Open Source culture to blame for e-book piracy!

[schex86]

I think the nature of "society" is largely a moot point in the context of this discussion. Specifically, we already have the framework of a national society to operate within, that being the US Constitution. It should be safe to say that most of the participants here have more or less accepted the fundamental tenets of this document, as have the vast majority of US citizens.

So, starting from that baseline, we should next take a gander at the Constitution's copyright clause, which reads:

"To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

If we look at the founders' actual intentions, as evidenced by their actual actions, then we see that most modern copyright protection does not contribute to the "Progress of Science and USEFUL Arts".

A plain interpretation of the Copyright Clause advises against extending copyright protection to purely artistic or expressive works. And this is apparent in the first implementations of copyright in the US. The Copyright Act of 1790 only covered maps, charts, and books, of which hardly any were fiction as novels had not yet risen to prominence. The Act, "strangely" enough, excluded all other forms of artistic expression, though it is doubtless that its drafters, many of whom had also worked on the US Constitution, enjoyed such things immensely.

Of course, when we look at this in a modern context, it seems obvious that copyrights should now be extended to recognize the many specializations of Science and other useful arts. So, maps & charts, non-fiction books, technical drawings/illustrations, documentaries, software, and architectural designs should be included, while paintings, sculptures, most fiction books, most movies, most music, most dances, most plays, etc. should be excluded.

Now it is well understood that the founders' intentions as reflected in the Constitution have largely been co-opted. Who would dare? This is also well understood, the Courts have chosen for themselves this role, blatantly bending the words of the founders to fit whatever their agenda has happened to be. Hence, the Publishers have turned to the Courts to circumvent the will of the people, and protect themselves from the ever present threat of Capitalism with its much feared Creative Destruction.

If copyrights should be extended to purely artistic expressions, then do so according to the tenets of the established framework. Amend the Constitution. That is the only way in which you will achieve the protection you desire by the Will of the People.

Until then, you have nothing more than Unrighteous Dominion.

As for myself, I have signed no contract with ANY author or publishing house, and I doubt they ever will seek to do so. They do not believe that my, or your, or anyone's approval is required to establish their power over society. All that is necessary for them is lawyers and a willing court system.

But I have willingly accepted the conditions of the US Constitution, and have even sworn to defend it. When the current copyright "contractual obligations" placed upon me reflect this reality; then, and only then, will I consider them valid.

I have not yet addressed the second constraint on copyrights, that of "Limited Times". And though it may seem disheartening to the current copyright sycophants, I believe that this constraint contains within it the key to ending the conflict between all parties concerned.

[schex86]

Originally Posted by jasonkchapman

It's fine with me, especially since I'm not entirely convinced that we actually disagree!

Its fine with me as well. Just seemed strange that's all...

[Patricia]

There are loads of stock dilemmas used to illustrate the conflict between individual freedom and the greatest good for the greatest number. Here's one, derived from Peter Singer's version:

You are visiting a friend in hospital. Accidentally, you take a wrong turning and go to the transplant ward. There is one person needing a heart, two people in need of kidneys, and someone else who needs a liver. They will all die unless they get transplants soon. (Also there are a couple of people in need of corneas, skins grafts and other odds and ends.)
The surgeon looks at you. Why shouldn't he knock you on the head and harvest your organs? One life is lost. Four lives are saved (plus the odds and ends as incidental benefits). So there might be a net gain of three lives.

Most of us wouldn't like a society where we could be sacrificed in this way. On the other hand, most of us wouldn't like a society run on purely utilitarian considerations. So there is a problem about where lines should be drawn in each area.

[schex86]

Originally Posted by Patricia

There are loads of stock dilemmas used to illustrate the conflict between individual freedom and the greatest good for the greatest number. Here's one, derived from Peter Singer's version:



Most of us wouldn't like a society where we could be sacrificed in this way. On the other hand, most of us wouldn't like a society run on purely utilitarian considerations. So there is a problem about where lines should be drawn in each area.

The problem here is that only one side of the coin has been effectively represented, that of the author's right to control, while the individual's right to copy and share as he pleases has been discarded as irrelevant. I believe both have their place, both are essential, and a compromise should be reached that balances these valid interests.

However, due to various circumstances, such a compromise appears to be impossible. Something, then, must change...

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by schex86

The problem here is that only one side of the coin has been effectively represented, that of the author's right to control, while the individual's right to copy and share as he pleases has been discarded as irrelevant. I believe both have their place, both are essential, and a compromise should be reached that balances these valid interests.

However, due to various circumstances, such a compromise appears to be impossible. Something, then, must change...

The current law IS a compromise. Illegal copying is just that Illegal. It's defined by the law that we live under. Certain rights are provided by the copyright laws including fair use. Wholesale duplication of works is not legal except by contract with the copyright owner, in lieu of such contract it is illegal.

[schex86]

Originally Posted by kennyc

The current law IS a compromise. Illegal copying is just that Illegal. It's defined by the law that we live under. Certain rights are provided by the copyright laws including fair use. Wholesale duplication of works is not legal except by contract with the copyright owner, in lieu of such contract it is illegal.

Regardless of the legalese, the means by which these contractual conditions were obtained was by circumventing the will of the people. When the voice of said people is incorporated into these currently one-sided contracts, then you will also have said people's support.

Until then, you will not...

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by schex86

Regardless of the legalese, the means by which these contractual conditions were obtained was by circumventing the will of the people. When the voice of said people is incorporated into these currently one-sided contracts, then you will also have said people's support.

