TechCrunch: Rampant Piracy Will Be The Kindle DX's Savior

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

... I'm certainly not expecting to change the minds of folks who think that file-sharing of unauthorized copies of creative content is perfectly OK. ... it's important both to see how the business world sees your actions and also to consider the total effect of those actions on their beliefs....

I think the point should be REALITY.

If you sell paper books to end-users, you are probably aware, that in the real world, there are some readers who will go to their local library, and borrow books, instead of purchasing their own copies. Others will share their printed copy with a number of friends/relatives, thus also costing you potential sales.

If you raise your price for a book, more end-users will chose to forego purchasing it, and will use alternative means to obtain it. At a certain price-pint, you'll fail to make a sail with the majority of your readers.

Thus, in the real world, businesses adjust their prices, so that they maximize their profit, while taking into account the alternatives available to potential customers.

But just like the music companies, many of the publishing houses see the digital world either as scary niche, or as a way to increase profits by reducing the costs, or as a way to strip some of the consumer right established for physical medium, and often as all of these.

And they have figured out, that it is easy to influence law-makers to pass laws distorting the market, and stripping consumer rights conferred by the courts (DMCA,) particularly if most of the current constituency is not totally clear on the long-term ramifications of such legislation, and doesn't pay attention.

Piracy correlates with price: the higher the price, the more likely a user is to "pirate." If the price is low enough, the majority of users will rather pay, than engage i piracy. There is a price point, where e-titles can be sold at a profit, and most users will pay, rather than pirate. And it is NOT at a point higher than the price of a printed paperback.

The arguments by some publishing executives, that the cost of e-books is not substantially lowered by the elimination of printing, storage and distribution, are an insult to the consumers' intelligence. It's about as valid, as arguing that EVERY "pirated" copy downloaded, is a lost sale.

I don't condone piracy, but in some instances, I believe "piracy" can act to level the market.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

[snip; wasn't talking about you personally]
Rather, I'm trying to explain what their choices look like from the point of view of the people some of them/you claim to be attempting to influence.

I'm aware of what the world according to looks like; My point wasn't that, my point was that, much like the debate that rages over being (described as) Pro-Life/Death or Pro-Choice/EnforcedChristianValues, discussions go nowhere when people are constantly redescribing the other's position in such a way (there seems to be a trend towards labelling pirates as criminal/"Immoral" individuals and the others as Industry shills) that the "arguments" are always ignored, and the personal labels are what the discussion rages over. And while in/outgroup (re-)definition (and the inherent promise of exclusion) was certainly a good one historically, it's a really trite [sic] and true trick nowadays. That said, "discussion" seems to be doing fairly little to change people's opinions; apparently "lived experience" does that (or perhaps, hopefully, hearing about some 9yo in Brazil).

If your goal is impact on the business world (as in taosaur's second paragraph above), it's important both to see how the business world sees your actions and also to consider the total effect of those actions on their beliefs.

Sure, but it's not as though businesses listen to individual consumers anyway: why else would the RIAA still exist while there is only one online/digital music retailer that counts? Sure, there are a few publishers and the like active on this forum, but (realistically) they're only here because they aren't part of the establishment yet (they still need brand recognition, a.o.t., say, HarperCollins, although they might stay consumer-friendlier than some others, if they aren't punished for it), and textbook/journal publishers certainly aren't interested in lowering prices, as they can do what they want with impunity.

"We're boycotting your products because [fill in the reason]" is a statement the business guys understand and can evaluate. Get a bunch of folks together and you'll have some impact (although the size of that impact is unlikely to exceed your impact on sales numbers).

"We're boycotting your products because [fill in the reason]" combined with "oh yeah, we're also downloading them without authorization or compensation" gets interpreted as "We're not willing to pay for the product at any price, and we're using our 'boycott'-like rhetoric as cover for our file-sharing."

See above. Either take customers seriously or don't reinterpret their statements to support your FUD; While I'm sure it goes over well with stock owners, it doesn't do much beside that (well, convince American Congressmen of the "fact" that further copyright extensions/DMCA stuff is necessary, perhaps, as they seem to do fairly little by way of fact checking, but anyway, I'm not part of that constituency.)

Please note: It doesn't matter whether that interpretation matches your intent or not! That's how it'll come across to folks outside the file-sharing community.

