Massive wave of ebook piracy?

[Greg Anos]

Moral? You know, for something that's only been around for 300 years, I find the moral concept of copyright real difficult to swallow. Practical, yes, but moral? I just wish the US Founding Father had been willing to lock 14 years with an extension, in the Constitution itself (they came close) instead of letting every big corporation buy extensions whenever they might have some "property"
(and it isn't property) get released into the public domain.

As to laws, there have been laws created in various places that have ranged from unmitigatingly evil to unbelievably stupid, and often conflicting. And I'm supposed to play Twister to try and follow them....

[thrawn_aj]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

I never said that breaking DRM was stealing.

That's how it came off. Regardless, clarification accepted (even though you insist of juxtaposing the two constantly. Another rhetorical trick? Fascinating ).

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

It's a violation of the DMCA. either way, it would still come under law breaking.

Debatable. The recent exemptions to the DMCA show that this is FAR from being the binary issue you make it out to be.

1. Ruhr?
2. No it isn't. The reason why we have a DMCA in the first place should make it clear why.
3. Finally, some usable advice
4. You're quite right. There is no question of exoneration when there is no crime to begin with (non-profit violations of the DMCA are a civil matter). You can keep writing "lame rationalizing" over and over. All that appears on my screen (after a 5 second delay) is "nuh uh". Must be my new rhetoric filter .

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

Again, you neither need nor are entitled to a copy of a book unless you are willing to meet the seller's terms. If you do not wish or cannot afford to do so, don't buy or steal the book.

To the stealing, I agree (and have done so from the start). To the rest, I would encourage you to take an inventory of the items in your house. Then read the instructions (and the MSDS for household chemicals) on every single item and evaluate whether you are using it exactly the way the manufacturer intended. Don't have the MSDS on hand? Well, I don't see the DMCA at the back of every book either - ignorance of the law is no excuse. Look them up on the internet. The EPA environmental laws are far more important than copyright law. Are you disposing of them exactly the way the law says? Are you using everything exactly as the manufacturer instructs - no repurposing [sic], no hacking. After all, a covenant with the manufacturer is sacred - and may lightning fall on our heads if we ignore even the slightest part of the fine print, even if it hurts the seller (or anyone else for that matter) not a single whit.

By the way, please don't interpret that as a question to be answered here. It's none of my business - just a bit of advice on how to gain perspective on the sort of "crime" [sic[k]] we're talking about here. Well, not crime really - as I said before, DMCA violations (without commercial gain) are a civil matter, to be settled between the alleged violator and the party that feels violated. Seems a bit voyeuristic for so many people to get involved in what appears to be a private squabble between two civil parties.

Ah, I feel re-magnetized already. Thanks very much . I can see why people are tearing their hair out in clumps in this thread . (I guess I should apologize for the jocular tone but I've made my points with the utmost seriousness and I suppose jocular is preferable to angry so I rather think I won't ).

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

There's your downfall. If you don't like these terms, then don't buy the book.

My downfall? Fascinating use of the word. On the whole, I do believe I'll refrain from taking your peremptory advice.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

[SNIP]Let me suggest this solution. It would be possible for Congress to pass a law that calls for an end to the publisher's monopoly (as public domain would) upon the death of the author, but would nevertheless require the heirs to receive a stated percentage of whatever gross income any publisher receives from the publication of the work.

This would allow publishers to enter the field and publish works currently overpriced or not in print, and would allow heirs to receive part of the cash, if any, that was being exchanged for the work.

I missed something here...

As written above, this law would allow publishers to produce a "non-profit" version of a work and pay the heirs their due %age of... nothing. I'm not sure whether that's a bug or a feature, but it's an interesting edge case.

Contracts that fail to specify a minimum can be extremely problematic. For example, Microsoft licensed the original version of Internet Explorer from, um... I-can't-remember-who. The contract required a per-copy royalty payment from Microsoft to the original developers, specified as a percentage of the retail selling price. Microsoft chose to give IE away for free; they happily sent quarterly royalty statements noting that no royalty was due because no sales were made. Big mistake by the lawyers on the non-Msoft side! The ensuing lawsuit eventually caused Microsoft to pay some millions of dollars to the company who had the rights originally, but it was a pittance compared to what they'd have gotten at even $0.01 per copy. (note: I can't remember whether this was a settlement, or whether it was due to Microsoft losing the case. Either way, it was way less paid way late.)

