# Casual Sharing. Another Take on DRM



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

This is from the Writer's Cafe. Since not everyone goes in there, I thought it would be interesting to bring it out here to see what even more people have to say.

*thank you Nick for finding this and I hope you don't mind me sharing it.



Nick Fox said:


> I came across this article today and thought others might find it interesting. I don't think it's been posted yet, but I only checked the first few pages, so forgive me if you've already seen it.
> 
> http://www.idealog.com/blog/drm-may-not-prevent-piracy-but-it-might-still-protect-sales
> 
> The basic gist of the article is that while DRM may not defend against piracy, it does help prevent what this guy calls "casual sharing" among people you know. I'm not advocating for or against DRM (that's been done plenty already), but I do think this is an interesting, probably more realistic take on the topic.


After reading the article, I do like the distinction drawn between piracy and casual sharing. Even if legally that distinction doesn't exist, in my mind, and probably in the minds of many, it does. I don't have a problem loaning a book to a friend - I know Amazon and the publishers allows it on some books (and once, to one person) - I also don't have a problem with loaning the book to a second friend some months later. In my mind it's no different than making a mix tape or copying a record for a friend back in the day.

It may even be hypocritical of me to oppose piracy but not casual sharing - but there you are. In my mind, its a matter of degree. Ripping a CD and putting it on the internet for anyone to grab is wrong. Even Ripping it and sending it to 10 or 20 of my closest friends is wrong. Giving one to a friend I think will like it doesn't register so much.


----------



## GinnyB (Dec 19, 2009)

I never thought about DTB sharing as wrong. We did it all the time in the commuter bus to/from work! Never gave it another thought. Interesting. 

I know a group of Kindle owners who trade Kindles so that they can read each others' books. I don't think I'd want to give my Kindle (even swapping) to someone else.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

GinnyB said:


> I never thought about DTB sharing as wrong. We did it all the time in the commuter bus to/from work! Never gave it another thought. Interesting.


In the comments, he made a distinction between ebooks and pbooks by saying that an ebook never wears out and casual loaning on an ebook leads to that person loaning it and then that person .. ad infinitum ...


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Another difference between lending paper books vs. e-books is that when you lend a copy of a paper book. . . .*you* no longer have access to it. I figure that's why the nook and Kindle lending feature is set up the way it is -- when you lend the ebook, you don't have access to it. I suspect it will eventually evolve to allow you to extend the lending period (renew it, if you will) and/or allow it to be loaned again when you've gotten it back.

But I do see the concern about making a _copy_ that can then be given to others. Then you've still got a copy and the originator's view is you've potentially cheated them out of income by doing so. Now, maybe the borrower would have been unlikely to have paid for it themselves anyway. And, after all, it's only one person. O.K. Call it free advertising then, 'cause maybe they'll like it and really talk it up.

But if the person to whom you gave the copy is free to pass it on, it is possible that, at some point, it will end up in the hands of someone who copies it indiscriminately or posts it on line for anyone to download. Well, then, maybe you _have_ inadvertently, cost the originator some money.

This isn't likely to happen with a loaned paper book -- even if it passes through many hands -- because it's pretty obvious that someone at some time purchased the book, and it wouldn't occur to an honest person that it would be o.k. to copy it and distribute it. Never mind the fact that it would be much harder to do so. But with an ebook, even a reasonably honest person might not realize that it isn't appropriate to make multiple copies and distribute them, especially if they got it otherwise than through a 'retailer'.

People liken the situation, frequently, to the music industry which initially fought 'free copying' and installed DRM. . . .but later said just have at it. And, yeah, people still buy music, but a lot is copied freely. It works because there are other ways for the musicians to make money: concerts, related merchandise sales, licensing for commercials or events to use their music. None of those aspects are in place, exactly, with books, so it might take a little longer for things to settle out.

I'd also observe that, if you hear a tune you like, and you go buy a copy for yourself, you're going to listen to it over and over, most likely. And it probably only cost a buck or two. But, if you read a book you borrowed, how often, really, are you likely to go buy your own copy? Maybe if you really, really liked it and are a re-reader, or it's part of a series and you want the whole set. But I think, for most people, they're much less likely to do that because it's likely going to cost significantly more than a buck or two and, after all, they already read it and probably won't again, so why should they buy a copy?

Anyway. . . I think things will change over the next few years. . . .I will do my best to abide by what's right in my mind and the law as changes occur. . . . . . .


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

Ann in Arlington said:


> Another difference between lending paper books vs. e-books is that when you lend a copy of a paper book. . . .*you* no longer have access to it.


This is precisely the issue.

People would copy physical books also if it were easy. It is the ease of copying that creates the problem.

As an aside, successful musical acts do not make most of their money on music sales anymore. The money now comes from touring and the sale of swag. Sad as the music is what should matter.


----------



## Forster (Mar 9, 2009)

Elk said:


> This is precisely the issue.
> 
> People would copy physical books also if it were easy. It is the ease of copying that creates the problem.
> 
> As an aside, successful musical acts do not make most of their money on music sales anymore. The money now comes from touring and the sale of swag. Sad as the music is what should matter.


While you still have the copy what do you really do with it? If you're like me, probably nothing even if you did "lend" it out.

Both of my parents live in town and have kindles (no we're not on the same account) but... I still haven't stripped the DRM and put a book I purchased and liked on their kindles even though I regularly gave them DTBs I purchased to read. Neither one would ever re-lend the book out to other people because they don't know how and it isn't worth it to them to figure out how to do it. It kinda makes me mad that "lending" is "illegal" for me to do this with a e~version yet legal for a paper version.


----------



## Basilius (Feb 20, 2010)

The thing that bugs me about this is it is human nature to share things we find interesting.

And that's the one thing they're trying to squash with DRM. 

I won't even get into the cloud predictions at the bottom. I don't want to be connected while I read, so it's a non-starter for me. I'll go back to print before I have to consume ebooks from the cloud.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Ann in Arlington said:


> Another difference between lending paper books vs. e-books is that when you lend a copy of a paper book. . . .*you* no longer have access to it.


Yep, that's the main difference between physical media and digital media. Lend, give away or sell your paper book or DVD or CD and you no longer have it and only one person can have it at a time.

With non-DRM e-books, digital movies or mp3s, you can give away copies while keeping your own, can give them to multiple people who can then give them to whoever they want--all the while everyone keeps their own copy.

So I'm very much on the side of the publishers, studios etc. on digital media. Piracy, and just plain lending, is a lot more of a threat to their livelihood in the digital age because of those reasons and how easy it is to spread copies on the internet.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

Forster said:


> It kinda makes me mad that "lending" is "illegal" for me to do this with a e~version yet legal for a paper version.


Understandable.

I like the idea of being able to lend an ebook for any period of time with the original purchaser being locked out while the book is on loan. This allows lending and avoids the multiple simultaneous copies problem. This is also directly analogous to a paper book.

On the other hand, Amazon allows up to six simultaneous readers of a single ebook on the same account. This is amazing.


----------



## Me and My Kindle (Oct 20, 2010)

Cory Doctorow voluntarily gives away his science fiction books for free. He feels the good will and free publicity is worth it -- and eventually, some of his legions of fans will voluntarily purchase print copies.  

I'm not sure other authors could duplicate his success, but it's always haunted me, and given me a weird perspective on the whole debate about DRM. In one interview, he even said "The problem for artists isn't piracy. It's obscurity!"


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Well, that's actually another reason I don't mind DRM and support strong copyright laws.

Any author (or musician etc.) is always free to to give away their work for free if they want.  They don't have to sign with a publisher and try to make money of their works.

But those that chose to only produce work for profit should have their work protected to as great an extent as possible during their lifetimes IMO.  With concessions made for library and other forms of fair use laws--which I do also agree need expanded/clarified for digital content as one should be able to legally do everything with it that they can with a paper book or CD etc.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

Piracy and digital rights interest me a great deal.

