Open Source culture to blame for e-book piracy!

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by schex86

Some laws relate more to the Constitution than others. Many people in my country now believe that the lawmakers are pandering to special interest and are actively circumventing the will of the people in many respects.

Many in your country believe all Muslims are evil terrorist too but that doesn't make it true!

Seriously though, I agree many laws, including copyright ones, have been co-opted by lobby groups for the benefit of a few. That doesn't mean any and all copyright law changes since the 1790 Act are invalid.

Originally Posted by schex86

And since in my country the Constitution and its Amendments most directly reflects the will of the people, being that it was ratified by the people and by the states, then that is why I have turned to this document. Regardless, of its age, I know, without a shadow of a doubt, that it the most perfect written representation of the will of the people. I cannot, unfortunately, say the same for today's lawmakers and the laws they have produced.

There can be no perfect written representation of the will of the people.

The written word is imprecise and is written by imprecise and imperfect people.

Remember, the Constitution of Japan was ratified by the people too but it was written by the USA and the Japanese were literally held to gun point to ratify it. Would you also say that it is the perfect representation of the will of the people simply because the people ratified it? Pretty much the same goes for Iraq now too, though of course it was done much more subtly this time.

And lets just say, for the sake of it, the USA Constitution is as close to perfect as we could hope. For you to believe this to be so because it was "ratified by the people", you must believe in the democratic process. Why do you believe the democratic process would be any more workable then than now? Remember, it is a process of the people and people were just as flawed then as they are now.

Originally Posted by schex86

In the case of the Copyright Act of 1790, as you seem to have ignored,

I have ignored nothing, I simply disagree with your assertion.

Originally Posted by schex86

I already mentioned the fact that it was drafted by some of the same men who wrote the Constitution.

Yes, exactly, "some of the same men". Not exactly the same men.

Further, those men, believe it or not, were not perfect. Neither were the constituents that made up the USA at the time. Ergo, the Constitution can not possibly be a perfect representation of the will of the people.

Originally Posted by schex86

Now, I know this is a stretch, but if I needed to further qualify what the founders meant by "Useful Arts" in the Copyright Clause of the Constitution, then wouldn't it be beneficial to look at that clause put into practice by the same people who wrote it?? And this just a few years after the Constitution itself was written??

1: Not the same people. Only some of the same people. Some others who were different and thus their defitions, thoughts and feelings on the matter would have been different.
2: This different set of people, it could reasonably be expected, would come to a different conclusion regarding what exactly was meant. This committee would have taken every persons opinion into account and not simply acquiesced to the wishes of those who wrote the Constitution. Simply acquiescing would not be in the spirit of the democratic process and I'm sure even the founding fathers would not have wished for the government of the day to have taken that path.

Originally Posted by schex86

So no, it is not besides the point, it is the point, and you apparently keep missing it.

Nope, not missing it, just not agreeing with your conclusions because they are based on faulty logic.

Originally Posted by schex86

My credentials How about this, you show me yours, and I'll show you mine?

I am not the one claiming that my opinion on what a single clause in your Constitution means is the correct and, seemingly only, valid one . You are the one doing that. I am merely pointing out that the reasoning you have used to come to your conclusion is faulty and therefore your conclusion may be, and likely is, also faulty.

Originally Posted by schex86

Credentials is what got us into this mess in the first place. Its time we, as Citizens, as Individuals, took a step back and took a long hard look at the core underlying principles of our Constitution, sans the many layers of obfuscation foisted onto it over the years by the "greatest" minds of my country. On what basis, should you accept this? That's up to you.

I suppose it is easier to simply take your own reading and opinion on the matter as the only valid one and disregard any laws that you believe do not adhere to your personal opinion on the matter.

Not a very "will of the people" attitude but who really cares right?

Mind you, I'm not suggesting that all laws must or should be obeyed. Frankly it's not any concern to me if you choose to do so or not. I'm merely pointing out that just because you don't agree with a law does not mean that it is a law that does not reflect the "will of the people".

Originally Posted by schex86

Mine always has been: Seek the Truth.

