Is digital copyright incompatible with technology and / or democracy?

[Belfaborac]

Originally Posted by Rizla

Could you make your point with facts? This conversation is totally monitorable and your ip can be traced to you.

It is totally monitorable if you only want to monitor a (comparatively) few torrents. If you want to monitor a meaningful proportion of the total number of torrents, then no, not so much. And that's only torrents - other P2P networks and technologies are not included in the calculation.

But ok, it's not impossible to do - you just have to devote a budget the size of a small nation's GNP to the task.

Again, facts would be better. There is no current or in development (AFAIK) forms of mass pirating technology that cannot be stopped via a combination of legal and technical means.

Really? First you would have to ensure conformity of copyright and other relevant law...everywhere. If you can do that, then the above paragraph comes into play. And then you have to ensure that no-one on the piracy side has any new ideas or comes up with any solutions to the problems posed for them, as in those new technologies that you're so sure aren't in the works even though you don't actually know at all.

Basically you're being wildly optimistic and naive, while seeming to have little grasp of the enormity of the task you're proposing.

[Kirtai]

Originally Posted by MikeB1972

Yes, but who in their right mind would say that fiat have a monopoly because they are the only ones who sell the punto?

I suppose that technically, they do but since there are an array of functionally identical vehicles available it's not actually a problem.

Books can't normally be substituted that way. e.g. Can you get another book that's a full substitute for Falling Free? (Functions to replace: First book in Vorkosigan saga, first book with quaddies, only book with character Leo Graf).

As an aside, Bujolds books are awesome. (please ignore the hideous covers)

[wizwor]

Originally Posted by Rizla

It's a question of two parts:

First of all: is digital (and I'm talking e-book) copyright incompatible with technology? Piracy has proved resilient. Can piracy be physically halted? The methods of piracy AFAIK are 1) torrents, 2) download sites and 3) usenet.

1) Torrents can be stopped. It is not anonymous. Torrent users are easily identified and open to prosecution.
2) Download sites can be taken down. The famous recent case is megaupload. The owner was dragged from his mansion and held to the ground at gunpoint. Ouch. Yet download sites continue to operate and ply their nefarious wares. But if they can't be taken down, they can be fire-walled like they do in China.
3) Usenet. This is private file-sharing network, but it relies on central servers. These can be taken down too.

So it seems to me that, from a technical perspective, digital copyright is not incompatible with technology. Copyright can continue to be effective in the current technological landscape and the prospects are gloomy for our swashbuckling friends.

Not sure I understand the first part of the question. Technology is 'know how' and I'm not sure know how is compatabile with or incompatible with anything. Unauthorized duplication and sharing of digital media is not difficult. Many people are capable of unlocking the protections and some see each new protection as a challenge. I do not think there will ever be a lock that cannot be picked.

Originally Posted by Rizla

The second part of the question is: is e-book copyright incompatible with democracy?

Consider megaupload. It seems it was take-downable because it hosted servers on US soil. The owner was not sufficiently careful regarding the letter of the law. Yet other sites continue. Presumably they operate from countries that do not share a common appliable law on copyright. To finally stop pirates accessing these sites, either 1) a common international law must be agreed upon and applied (i.e. send in the INTERPOL SWAT team) or 2) they are blocked via firewall. It seems to me that fire-walling a country will prove to be damaging to democracy. Do you trust the law-makers? What will they stop? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

So it seems to me that that realistically digital copyright is incompatible with democracy. The tools to block piracy will also be used to reduce democracy.

Democracy is from Gk. demokratia, from demos "common people," originally "district" (see demotic), + kratos "rule, strength"

(I lifted that without attribution using the technology of cut and paste. Just saying )

Democracy establishes the will of the majority. Laws are created to protect the rights of the minority. If you held a vote today, I suspect unauthorized duplication and sharing of copyrighted materials would be legalized. (I would vote for it.) In a republic we surrender some of our rights to institutions with the hope that they will protect our rights when we are not part of a majority. So, yeah, copyright would probably not exist in a pure democracy because the majority would vote themselves free stuff.

Originally Posted by Rizla

I am opposed to piracy (and incidentally to monopolistic price-gouging, but that's another story), but I am pro-democratic. I expect to see the internet become a less free and more controlled environment. I think that's bad news, and I'd be delighted if anyone can dissuade me of my ominous opinion.

You're pretty conflicted. You support the right of the majority to rule, but want someone to protect authors from the will of the majority and to rein in publishers that charge what the market will bear. That hardly ever works out.

I'm not a democrat (small d); I'm a republican (small r). I support the concept of laws that protect the rights of minorities. I abide by a lot of them. Usually, I abide because the [potential] value of the consequences is greater than the value of not abiding. Sometimes I abide because it's the right thing to do. There's a little bit of both in my choosing to abide by copyright laws.

If the creator provides me with value and I want to encourage continued creation, I want to reward the creator. I have a shareware product, for instance that does 100% of what I want without registration. I sent the guy a check (paypal, actually) to register because I wanted to support his work. I pay top dollar for movies that provide great entertainment value to me. I always dig through the value bins for great movies because it's easier than downloading the same thing, there is no risk of not complying with copyright law, and the financial cost is small.

On the other hand, I have no problem with converting a purchased DVD to a different format. The creator was compensated with the original purchase and I think it is FAIR that one be able to play the purchased content on any device. Some people purchase entire TV series. It's a lot of work to rip these to files for a portable device. I see no ethical issue with downloading the files from a web site. Again, the original purchase compensated the creator. I have no problem with someone replacing a no-longer-usable movie or book by either duplicating a working copy or downloading the movie or book. In fact, the licensor should be responsible for ensuring performance for the duration of the license.