I know; but they only feel that way because they think they have nothing to lose (which is probably realistic, at least for now): as soon as they *start* feeling it, they can either reassess, lower prices, and see if it helps, or they can go under crying (like the RIAA et al., even though they're still making billion dollar profits). In the long term, those people will find jobs at other businesses with different business models, and they will start seeing that as reasonable, or they will retire and go fly-fishing. Life will continue either way (the same applies to me, of course, although I expect I will be around for a while longer)

As for consistency... well... I was trying to point out firstly that not buying is a separate decision from file-sharing/downloading of unauthorized content, and secondly that you can send a clear message either about poor business models and broken systems OR about file-sharing and "information wants to be free"... but NOT about both at once. If you try to have it both ways, the "influence the business folks" part is guaranteed to get lost.

MBAs aren't always the most flexible of people. Anyway, as long as Ted Haggard can be against homosexuality while being a closet gay (although reputedly "cured" now), I can sneakily download stuff while still trying to reason with publishers. Anyway, as I said above, my point wasn't so much that I didn't realise that people complain over pragmatic inconsistencies in behavior, my point is that, much like presidential elections, people frequently lose sight of arguments that aren't focused on behavioral inconsistency. Ad hominems are boring, as they are only infrequently accurate. Sure, I don't have the money to set up the kind of distribution network that I would like to see, so I can't "check" to see if the ideas I have about pricing etc. are viable, but I'm just not willing to pay extortionate amounts of money for course books that aren't worth it; even if I have to buy them, I will be very reluctant to buy any books I might find interesting to read on the side, as I don't want to feel like I'm screwing myself over (which is/should be much more important to everyone than knowing others "respect" you), which will encourage me not to buy from that publisher in the future (and I've got a long memory [read:digital diary])

So no, if the only way I can "talk to"/influence the thinking of businessmen is by speaking only in the most veiled terms about the fact that an alternative to them exists, and otherwise portraying myself to be some perfectly innocent, misunderstood/wronged-feeling person, then my point was mostly that I'm not interested in talking to them; if they really aren't able to look past the face the consumer presents they a. shouldn't be in business, and b. most likely are applying double standards, which is boring. I can't take people that have to be treated as children seriously, nor can I respect them.

[sirbruce]

Actually, price if only half of the equation. The other half is ease of piracy. Before the advent of ebooks, pbooks were not widely pirated. This suggests that their price was "correct". But if you ask the average consumer if they're rather pay $25 for a hardback or $1 for a pirated hardback that was just as good, they'd chose the $1 one. The problem is, you can't make pirated hardbacks for $1.

Ebooks allow you to make ebook copies for $1. $0, really, if it's already in ebook form. So that's why publishers use DRM and try to shut down torrents. If you insist on ebooks being easily copyable, then publishers will have to compete on price with the $0 pirated ebook... and no one knows whether that's possible or not. There's some evidence that enough people will pay $1 or even $5 for an official ebook over a $0 pirated one, but we have no way of knowing if the industry can profit at that price point.

Convenience also plays a role... even though pirated ebooks are free, the average consumer is not computer savvy enough to know how to get them. Legal action from publishers forces distributors of pirated ebooks not to advertise themselves openly on most websites with simple one-click downloads.

[Jaime_Astorga]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

Actually, price if only half of the equation. The other half is ease of piracy. Before the advent of ebooks, pbooks were not widely pirated. This suggests that their price was "correct". But if you ask the average consumer if they're rather pay $25 for a hardback or $1 for a pirated hardback that was just as good, they'd chose the $1 one. The problem is, you can't make pirated hardbacks for $1.

Ebooks allow you to make ebook copies for $1. $0, really, if it's already in ebook form. So that's why publishers use DRM and try to shut down torrents. If you insist on ebooks being easily copyable, then publishers will have to compete on price with the $0 pirated ebook... and no one knows whether that's possible or not. There's some evidence that enough people will pay $1 or even $5 for an official ebook over a $0 pirated one, but we have no way of knowing if the industry can profit at that price point.

Convenience also plays a role... even though pirated ebooks are free, the average consumer is not computer savvy enough to know how to get them. Legal action from publishers forces distributors of pirated ebooks not to advertise themselves openly on most websites with simple one-click downloads.

So far, efforts of different mediums of content that was pirated previously (video and audio) seem to demonstrate it is possible to compete with piracy. I have in mind Hulu for video and the iTunes store for music. Hopefully something similar can happen with books. The reasons are very much what you said, ease of use for non tech savvy user and a "guarantee" of quality (for some reason the official thing looks more appealing; probably the source of the "you get what you pay for" mentality and some sort of mental bias). I think in order to compete, though, prices must also be lowered significantly, so in the end I think this benefits readers either way; they can get the pirated content for free or a convenient and cheap service.