Until then, you will not...

The thing that you and others keep ignoring is that our constitution and laws (including the legal contracts) ARE the will of the people. At least until they are changed by the processes in place. If you or others feel they are wrong then work to change them, instead of bitching and complaining on web forums. Till then if you choose to break the law you are performing illegal and possibly criminal acts and can be held accountable.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by Harmon

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? ...

Well, that certainly isn't their stated intention.

Originally Posted by Harmon

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.

With most books, I am free to copy portions of the text. I can then quote those portions in a public forum, such as I have done frequently here at MobileRead, for the purpose of public discussion or criticism. That, to me, is the essence of the fair-play clause.

It's true that some authors and publishers don't allow cut and paste copying, but this is merely an inconvenience. It simply means that if you want to quote a certain portion of that book, you must copy it by hand, just as you would have to with a paper book.

Originally Posted by Harmon

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.

I'm not saying that there are no problems with DRM. Obviously, it places an unfair burden upon the consumer, who should be able to enjoy his/her purchase on any device they choose. Another big problem is what would happen if one of these companies like Amazon or B&N who use proprietary DRM schemes should fail? In such a case, all books purchased from them would become useless as soon their particular ereading devices die, and all electronic devices die eventually.

Originally Posted by Harmon

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.

No one's questioning whether the current system is currently in flux. I agree that new models will eventually emerge as consumers and suppliers shuffle about trying to get all of this sorted out.

Originally Posted by Harmon

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.

I knew it! You're secretly one of those l-i-b-e-r-a-l socialists who believes in redistribution of wealth! Hey Harmon, had lunch with Olbermann lately?

Originally Posted by Harmon

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.

Let's face it, publishers who play dirty are nothing new under the sun, just as dirty-dealing recording companies have not always been overly concerned with playing fair with musicians. That, however, does not excuse piracy.

Originally Posted by HansTWN

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.

I couldn't have said it better. Thanks!

[DawnFalcon]

Yes, the self-justification involved in breaking the law by stripping DRM and breaking the law by falsely presenting your identity to sites to download books and then trying to say it's okay... just lol, frankly.

You're breaking far more laws, and laying yourself open to far nastier criminal penalties, than the people who just download from the darknet (in part because money has changed hands).

If you really respected the current law you'd not be doing that. I, for my part, simply buy second hand pbooks rather than subject myself to DRM - which is entirely legal and certainly actively destructive to publishers and authors, unlike darknets where there are arguments over the precise effect

[schex86]

Originally Posted by kennyc

The thing that you and others keep ignoring is that our constitution and laws (including the legal contracts) ARE the will of the people. At least until they are changed by the processes in place. If you or others feel they are wrong then work to change them, instead of bitching and complaining on web forums. Till then if you choose to break the law you are performing illegal and possibly criminal acts and can be held accountable.

I am certainly not ignoring the laws, but watching with growing alarm as more and more of them become ever increasingly threatening to the concept of government by the people, of the people, and for the people.

Regardless of the tokenistic "fair use" bones thrown in my direction, the current state of copyright law leans heavily to one side. In order to correct this imbalance, I propose that the Publishers utilize a social contract that greatly overshadows their petty legal victories, the US Constitution.

In order to do so, they must propose that copyrights be extended to all the works they feel are justified in an amendment to the Constitution which would then be ratified by all the people in their respective states. If the measure failed, then we would return to the founders' original intent of "Science and useful Arts" with "Limited Times", as was already ratified by the People so many years ago.

You see, the change that must occur is the realization that the Publisher's or Author's power and authority to control, comes not from himself, but from the People. When he realizes this, then, and only then, can a truly productive compromise be reached...

[Krystian Galaj]

Originally Posted by kennyc

The thing that you and others keep ignoring is that our constitution and laws (including the legal contracts) ARE the will of the people.

And when Disney representatives once again visit members of the Congress and copyright terms is extended, this will also become the will of the people.

Right...

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

And when Disney representatives once again visit members of the Congress and copyright terms is extended, this will also become the will of the people.

Right...

Sorry, but thats the way the system currently works. As I said if you have issues with it then work to change it. Posting here won't do it.

[DawnFalcon]

Sure, let me know after the revolution how things are going.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Sorry, but thats the way the system currently works. As I said if you have issues with it then work to change it. Posting here won't do it.

How about civil disobedience? Because, after all, that is what "piracy" consists of.

[schex86]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Sorry, but thats the way the system currently works. As I said if you have issues with it then work to change it. Posting here won't do it.

The fact that you're apologizing for the "system" looks like progress to me.

FYI, a system or business model predicated against the will of the people on the coercive enforcement of artificial scarcity is bound to fail. It creates a bubble which protects the privileged group from the "destructive" forces of capitalism, but which, as it inevitably expands, growing exponentially in surface area and thus thinner, becomes more and more susceptible to market forces, until it bursts.

The pain that might have been suffered had the bubble never been erected in the first place is multiplied at this juncture by the weight of all the parasitic entities which attached themselves to its ever expanding surface, thus at times leading to cataclysmic disasters which, of course, could have easily been avoided had the free market simply been allowed to correct itself at the outset.

The People are the market forces the current copyright bubble attempts to defend against. They are not seen as equals in the social contract, but as evils to be controlled and, preferably, avoided entirely. This attitude is unsustainable, and WILL fail, no revolution necessary.

However, it is my preference that we preemptively burst the current bubble, preferably in a way that minimizes the pain. Then we can discuss whether or not a bubble of any size is necessary in the first place.