Interesting but not relevant to the discussion at hand.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[calvin-c]

I might agree about the RIAA being responsible for the increased awareness of the illegality of music piracy, but they're also responsible for the increased misinformation about it. Not only because they provide misinformation but also as a 'human nature' side effect. The more people are aware of laws punishing them for something they want to do, the more likely they are to hide that they do it. Only as long as they believe they won't be punished will they be truthful-and that belief must also extend to a belief if the pollster's promise of anonymity. Human nature says that the more stings people read about (whether they involve supposed research, pollsters, or whatever-mostly people just remember that the criminals were gullible enough to believe the 'promises' that were made) the less likely it is that people who know they're breaking the law will admit it-to anybody.

The more 'crimes' are prosecuted, the more the 'criminals' go underground. It's been that way since Hammurabi invented laws, I think.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by calvin-c

I might agree about the RIAA being responsible for the increased awareness of the illegality of music piracy, but they're also responsible for the increased misinformation about it. Not only because they provide misinformation but also as a 'human nature' side effect. The more people are aware of laws punishing them for something they want to do, the more likely they are to hide that they do it. Only as long as they believe they won't be punished will they be truthful-and that belief must also extend to a belief if the pollster's promise of anonymity. Human nature says that the more stings people read about (whether they involve supposed research, pollsters, or whatever-mostly people just remember that the criminals were gullible enough to believe the 'promises' that were made) the less likely it is that people who know they're breaking the law will admit it-to anybody.

The more 'crimes' are prosecuted, the more the 'criminals' go underground. It's been that way since Hammurabi invented laws, I think.

The dishonesty of pollsters, of course, also applies to those who claim the following.....
1: I would never have bought it anyway so it's not a lost sale.
2: I just download heaps of stuff I never intend to read/listen to.
3: I plan on buying a legit copy if I like it.
4: I plan on donating to the author/singer in the future if I like their stuff.
5: I wll start buying stuff once they get rid of DRM/geo restrictions/etc.

All the above may very well be true or they may very well be total crap. Yet many seem to accpet such statements without question.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[random50]

Originally Posted by David Marseilles

Perhaps not one you'll like.



There's no question about the increase in awareness--even if someone wants to write off any info from the RIAA as propaganda (it is, but then so is almost all the info that wasn't from the RIAA -- not a lot of competent neutral sources in the music wars). RIAA foes thought suing grandma was a misstep, but it was a strategy. The more sympathetic the person sued, the more coverage each suit got. Since they could only sue a tiny percentage of infringers, they needed shocking coverage to achieve a chilling effect.

(snip).

The stupidity of the average person doesn't shock me as much as it used to, yet I still find point 1 staggering. How is it possible that only 35% of people were aware it was illegal?

Bearing that in mind, do you not think, assuming point 3 is not a coincidence, that the industry could have achieved the increased awareness by gentler methods? Those lawsuits generated an awful lot of ill will, and at a time when there was already growing resentment toward big corporations.

[random50]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

The dishonesty of pollsters, of course, also applies to those who claim the following.....
1: I would never have bought it anyway so it's not a lost sale.
2: I just download heaps of stuff I never intend to read/listen to.
3: I plan on buying a legit copy if I like it.
4: I plan on donating to the author/singer in the future if I like their stuff.
5: I wll start buying stuff once they get rid of DRM/geo restrictions/etc.

All the above may very well be true or they may very well be total crap. Yet many seem to accpet such statements without question.

Cheers,
PKFFW

I was thinking about point 1 yesterday, although more from the point of view of claiming that one should not equate piracy rates with lost sales. Whilst I agree the relationship is nowhere near one to one, it seems to me that even if somebody would genuinely never have bought that *particular* product, in the vast majortiy of cases, they would still have spent money on *some* form of entertainment if illegally freeloading were not an available option.

[Marseille]

Originally Posted by random50

Bearing that in mind, do you not think, assuming point 3 is not a coincidence, that the industry could have achieved the increased awareness by gentler methods? Those lawsuits generated an awful lot of ill will, and at a time when there was already growing resentment toward big corporations.