[taosaur]

Originally Posted by Jaime_Astorga

So far, efforts different mediums of content that was pirated previously (video and audio) seem to demonstrate it is possible to compete with piracy. I have Hulu for video and the iTunes store for music in mind. Hopefully something similar can happen with books. The reasons are very much what you said, ease of use for non tech savvy user and a "guarantee" of quality (for some reason the official thing looks more appealing; probably the source of the "you get what you pay for" mentality and some sort of mental bias). I think in order to compete, though, prices must also be lowered significantly, so in the end I think this benefits readers either way; they can get the pirated content for free or a convenient and cheap service.

Really the adaptation of music and video demonstrate both that legitimate providers have advantages that compensate for the free alternative (mainly legitimacy itself) and that market realities (i.e. the emergence of a filesharing black market) effectively counteract the inertia of old media institutions.

[Jaime_Astorga]

But for now, writing a book takes many hundreds of hours. Authors must be compensated for that time.

It is not self-evident that they "must" be compensated for this time. There are arguments that money can be an incentive for authors to write, or that money is a tool that allows them to dedicate more time and effort to writing, but I think those benefits are outweighted by the availibity, to every human being with an internet connection, of all past and current works regardless of their ability to pay for them. At any rate, if less authors wrote for monetary incentives alone or in grand part, I think it would hopefully help to curtail Sturgeon's Law.

Copyright is a way of reflecting that notion--the author can control under what terms each copy of that story can be sold and distributed. (At least until the purchaser resells it.)

Take away that protection, e.g. "I'll just make unauthorized free copies and let the author figure out an alternative business model" is, to me, a cop-out. I believe it is stealing, whether or not one wants to admit it.

I do call it stealing. Not all stealing is bad, you know.

But I agree, you're spot on about the thievery of textbook publishers. The push for "open source textbooks" will hopefully curtail that.

Aye, I fully support open source textbooks (as long as there are "mainstream" versions of the textbooks maintained by professors; kind of like there are linux distros today). Part of the appeal of eBook readers for me is that I hope as they become more prevalent, non-commercial textbooks (which are only really viable as electronic content) will become the norm. Certain undergraduate courses, like Calculus, have hardly changed in hundreds of years; all we need is some professors willing to write and give away ONE good textbook and, as long as it catches, we are set for life.

There are plenty of other business models. But that's not at all the same thing as "I support piracy in general." The statement I quoted says flat out that the writer supports taking copies of copyrighted works with no compensation to the copyright holder whether the copyright holder approves or not. Most of those "other business models" require some entity other than the poster to change something. That may well be good business (in the sense that the copyright holder makes more money), but it's not something any of the rest of us have a "right" to force on them.

Similarly, the ethical way to support alternate business models is to purchase from those who engage in them, and to refuse to do business with those who do not -- while being very vocal about it. In the case of eBooks, that latter means telling each publisher "You just lost another sale to me because..." -- over and over and over again, if necessary -- but it does not mean making unauthorized copies of someone's work!

I find the idea of needing an author's permission or approval to distribute their work ridiculous. Authors find themselves in the middle of libraries all the time, to be read by anyone ready to pony up an address and a quick trip, whether they want to be or not.

I support an author's right to be the only one to profit from a work; pirates who make copies in order to resell them for profit are the scum of the earth, providing neither freeness nor compensation for the author (the benefits of piracy and legal sales, respectively) and instead merely doing a job. And I support an author's right to be recognized as such; it is with good reason that plagiarism is considered the ultimate sin of academia. But when the author tries to prevent others from sharing the words that they wrote, I feel they have crossed the line. The work should now belong to the entire world, able to be read at leisure by people everywhere regardless of whether they have the disposable income to pay for it or not. And it is a foolish endeavor, at any rate, since the technological, social, and political realities are such that preventing filesharing from being possible is doomed to failure.

But please note: the ever-extending copyright term mess we have today is also wrong; I support returning copyright duration to a much shorter and more justifiable term.

This I completely agree with. Death of the author plus 70 years?! WTF!

Actually, this just isn't correct. The part of the file-sharing that brings pressure to bear on publishers and their business models is exactly and only the degree to which they lose sales (whatever those lost sales may be -- there's plenty of argument about that question, and I don't intend to take it on here). "[Pressuring publishers] to reform their business models and distribution schemes, and [pressuring] creators [...] to find publishers who can handle the new realities" would happen just as well in economic terms if all the file-sharers simply refused to purchase or consume any content not available via their preferred business model. That's engaging in a boycott. It's well known and understood, and clearly an ethical approach to the issue.

