A Question on ethics

[mogui]

"And Then There Were None" is a much-anthologized sf short story by Eric Frank Russell. Its peaceful anarchism enchanted me when I first read it, decades ago; I still think that it holds great and gentle wisdom. I'll struggle to restrain myself from spoiling the tale for those who haven't yet seen it. But one facet, the monetary system that Russell sketches out, is so central that I have to describe it here.

On the planet where the story takes place people trade not coins or currency but "Obs" --- their shorthand word for "Obligations". Do me a favor and I owe you in turn: you've laid an ob on me that you can call in, or use to kill an ob that somebody else has put on you. (It's similar to a famous exchange of favors in Mario Puzo's novel The Godfather.) Maybe an ob-based economy couldn't work on a larger scale than a village, where everybody knows everybody else. (Or maybe it could?!).

from here.

The story is here. And the novel is described here and the novel is here. I think it is legal as it is linked by Wikipedia. Guess what I'm reading next!

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by nekokami

I personally feel that author's life + 75 years for copyright protection is highly unreasonable.

A minor correction - it's life + 70 years, not life + 75.

Tell me, if you started a business manufacturing widgets, do you think it unreasonable that you should be allowed to pass on your widget-making business to your descendents as a part of your estate? Would you say that 70 years after your death all rights to that business should be forcibly taken away from your descendents, and that they should no longer be able to gain any profit from it?

I've always been slightly curious why it is that people feel that copyright protection should be somehow "different" from protection for "physical" entities (like widget-making factories). Writing is just as much "real work" as manufacturing widgets - why should one not be able to carry on earning income from such a thing after the death of the originator as one can with any other type of business?

[Nate the great]

A copyright stops the making of copies of a work. It does not affect who owns the existing physical copies. The only way to protect a widget factory in the same manner is a patent. A patent only protect for 17 years, not life+70. So yes, copyright is different.

Now do I think it unreasonable that you should pass the patent on to your heirs, like you can a copyright? I think the length of the term of copyright is incredibly unreasonable right now.

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by mogui

from here.

The story is here. And the novel is described here and the novel is here. I think it is legal as it is linked by Wikipedia. Guess what I'm reading next!

Thanks for the link, mogui! It sounds like something I'll enjoy reading ... and thinking about, those are pretty rare.

[pruss]

Originally Posted by nekokami

- Unencrypted copies of every work "published" should be filed with an agency the equivalent of the Library of Congress for use in the case of works falling out of print.

By the way (and this is a bit off-topic), I once looked at the LoC regulations for filing copies. As far as I can tell, currently anything posted on a public website counts as "published", since it is offered to the general public. Thus, currently, technically everything posted on a website needs to be sent in to the LoC on CD-ROM. Of course they better hope that people don't actually do it or they'll be flooded.

[yvanleterrible]

Originally Posted by pruss

By the way (and this is a bit off-topic), I once looked at the LoC regulations for filing copies. As far as I can tell, currently anything posted on a public website counts as "published", since it is offered to the general public. Thus, currently, technically everything posted on a website needs to be sent in to the LoC on CD-ROM. Of course they better hope that people don't actually do it or they'll be flooded.

In Québec there is a law requiring authors to provide, at their own expense, a certain number of copies to the "Bibliothèque Nationale", of every published work; papers, magazines and books.

[pruss]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I've always been slightly curious why it is that people feel that copyright protection should be somehow "different" from protection for "physical" entities (like widget-making factories). Writing is just as much "real work" as manufacturing widgets - why should one not be able to carry on earning income from such a thing after the death of the originator as one can with any other type of business?

In writing one book or manufacturing a single widget, one puts in a certain finite amount of effort. One can only profit a single finite amount from manufacturing a single widget (a large amount if the widget is a sattelite and a small amount if the widget is a shoelace). But if copyright were perpetual, then one could profit and profit and profit forever from a single finite amount of effort.