That's one example of how a clause like that can go wrong.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Moral? You know, for something that's only been around for 300 years, I find the moral concept of copyright real difficult to swallow. Practical, yes, but moral? I just wish the US Founding Father had been willing to lock 14 years with an extension, in the Constitution itself (they came close) instead of letting every big corporation buy extensions whenever they might have some "property"
(and it isn't property) get released into the public domain.

As to laws, there have been laws created in various places that have ranged from unmitigatingly evil to unbelievably stupid, and often conflicting. And I'm supposed to play Twister to try and follow them....

RSE:

This is exactly why I'm attempting to argue from self-interest rather than morality. It seems far more in keeping with the original text in the US Constitution. The moral argument is there (IMHO), but lots of people may see things differently. My (and your, and our, and society's) interest in giving authors an incentive to write more, on the other hand, is strictly pragmatic. How to best accomplish that goal is an interesting question, of course.

As for being "property," well... A temporary monopoly is a depleting asset (in economic terms); it's not too different from an oil well or a mine when it comes to a balance sheet. I'm not intending to suggest that all (or most, or even ANY) author do (or should!) treat their copyright in that fashion for financial purposes. Just that the value matches up pretty well. See also 100-year leases on land (as often found in Hawaii and some parts of London), value of patents, and a fair number of other things.

[Ken Maltby]

The argument that seems to be being made is that DRM is a matter of "Terms of Sale".

Generally, a seller's control over what they sell and the conditions of sale end once
payment has been made and accepted. Of course the actual arguments in court
would not be made along these lines, but more that the act of removing the DRM is
in aid of a violation (the piracy) and must be in itself prohibited. It is part in parcel
with other legal fantasy like "Guilty" property, that can be arrested, without there
ever having been a crime proven to have taken place.

Luck;
Ken

[ficbot]

I think a good point was made up-thread: the real problem is with the 'paying customer who decides not to pay.' That is the group that needs addressing. There are torrenting 'pirates' out there who did not pay and were never going to anyway---you can't do much about them. That is the cost of doing business, the same way the convenience store owner must reluctantly concede a portion of sales lost to teenagers shop-lifting candy bars. But the customer who could have paid but chose not to---the best way to address that problem is to figure out what turned them over from paying to not paying. In 99% of these cases, it's either that the ebook is priced too high (for example, priced higher than the paperback) or that the ebook is not legitimately available in their region. If you solve these two problems with a consistent pricing structure and region-free availability, you will win back these customers. It's very simple.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by thrawn_aj

That's how it came off. Regardless, clarification accepted (even though you insist of juxtaposing the two constantly. Another rhetorical trick? Fascinating )...

No it was not a rhetorical trick. I'm not the one who uses "rhetorical tricks", legal semantics, etc. to make their points here.

Originally Posted by thrawn_aj

Debatable. The recent exemptions to the DMCA show that this is FAR from being the binary issue you make it out to be.

1. Ruhr?
2. No it isn't. The reason why we have a DMCA in the first place should make it clear why.
3. Finally, some usable advice
4. You're quite right. There is no question of exoneration when there is no crime to begin with (non-profit violations of the DMCA are a civil matter). You can keep writing "lame rationalizing" over and over. All that appears on my screen (after a 5 second delay) is "nuh uh". Must be my new rhetoric filter . ...

You have lost me here. First, what is debatable here? There is only one exemption to DMCA that allows breaking DRM on an e-book: that is to allow the read-aloud function of a reader work but only if there is a copy already available that would permit that. It's a very narrow exemption.

Your point 1-4 are coming at me from out of left field and don't mean a thing to me.

1. What the heck is Rhur (besides someplace in Germany)?
2. What isn't? What about why we have DMCA is making what clear?
3. What advice are you referring to?
4. Legal semantic abuse such as this is why I use the term lawbreaking, not crime, etc. Maybe you don't like my use of rationalizing but that's exactly what it is. Don't like me saying it? Don't do it.

Your analogy to DMCA and hazardous materials regulations goes beyond comparing apples and oranges. It wanders all over the place with no relevance. Btw, repurposing is a valid way to dispose of hazardous waste (hazardous material becomes hazardous waste once it is no longer needed for the original use). After working over 30 years in heavy industry, including handling hazardous materials and waste, I'm quite familiar with the environmental laws.

[Piper_]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Oh and Piper. It this has EVERYTHING to do with rights. The rights of the one who creates the work and the rights of the publisher. The consumer has some rights but not to demand the things you and dog seems to be claiming.