I read an article whose major point was that nobody really has a problem with a fella making a copy of for his own enjoyment. 
Where the issue lies is this: Let’s say I buy a CD and make a tape for a buddy . . . they are not as worried about that as the tape will eventually wear out and it is an inferior copy of the original and any subsequent recordings from this tape will have far less quality than the original. 
But with digital copies one can make millions of copies identical to the first. So the article says the major issue is folks that make digital copies of something and that copy makes it onto the web and gets downloaded by thousands or even millions of people.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

Geoffrey said:


> It may even be hypocritical of me to oppose piracy but not casual sharing - but there you are. In my mind, it's a matter of degree. Ripping a CD and putting it on the internet for anyone to grab is wrong. Even ripping it and sending it to 10 or 20 of my closest friends is wrong. Giving one to a friend I think will like it doesn't register so much.


I love when people say that I am an evil doer when I pirate . . . but then they give excuses for why *there* piracy should be legitimized.

"Well, of course piracy is stealing . . . unless you do it my way."


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Well, there are degrees of wrongness.  Putting an album online for an unlimited number of people to download is a greater wrong that burning one copy for a friend. But both are clearly wrong and I refuse to do either.

But I don't see any wrongs in lending a cd to a friend to listen to and see if they like it, or giving away a cd or selling it as long as you don't keep a copy for yourself etc.  Though their is the risk of the friend ripping the cd to mp3s etc., so I'm a bit hesitant about lending albums myself.

That's where digital content needs to evolve and have lending systems, sell/transfer systems etc. as people should own that file when they buy it and be able to lend or sell it like they can a physical cd or book.

But there has to be some system in place where they lose their access to that file while it's loaned out (which the Kindle and Nook already do) and permanently lose it if they sell or give it away through some transfer system (and have to rebuy it if they want it again in the future--just like you would if you sell a cd or paper book and end up wanting it again down the road).


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

Forbidding sharing of books reverses thousands of years of precedent. If you had books on clay tablets, you could give them away, sell them or loan them out as you pleased. It's going to take a lot of thought to figure out how to do it to protect everyone's rights, however. If the method of sharing is too much of a bother, people will simply break the DRM. Copyrights seem to get extended every time copyright of one of Disney's titles is near expiration.


----------



## bordercollielady (Nov 21, 2008)

Elk said:


> On the other hand, Amazon allows up to six simultaneous readers of a single ebook on the same account. This is amazing.


This puzzles me too. EHow even provides instructions on how to deregister/register your Kindle in and back out of another's account. If that is OK - why do you lose access to a book that you loan to someone??


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

bordercollielady said:


> This puzzles me too. EHow even provides instructions on how to deregister/register your Kindle in and back out of another's account. If that is OK - why do you lose access to a book that you loan to someone??


Kindles which are on the same account would normally be in the same household. Generally, all people in that household would have access to all of the books in that household. So simultaneous access simply avoids the detail of having to wait for the book. You wouldn't expect a household to buy two copies of a book. Loaning a book out of the household is a different matter, people outside the household don't have access to those books unless they are given permission to them. In this case, it makes sense that the book not be available to that account while it is out on loan.


----------



## Bonbonlover (Oct 17, 2010)

Maybe they should come up with a way that once you purchase a book it can't be copied. You can give it to whomever you want but them you do not have a copy. They can either keep the book, or give it away... but no copies made. Just like any other DTB, it is initially purchased, then only can have one owner and not be copied. Then we don't have the initial book being given away in exponential fashion while the owner of the book is entitled to give it to a friend if they choose. 

I am guessing that there is some very basic computer programing reason why this isn't done... but heck we can send men to the moon.


----------



## Tuttle (Jun 10, 2010)

auge_28 said:


> I love when people say that I am an evil doer when I pirate . . . but then they give excuses for why *there* piracy should be legitimized.
> 
> "Well, of course piracy is stealing . . . unless you do it my way."


Because Legality and Morality are different.

There is no question that piracy is illegal. But some people feel any sort of sharing is ethical, some people feel that all versions of sharing is ethical, and some people feel that a very limited amount of sharing is ethical despite it being illegal. (There are also people who feel that sharing is unethical but do it anyways).

Personally, yes, sharing something with only your closest friend is illegal, but something I would not find unethical (though not something I have done).


----------



## Basilius (Feb 20, 2010)

QuantumIguana said:


> Kindles which are on the same account would normally be in the same household. Generally, all people in that household would have access to all of the books in that household. So simultaneous access simply avoids the detail of having to wait for the book. You wouldn't expect a household to buy two copies of a book. Loaning a book out of the household is a different matter, people outside the household don't have access to those books unless they are given permission to them. In this case, it makes sense that the book not be available to that account while it is out on loan.


Yet, it's perfectly legal to lend the _device_ with your books on it. There is an informed post over on MobileRead about this in the context of the legalities of DRM removal. I'm including the summary of the paid advice the poster received from an attorney. This is relatively recent information (< 3 months old) and only valid in the US. However, much of this area of the law is untested, particularly around ebooks.

Points that were made in the thread and affirmed:


It is perfectly legal for me to strip DRM from my lawfully acquired ebook, hand over my off-brand ereader to my friend and let him read the stripped file. No problem. But I can't sell or distribute the file or upload it to the internet so anyone can download a copy.

Also, the lawyer stated these opinions:


Removing DRM from legally acquired content for personal use only falls under fair use;
Distributing content for which I lack distribution rights is clearly a violation of relevant copyright laws (whether I've removed the DRM or not);
Providing DRM-removing code to other people within US jurisdiction is almost certainly a felony under the DMCA;
Telling others where to get such DRM-removing programs may or may not be a felony (depending on whether or not a Court decides that it falls under "providing");
Explaining how to use DRM-removing programs that another person has somehow acquired on their own is almost certainly not a felony under the DMCA; 
Possession of DRM-removing programs is not in itself a violation of the DMCA (although distributing them or providing them to others probably is). 

Also, for a proper perspective, you have to remember that "fair use" is not a _right_. It's a _defense_ to accusations of copyright infringement.

Finally, all of this might be negated by the terms of use set forth by the various ebook vendors. Whether those are actually enforceable has also not been tested in court. It's been surmised that software EULAs are basically non-enforceable with certain exceptions. But not tested. Technology moves so much faster than the law...

All that said, it's human nature to share. And the stated purpose of DRM (from the originally linked article) is to squash that impulse. And that really bugs me.


----------



## Soybomb (Dec 31, 2010)

I've noticed that a media company's greed often makes them dig in their heels at the cost of sales.  An example of course would be mp3's.  Recording companies fought and fought to stop mp3 trading in the early days of napster all while not recognizing that their customers wanted to buy mp3s and not cd's, no matter how much they wanted to force their customers to do so.  Eventually they realized the world was going on without them either way, gave in and decided to sell mp3s, and now itunes is the worlds largest music retailer.  Look at tv, pirated tv show downloads were hugely popular because there was no other way to view a program (unless you dvr'ed it) until the dvd came out.  Now the studio's wised up and put their tv shows on website and monetize it.  Sure piracy still exists but I'm not entirely convinced that a significant number of those pirates would have paid for the product anyway and don't actually represent lost revenue.  

The same seems to be the case for ebooks.  Publishing companies MAY let you lend a book once for a predetermined length of time.  Thats it.  Their hope is that it will drive people to buy more ebooks.  Of course I think most people would call that a very poor sharing arrangement.  The people who find lending books important (and I don't think that is a small number) will either just buy a printed copy or will strip the drm and distribute it freely.  They would be much smarter to treat ebook lending like paper book lending.  I can lend my book out as often as I want and I won't be able to read it while its "away."  No time limits, no limits to number of times it can be lent, etc.  

People seem to have a hard time with this lesson.  A creator of intellectual property should be able to determine how its used. The reality is that consumers are going to take your media down the path they want to go with or without you.  If you try to squeeze them for a few extra nickles, you'll probably wind up with less at the end than if you just gave them what they wanted from the start.  You won't stop piracy but you can drive people that would have been paying customers to it by trying to dictate terms too much.  Give your customers what they want or they'll get it anyway.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

Basilius said:


> Points that were made in the thread and affirmed:
> 
> * It is perfectly legal for me to strip DRM from my lawfully acquired ebook, hand over my off-brand ereader to my friend and let him read the stripped file. No problem. But I can't sell or distribute the file or upload it to the internet so anyone can download a copy.
> 
> ...


This is a solid and accurate summary of the law and should be a sticky on this board.

