interesting NYT article on "copyright morality"

[deviant]

It's not so much as how much I'd want to pay for them, it's how much I CAN pay for them. With average salaries of $600-1000 it's a tough choice.

And indeed, when faced with the fact that the money I payed for something doesn't help the artist but in fact the greedy publisher - is it any surprise I turn to pirated material?

Don't get me wrong here, I do not support piracy just because of the price issue. I've bought things I valued at a price I can afford. I've also bought some things beyond that price and ended up disappointed, not because of the price, but because the product I bough had an added benefit packed in - buyer's remorse.

What puzzles me as an aspiring artist (both music, writing and digital art) is that the public stigmatizes fans that illegally acquire material they like without denying it to others but at the same time silently accepts the outrageous percentages publishers place on author contracts.

So in retrospect, I can say that those $4 don't just give me a product I am interested, they also give me the emotional satisfaction that somewhere, a greedy CEO won't be buying a new Ferrari with my money. And that's something that goes way away beyond the $4 I payed for it.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

U.S. law makes it clear that IP needs to be protected, specifically because of people who feel that others do not deserve due compensation for their ideas simply because they are not physical objects, and rob them of "potential sales." (Smart guys, those Founding Fathers.)

In the nineteenth century, American publishers were some of the biggest literary 'pirates' in the world - and lobbied their government NOT to recognise international copyright.
Now, of course, they're all in favour of enforcing international copyright.
It isn't their morals that have changed; it's their self-interest.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by deviant

And indeed, when faced with the fact that the money I payed for something doesn't help the artist but in fact the greedy publisher - is it any surprise I turn to pirated material?...
So in retrospect, I can say that those $4 don't just give me a product I am interested, they also give me the emotional satisfaction that somewhere, a greedy CEO won't be buying a new Ferrari with my money. And that's something that goes way away beyond the $4 I payed for it.

I know it's easy to say that, but in reality, even publishers serve a purpose. For instance, spending the money on promotion so that you will know about the artists out there to be bought from. Without a publisher, an artist is like... ME, trying to promote myself with my own meager funds, being known by less than a few hundred people, and having a product income that barely covers expenses, much less pays the rent.

If you don't want to support a publisher, buy directly from the artist. But think about all the artists you don't even know about, the ones waiting tables or tilling fields today, because a publisher never promoted them. Sure, maybe he could be driving a Rabbit as easily as a Ferrari... let him worry about how he wastes his money.

And as it is, your stealing is hurting the author a lot more than the publisher.

[deviant]

I'm going to make the assumption that books are actually advertised where you live. I can't remember when was the last time somebody advertised a book here by any mass media system.

The only advertisement I did see/hear were posters in bookshops, reviews in various magazines (games in this case, not books), word of mouth and various conventions (which are themselves poorly advertised). In conclusion, advertisement is NOT one of those things publishers put a lot of money in.

I'm afraid that I fail to see how I am hurting the artist more when he is losing a measly 6-8% compared to the publisher's lion's share of 92%.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

In the nineteenth century, American publishers were some of the biggest literary 'pirates' in the world - and lobbied their government NOT to recognise international copyright.
Now, of course, they're all in favour of enforcing international copyright.
It isn't their morals that have changed; it's their self-interest.

Exactly the opposite... they are just as interested in their own profits as they ever were. The difference between then and now is, they can no longer control the supply or limit easy duplication of their works as they once could... others can now take what they once took, and cut them out. So, instead of selfishly lording it over the literary world and the consumer, they have moved to the moral "high ground" and are now helplessly pleading to the government to enforce copyright laws and save them.

As I've said, publishers can serve a purpose in promoting an artist. But it's hard to excuse years of monopolistic and domineering behavior, even as they tried to do good, and so they are left with little sympathy in the market.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

However, intellectual property CAN be stolen in the U.S., and when you make unauthorized copies of an e-book, you are stealing intellectual property.

1. "Intellectual property" is a propaganda term created by the copyright-maximalists to make people think that ideas can be owned. "Intellectual property" does not exist.

2. Making an unauthorized copy is not theft. If it was, copyright laws would not exist since the current property laws would suffice.
If I were to tell my local law enforcement that my next door neighbor was copying books, they would just shrug and do nothing. Copyright violations are not in their jurisdiction. If I told them that my neighbor stole my books, they would do something because theft is within their jurisdiction.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

U.S. law makes it clear that IP needs to be protected, specifically because of people who feel that others do not deserve due compensation for their ideas simply because they are not physical objects, and rob them of "potential sales." (Smart guys, those Founding Fathers.)