They could have achieved awareness by other means, but the contribution towards the chilling effect didn't just come by people being aware that it was illegal -- but also by fear that they'd get nailed (although they couldn't sue everyone, the high profile of the those stories certainly had an effect on the weakminded who couldn't calculate their own odds of getting caught--they "felt" like there were more suits than there actually were). As I said, ill will was part of the plan. Increasing awareness is just part of what shows that suits contributed towards point 3.

[random50]

The ill will may still have been a huge own goal, even if it did temporarily achieve more than simply boosting awareness or other methods would have done. (And I'm dubious on that score.)

They're still stuck fighting a losing battle, but now even fewer people care, and more of those that do are hoping they lose.

[Marseille]

Originally Posted by random50

They're still stuck fighting a losing battle, but now even fewer people care, and more of those that do are hoping they lose.

I'd rather they lose (not that I think they will -- it depends on what you think winning is) by actually punishing people who steal than by punishing ONLY those who are law abiding customers. In context, my comment wasn't so much pro-lawsuit as it was anti-DRM. Honestly, compared to DRM schemes, practically any method looks more effective at hurting pirates. Jumping on one foot and humming the alphabet, for example.

[schex86]

There can be no perfect written representation of the will of the people.

The written word is imprecise and is written by imprecise and imperfect people.

Remember, the Constitution of Japan was ratified by the people too but it was written by the USA and the Japanese were literally held to gun point to ratify it. Would you also say that it is the perfect representation of the will of the people simply because the people ratified it? Pretty much the same goes for Iraq now too, though of course it was done much more subtly this time.

Note the use of the qualifier "most", as in most perfect, or better yet mostly perfect. Once you take this into account, the rest of your statement/s are rendered irrelevant.

Also note, the US Constitution was ratified by the people of their own free will, resulting in your comparisons with Japan and Iraq as, strangely, irrelevant.

But here's something for you to try: Conduct a poll of US Citizens and ask them if they feel the Constitution represents the will of the people. I predict the results in the affirmative will constitute a very high percentage. If you tried this in Japan and Iraq, maybe not so much...

Hmm, could this be the lynchpin to establishing a successful copyright based business model, as opposed to the copyright based business bubble currently being inflated??

Seriously though, I agree many laws, including copyright ones, have been co-opted by lobby groups for the benefit of a few.

I agree with your agreement. This co-opting has been exploited to the point where a serious imbalance now exists in the current social contract for copyright. The rights and authorities of a privileged few grow ever more abrasive and demanding, while the natural Liberties of the people are dismissed and even classified as high crimes (or high-sea crimes, take your pick).

Copyright, as was envisioned by the founders, was instituted to benefit all, not a few. The currently undesirable status quo must change, and change dramatically, as that original intent of the founders as ratified by the people, was long ago swept under the rug by those fearing their fate at the hands of the free market.

Not the same people. Only some of the same people. Some others who were different and thus their defitions, thoughts and feelings on the matter would have been different.

It sounds to me like you've haven't worked on a large project where the various tasks were meted out to various teams and committees. Is it, then, possible that those few responsible for the language of the Copyright Clause in the Constitution, may also have been included on the Legislative Committee that drafted the 1790 Copyright Act? Sounds like a homework project.

Regardless, my original statement still stands. Or is the annual Disney ad infinitum copyright renewal program somehow a better representation of founders' intent? Or are they, as you seem to be implying, exactly the same in this respect?

Further, those men, believe it or not, were not perfect. Neither were the constituents that made up the USA at the time. Ergo, the Constitution can not possibly be a perfect representation of the will of the people

Oh, I never knew those Men weren't Perfect. Thanks for informing me. And the People weren't Perfect either??! I would have never guessed.

But this is also irrelevant, since it has nothing to do with whether or not the Constitution most closely represents their Will. Remember, the Constitution represents a government of the People, by the People, and for the People.

It does not represent your concept of Perfection. Whatever that might be, it is, shall I say, irrelevant.