But with a boycott, one does not obtain the product one is refusing to buy. Many people will cave in to pressure and refuse to boycott, despite disagreeing with prices or other practices, because in the end having the work in question is too powerful a draw for them. While engaging in piracy, it is easier to refuse to buy products and thus one can have more of an economical impact.

If your goal is impact on the business world (as in taosaur's second paragraph above), it's important both to see how the business world sees your actions and also to consider the total effect of those actions on their beliefs.

"We're boycotting your products because [fill in the reason]" is a statement the business guys understand and can evaluate. Get a bunch of folks together and you'll have some impact (although the size of that impact is unlikely to exceed your impact on sales numbers).

"We're boycotting your products because [fill in the reason]" combined with "oh yeah, we're also downloading them without authorization or compensation" gets interpreted as "We're not willing to pay for the product at any price, and we're using our 'boycott'-like rhetoric as cover for our file-sharing." And that understanding on the part of the business folks robs the rhetoric of nearly all its potential impact.

Please note: It doesn't matter whether that interpretation matches your intent or not! That's how it'll come across to folks outside the file-sharing community.

If it does... very well, then. Like I said, part of why I like piracy is that readers get to win in either case. If they won't listen to us because of our actions, that is fine; we will merely continue pirating and get the product for free. It's their move to play and draw people TOWARDS them with alternative services. There is little they can do to draw us AWAY from piracy.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by Jaime_Astorga

I find the idea of needing an author's permission or approval to distribute their work ridiculous. Authors find themselves in the middle of libraries all the time, to be read by anyone ready to pony up an address and a quick trip, whether they want to be or not.

Jaime:

I can't tell from your user info what country you are posting from. Perhaps you may not be aware of the public policy justification for the basic concept of copyright here in the US. It may be different in other countries, I don't know details elsewhere.

Copyright in the US is an explicit trade: Content creators get a temporary limited property right in the content they create, thus "ensuring" that they have the opportunity to profit from their work. In exchange, all content enters the public domain on expiration of copyright. The key idea -- which is explicitly stated in the Constitution, by the way -- is that the opportunity for profit is intended to provide an incentive for content creators (writers, artists, programmers, etc.) to create more content. For the creators, it's a chance to make more money. For the public, it's a chance both to have paid access to the content early on, and free access to the content later.

Thus, here in the US, if you are "pirating" content you are reneging on the Public's side of the deal by failing to compensate the creator according to the terms he has set. That's the "[...] property right" part above. Libraries, access for the blind and disabled, and fair-use access fall under the "limited" part of "limited property right."

So, in the US at least, "idea of needing an author's permission or approval to distribute their work" is far from being ridiculous -- it's a key aspect of our legal approach to encouraging production of interesting and useful (and even enjoyable!) content. With the exception of traditional fair use (see below) we very deliberately treat copyright in its literal meaning of "the right to make copies" as an ordinary property right with all the obvious legal implications.

Libraries aren't a counterexample, because they fall under traditional fair use. Using content for parody or satire may be done without permission from the copyright owner -- but the copyright owner must nevertheless be paid for the use of the work at the same rate as if the use had been made with permission -- fair use rights again. Similarly, lending a book to a friend, format and time shifting music or video (for personal use only!), making mix tapes for (personal use only!), quoting reasonable-size portions (up to 1000 words or 50% of a work whichever is less is guaranteed OK; larger portions may or may not fall under fair use) of a work for critical or educational use -- all due to traditional fair-use rights as articulated in various court rulings. Those same court rulings tell us that there are other fair-use rights not yet articulated. But wide-scale distribution without permission of the copyright owner is certainly not one of those fair-use rights -- we have existing case-law that clearly shows that.

But with a boycott, one does not obtain the product one is refusing to buy.

Exactly!!! And that's why it fits inside the legal and ethical framework. A boycott says that the copyright owner's terms are so far out of whack that you'd rather do without their product than meet their terms. That's a very powerful statement; it gets attention in the business world and in the media.

Many people will cave in to pressure and refuse to boycott, despite disagreeing with prices or other practices, because in the end having the work in question is too powerful a draw for them. While engaging in piracy, it is easier to refuse to buy products and thus one can have more of an economical impact.