Of course one can set up a system for perpetual profit out of widget manufacturing: one sets up a corporation that manufactures widgets. But notice that there is continuing work involved--more and more widgets need to be made. But with a perpetual copyright system, one could in theory make money continually with close to zero effort put in for the continuation. (It's true that one has to keep on making copies, but the cost of that, at least in the case of electronic copies, is miniscule.)

By writing a book, one is (sometimes at least) benefiting society. Society pays one for this service by prohibiting others from copying the book for a finite amount of time without one's permission. That seems like a fair price for the service on the average.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pruss

In writing one book or manufacturing a single widget, one puts in a certain finite amount of effort. One can only profit a single finite amount from manufacturing a single widget (a large amount if the widget is a sattelite and a small amount if the widget is a shoelace). But if copyright were perpetual, then one could profit and profit and profit forever from a single finite amount of effort.

But you can "profit and profit and profit forever" from the single effort of buying shares in a company. Should we ban the stock market on the grounds that it allows people to profit without doing any work?

[Azayzel]

Ahh, the ethics of a digital, non-physical world start to take shape... One thing that's really going to suck about digital editions is that you cannot turn around and trade it at a local shop for another used edition. The same goes for MP3 collections. They've tricked us all into thinking we're getting a great deal on this things, though unbeknownst to us we have lost the ability to get any type of ROI for when we want to lighten our load (though it's not like there's any physical space being taken up).

Nope, I'll stick with my own set of ethical values and occassionally see where others have placed theirs.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Azayzel

Nope, I'll stick with my own set of ethical values and occassionally see where others have placed theirs.

If that means breaking the law (and I'm not for a moment suggesting that you are), that brings up the question of whether we have a moral right to break laws that we disagree with.

Isn't one of the duties of being a citizen in a democracy to obey all the laws, not just those that we happen to agree with?

IMHO, if one thinks that a law is unjust, one should fight to change it using the appropriate judicial process, not simply say "I don't agree with that law, so I'm not going to obey it".

Imagine the chaos if everyone in society decided on an individual basis which laws they were going to obey and which they weren't.

If one does think that a law is unjust and decide to disobey it "on principle" then surely one should have the "guts" to do so openly and accept whatever the punishment is, rather than break it secretly and furtively, and then claim some sort of "moral superiority" for having done so, don't you think?

[JSWolf]

But what about if you own the dead tree edition and you want an ebook version, but there is no version available for purchase for your device or to convert and you find a copy of said book on the net. I know it's illegal to download this, but is it unethical? I think not since you did pay for the paper copy and you are unable to purchase an official ebook. What do the rest of you feel?

[volwrath]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But you can "profit and profit and profit forever" from the single effort of buying shares in a company. Should we ban the stock market on the grounds that it allows people to profit without doing any work?

Thats not a fair comparison, because the individual in question buys shares with money..and that initial investment (and subsequent profits) is constantly at risk.

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by volwrath

...and that initial investment (and subsequent profits) is constantly at risk.

... and is dependent on the continuing efforts of the company in making whatever it makes.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by aleks

It all simply boils down to paying the author for his or her work. Everyone wants to get paid for what they produce. It is up to the author to give away freebies. It is not for others to decide that the author can afford to lose book profits.

If I were an author and someone was stealing my book profits by posting ebooks then it would sure sour me on the idea of publishing in the electronic arena.

A lot of the "stolen" books found on the net were scanned. So do you no longer want to have a dead tree edition because they can be scanned?

[bingle]

Originally Posted by mogui

Thanks for the book tip. I enjoy Hogan.

Reminds me of a book I read long ago, title obscured by the mists of time, where the inhabitants (nonhuman I think) had an economy of "obs" (obligations). They would do something for you very freely and generously and thereby accumulate "obs", a system of credit. It was very interesting how beings in this economy resisted having anything done for them and made every effort to do for others.

Anyone remember the book?

I don't think it's the book you're thinking of, but Cory Doctorow wrote about a similar concept, called "Whuffie" in Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom. It's a society where scarcity and death have been eliminated, and people's worth is based entirely on their reputation (which is quantified and instantly viewable by anyone.)