I have some quibble with the statement that removing DRM from legally acquired content for personal use only falls under fair use. Making a personal copy and manipulating a licensed copy of intellectual property is not one of the enumerated exceptions or akin to such exceptions. However, stripping DRM on a legally acquired copy to transcode it is highly unlikely to result in prosecution.

Thanks for posting the summary.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

Basilius said:


> All that said, it's human nature to share.


If you think sharing is an inherent human characteristic you clearly have not seen four year-olds at play. 



> And the stated purpose of DRM (from the originally linked article) is to squash that impulse.


A great example of the power of language. DRM is not to prevent sharing. It is to prevent theft.

You can share the ebook just like you can share a physical book; by giving the person the means to read it - in this case your reader.

I appreciate this is highly unsatisfying. I also would prefer technology that allows the loaning of an individual ebook for an indeterminate amount of time while deleting from my ebook library. This would then be just like loaning a physical book.

In the meantime, the ebook is locked to the reader.


----------



## jello (Dec 31, 2010)

As someone who's been thinking about/debating/arguing/studying copyright and digital media casually for more than a decade this argument is not new. It's application to the written word may be new to some, but this is all pretty old ground. Personally, this take on things just further increases my loathing of DRM. It doesn't stop anyone who just plain wants to copy the content without paying, period. 5 minutes worth of google searches will give you nearly any title you want. The only thing it stops is the kind of sharing-with-friends most people feel should be allowed and legitimate backups/transcoding. The not-very-long history of restriction technologies is pretty dang clear - actual customers gain nothing and often deal with a raft of problems and restrictions while 'true pirates' get a superior product with more flexibility.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

Jello, you are correct in many ways.

The difficulty is designing and implementing an alternative.  

What would you suggest?


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

Elk said:


> You can share the ebook just like you can share a physical book; by giving the person the means to read it - in this case your reader.


Ah, but when I share a paper book, I DON'T give them the means to read the book. That would involve giving them my eyes.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

Elk said:


> If you think sharing is an inherent human characteristic you clearly have not seen four year-olds at play.


Though this is humorous, it's a bit unfair. Children are famous for being egocentric. And comparing adults to children is like comparing apples to oranges. 
My sole purpose in pirating media is so that I have it for my use and the use of my family and friends. I draw the line at uploading it for mass dissemination and piracy for profit.



Elk said:


> DRM is not to prevent sharing. It is to prevent theft.


I want to disagree on this point as well.
DRM is not to protect the author or publisher from lost revenue, it is there to unsure a product is used by a limited delivery system. Amazon has DRM so that its books may only be used on its readers. ITunes had this as well, but due to popular demand they removed it from there products as folks wanted to be able to play there purchased products on any device they chose and have the ability to back up to disc.

We support Amazons use of DRM, only because it fits there license agreement with us, there customer, if we want to "purchase" a book from them we understand that we do not own the book and we can only read it on their devices. It's something we agree to.
The alternative is to get my eBooks else ware, I am uncomfortable paying money for the "use" of an item that cannot be backed up, read on any of my other devices and may disappear at the whim of a company or if the company goes out of business.


----------



## Amy Corwin (Jan 3, 2011)

jello said:


> As someone who's been thinking about/debating/arguing/studying copyright and digital media casually for more than a decade this argument is not new. It's application to the written word may be new to some, but this is all pretty old ground. Personally, this take on things just further increases my loathing of DRM. It doesn't stop anyone who just plain wants to copy the content without paying, period. 5 minutes worth of google searches will give you nearly any title you want. The only thing it stops is the kind of sharing-with-friends most people feel should be allowed and legitimate backups/transcoding. The not-very-long history of restriction technologies is pretty dang clear - actual customers gain nothing and often deal with a raft of problems and restrictions while 'true pirates' get a superior product with more flexibility.


I have to agree with this. As an author, I wince at the thought that my books may be pirated and widely read for free (although it might be nice to get a few more enthusiastic readers by any means possible) but as someone involved in the computer field for over 30 years, I have to say: restrictive technologies never work. They don't prevent the activities they are intended to prevent and they only hurt the legitimate, law-abiding folks who really do want to do the right thing, but do need a way to back things up, etc.

The industry learns this time and time again. As time marches on, I anticipate a time when Amazon will handle e-books the same way they handle MP3s now, i.e. they will not be restricted. They already have a format to tie books to their readers, so it's unnecessary to further encumber readers by adding DRM. It just makes things difficult for the honest.

Just my opinion, of course.


----------



## TheRiddler (Nov 11, 2010)

auge_28 said:


> My sole purpose in pirating media is so that I have it for my use and the use of my family and friends. I draw the line at uploading it for mass dissemination and piracy for profit.


Where do you draw the line? 2 friends? 3 friends? 100 friends? 
Why is it ok to buy one copy of an albulm, or a book, then make copies so that 10 of your friends don't need to buy their own copy? Isn't that 'stealing' money from the creators?

Lending a book / albulm I don't have an issue with, but copying it? Meh, go buy your own.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

jello said:


> As someone who's been thinking about/debating/arguing/studying copyright and digital media casually for more than a decade this argument is not new. It's application to the written word may be new to some, but this is all pretty old ground. Personally, this take on things just further increases my loathing of DRM. It doesn't stop anyone who just plain wants to copy the content without paying, period. 5 minutes worth of google searches will give you nearly any title you want. The only thing it stops is the kind of sharing-with-friends most people feel should be allowed and legitimate backups/transcoding. The not-very-long history of restriction technologies is pretty dang clear - actual customers gain nothing and often deal with a raft of problems and restrictions while 'true pirates' get a superior product with more flexibility.


I totally agree, when DRM is used the only folks that suffer are the paying customers. They get a product with extreme limitations. If you purchase a book, you should be able to read the same book on your Kindle, Nook or whatever you have, if you buy a song you should be able to put it on your iPod, your other mp3 player and you should be able to burn it to a disc and play it in your car or play it on your portable CD player at the beach.

We pirates are able to do all this. You folks that purchased your media legally cannot. DRM limits your use of your purchased media . . . not mine. I have over 100 purchased items from Amazon on my Kindle, all the other books I have I would *NOT * have purchased anyway.



Elk said:


> Jello, you are correct in many ways.
> The difficulty is designing and implementing an alternative.
> What would you suggest?


I would recommend doing away with DRM completely . . . not because it will make my pirating easy . . . it could not possibly get easier, I can offer any one of you 2500 movies, 12,000 eBooks or 17,000 mp3s.
_(No, I am not offering . . . I like this board and don't want kicked off, so don't even ask.)_DRM does not affect me in the least . . . what is affecting is you, the cash paying customer.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

TheRiddler said:


> Where do you draw the line? 2 friends? 3 friends? 100 friends?
> Why is it ok to buy one copy of an albulm, or a book, then make copies so that 10 of your friends don't need to buy their own copy? Isn't that 'stealing' money from the creators?
> 
> Lending a book / albulm I don't have an issue with, but copying it? Meh, go buy your own.


I am not trying to justify this in any way, what I do is stealing no ifs and/or buts about it.
I am not going to stand here and say otherwise.
I join these conversations so that you guys get the perspective of a media pirate.
I also avoid talking about my social/political reasons for why I do it . . . often because the reasons never come up in these threads.


----------



## Basilius (Feb 20, 2010)

Elk said:


> A great example of the power of language. DRM is not to prevent sharing. It is to prevent theft.


Two problems with this sentence.

(*Edit*: Just realized the link in the first post of the article isn't to the most recent post from that author.)

The author of the originally-linked article followed up with the results of his survey. One of the quotes from that article: "And 12 of the 13 [CEOs] agreed with me that DRM's main benefit is to prevent casual sharing!" (Punctuation is as from the article.)

Read it here: http://www.idealog.com/blog/what-the-powers-that-be-think-about-drm-and-an-explanation-of-the-cloud

Secondly, reversing that power of language on you. Copyright violations (which is what we're talking about here) are not theft. Content producers would love to make you think that way, but there is a very significant legal difference between the two. Using "theft" in any conversation around this topic just inflames things for no good purpose.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

Basilius said:


> . . . Copyright violations (which is what we're talking about here) are not theft. Content producers would love to make you think that way, but there is a very significant legal difference between the two. . . .


Can you elaborate?