And this part of your quote explains perfectly why piracy is a problem for everyone -- pirates included! -- in a way that a boycott is not. Sure, you have modestly more economic impact (but arguably not THAT much more). At the same time, you play into the hands of the idiots who don't want to try more sensible business models by both raising the perceived stakes (their view: "we have to DO something or they'll just steal it all!"), you have a negative impact on the folks who actually pay (the idiots say "we'll add DRM to stop the piracy"), you harm the authors/musicians/programmers/whomever who don't get their royalty payment for the copy or copies that you download, and you make the argument in favor of saner business models more difficult (the idiot's response: "But that would only work if the pirates go away; as things stand they'll just steal it all!").

<deep breath...>

On top of all that, you lose the moral weight of saying that the principal of refusing to deal with stupid idiots and broken business models is more important than being able to consume the content they are trying to sell to you. And that moral impact is the best chance you have for getting the attention of legislators and the press. The press loves a boycott. It means there's a controversy, and controversy sells papers (and news shows, and web sites, and...). It gets the attention of legislators too. After all, people who care enough to forgo the latest Steven King novel (or pop tune, or whatever) might also care enough to vote against a legislator who doesn't support their position -- and potential loss of (a significant number of) votes carries even more weight than large corporate donations. Really. We've seen it happen before in plenty of places.

So if you actually want to change the system, hit the big-content idiots in the pocketbook AND the press AND the legislatures. And that requires a boycott. Piracy hits them a little bit harder in the pocketbook, but loses the other two factors. And you really need all three to achieve a sensible change. For just one example, piracy might lead to modestly saner business models... but it certainly won't do anything to help with the excessive term of copyright!

[...] Like I said, part of why I like piracy is that readers get to win in either case. If they won't listen to us because of our actions, that is fine; we will merely continue pirating and get the product for free. It's their move to play and draw people TOWARDS them with alternative services. There is little they can do to draw us AWAY from piracy.

Of course it's always easier to try to have it both ways. And to me that says that you care more about consuming the content than about changing the system. And if that's the truth, why not just say so? If you care more about changing the system, you should act like it! But talking as though you wish to change the system, while acting like getting the content is what matters isn't just inconsistent. It also leads to worse outcomes overall than taking either of the two consistent positions!


Xenophon

[Goshzilla]

Some math and statistics professors already offer their own books they wrote from years of teaching, so its readily available for free and legal as well. This would be the only aspect of kindle I would endorse here. The other route would have to be Dover publications for their years of making past text books accessible for less than 20 U.S. dollars in paperback form. Now if they can get on board the kindle might be worth it, but so far I don't like the kindle, it has no functionality with the text, I can't highlight or write on the pages like I can with a real book.

[AMacD]

In the early days of educational software, the author of the work got to sell one copy per high school, who then made copies for all the students. Their justification was that "schools cannot afford separate copies" and so they just stole them. Next authors stopped writing educational software at which point the teachers complained that they didn't have any. I said at the time to the teachers who were stealing the material that they should learn how to program and write the courses themselves, giving them to the school system since they knew in advance they were not going to be paid for their effort. I was not surprised when they refused to do that. Everybody lost in that scenario, and it was not until programmers added copy protection AND made site licenses at a reasonable price that any way developed again.

[AMacD]

My brother was a geology professor. He lived under the "publish or perish" environment of the university system. He spent years writing a text book in joint authorship with the head prof and then could sell all of 50 copies at a time. His readership was sharply limited. Even if he had been able to capture the entire US geology market, he would still have sold a limited number of copies, which he didn't get much of a royalty on anyway, considering all the glossy paper and graphics it included. Would any of the pirates out there write a book with a guarantee of making less than $100 a year off of it? Not only no, but hell no. We're not talking about a romance novel that gets cranked out in 3 months, but years of research, learning, drafting and writing. Piracy cannot be justified under any heading. Piracy=Theft. You're a pirate, you're a thief.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by AMacD

My brother was a geology professor. He lived under the "publish or perish" environment of the university system. He spent years writing a text book in joint authorship with the head prof and then could sell all of 50 copies at a time. His readership was sharply limited. Even if he had been able to capture the entire US geology market, he would still have sold a limited number of copies, which he didn't get much of a royalty on anyway, considering all the glossy paper and graphics it included.

So he didn't expect to make a killing. why is this story sad?

Would any of the pirates out there write a book with a guarantee of making less than $100 a year off of it? Not only no, but hell no. We're not talking about a romance novel that gets cranked out in 3 months, but years of research, learning, drafting and writing.