I don't see technology or idealogy as being compatible or incompatible with compensating creators of content. Both do, however, complicate the crafting and enforcement of copyright law. In the end, I suspect the market will solve the problem for the government.

[hd_cal_dave]

Originally Posted by Rizla

Sure piracy can be prevented. Governments / Corporations are in the process of preventing it right now. No new pirating technology has emerged in response. We are witnessing the end...

This is as untrue for books as it is for music. If I can see a book on the monitor of a computer, then I can copy it word for word, picture for picture -- no matter what DRM is used. If I can listen to a song on a computer, then I can copy it...exactly.

There is no such thing as DRM that cannot be circumvented. The only unbreakable DRM would be a system whereby nobody can access the material ever under any circumstances.

That said, I believe that people that break copyright law should be prosecuted, just like any other criminal. I do recognize that the reality of law enforcement is such that "we the people" can only afford to go after the most egregious violations.

I do think the US would be much better off with a simpler, more easily understood copyright system, such as creative commons proposes. As it is, the whole thing is a mess. It really bugs the crap out of me to see publishers take a public domain work, tweak it, adds some meaningless content and slap a brand new copyright on the thing. Over and over this is done, like urban sprawl it continues, until there are 32 editions of a book and you are left wondering which is which, what are the differences (if any) from the original, etc. I think this practice by publishers is just as immoral as people who break copyrights.

I think that the default status for a new piece of work should be "public domain" instead of "copyright". I also think that buying a paper version of a book should entitle you to owning the ebook version of that book. I know that I am technically breaking the law, but I strongly feel it is fair for me to hunt down a DRM free copy of an ebook that I already bought the paper version of. The author/publisher got their value in exchange for me getting my value -- quid pro quo is established.

I feel strongly enough that when a friend lets me borrow their paper version of a book, if I actually read it, I'll buy my own copy later and put it on the shelf because because otherwise quid pro quo is not established.

My favorite quotes on this:

“If a book is worth reading, it is worth buying.”
- John Ruskin

"Only one thing is impossible for God: To find any sense in any copyright law on the planet."
- Mark Twain

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Rizla

Sure piracy can be prevented. Governments / Corporations are in the process of preventing it right now. No new pirating technology has emerged in response. We are witnessing the end...

I assume you're joking?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Piracy is not just something that affects large companies; it's hurting normal people too - software authors, book authors, and musicians.

I'd bet that the large companies are hurting the artists a lot more than piracy is.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

"The Man" presumably meaning hard-working people like me, whose livelihood they are destroying?

If piracy is destroying your livelihood, then you're not doing something right. Instead of spending your time on here ranting about the evils of piracy, maybe you should spend some time trying to figure out why nobody wants to buy your content.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, of course not, but people who DO make use of the work must pay for it (or face legal sanctions if they don't). I don't expect anyone who hasn't used my software to pay for it, but I do find it... irksome ... to see it being offered for download on Torrent sites and Usenet newsgroups, and even sold on CD on eBay.

Most of those people probably wouldn't have paid for it in the first place.

Do you provide anything besides just a copy of the software that adds value for legitimate customers? If not, maybe that's part of your problem.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Copyright infringement really needs to be made a criminal offence, so that the law will do something about such things.

Before that happens, copyright infringement needs to be redefined so it doesn't include college students copying a poem to the front of their study notebook for inspiration, and small children drawing pictures of Superman to hang on the fridge. Is taking a photo of a bookstore display copyright infringement? After all, you're making copies of all that artwork.

We need a clear definition of "non-infringing copies and derivatives" before moving unauthorized copies into the criminal realm.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Kirtai

I still believe that copyright is a temporary monopoly created and granted by the state though.

Of course it is, that's the whole point of copyright law.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Copyright infringement really needs to be made a criminal offence, so that the law will do something about such things.

Why is it the governments problem that you can't succeed as a software business?

[Billi]

I would dare to guess that there is no such equation
being pirated = being unsuccessful.

[cjr72]

Originally Posted by Billi

I would dare to guess that there is no such equation
being pirated = being unsuccessful.

+1

And I would guess the more successful you are the more likely you'll be pirated.

[Astrakan]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Most of those people probably wouldn't have paid for it in the first place.

So what? Yes, if pirates never intended to buy whatever they pirate, the creator of the pirated content hasn't lost any sales. But as far as I'm concerned, that's not the point.

The point is that if someone hasn't paid for something I have created, I don't want them enjoying the fruits of my labour. Period.

It doesn't matter if they never intended to buy it. It doesn't matter if they tell other people about it, who may then end up buying it. It doesn't matter if they end up buying other things I've made because they like what they pirated. Hell, it doesn't even matter if they end up buying the exact thing they pirated after pirating it.

As long as the creator (or owner) isn't giving what they created away for free, nobody should be enjoying that product for free. I've never heard a reason, motivation or excuse that have even come close to altering my views on this.

People have called this attitude obstinate and counter productive to the interest of creators, I've even heard it called mean and egotistical. I call it a principled stance against freeloaders.

I'm well aware that a world with no piracy will never come to pass, but that doesn't alter my opinion about it, or my opinion of the "but they'd never buy it anyway" defense of piracy and pirates.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Astrakan

So what? Yes, if pirates never intended to buy whatever they pirate, the creator of the pirated content hasn't lost any sales. But as far as I'm concerned, that's not the point.

The point is that if someone hasn't paid for something I have created, I don't want them enjoying the fruits of my labour. Period.

Sounds like you want to retain absolute control over your creation. That's easy, don't sell it in the first place.

Copyright will never guarantee you control over your creation, that's just an illusion.