----------



## Basilius (Feb 20, 2010)

auge_28 said:


> Can you elaborate?


Theft requires that the victim of the crime no longer has possession of the stolen article. This is not the case with a copyright violation. The original is intact.

Secondly, theft is a criminal offense. A copyright violation is a civil offense.

Thirdly, the copyright violation isn't actually the act of downloading. It's the act of uploading. (You are illegally distributing the material in question.) In all the trials we heard about from the music industry, nobody ever got busted for downloading. They got busted for uploading. So, there's a directional problem when equating this to theft. In theft, the person who now has the stolen object is in trouble, when violating copyright, the person giving out the new copy is the one in trouble.

These are the primary reasons why nearly every analogy trying to equate a copyright violation to something else falls down. There's really nothing exactly like it. Theft isn't it, and it certainly isn't piracy. (No ships are involved.) But "copyright violator" doesn't have the marketing sting that something like "thief" or "pirate" does.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

Basilius said:


> Theft requires that the victim of the crime no longer has possession of the stolen article. This is not the case with a copyright violation. The original is intact.
> 
> Secondly, theft is a criminal offense. A copyright violation is a civil offense.
> 
> ...


So, on this premise alone, omitting conversations of ethics:
If I rent a DVD from Netflix use my fancy software to make a copy of it, then return the original disc . . . this is not "theft". And as I do not make it available on the internet or sell it on the street corner I am not distributing it. 
All I am guilty of is possessing something that infringes copyright laws?
You said this is a civil offense so the Feds won't get involved, just lawyers if they find out.

I find this interesting and anecdotally correct, early in my experience with piracy I received two letters from my IP, both stating that I should not make these files available for upload, they mentioned nothing about me possessing the files.


----------



## Basilius (Feb 20, 2010)

auge_28 said:


> So, on this premise alone, omitting conversations of ethics:
> If I rent a DVD from Netflix use my fancy software to make a copy of it, then return the original disc . . . this is not "theft". And as I do not make it available on the internet or sell it on the street corner I am not distributing it.
> All I am guilty of is possessing something that infringes copyright laws?
> You said this is a civil offense so the Feds won't get involved, just lawyers if they find out?


Correct. It is not theft. Netflix has not been deprived of their property, and the studio from which they bought the disc has already been paid. What you have done is made an unauthorized copy of that disc, which is illegal. That is a civil offense.

If you then mail that copy to someone, or in any other way transmit it across state lines, then, I believe, it becomes a federal offense. There's a lot of fuzzy stuff around this I'm not clear on.

One point to make here which I didn't make before, and which may have tripped you up. Making the extra copy is the violation. In an up/download scenario, it's the uploader making the extra copy and simultaneously distributing it. In the case you described, no distribution is necessary to create the violation.

So, what you've described is illegal, but not theft. We'll leave the discussion of ethics to another time. 

(edit: fixed a typo.)


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

Basilius said:


> One point to make here which I didn't make before, and which may have tripped you up. Making the extra copy is the violation. In an up/download scenario, it's the uploader making the extra copy and simultaneously distributing it.* In the case you described, not distribution is necessary to create the violation.*


I don't understand the bold part in the quoted text.
Are you saying that just making the copy is a violation?

I do realize that the copy itself is in violation, but I find it very interesting that it is not theft in a legal sense.


----------



## Basilius (Feb 20, 2010)

auge_28 said:


> I don't understand the bold part in the quoted text.
> Are you saying that just making the copy is a violation?
> 
> I do realize that the copy itself is in violation, but I find it very interesting that it is not theft in a legal sense.


That's exactly what I'm saying. Merely making the copy violates copyright, unless you have written permission from the copyright holder to do so. Making copies of things you bought probably will fall under a fair use defense, and that's brought up in the bullet points I posted earlier in this thread. Giving a "fair use" copy to someone else is not legal, and violates copyrights. Making a copy of something you do not own certainly does not fall under fair use, and is illegal. But it is most certainly not theft in a legal sense.

This whole "impulse to copy and share" urge we have was the reason the Creative Commons was started. It preserves copyright holder rights, but allows others to copy, share, and distribute the works as long as they give proper attribution and don't profit from it. (There's variants on that, but that's the most common version.)


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

Basilius said:


> This whole "impulse to copy and share" urge we have was the reason the Creative Commons was started. It preserves copyright holder rights, but allows others to copy, share, and distribute the works as long as they give proper attribution and don't profit from it. (There's variants on that, but that's the most common version.)


Creative Commons in my understanding is not a defense for wholesale "piracy". It was intended for DJs, photographers and writers . . . et al. to use or reference other material in a limited way.
Nor is attribution a defense as I do not alter the credits on the movie, but this will not help me in a court of law.
But these things are a step in the right direction in my opinion.

Piracy for me is not an exclusively selfish avocation; I have social/political reasons as well. 
Just because something is illegal in a society does not mean it is correct, and should be fought with civil disobedience and nonviolent revolution.
My decision to do so comes not from a place of ignorance; I am VERY interested in the outcome and evolution of this topic. 
What I am fighting here is not the right for the creators to make money on their work, my issue is with the established distribution of cultural artwork and I feel the prices asked for media by distributors is unreasonable. We the consumers only ability to combat inflated prices is to simply not pay those prices.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

auge_28 said:


> Though this is humorous, it's a bit unfair.


Of course. This is why I included a smiley.



> Amazon has DRM so that its books may only be used on its readers.


This may well be true in addition to the fact that DRM attempts to protect the owner of the intellectual property.



> I am uncomfortable paying money for the "use" of an item that cannot be backed up, read on any of my other devices and may disappear at the whim of a company or if the company goes out of business.


This is indeed frustrating conceptually. Calibre will back up DRM protected books. This doesn't solve the other issues.

It places DRM Mobi in the same category as a lot of specialized software. Garmin maps only work on certain Garmin GPS devices, the custom tuning map for my Ducati Superbike only fits this particular motorcycle, etc. I would also prefer that ebooks were somehow more universal.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

auge_28 said:


> I would recommend doing away with DRM completely . . . not because it will make my pirating easy . . . it could not possibly get easier,


DRM is ineffectual in preventing piracy but those dedicated to engage in it. It is easy to strip DRM, but it takes a modicum of effort.

It does however stop causal piracy by the less technologically sophisticated. Thus, less illegal copies for friends, mom, etc. which would otherwise be made.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

Elk said:


> This may well be true in addition to the fact that DRM attempts to protect the owner of the intellectual property.


I still disagree. Restating a premise does not support the argument.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

Elk said:


> DRM is ineffectual in preventing piracy but those dedicated to engage in it. It is easy to strip DRM, but it takes a modicum of effort.
> 
> It does however stop causal piracy by the less technologically sophisticated. Thus, less illegal copies for friends, mom, etc. which would otherwise be made.


The inconvenience DRM causes for the legal consumer far out ways the illusion to a piracy deterrent that it provides.
For instance, you bought all these nice books from Amazon . . . Now you are married to them and the Kindle. What happens if you find a product you like as well as or better than your Kindle? Can you bring the product you purchased over to your new reader?
The answer is no, of course not. This is the purpose and the problem with DRM in a nutshell.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

Basilius said:


> Copyright violations (which is what we're talking about here) are not theft.


You have tried claiming this distinction before, but theft of intellectual property has long been recognized in both the law and in common parlance. Thus we have, for example, theft of trade secrets. The owner still possesses his trade secrets - but they have also been stolen.

An IP pirate similarly is seizing for himself that which does not belong to him; i.e., theft.

Piracy is also a federal crime, if "committed

(A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;

(B) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; *or*

(C) by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the work was intended for commercial distribution."

Title 17, U.S.C., section 506(a)(1).


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

auge_28 said:


> The inconvenience DRM causes for the legal consumer far out ways the illusion to a piracy deterrent that it provides.


This may be true, although I don't know how one would quantify it.

I similarly remove locking lugnuts on my car wheels. I find them to be a greater inconvenience to me in servicing the brakes, etc. than any theft deterrent benefits they provide.

As a separate point: You are correct that DRM can serve to lock a particular piece of software to a device, such as an Amazon Mobi file.

However, DRM It also can serve to prevent copying, such as DVD protection schemes, game CD schemes etc. This software can be played on any DVD player or installed on any computer. There the DRM prevents illicit copies. It is not locking it to a specific device.