Current copyright law in the U.S. lets dead authors maintain control of their works. How can a dead person be compensated for their work?

Current copyright law allows people who did not create the content "own" the content.

This thread is about "copyright morality". Copyright is no longer moral. It is disrespectful to the public. Your expectations that the public should respect copyright is not realistic.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

Current copyright law in the U.S. lets dead authors maintain control of their works. How can a dead person be compensated for their work?

Are you suggesting that nobody should be able to pass on their income-earning property to their heirs when they die?

If you created a business, you'd be able to pass on ownership of that business to your wife or children to provide them with income after your death. Copyright law allows you to do the same, albeit only for 70 years after your death.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Are you suggesting that nobody should be able to pass on their income-earning property to their heirs when they die?

If you created a business, you'd be able to pass on ownership of that business to your wife or children to provide them with income after your death. Copyright law allows you to do the same, albeit only for 70 years after your death.

The point was that it was not property so it is not obvious that you should be able to pass it on (if it now is obvious that you should be able to pass on property). The reason that you can pass on things is that it is considered beneficial for society. And if I am correctly informed you cannot pass on everything in a business since there are tax to pay. So in a way you cannot now pass on everything.

[MaggieScratch]

I don't think you're going to be able to just tell young people "Downloading is stealing and it's wrong and therefore you shouldn't do it." Did that stop you from doing something you wanted to do at that age? Of course not.

You have to cast it in terms that they will understand: what's in it for me if I stop downloading free stuff and start paying for my content?

Tell them that if they don't pay for their books, then authors will not be able to afford to write them, publishers will not be able to afford to publish them, and there won't be anything new to read.

Also, you can download off the darknet, but in my (admittedly limited) experience with darknet ebooks, they usually are OCRed, badly proofread (if at all), and badly formatted. If they want a good reading experience, pay for a real copy. Explain that you get what you pay for. They're formatted, they will work, they will look nice, it will be a good experience, download and enjoy, and that having that good experience is worth paying for it.

(This also assumes availability--in that case, the publishers and authors such as J.K. Rowling who will not allow their stuff to be digitized have to assign some blame to themselves. It also assumes that the items for sale are of good quality. I've purchased some e-books and found tons of proofing errors, which is always disappointing. And the pricing must be fair. Not necessarily cheap, but fair.)

Lastly, we have to teach our kids that everything isn't available for instant gratification. If you want to read a book, you have to pay the price and buy it, get it from the library, or go without. The darknet mentality is simply entitlement mentality and a lack of impulse control writ large. I want it, and therefore I must have it NOW NOW NOW. I see it all the time with many (not all, thankfully) young people--they don't understand that, for instance, one has to pay one's dues to move up in business. I have a fairly interesting job and the ones working the more boring entry-level positions want it--but they don't realize that I spent YEARS working crappy jobs for insane and horrible people who treated me like dirt to acquire the experience and skills to get my relatively cool job working for nice people. They want it, and don't understand why they can't have it now (and don't appreciate that they are at least working for nice people in the meantime).

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

This thread is about "copyright morality". Copyright is no longer moral. It is disrespectful to the public. Your expectations that the public should respect copyright is not realistic.

The concept of copyright, a way to compensate people for intellectual works, is the highest morality. It addresses an unfairness visited upon them by people who refuse to understand the value of something they can't hold in their hand, or toss down their throats. Denying such an obvious concept is, in fact, taking us back down the road to the Dark Ages and Might Makes Right.

My expectations that the public should respect copyright is common sense. Copyright law may need revising or updating, but that doesn't make it worthless, nor immoral. Strangling the dissemination of ideas by denying due compensation is totalitarian and historically proven to be counter-productive, and that's all you'd accomplish by just abolishing copyright.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Are you suggesting that nobody should be able to pass on their income-earning property to their heirs when they die?

A story isn't property. It's an idea. Ideas cannot be owned.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

The concept of copyright, a way to compensate people for intellectual works, is the highest morality.

And I'll ask again (since you failed to address it):
How does one compensate someone who is dead?

And I'll ask some more:
How do you, an author, compensate every other author you've stolen ideas from?
How do you compensate the public for the ideas you've taken from the public domain?