And lets just say, for the sake of it, the USA Constitution is as close to perfect as we could hope. For you to believe this to be so because it was "ratified by the people", you must believe in the democratic process. Why do you believe the democratic process would be any more workable then than now? Remember, it is a process of the people and people were just as flawed then as they are now.

And I do say so! It as close to perfectly representing the will of the People as any written document can be, and not necessarily for my sake, but that of the People, as I respect THEIR authority on the matter, and none other.

And there is a democratic process to resolve issues in which one side has exploited the current system and created a great injustice that must be rectified. This process is called Amending the Constitution, and its end result is that the will of the People is made known, without equivocation, without loopholes, without bubbles, without any doubt.

When the will of the People is finally returned to its rightful stature in the social contract of copyright, then will the People be invested in it, then will the People accept it, then will the People support it.

Until then, you have nothing more than Unrighteous Dominion.

Interesting but not relevant to the discussion at hand.

You're the one asking for basis-es and credentials, so if its not relevant then you're to blame, since I was only attempting to answer your oft repeated question.

[HansTWN]

Schex, you so brazenly assume that your will is the will of the people. And you pretend to be the knight in shining armor, while defending the "people's right" to bully authors and publishers into submission and force them to work for free for the "public good". And you quote some excesses in copyright (like the 70+ rule and the Disney case) to argue that it should all be invalidated. All this so that some people can get around paying a few dollars to reward authors and others involved for their hard work. Clearly Itunes, Amazon, and others show that you are a small minority.

Besides, when the US was founded only about 1% of the population (male, white landowners) had the right to vote. And a number of the men who participated in writing the constitution were slave owners. So, while I greatly value the US constitution, I don't think that all their values are relevant for today. And they could not have foreseen today's environment. So perfect for all times, the will of all the people in the territory, back then? Definitely not, which is why there are so many amendments.

Without copyright law we would have the "high school yard law". Everybody just takes what they want from those who can't defend themselves. Which is exactly what you are promoting.

[random50]

Originally Posted by David Marseilles

I'd rather they lose (not that I think they will -- it depends on what you think winning is) by actually punishing people who steal than by punishing ONLY those who are law abiding customers. In context, my comment wasn't so much pro-lawsuit as it was anti-DRM. Honestly, compared to DRM schemes, practically any method looks more effective at hurting pirates. Jumping on one foot and humming the alphabet, for example.

I completely agree with you there. I stopped buying music many years ago, shortly after buying an Ipod, because I objected to paying as much or more (as CDs) for an inferior product *artifically* tied to a single player. By the time I learned it was actually easy to crack the DRM, I'd long got out of the habit of listening to new stuff.

I stopped buying most PC games a couple of years ago when they practically all converted to requiring the disc in the drive and/or limited activations. Now I usually only buy them after they've been cracked, at considerably lower profit margins for all involved (and I use the superior cracked version - I wonder how many like me are represented in the piracy figures?)

Ebook DRM I can live with...so far...because of the convenience factor. However, if they were to come up with DRM whose cracking requires serious inconvenience, I would probably reconsider.

I don't know how representative I am of the general population (it's easy to overestimate), but certainly in my case, DRM has cost the associated industries several thousand a year.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by random50

I completely agree with you there. I stopped buying music many years ago, shortly after buying an Ipod, because I objected to paying as much or more (as CDs) for an inferior product *artifically* tied to a single player. By the time I learned it was actually easy to crack the DRM, I'd long got out of the habit of listening to new stuff.

I stopped buying most PC games a couple of years ago when they practically all converted to requiring the disc in the drive and/or limited activations. Now I usually only buy them after they've been cracked, at considerably lower profit margins for all involved (and I use the superior cracked version - I wonder how many like me are represented in the piracy figures?)

Ebook DRM I can live with...so far...because of the convenience factor. However, if they were to come up with DRM whose cracking requires serious inconvenience, I would probably reconsider.

I don't know how representative I am of the general population (it's easy to overestimate), but certainly in my case, DRM has cost the associated industries several thousand a year.