And then a question: I understand not liking the prices for intellectual property such as a movie, book or music recording. If I understand your position correctly, the consumer's choice is to not pay these prices. Then you go the additional step to conclude that the wya to not pay these prices is to steal the works.

How do you explain the need for the last step? Why not stop with simply not paying for the item? This would force distributors to drop their prices to make sales.

(Finally, I respect your statement "I am not trying to justify this in any way, what I do is stealing no ifs and/or buts about it." It is refreshing. You stand behind your acts and opinions. I appreciate your willingness to discuss them.)


----------



## Basilius (Feb 20, 2010)

Elk said:


> You have tried claiming this distinction before, but theft of intellectual property has long been recognized in both the law and in common parlance. Thus we have, for example, theft of trade secrets. The owner still possesses his trade secrets - but they have also been stolen.
> 
> An IP pirate similarly is seizing for himself that which does not belong to him; i.e., theft.


Trade secrets, copyrights, trademarks, and patents all fall under intellectual property laws. However, the laws that apply to each of those categories are different. Do not apply rules for one to another. There are crimes involving "theft of trade secrets." They do not apply to copyrights. I have never once mentioned trade secrets, so the legal term "theft" shouldn't enter the conversation.



Elk said:


> Piracy is also a federal crime, if "committed
> 
> (A) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
> 
> ...


Thank you for that clarification - there were areas where things go Federal on which I wasn't clear. Now, are those civil or criminal violations? Also, I believe you are mistaken in applying the term "piracy" to those laws. Those are copyright violations. Legally, "piracy" involves ships, airplanes, or rogue radio or television stations.

When dealing with legal matters, do not apply colloquial terms. Legal terms have strict definitions.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

Basilius said:


> Trade secrets, copyrights, trademarks, and patents all fall under intellectual property laws. However, the laws that apply to each of those categories are different.


Yes and no. There is a good deal of overlap and, of course, distinctions.

I am merely pointing out that your semantic assertion is of no real world meaning. For example, the example of theft of trade secrets destroys your allegation that one cannot call something "theft" merely because the rightful owner remains in physical possession.



> Thank you for that clarification - there were areas where things go Federal on which I wasn't clear. Now, are those civil or criminal violations?


Review the code section I cite.



> Also, I believe you are mistaken in applying the term "piracy" to those laws. Those are copyright violations. Legally, "piracy" involves ships, airplanes, or rogue radio or television stations.


Sorry, but I can't resist this softball.

"Main Entry: pi·ra·cy

. . .

2(a) the unauthorized copying, distribution, or use of another's production (as a film) esp. in infringement of a copyright. (b) the unauthorized use, interception, or receipt of encoded communications (as satellite cable programming) esp. to avoid paying fees for use piracy of programming signals - _United States v. Harrell _, 983 Federal Reporter, Second Series 36 (1993).

3: the crime of committing piracy.

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.



> When dealing with legal matters, do not apply colloquial terms. Legal terms have strict definitions.


I hope the irony of _your_ making this demand does not escape you.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

Elk said:


> This may be true, although I don't know how one would quantify it.


I suppose the easy quantifiable example is Apples decision to remove DRM from its mp3s, due to the request or demands of their customers.
I also believe I have read (I can't support this at the moment) that SONY either is or will be scaling back its anti-piracy measures. If my memory is not faulty, this would mean that a MAJOR opponent of media piracy has recognized the uselessness of DRM.



Elk said:


> However, DRM It also can serve to prevent copying, such as DVD protection schemes, game CD schemes etc. This software can be played on any DVD player or installed on any computer. There the DRM prevents illicit copies. It is not locking it to a specific device.


It is the intention of the producers and distributors of these products to be played on any PC or DVD player, but the DRM is ineffectual in preventing illicit copies being made and distributed . . . but your argument I believe is that the DRM is NOT in place on these products to restrict the machine it is used on . . . but I wonder if this is a valid point as they are intended to work on all of them as opposed to a machine that the distributor supports. I do not believe that this point counters mine in relation to Amazon, Borders and other distributors who want to limit the use of products you supposedly purchased.



Elk said:


> And then a question: I understand not liking the prices for intellectual property such as a movie, book or music recording. If I understand your position correctly, the consumer's choice is to not pay these prices. Then you go the additional step to conclude that the wya to not pay these prices is to steal the works.
> How do you explain the need for the last step? Why not stop with simply not paying for the item? This would force distributors to drop their prices to make sales.


Well, you got me here. 
I don't want to miss out on the art or lag behind any cultural conversations about the art. I go the additional step for selfish reasons . . . since we are being honest here and I am among friends . . . 
It's not just the prices it's the system, all of the media is owned by a hand full of corporations and they tend to squeeze out other options . . . when Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead released there albums on their own website and ask us to pay what we thought the value is to us they still made a crap load of money. . . I support this; I bought both "albums" . . . I do not like monopolies or anything that smells like one.



Elk said:


> (Finally, I respect your statement "I am not trying to justify this in any way, what I do is stealing no ifs and/or buts about it." It is refreshing. You stand behind your acts and opinions. I appreciate your willingness to discuss them.)


Well, I have no interest in being a hypocrite or a liar and not talking about it does not support my cause . . . even if you think it may be misguided. 
I also believe that I should represent the opposing view as intelligently and honestly as I can.


----------



## ff2 (Oct 20, 2010)

auge_28 said:


> The inconvenience DRM causes for the legal consumer far out ways the illusion to a piracy deterrent that it provides.
> For instance, you bought all these nice books from Amazon . . . Now you are married to them and the Kindle. What happens if you find a product you like as well as or better than your Kindle? Can you bring the product you purchased over to your new reader?
> The answer is no, of course not. This is the purpose and the problem with DRM in a nutshell.


Sorry, I don't mean to pick on you particularly, but I do see this argument made quite often - that you cannot take your content, ebook in this case, to a new reader brand. While I fully understand the concept, I really do wonder how many people really re-read their books. I know I re-read very few of my paper books - yes, there have been a few that I've read a second time but no very many. Of course, that does not mean I or others should be precluded but I'm not sure that very many people really do read a second time. I can definitely see it for reference materials but not for novels. More likely than not, what I've done in the past and that which cannot be done with an ebook is lend or give away the novel to another interested person.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

ff2 said:


> Sorry, I don't mean to pick on you particularly, but I do see this argument made quite often - that you cannot take your content, ebook in this case, to a new reader brand. While I fully understand the concept, I really do wonder how many people really re-read their books. I know I re-read very few of my paper books - yes, there have been a few that I've read a second time but no very many. Of course, that does not mean I or others should be precluded but I'm not sure that very many people really do read a second time. I can definitely see it for reference materials but not for novels. More likely than not, what I've done in the past and that which cannot be done with an ebook is lend or give away the novel to another interested person.


A solution that would remedy both of our issues; you're not rereading books and my not liking to pay for something I will never own, trade or sell . . . is for Amazon to charge a reasonable monthly fee and for this fee we have access to ALL of their books to be read only on our Kindles and no sharing, if we do not pay then they have full right to remove there product from our devices..
This is a license agreement I can get behind, do what Netflix, Blockbusters and Rhapsody do.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Agreed.  I'd love a rental system for books, as I too seldom re-read.  I'd happily pay $10-15 a month to be able to read one book at a time from Amazon like I do to have one DVD/Blu Ray at a time from Netflix.


----------



## jello (Dec 31, 2010)

Elk said:


> However, DRM It also can serve to prevent copying, such as DVD protection schemes, game CD schemes etc. This software can be played on any DVD player or installed on any computer. There the DRM prevents illicit copies. It is not locking it to a specific device.


Actually, part of the point here *was* still to tie the media to specific devices, yes. Before the DRM was cracked you could only play DVDs on devices that had a key from the DVD Consortium. To get access to that key you had to contract with them stating a huge raft of things your player would and would not do (such as not outputting the decoded data, obeying region coding, etc). For DRM to function at all it, by definition, can only be played on authorized devices.