Of course we're not. We're talking about a guy who is already on a salary, who can often get grants to write/finish books, and who is not going to be able to survive off those royalties anyway, even if "everyone" bought it. Also, book writing in academia is not really "special", it's something you do to stay relevant. (Or well, you research to stay relevant, but article/book writing tends to be part of this, as unpublished results are worthless.) As such, the time he spent on writing cannot be worth more than he is paid during that time, and is generally worth less, as he is also doing other things.
If you want to become rich, write trash novels, or perhaps write something slightly more informed, like Jared Diamond (though I find this guy overhyped) or Neal Stephenson does; if you want to work in a field like academia, write journal articles (and sometimes books). If you write well, you might be rewarded, but the point of the exercise is and can never be the reward, it's the proliferation of knowledge/understanding.

Piracy cannot be justified under any heading. Piracy=Theft. You're a pirate, you're a thief.

This works because everything repeated thrice immediately becomes true?

Repeat after me: Infringement (1: the act of infringing; violation, 2: an encroachment or trespass on a right or privilege) is not theft (1a: the act of stealing; specifically: the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it, 1b: an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property).

[Jaime_Astorga]

Xenophon,

I can't tell from your user info what country you are posting from. Perhaps you may not be aware of the public policy justification for the basic concept of copyright here in the US. It may be different in other countries, I don't know details elsewhere.

I live in the U.S. now, but I was born elsewhere. At any rate, I am aware of the constitutional justification for copyright in U.S. law. Let us discuss that below.

Copyright in the US is an explicit trade: Content creators get a temporary limited property right in the content they create, thus "ensuring" that they have the opportunity to profit from their work. In exchange, all content enters the public domain on expiration of copyright. The key idea -- which is explicitly stated in the Constitution, by the way -- is that the opportunity for profit is intended to provide an incentive for content creators (writers, artists, programmers, etc.) to create more content.

I am afraid you make it sound as though the work entering the public domain is a concession the artists have made. The constitution seems to imply that the rightful place of all works is in the public domain. It states:

The Congress shall have power... 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;

Note that ethics and morals don't enter into it. Copyright is supposed to be a practical measure, enacted to achieve the practical goal of providing incentives for content creation. It says nothing about artsits deserving compensation, but that they should get it because it leads to good things, and that is the only reason works are kept from entering the public domain immediately. And besides, there are some who would contest that entertainment media does not count as "useful" (although that would be another discussion and I am not sure on the whole matter).

Thus, here in the US, if you are "pirating" content you are reneging on the Public's side of the deal by failing to compensate the creator according to the terms he has set. That's the "[...] property right" part above.

I simply believe this is a bad deal, at least in this day and age, and especially given the ever extending terms of copyright currently in place. You might argue that one has no right to renege a deal just because it turns sour, but what obligation have I to obey a deal that was negotiated and agreed on by a bunch of politically influential men a couple of centuries ago? I assure you I wasn't invited to the Philadelphia convention! Perhaps the copyright clause made life better then, I do not know, but now I think it causes more harm than good. Laws are tools intended to better the life of the people, and any law which causes more harm than good deserves to be broken and abolished.

Besides, as you mention, all this takes place "here in th US." However, piracy is a global phenomenon. People in South America and Asia constitute a high number of the global pirate population, and I bet they have even less regard than I do for the copyright clause of the American constitution. A Brazilian friend of mine (who shall remain unnamed), in reference to pirating games from Nintendo (I assume the English Nintendo of America translations), once said "yeah, I'm a brazilian... we don't care about the money the big N is losing... they don't care about us having no money, so there... =P"

So, in the US at least, "idea of needing an author's permission or approval to distribute their work" is far from being ridiculous -- it's a key aspect of our legal approach to encouraging production of interesting and useful (and even enjoyable!) content.

That the idea is the basis of the system does not make it any less ridiculous; it only makes the whole system ridiculous. You are a libertarian, right? Don't you think government makes many ridiculous decisions? I chalk this up as one such.

Libraries aren't a counterexample, because they fall under traditional fair use.

Libraries are a wonderful counterexample; the difference between them and piracy is but one of scale. It "hurts" creators for the benefit of the public; is not each book I read in the library one less book I will buy from an author? The library purchases a copy, to be sure (if it does not get it through a second hand donation), but the original pirates who scan or rip content do the same thing. What is the difference, then? Piracy is the library of the 21st century, accessible right at home and having virtually all available items in stock at all given times!

