringment. (You didn't grant us a license.)

If you'd like my take on the the state of copyright, It's available free here as the short book (40 pages or so) And The World Changed. It's PD, by author's choice...