----------



## jello (Dec 31, 2010)

ff2 said:


> Sorry, I don't mean to pick on you particularly, but I do see this argument made quite often - that you cannot take your content, ebook in this case, to a new reader brand. While I fully understand the concept, I really do wonder how many people really re-read their books. I know I re-read very few of my paper books - yes, there have been a few that I've read a second time but no very many. Of course, that does not mean I or others should be precluded but I'm not sure that very many people really do read a second time. I can definitely see it for reference materials but not for novels. More likely than not, what I've done in the past and that which cannot be done with an ebook is lend or give away the novel to another interested person.


Rereading books is not the only purpose for needing to format/device shift content. I've only had my Kindle since the holidays and I've already run into this. Due to getting the Kindle my wife, who is blind, had spent a bit of time browsing through the available ebooks on amazon. She ran into a book she had been interested in but isn't available through any of the normal channels for blind user (National Library for the Blind, Braille press, bookshare, etc). She thought "Great! I'll just buy it, grab the kindle reader for PC and I'm set." Well... no. The kindle PC program does not interface with screen readers for the blind at all. Which, from a DRM standpoint, is pretty much required. If an external application had access to the raw text the protection would be broken. And yes, the text-to-speech was disabled by the publisher, another area where DRM needlessly hurts the paying customer. For her to actually read the book she purchased I had to bypass the protections, convert the book, and check to make sure the conversion worked, and send it back to her PC. Had she simply searched on Google for a torrent when she heard about the book a few months ago she would have had the book in a usable format in a matter of minutes, not three days of trying to get the kindle PC app to play nice with Jaws or read aloud. Paying customers get the short end of the stick again and again.


----------



## Amy Corwin (Jan 3, 2011)

jello said:


> Rereading books is not the only purpose for needing to format/device shift content. I've only had my Kindle since the holidays and I've already run into this. Due to getting the Kindle my wife, who is blind, had spent a bit of time browsing through the available ebooks on amazon. She ran into a book she had been interested in but isn't available through any of the normal channels for blind user (National Library for the Blind, Braille press, bookshare, etc). She thought "Great! I'll just buy it, grab the kindle reader for PC and I'm set." Well... no. The kindle PC program does not interface with screen readers for the blind at all. Which, from a DRM standpoint, is pretty much required. If an external application had access to the raw text the protection would be broken. And yes, the text-to-speech was disabled by the publisher, another area where DRM needlessly hurts the paying customer. For her to actually read the book she purchased I had to bypass the protections, convert the book, and check to make sure the conversion worked, and send it back to her PC. Had she simply searched on Google for a torrent when she heard about the book a few months ago she would have had the book in a usable format in a matter of minutes, not three days of trying to get the kindle PC app to play nice with Jaws or read aloud. Paying customers get the short end of the stick again and again.


This is a really, really good example of why DRM is a bad idea and why it almost always ends up getting tossed out. This game is still new enough for vendors to cling to it, but if they're smart, they'll abandon it for good in another year or two...
I just wish they could learn from all the past examples and not start these things every time someone comes out with something new. As if they couldn't remember that it never was a good idea.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

auge_28 said:


> I suppose the easy quantifiable example is Apples decision to remove DRM from its mp3s, due to the request or demands of their customers.


Yes, this is a great example. However, Apple still plays games with iTunes and moving iPod files to a PC, etc. Incredibly irritating stuff.

DRM succeeds in preventing the non-tech user from copying the files for a friend. I posit that many more illicit copies would be made if DRM was completely removed. One example is the ready willingness of people to make a copy of a music CD for a friend - no DRM, lots of copies.

It is the ease of copying electronic information that creates the problem.



> It is the intention of the producers and distributors of these products to be played on any PC or DVD player, but the DRM is ineffectual in preventing illicit copies being made and distributed . . . I do not believe that this point counters mine in relation to Amazon, Borders and other distributors who want to limit the use of products you supposedly purchased.


You are correct; it doesn't counter your point and isn't meant to. 

My point is that DRM is not only to limit use to a specific product or to prevent casual sharing, it is also meant to prohibit duplication. Thus, as an example, a DRM protected DVD or game can be shared with a friend by simply providing him with the disc. He can use it on any player. This is as it should be.

This is one thing I dislike about Amazon's Mobi. I can't share an ebook I bought with a friend who has a Sony reader. I would like to share as I would a physical book and would be perfectly happy if I didn't have access to the ebook as he read it.

I still find fascinating that Amazon allows anyone to share any book if the other person registers his Kindle on your account.



> I don't want to miss out on the art or lag behind any cultural conversations about the art. I go the additional step for selfish reasons . . . since we are being honest here and I am among friends . . .


I understand. Thanks for explaining.



> ... when Nine Inch Nails and Radiohead released there albums on their own website and ask us to pay what we thought the value is to us they still made a crap load of money. . . I support this; I bought both "albums"


This was cool and a great experiment. The difficulty with this model is that it works only for those bands that already have a huge following, in these case garnered by traditional record company marketing. There are some however that do it from the ground up. For example, Adam Young (Owl City) sold roughly 100,000 copies of _Fireflies_ on line before being approached by a record company.



> I also believe that I should represent the opposing view as intelligently and honestly as I can.


You are both doing so and very well.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

ff2 said:


> I do see this argument made quite often - that you cannot take your content, ebook in this case, to a new reader brand. While I fully understand the concept, I really do wonder how many people really re-read their books.


Probably very few of us. I rarely re-read books, although I have read _War and Peace_ a couple of times in different translation.

I think our issue with this is emotional. We feel we are buying the book and thus should have ready access to it forever.

I just recorded the movie _Inception_ to my satellite DVR. It will remain on the unit for a month and then disappear. I know this is how the process works, but it annoys me that it will not remain on the DVR forever even though I never re-watch movies. I am fine with not being able to transfer it to a different device. It is a purely emotional reaction on my part.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

Elk said:


> Yes, this is a great example. However, Apple still plays games with iTunes and moving iPod files to a PC, etc. Incredibly irritating stuff.
> 
> DRM succeeds in preventing the non-tech user from copying the files for a friend. I posit that many more illicit copies would be made if DRM was completely removed. One example is the ready willingness of people to make a copy of a music CD for a friend - no DRM, lots of copies.
> 
> ...


Damn it Elk . . . There is nothing to argue about here.
Where is the fun in this? . . .


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

jello said:


> The kindle PC program does not interface with screen readers for the blind at all. Which, from a DRM standpoint, is pretty much required. If an external application had access to the raw text the protection would be broken. And yes, the text-to-speech was disabled by the publisher, another area where DRM needlessly hurts the paying customer.


This really, truly stinks.

Great example.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

jello said:


> Actually, part of the point here *was* still to tie the media to specific devices, yes. Before the DRM was cracked you could only play DVDs on devices that had a key from the DVD Consortium.


Yes, very true. But this did not limit playing the DVD on one specific device or even one specific brand. It would play on all commercially available DVD players.

Also, this was transparent to the user as he could buy any DVD and play it on any player - unless, of course, he wanted to make a copy of a DVD to give to someone else.

DVDs also contain regional codes that allow them to be played only be players of the matching region, for example U.S. v. Asian. This is analogous to only certain books being available in the United Kingdom v. the U.S.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

Elk said:


> Probably very few of us. I rarely re-read books, although I have read _War and Peace_ a couple of times in different translation.
> I think our issue with this is emotional. We feel we are buying the book and thus should have ready access to it forever.
> I just recorded the movie _Inception_ to my satellite DVR. It will remain on the unit for a month and then disappear. I know this is how the process works, but it annoys me that it will not remain on the DVR forever even though I never re-watch movies. I am fine with not being able to transfer it to a different device. It is a purely emotional reaction on my part.


Ahhh, this I can talk about.
Your cable subscription is just that, a subscription. It is understood that you are only supposed to watch things as they are broadcast or shortly after . . . there is not illusion of ownership, unlike the books you *purchase* from Amazon. I hear folks around here talk about buying this eBook and owning that eBook&#8230; but they don't. At best it is leased to them.

I was sitting here this morning reading_ The Name of the Rose _ by Umberto Eco, there are several mentions of the Franciscans. This got me thinking of the vow of poverty that this order takes which lead me to thinking of this thread . . . I wonder if it is possible to *own* a stream of bits and bytes, is this not like trying to *own* electricity? What I actually own is the vessel that holds the electronic information for without the vessel I have nothing. With a slight paradigm shift this entire topic becomes meaningless . . . or I am just a fool with too much time on my hands in the morning.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

auge_28 said:


> Your cable subscription is just that, a subscription. It is understood that you are only supposed to watch things as they are broadcast or shortly after . . . there is not illusion of ownership, unlike the books you *purchase* from Amazon.