Exactly!!! And that's why it fits inside the legal and ethical framework. A boycott says that the copyright owner's terms are so far out of whack that you'd rather do without their product than meet their terms. That's a very powerful statement; it gets attention in the business world and in the media.

And this part of your quote explains perfectly why piracy is a problem for everyone -- pirates included! -- in a way that a boycott is not. Sure, you have modestly more economic impact (but arguably not THAT much more). At the same time, you play into the hands of the idiots who don't want to try more sensible business models by both raising the perceived stakes (their view: "we have to DO something or they'll just steal it all!"), you have a negative impact on the folks who actually pay (the idiots say "we'll add DRM to stop the piracy"), you harm the authors/musicians/programmers/whomever who don't get their royalty payment for the copy or copies that you download, and you make the argument in favor of saner business models more difficult (the idiot's response: "But that would only work if the pirates go away; as things stand they'll just steal it all!").

<deep breath...>

On top of all that, you lose the moral weight of saying that the principal of refusing to deal with stupid idiots and broken business models is more important than being able to consume the content they are trying to sell to you. And that moral impact is the best chance you have for getting the attention of legislators and the press. The press loves a boycott. It means there's a controversy, and controversy sells papers (and news shows, and web sites, and...). It gets the attention of legislators too. After all, people who care enough to forgo the latest Steven King novel (or pop tune, or whatever) might also care enough to vote against a legislator who doesn't support their position -- and potential loss of (a significant number of) votes carries even more weight than large corporate donations. Really. We've seen it happen before in plenty of places.

So if you actually want to change the system, hit the big-content idiots in the pocketbook AND the press AND the legislatures. And that requires a boycott. Piracy hits them a little bit harder in the pocketbook, but loses the other two factors. And you really need all three to achieve a sensible change.

I am afraid a boycott is not a realistic solution. I recognize that the majority of pirates in all countries, like the majority of people in general, have no grand ideas about property, intellectual property, copyright, freedom of information, author compensation, post scarcity economies, artificial scarcity, or anything like that... they just want free shit. Thus, trying to organize some kind of content boycott would be impossible, much in the same way stopping piracy is impossible. Still, I support the trends because of where I believe they will lead us. As for voters, I think the people who would care enough to forgo content in a boycott already care enough to support candidates sympathetic to reform.

So if you actually want to change the system, hit the big-content idiots in the pocketbook AND the press AND the legislatures. And that requires a boycott. Piracy hits them a little bit harder in the pocketbook, but loses the other two factors. And you really need all three to achieve a sensible change. For just one example, piracy might lead to modestly saner business models... but it certainly won't do anything to help with the excessive term of copyright!

As I said, a boycott (which would be in essence the elimination, however temporary, of piracy) is simply not an option. As for copyright terms, it will make them near irrelevant, when the action it is supposed to prevent is performed by millions of people every day.

Of course it's always easier to try to have it both ways.

Easier? I consider it smarter. After all, what is better for one than a situation where one cannot possibly lose?

And to me that says that you care more about consuming the content than about changing the system. And if that's the truth, why not just say so? If you care more about changing the system, you should act like it! But talking as though you wish to change the system, while acting like getting the content is what matters isn't just inconsistent. It also leads to worse outcomes overall than taking either of the two consistent positions!

On the contrary, as I have argued, it leads to the best outcome possible, where no matter what happens we always have the other end to fall back on! As for changing the system, the system does not need to be changed in words, if it can be changed in deeds. After all, what is a system's worth but its effect upon the people? A system which nobody pays heed to is as obsolete and irrelevant as one which has been legally overturned, and the end difference is none. Are there no laws nobody pays attention to, such as a certain law not to put pennies behind your ear in Hawaii? Piracy is, as we speak, making the old system irrelevant and by extension useless.

~Jaime

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

quoting reasonable-size portions (up to 1000 words or 50% of a work whichever is less is guaranteed OK; larger portions may or may not fall under fair use) of a work for critical or educational use --

Do you have a specific ruling that points to those numbers? I was under the impression there was no guaranteed "safe" standard for fair use. Music sampling has been ruled against on the basis of four notes, or only a few seconds out of an entire song.

I'm aware that most music sampling doesn't count as "critical or educational use," but some is definitely critical--and the ability to use up to 1000 words of a movie or 50% of a song for educational uses would be a great boon to many college students & professors, some of whom are being told that they cannot use any direct quotes at all in their papers, to avoid lawsuits.

[Xenophon]

@elfwreck: No, I do not have a specific ruling. There may be one (or several), but... I am not a lawyer so take what follows with the appropriate wheelbarrow-load of salt.