The product belongs to the publisher. They get to decide what to offer to the consumer. If the consumer doesn't like the terms they can choose to go elsewhere, but that does not give them the right to break the law.

See how it really is all about rights? Copyrights and other rights.

I'm sorry, Kenny, but none of that justifies your accusing that poster of saying publishers don't have a right to do what they do and that people have a right to pirate, when he wasn't talking about rights at all.

He, and some other people are simply posting the equivalent of saying that, if I want to reduce my odds of being molested, I should avoid traipsing through dangerous streets every night, armed with nothing other than my diamonds, pearls, and bikini straps.

Their saying so is just good advice, isn't it? It does not mean they don't think I have the right to walk there in such a manner without being assaulted or that anyone has a right to assault me.

But if I keep responding by accusing them of not caring about my rights, and all I do is to complain about bad the bad guys are and how I have the right to walk there however I choose, yadda, well, people are gonna lose a lot of sympathy for me.

Yes, some people are rationalizing and blowing off other's rights. But you aren't going to be able to stop them completely, and it won't help to polarize everyone into good guys vs criminals, and you for sure won't win those in the middle by treating them disrespectfully.

[John F]

... There is only one exemption to DMCA that allows breaking DRM on an e-book: that is to allow the read-aloud function ...

I thougHt there were other exemptions?

[Piper_]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

May I suggest a pragmatic, in-between position that has nothing to do with morals?


There's no point in arguing morals on line, because (of course) my morals are far superior to your beliefs, which in turn beat the heck out of his outrageous prejudices. (Did I conjugate that correctly?) Anyway, back to my main point.

I strongly support paying for downloaded eBooks, for a very simple reason: Authors who make enough money by writing can afford to write full time. And that means they are able to produce (wait for it...) more good books for me to read. Conversely, authors who don't get money for their books have to get day jobs, which leaves them less time to write, which leads directly to fewer good books for me to read. So if I pay, I get more of what I like, and if I don't pay I get less.

There you go. A purely selfish, pragmatic, real-world reason to pay for the books you download. I am not, however, so self-centered as to believe that you—all of you out there—want to pay so that I get more books. Rather, you may decide that it's more important to have more books that you wish to read. If so, you should pay for those books so the authors you like produce more of what you want to read.

If you want to complain about wrong-headed, stupid, bleeping publishers who can't see their own best interests even when we hit them with a clue-bat... I'm right with you on that one! I'll even add some strongly worded statements about recto-cranial inversion and the like.

Meanwhile, I'll leave the moralizing to those on either side who... um... never mind. I can't go there without diluting my point.
for your patience during this brief digression from your regularly scheduled flame war.


Xenophon

I just have to say, I really like this post.


It's like the teen pregnancy argument: calmly, non-judgmentally explaining how it harms them is so much more effective than just saying it's a forbidden, nasty thing to do.

And calling them tramps for what they have already done just seals the deal, provoking them to blow you off and then live down to the label you pasted on them.

Does anyone else also feel reminded of the PETA syndrome in this issue?

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by John F

I thougHt there were other exemptions?

There are but they do not apply to e-books.

[GA Russell]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

I missed something here...

As written above, this law would allow publishers to produce a "non-profit" version of a work and pay the heirs their due %age of... nothing. I'm not sure whether that's a bug or a feature, but it's an interesting edge case.

Xenophon, I considered that. My proposal would eliminate the concept of pirating regarding the works of a deceased author.

I would not use the term non-profit. I used the term gross income. The heirs would get cash for any book sold, the movie rights, the tee shirts, etc. But an internet maven who released an eBook for free would not owe the heir anything because he was not paid anything.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

I would not use the term non-profit. I used the term gross income. The heirs would get cash for any book sold, the movie rights, the tee shirts, etc. But an internet maven who released an eBook for free would not owe the heir anything because he was not paid anything.

Seriously?

[GA Russell]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Moral? You know, for something that's only been around for 300 years, I find the moral concept of copyright real difficult to swallow. Practical, yes, but moral?

Ralph, I think that most people in the civilized world think that it is just that an author be paid for his work when there are consumers willing to pay for it. Where justice is involved, that is an instance of morality.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

Ralph, I think that most people in the civilized world think that it is just that an author be paid for his work when there are consumers willing to pay for it. Where justice is involved, that is an instance of morality.

Well, that seems trivially true and valid even if there was no copyright. So it has nothing to do with copyright and moral.