You are absolutely correct. I find interesting in myself however that even though I know I am buying temporary access to the movie, it still frustrates me that it will disappear after a month. Emotionally I want to "own" the copy for as long as I want it.



> I was sitting here this morning reading_ The Name of the Rose _ by Umberto Eco, there are several mentions of the Franciscans. This got me thinking of the vow of poverty that this order takes which lead me to thinking of this thread . . . I wonder if it is possible to *own* a stream of bits and bytes, is this not like trying to *own* electricity?


Wonderful book! I read it went it first came out and loved it. It is worth getting a companion concordance to fully appreciate the book.

The sense that no one owns data streams is likely why so many feel data is free. The data on a CD, an ebook - they resonate as ephemeral, unreal.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

auge_28 said:


> d*mn it Elk . . . There is nothing to argue about here.
> Where is the fun in this? . . .


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Elk said:


> You are absolutely correct. I find interesting in myself however that even though I know I am buying temporary access to the movie, it still frustrates me that it will disappear after a month. Emotionally I want to "own" the copy for as long as I want it.


That's an interesting point. Conversely, I've always found it odd that so many people are so against a $5-10 e-book being tied to their account, yet have no problems spending $5 on a pay per view movie or Blockbuster rental where they don't have permanent access to the content! At least you have some longing on that front too!

Of topic, but I'm always amazed people spend $5 to watch movies given Netflix is like $10-12 after taxes for 1 disc at a time and unlimited streaming. So even if you watch 2-3 movies a month you might as well get Netflix. Much less if you watch 10+ like me.


----------



## QuantumIguana (Dec 29, 2010)

Recorded video is pretty new, books are old. I used to rent movies on VHS and then make copies of them. But I rarely watched these copies, they just sat on the shelf. It wasn't worth the cost of blank tapes. When VCRs came out, a lot of people built up collections they would never watch. With books, it's different, we have 5000 years of having a book meaning it was yours until it fell apart, or in the case of clay tablets, broke. People may not want to read them again, but not to have that option annoys people.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

QuantumIguana said:


> we have 5000 years of having a book meaning it was yours until it fell apart,


I'm sure this is part of it.

On the other hadn, we have no problem paying for experiences and understanding that once it is gone, it's gone (a concert, movie, roller coaster ride, trip).

Somehow with an ebook we are not content paying for the experience, even if we can read it again and again. Many expect permanence to go along with this.


----------



## bluesplayer (Sep 30, 2010)

Amy Corwin said:


> ...as someone involved in the computer field for over 30 years, I have to say: restrictive technologies never work. They don't prevent the activities they are intended to prevent and they only hurt the legitimate, law-abiding folks who really do want to do the right thing


OT: Now I am torn because I agree with that sentiment entirely but in another unrelated area, one that is a very emotional subject to almost all US citizens. It is one that you are "for" or "against," as I am, and there is almost never an in-between mindset. I would also postulate that while most folks here that are in the anti-DRM camp that agree with your DRM sentiment - would do an instantaneous 180 on the OTHER topic. [Any guess what that topic is? (hint it has nothing to do with sex or the outcome thereof) ]

Now back ON TOPIC: I have no issue with DRM, per se, unless it truly impacts MY use of something. Hence, WHY I am torn becasue I am now on the other side of the issue (what can I say expect I am fickled). An example of impacting my use would be something like Cubase (commercial music production SW) that in the past required a "dongle cord" physically connected at all times to use (and the dongle would come lose at the most inopportune times) but now requires constant connection to the web to use, which in a DAW is not really desirable, so I CHOOSE not to use, promote, or otherwise encourage that behavior by that company by not giving them my money (but to reiterate: I ALSO DO NOT USE their products legally or illegally).

was that my outside voice? 
Larry


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

Cubase requires a constant Internet connection to work?  Definitely not good for a dedicated DAW.  

Dongles are a pain however.

I have no idea what the other topic is.  I am curious.


----------



## Soybomb (Dec 31, 2010)

bluesplayer said:


> OT: Now I am torn because I agree with that sentiment entirely but in another unrelated area, one that is a very emotional subject to almost all US citizens. It is one that you are "for" or "against," as I am, and there is almost never an in-between mindset. I would also postulate that while most folks here that are in the anti-DRM camp that agree with your DRM sentiment - would do an instantaneous 180 on the OTHER topic. [Any guess what that topic is? (hint it has nothing to do with sex or the outcome thereof) ]
> 
> Now back ON TOPIC: I have no issue with DRM, per se, unless it truly impacts MY use of something. Hence, WHY I am torn becasue I am now on the other side of the issue (what can I say expect I am fickled). An example of impacting my use would be something like Cubase (commercial music production SW) that in the past required a "dongle cord" physically connected at all times to use (and the dongle would come lose at the most inopportune times) but now requires constant connection to the web to use, which in a DAW is not really desirable, so I CHOOSE not to use, promote, or otherwise encourage that behavior by that company by not giving them my money (but to reiterate: I ALSO DO NOT USE their products legally or illegally).
> 
> ...


Border control? Gun control? TSA? Chilli: beans or no beans? Too many options ripe for the picking. 



> I ALSO DO NOT USE their products legally or illegally


I think you're a rarity among people. I think most people are going to use whatever intellectual property they like and they will pay you for it if the terms/price are reasonable (to them) and stiff you for it if not. Unfair and wrong but also reality so I'm inclined to say to give the majority what they want and happily take their payment.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

Soybomb said:


> Chilli: beans or no beans?


Dangerous topic.

Almost as bad as whether proper barbecue is pork or beef.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

Folks right here on this board having the issues I was talking about with DRM.
User wants to read eBooks he purchased on his Kindle but is not allowed to.

http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,50187.0.html


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

auge_28 said:


> User wants to read eBooks he purchased on his Kindle but is not allowed to.


,
Fortunately he is not having this problem.

He is smart enough to check whether DRM protected PDF files are compatible with his Kindle prior to buying them, "if I buy a pdf book with drm, will I be able to read it on my K2?"


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

Elk said:


> Fortunately he is not having this problem.
> 
> He is smart enough to check whether DRM protected PDF files are compatible with his Kindle prior to buying them, "if I buy a pdf book with drm, will I be able to read it on my K2?"


I was assuming that since he is not buying from Amazon that he either found a product not available from Amazon, found a better priced item from someone other than Amazon or found that he can purchase an *unleashed* item . . . you know, something that he actually owns as opposed to leasing.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

I like "unleashed."

Well done.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

Elk said:


> I like "unleashed."
> 
> Well done.


  Ahhhh, thanks


----------



## bluesplayer (Sep 30, 2010)

Soybomb said:


> Border control? Gun control? TSA? Chilli: beans or no beans? Too many options ripe for the picking.
> I think you're a rarity among people. I think most people are going to use whatever intellectual property they like and they will pay you for it if the terms/price are reasonable (to them) and stiff you for it if not. Unfair and wrong but also reality so I'm inclined to say to give the majority what they want and happily take their payment.


Yea gun control (but it's a discussion for other forums not a reading/eBook forum) and I'd like to think I'm NOT rare especially about BUYING, or using (legally) SW or IP that I don't like or have issues with (preposition ending sentence not withstanding ) .

Which was sort of my point - if I didn't like the Kindle I wouldn't have bought it and I sure as heck wouldn't buy it then complain about its DRM AFTER I bought it. I simply would not have bought it. 
I might have talked to Amazon about my issues with DRM BEFORE hand and let them know they lost a sell because of it (assuming I had heart burn with it, which I DO NOT). I would not have bought a Kindle then after the fact complained about DRM - unless of course it was a hidden fact, purposely obscure and obfuscated, or if Amazon had blatantly lied to me.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

bluesplayer said:


> if I didn't like the Kindle I wouldn't have bought it and I sure as heck wouldn't buy it then complain about its DRM AFTER I bought it. I simply would not have bought it.


How very rational and respectable. You take responsibility for your own actions.

