This guy wants to make Calibre assist in illegal distribution of ebooks

[Thasaidon]

Nice post, as always, Darryl. Though the people who wish to attach odium to copyright infringement will probably try to muddy the waters again.

The real problem is can/should "intellectual property be treated as if it were physical property.

If it should not, then how should it be treated?

[fidvo]

Originally Posted by darryl

It is understandable why rights holders equate copyright infringement with theft, since they want to attach the same odium to copyright infringement, presumably in an attempt at simplification as even young children are quickly educated to understand that theft is wrong.

Especially since children are also taught that sharing your toys is good. If I have something I'm not using at the moment and someone else wants to use it, I should let them borrow it, right? What if I can let them borrow it and I still have it? What if I can give it to them permanently and still have it? Isn't that basically just the equivalent of sharing your toys without any drawbacks? Everyone wins.

The problem is that someone went to a lot of work creating what you want to share, and they rightly want to be compensated. If we just let everyone share everything, then the only one who loses out is the guy who created it, because he put in a lot of work but gained nothing except what everyone else gets. So he's going to be less likely to put in the work next time.

That's where copyright comes in. It's a compromise. The drawback is that it artificially limits the distribution of what would otherwise be free stuff for everyone. And who doesn't like free stuff? The benefit is that it encourages people to put in the work to create that free stuff in the first place.

In my opinion, copyright isn't about right or wrong; it's about self interest. There's nothing inherently unethical or immoral about sharing an arrangement of bits in a computer. I follow the law not because I'm altruistic, but because I'm selfish. It's in my best interest to encourage a lot of things to be created, because some of those might be things I want to obtain, and I will never obtain something that never gets created. That's just good sense.

[Thasaidon]

Originally Posted by fidvo

That's where copyright comes in. It's a compromise. The drawback is that it artificially limits the distribution of what would otherwise be free stuff for everyone. And who doesn't like free stuff? The benefit is that it encourages people to put in the work to create that free stuff in the first place.

Sounds good and you make some fair points BUT:-

1. Is the copyright compromise as fair as it should be to all parties?

2. Should "intellectual property be treated as if it were physical property?

[darryl]

@fidvo. A good post with some good points. I posted my best guess as to what would happen without any form of system for rewarding creators. Poorer quality material and less of it. Unfortunately copyright has now become so distorted in favour of rights-holders (who are often not creators) that it sometimes works against the public interest, one very clear example being academic publishing. We do need to reward creators, but the system needs to be much better balanced and practical.

[theducks]

Originally Posted by Thasaidon

Sounds good and you make some fair points BUT:-

1. Is the copyright compromise as fair as it should be to all parties?

2. Should "intellectual property be treated as if it were physical property?

Before ebooks and the DMCA
I used to LEND my paperbacks. Note: I transferred the POSSESSION of the book, NOT a copy. There is no legal way they can stop this process.

Interesting enough, in the early days of the PC, Borland allowed transfer of licensed software with the stipulation: "Like a BOOK, it can't be used in 2 places at the same time..."

Now days, most ebooks PROHIBIT any kind of lending. The 'teeth' is the DMCA police will get you.