I think nobody here is defending DRM. It would only make sense if it couldn't be hacked. And such DRM is impossible. Besides, DRM is impeding sales because even honest customers dislike it. Actually, the industry is slowly beginning to see it this way, too. Otherwise why would Sony move from LRX to Epub? And why would the publishers keep using ADE while they know it can easily be cracked?

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by schex86

Note the use of the qualifier "most", as in most perfect, or better yet mostly perfect. Once you take this into account, the rest of your statement/s are rendered irrelevant.

So is it the most perfect document we have or is it mostly perfect as a document?

If it is simply the most perfect document we have, that means very little. In the kingdom of the blind the one eyed man is king as they say. Being the most perfect document we have could simply mean it is the best of a bad bunch of documents. It could mean all the others are really really crap and this one is only slightly crap.

Now, if you are contending it is mostly perfect then I'm afraid that as it is a written document, written by men, it simply can not be mostly perfect for the reasons I gave in my previous post.

And even if it is "mostly perfect" that means it is not perfect in totality. So why is it so inconceivable to you that one of the un-perfect bits isn't the copyright clause?

Originally Posted by schex86

Also note, the US Constitution was ratified by the people of their own free will, resulting in your comparisons with Japan and Iraq as, strangely, irrelevant.

See HansTWNs' post regarding how many of the people ratified the document.

Originally Posted by schex86

But here's something for you to try: Conduct a poll of US Citizens and ask them if they feel the Constitution represents the will of the people. I predict the results in the affirmative will constitute a very high percentage. If you tried this in Japan and Iraq, maybe not so much...

Yes, I'm sure they would.

What if you asked them exactly what was meant by the copyright clause? In particular the two words "useful arts"?

Do you think the majority would agree with you that only "maps and charts and non-fiction works and designs, etc" should be given copyright? Do you think they would agree with you that fiction works, paintings, movies and music have no inherent use and therefore should not be covered by copyright?

I'm betting you'd be singing in an off key on that one.

Originally Posted by schex86

Hmm, could this be the lynchpin to establishing a successful copyright based business model, as opposed to the copyright based business bubble currently being inflated??

Hmmm, depends on whether people believe the creative arts have any inherent use.

Your entire argument regarding this point is based on your belief the founding fathers felt they did not have any use and therefore they should be excluded.

Originally Posted by schex86

Copyright, as was envisioned by the founders, was instituted to benefit all, not a few. The currently undesirable status quo must change, and change dramatically, as that original intent of the founders as ratified by the people, was long ago swept under the rug by those fearing their fate at the hands of the free market.

I agree the current state must change.

I do not agree that the creative arts have no inherent value.

I do not agree we should go back to the 1790 Act and disregard everything since then.

I do not agree that your interpretation of the two pertinent words is necessarily the correct one.

Originally Posted by schex86

It sounds to me like you've haven't worked on a large project where the various tasks were meted out to various teams and committees. Is it, then, possible that those few responsible for the language of the Copyright Clause in the Constitution, may also have been included on the Legislative Committee that drafted the 1790 Copyright Act? Sounds like a homework project.

So you are contending that the government of the day simply asked the remaining men, still in government, who drafted the Constitution, to draft the copyright law and then they all just got together and voted it through Congress and the Senate without any debate or amendments?

Do you seriously believe that is how government worked back in the day?

Originally Posted by schex86

Regardless, my original statement still stands. Or is the annual Disney ad infinitum copyright renewal program somehow a better representation of founders' intent? Or are they, as you seem to be implying, exactly the same in this respect?

My discourse with you has centred solely on the definition of "useful arts" and your contention that works of fiction, film, music or any other purely creative or artistic expression have no inherent value and do not, and should not, fall under copyright.

I have not discussed, as it does not interest me, aspects regarding the continual extensions of copyright terms.

Originally Posted by schex86

Oh, I never knew those Men weren't Perfect. Thanks for informing me. And the People weren't Perfect either??! I would have never guessed.

Well your continual assertion that a document written by these men and ratified by a tiny percentage of the population at the time is "mostly perfect" would seem to suggest that you thought them perfect. Their being perfect, or mostly perfect, themselves being the only possible way a perfect, or mostly perfect, document could be written.