Copyright, as it stands today, is immoral. It permits a few to take but not give back.

IHMO: any author that releases any work under a standard copyright (as opposed to something like Creative Commons) intends to defraud the public.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

My expectations that the public should respect copyright is common sense.

It's common sense to respect the disrespectful?

You need to reevaluate your expectations.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

A story isn't property. It's an idea. Ideas cannot be owned.

Shares in a company aren't "property" either. They are an abstract expression of "ownership" (whatever that means) of the business. I don't believe anyone has ever suggested that one shouldn't be able to pass on shares in one's estate.

[Astropin]

Originally Posted by Amothea

I personally think most young people have very little money, especially college students, and well if they want music or books they aren't going to get them any other way except by downloading. But I like to think that once people have jobs they'd pay for their music/movies/books and etc.

I think that's possibly why the audience the guy was lecturing too didn't raise their hands often.

It's either that or our new generation of people see absolutely nothing wrong with downloading. If that's the case then there needs to be more incentive or extras added to items in stores that you can't get online.

In the case of DVDs, it's really hard to find audio commentaries, or special features for movies/tv series so if you want those you have to buy the DVDs. for ebooks I'd totally pay 5 bucks for a perfect ebook copy that I can add to my Sony ebook reader (non-drm format). I don't complain about the OCR errors I get in my darknet books because well it was free but I can't find Katharine Kerr's books anywhere else except IRC or Jane Fancher for that matter so options are limited. The Jane Fancher books I've found are only in TXT which isn't all that great.

basically ebook sellers have an advantage over darknet they can sell a good copy of the books, where with darknet you're at the mercy of whoever scanned the book and went through it looking for OCR errors and fixing them.

the main problem is lack of selection at reasonable prices at many of the online ebook stores.

I consider myself part of the generation that started downloading as soon as I had a computer and a modem. and I can't help it I don't think it's wrong to make copies, and download copies of stuff I already own in paperback. But now that I do have a job and some spending money I am willing to spend money on good qualilty work but even the Sony Connect bookstore kind of blows because I had to download a darknet copy of a book I'd bought from there because the font was too small and the RTF I found online let me adjust the font so I could read it. That's kind of jacked up.

I also don't buy DVDs because half of them won't play in my computer DVD player which is the only one I own. So I end up having to download movies anyways, which is highly annoying I might add. So at this point I'm highly discouraged from buying DVDs because there is no guarentee that I'll be able to watch it. DRM is not helping the consumers and it's not helping to sell DVDs or music.

Just saying they need to make things easier to buy than it is to download for free. At this point in time it's easier and quicker for me to download my tv shows via torrents than it is to get them from itunes. Plus I can watch my avi downloads from any computer in my house where I've had one issue after another with my purchased tv episode from itunes.

Trust me people are buying stuff and then realizing what a hassle it is and going somewhere else where it's not a pain in the neck to get your content.

I'm really surprised this individual did not get a response yet......this is exactly the type of person we are discussing here.

"I personally think most young people have very little money"

Just because you can not afford it is absolutely no reason to steal it. It's called "going without".....at least until you can afford it.

"I can't find Katharine Kerr's books anywhere else except IRC or Jane Fancher for that matter so options are limited. The Jane Fancher books I've found are only in TXT which isn't all that great. "

Many have argued about this point but IMHO this is acceptable ONLY if you have already PURCHASED the paper version. Otherwise it's "go without".

"the main problem is lack of selection at reasonable prices at many of the online ebook stores. "

Then it's "go without".....see how easy that is .

"I also don't buy DVDs because half of them won't play in my computer DVD player which is the only one I own. So I end up having to download movies anyways, which is highly annoying I might add. "

This is wrong. The fact that your player does not work is no excuse to steal movies. Buy a new DVD player (or DVD drive) or "go without".

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by deviant

I'm afraid that I fail to see how I am hurting the artist more when he is losing a measly 6-8% compared to the publisher's lion's share of 92%.

Because the publisher is making money off of a stable of artists... if you don't but author X's work, he doesn't get that 92%, but he still gets the 92% from authors A, B, C, D, E, F, G... So, ultimately, you've hardly nicked him.

When you don't buy author X's work, author X gets not one penny (beyond whatever advance the pub gave them, if any), and they don't have multiple clients and millions to fall back on. You've slammed him.