I've been given that rule of thumb in many venues, starting in grade-school (in Utah). Same r-o-t later on in high-school in California. Then as an undergrad at CMU. Then again, 15 years later as a grad-student at CMU (in that IP seminar I've mentioned many a time). Please note, by the way, that the rule-of-thumb applies to written works only so your movie or song example wouldn't fit. I seem to recall that song lyrics and poetry may have different rules (but I can't remember whether that's because of differences in their nature or because their rule of thumb came from a different court case).

The issue of "college students & professors, some of whom are being told that they cannot use any direct quotes at all in their papers, to avoid lawsuits" is different, however. The rule-of-thumb I gave addresses the question "am I likely to prevail in court if someone were to sue me over this quotation?" If the question that concerns you is "Am I likely to be sued over using this quotation?", all I can do is to observe that any fool can bring suit for any d*mn thing they like. So if avoiding suits in the first place is the primary concern it may indeed be best to skip the direct quotes. On the other hand I would expect that any sane college or university has an explicit written policy on the subject, and will defend faculty, staff, or students who have obeyed that policy but are nevertheless sued for copyright violations. That seems like basic academic freedoms to me. And it's certainly what my University does.

Xenophon

[Xenophon]

@Jaime_Astorga:

On the subject of a boycott: Of course you'll never get a general boycott in which all current "pirates" engage in a boycott instead. Fortunately, you don't have to! All it takes is a (good sized) bunch of former "pirates" joining together with outraged non-pirates in an identifiable organization. And that organization then needs to make a fuss. In the press, by polite notes to publishers telling them about lost sales. By... Nevermind. There're lots of writings on how to organize an effective boycott for anyone who wants to give it a go.

I response to my observing that it's always easier to to try to have it both ways, you wrote (in part):

Easier? I consider it smarter. After all, what is better for one than a situation where one cannot possibly lose? [...] On the contrary, as I have argued, it leads to the best outcome possible, where no matter what happens we always have the other end to fall back on!

I guess I have failed to express myself clearly enough. Consider what would happen, for example, if those of us who 'foolishly' continue to pay for content were to join you on the "pirate" side of the argument. The existing system melts down. (I hear you cheering!) But if you succeed in melting down the existing system without finding some alternate means for compensating creators, what you'll get won't be the "best outcome possible" that you are hoping for! Rather, you'll get a vast decrease in the output of those creators, if only because they're spending more of their time earning a living via other means! Or you'll get things like the fascinating case of Sir Walter Scott, whose finances were destroyed (largely) by pirate copies of his books. He died penniless, while simultaneously being the best-selling author in Europe! Incentives like that do not encourage production of content, IMHO. That would be one way to lose.

A second way to lose would be for continuing piracy to cause the big publishers to go even farther off the deep end with DRM and with legal sanctions and enforcement. The big lose there might not be for those who are willing to "pirate," by the way. It might instead be a big lose for those of us who believe that it's worth compensating authors for their work (by making reasonable use of content impossible or onerously difficult and expensive). And that could all too easily lead to my prior scenario, thus giving us two losses for the price of one!

These next remarks are limited to areas I know something about: fiction publishing and Jazz and Classical music published by small labels. I make no claims about big record labels, big Hollywood, textbooks, etc. That said...

If you grab a royalty-free (e.g. "pirate") copy of a book (or record/tune) (without the author/composer/performer's permission, of course), you're taking money directly out of the hands of an author/performer/composer who almost certainly needs it as badly as you do. You aren't "sticking it to the man" or "striking back against the system" or even "making a political statement about copyright." You're deliberately choosing not to pay for something that you valued enough to spend your time on. The vast majority of those artists aren't big stars. They aren't making big money off their art. They are ordinary folks who are trying to make ends meet. The ones who are wildly successful are making the equivalent of a good professional salary, that's all.

Similarly, the vast majority of the publishers and small record labels who bring us those books and tunes are reasonable, decent folk who are trying to seek out good content and bring it to market (while making a decent-but-not-spectacular living along the way). This isn't the world of record-label contracts that screw the band, or of publishers with zillion-dollar advances for big stars, but no money for "quality stuff." These are the folks who are trying hard to provide "quality stuff" for their markets.

If it's worth your time to read (or listen to!), it's worth your money to pay for it. If you don't have the money, get it via one of the free-and-legal venues (like a library)! That's why the limits on the copyright holder's "limited property right" leave library lending entirely legal.

Xenophon