Originally Posted by schex86

But this is also irrelevant, since it has nothing to do with whether or not the Constitution most closely represents their Will. Remember, the Constitution represents a government of the People, by the People, and for the People.

Exactly, "of the people, by the poeple yadda yadda yadda."

And how many of the people got to vote on it? Or better yet, how many of the citizens got to vote?

Originally Posted by schex86

And I do say so! It as close to perfectly representing the will of the People as any written document can be, and not necessarily for my sake, but that of the People, as I respect THEIR authority on the matter, and none other.

Ok.

So again, could you provide a link to the definition of "useful arts" contained within the Constitution?

No?

Then all your talk about the Constitution is basically hot air because the document you seem to base your personal laws on doesn't even define the issue.

Originally Posted by shex86

And there is a democratic process to resolve issues in which one side has exploited the current system and created a great injustice that must be rectified. This process is called Amending the Constitution, and its end result is that the will of the People is made known, without equivocation, without loopholes, without bubbles, without any doubt.

But instead you decide to take your personal opinion of what was meant by two words and use that to justify your desire to infringe copyright.

Why don't you seek to have the Constitution amended so as to provide a definition of these two words?

Could it be that it's just too much work and you really just don't care as much as you are making out and all this is simply justification for your desire to infringe copyright?

Or could it be that you know the overwhelming majority of the Citizens of the USA will disagree with you on what constitutes "useful arts" and then you will have to go to all the trouble of finding another justification?

Originally Posted by schex86

When the will of the People is finally returned to its rightful stature in the social contract of copyright, then will the People be invested in it, then will the People accept it, then will the People support it.

Until then, you have nothing more than Unrighteous Dominion.

And all you have is your opinion on what was meant by "useful arts".

If the Constitution is ever amended to explicitly define what is meant by "useful arts" then I think you will find that purely creative and artistic endeavours will be covered.

Originally Posted by schex86

You're the one asking for basis-es and credentials, so if its not relevant then you're to blame, since I was only attempting to answer your oft repeated question.

Yes, I asked for you credentials. Not your personal motto.

As a point of interest, mind if I ask if you are sure to only infringe copyright on works created by USA citizens?

You must realise that the USA Constitution only pertains to USA Citizens and therefore any problems you have with current copyright law being against the Constitution will only pertain to works created by USA Citizens.

So do you never infringe copyright on works created by citizens of other countries?

I'm going to guess you go ahead and infringe copyright on anything you want regardless of the nationality of the creator right?

Cheers,
PKFFW.

[Dumas]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Could it be that it's just too much work and you really just don't care as much as you are making out and all this is simply justification for your desire to infringe copyright?

...

As a point of interest, mind if I ask if you are sure to only infringe copyright on works created by USA citizens?

...

So do you never infringe copyright on works created by citizens of other countries?

...

I'm going to guess you go ahead and infringe copyright on anything you want regardless of the nationality of the creator right?

Let's see ... schex86 registered here a few days ago because he had been reading/listening to Ben Franklin's autobiography from PG and thought there were some interesting points from Franklin's perspective as they related the discussion at hand.

That work certainly isn't under copyright. The US constitution and subsequent Act which have been discussed are not under copyright.

As far as I can tell, your assumptions and personal attacks directed towards schex86 lack standing based on what he's posted and are more a reflection of your character than his.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by random50

I was thinking about point 1 yesterday, although more from the point of view of claiming that one should not equate piracy rates with lost sales. Whilst I agree the relationship is nowhere near one to one, it seems to me that even if somebody would genuinely never have bought that *particular* product, in the vast majortiy of cases, they would still have spent money on *some* form of entertainment if illegally freeloading were not an available option.

1: I would never have bought it anyway so it's not a lost sale.

That describes nine out of ten "samples" I download on my iPhone from Amazon. So I can readily accept that a lot of downloading from pirate locations is nothing more than sampling.

And in no respect is this activity a substitute for other entertainment. In fact, a large part of the enjoyment I get from books consists of sampling the books. Were it not for Amazon, I'd just wander down to the local Borders and sample the book there.