Weird.

Are you really a contemporary first-world country citizen? What's wrong with you?


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

bluesplayer said:


> Which was sort of my point - if I didn't like the Kindle I wouldn't have bought it and I sure as heck wouldn't buy it then complain about its DRM AFTER I bought it. I simply would not have bought it.
> I might have talked to Amazon about my issues with DRM BEFORE hand and let them know they lost a sell because of it (assuming I had heart burn with it, which I DO NOT). I would not have bought a Kindle then after the fact complained about DRM - unless of course it was a hidden fact, purposely obscure and obfuscated, or if Amazon had blatantly lied to me.


The Kindle does not have DRM, I love the Kindle as a reader.
We are discussing DRM on the books from Amazon and other places. It's not that I disagree with Amazon using DRM, it is more about the fact that I don't wanna _*purchase*_ books with DRM on it . . . and that's not Amazons problem at all . . . well, unless they wanna sell me books rather than lease them to me for the price of a paperback.

I have just over 100 books from Amazon and several thousand DRM free books (not from Amazon) that work just fine on my Kindle.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

Elk said:


> How very rational and respectable. You take responsibility for your own actions.
> Weird.
> Are you really a contemporary first-world country citizen? What's wrong with you?


Except that he missed the point of the conversation and decided to talk down to us.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

auge_28 said:


> Except that he missed the point of the conversation . . .


I think his view is simply a bit different.

I think he is stating that he doesn't expect a purchased DRM book for a Kindle to be fungible content to be read forever on any possible device that may exist now or in the future. He knew that Kindle books are protected.

He understands that when we buy a book you are not buying the content, you are buying the container. This is akin to buying a physical book. I don't own the words in the book and am not entitled to all forms of the book if this one wears out, goes electronic, whatever - I own just this one copy.

Buying the DRM Kindle compatible book is like buying a new starter for a Subaru. It works on that car, it is mine forever, but I don't expect to install it on my Corvette at any point in time, nor for that matter, not on all future Subarus. (The analogy fails to a degree. I can take my Subaru starter and put it on any other compatible Subaru at any time. I can't do this with a DRM Kindle book.)


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Yeah, I'm kind of with him.  I seldom re-read books so I really don't care if years down the road Amazon goes under and we eventually can't buy devices to read them on.  I wouldn't be happy about it, but I'm willing to take that risk.  Plus, not like we have any choice since all the major publisher's are really only putting out DRM books.  And Amazon is less likely to go under than the other companies IMO.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

Elk said:


> I think his view is simply a bit different.
> I think he is stating that he doesn't expect a purchased DRM book for a Kindle to be fungible content to be read forever on any possible device that may exist now or in the future. He knew that Kindle books are protected.
> He understands that when we buy a book you are not buying the content, you are buying the container. This is akin to buying a physical book. I don't own the words in the book and am not entitled to all forms of the book if this one wears out, goes electronic, whatever - I own just this one copy.


Wow, that's not how I read it at all. Perhaps I will wait to comment further until this is cleared up&#8230; would hate to accuse someone of something like talking down to me when I am the one misunderstanding.



Elk said:


> Buying the DRM Kindle compatible book is like buying a new starter for a Subaru. It works on that car, it is mine *forever * . . .


But that's just it . . . you don't own these books. It's not yours forever.
Forget that you can't take it to some other reader or do anything else with it but read it on a Kindle device . . . what happens if Amazon stops making or supporting Kindle you lose your entire library . . . this is covered in the license agreement and you agreed to it so there is no legal repercussions.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

auge_28 said:


> Wow, that's not how I read it at all.


I could also be wrong.  Hopefully he will chime in and clear things up.



> But that's just it . . . you don't own these books. It's not yours forever.


I understand and appreciate your concern that Amazon and its Kindles may dry up and blow away, leaving one with DRM protected Kindle files that you can no longer read. If this happens, I don't think anyone will complain when you break the DRM and transcode your Kindle books to be read on another device.

If Amazon goes belly up, you still have the files. The Subaru may rust around my nifty new starter and there may no longer be a way for me to use it, but I still have the starter. It's complete in all its glory - but useless. So are the files.

Many experienced these same issues with the advent of CDs. You can't play an LP on a CD player, thus if you wanted to play the new format you needed to buy a CD player and CDs. Of course, you could also stick with your LPs. Same with the Kindle.

It isn't really any different with physical books. You own the container, the book, and also possess a license for the contents. The content, the words, don't belong to you - but you get to read them. Only the copy of the book is yours. Admittedly there is a difference however; the content is locked to your Kindle - not just the class of Kindles. I don't like this part.

Then there is gun control . . .


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

auge_28 said:


> We the consumers only ability to combat inflated prices is to simply not pay those prices.


I actually agree with this. Making the leap from that statement to the assumption that you should still have the goods in question is where you lose me. Just because I think $500 is a ridiculous amount to pay for a pair of shoes and I refuse to pay that doesn't mean that I then get to walk into the factory and grab a pair of the shoes.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

ff2 said:


> Sorry, I don't mean to pick on you particularly, but I do see this argument made quite often - that you cannot take your content, ebook in this case, to a new reader brand. While I fully understand the concept, I really do wonder how many people really re-read their books. I know I re-read very few of my paper books - yes, there have been a few that I've read a second time but no very many. Of course, that does not mean I or others should be precluded but I'm not sure that very many people really do read a second time. I can definitely see it for reference materials but not for novels. More likely than not, what I've done in the past and that which cannot be done with an ebook is lend or give away the novel to another interested person.


Please don't assume that your own habits apply to everyone. I don't reread every single book, but I have favorites. Some books - usually the ones I got second-hand in the past - will only be read once. Now that I read exclusively on my Kindle, those "throw-aways" are probably the books I get free from the publishers. My old favorites, though, the ones I follow faithfully - let's just say that I'm going to re-read the Vlad Taltos series soon and I think it'll be my sixth read through. I'm not the only one who does this, either.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Elk said:


> I still find fascinating that Amazon allows anyone to share any book if the other person registers his Kindle on your account.


This actually doesn't surprise me. I mean, think about it. Unless you make an account specifically for your Kindle stuff and fund it ONLY through gift cards, you're entrusting someone with a LOT of your personal and financial information. That implies a level of trust that is not there in the average "file sharing" situation, but is there if one is loaning a physical item to someone. If I loan you my book, CD, DVD, electric drill, car, blouse, whatever I am trusting that
1) You will return it
2) You will return it in the same or better condition as you got it in.
3) If you do not, I can go to your house and get my stuff back or, failing that, knock the crap out of you


----------



## jello (Dec 31, 2010)

Arkali said:


> I actually agree with this. Making the leap from that statement to the assumption that you should still have the goods in question is where you lose me. Just because I think $500 is a ridiculous amount to pay for a pair of shoes and I refuse to pay that doesn't mean that I then get to walk into the factory and grab a pair of the shoes.


Of course the analogy also falls apart a bit there, because of the difference between theft and copyright violation. If you take those shoes someone is out the material and labor cost of production/shipping/wholesale purchase/etc. If someone makes a copy of something they would not have bought otherwise the creator didn't lose anything in real dollars. Obvious example from my own experience being when friends who borrow one another's portable drives full of music. They just copy everything, it's faster and easier that way. Would the 40 year old metal head have ever bought Hanna Montana, etc? Nope, but he did copy it when he just grabbed the whole pile. But in no real way is that a lost sale.

Personally, I purchase everything I want to read/watch/listen to. But I have grave concerns about current trends in our copyright system in the realms of perpetual ownership, corporate vs. creator control, DRM, and others. I feel they damage our ability to continue to create new works in the long term and they continue to erode our rights and position as customers and collaborators rather than consumers.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

I dislike DRM.  It's also not a deal-breaker when it comes to buying an ereader.  However, if I want 2 roughly same-priced ebooks and I can only buy one *and* I know one is not DRM, I will buy the non-DRM ebook.    My preference is DRM free books.  I currently have 105 non-DRM'd ebooks - which is about 32% of my total elibrary.

As said earlier, currently, many of the major houses DRM their books as a matter of course.  Some smaller houses, Baen for example, do not DRM their ebooks.  Now, As I said in the opening message, I don't have a problem with casual sharing.  That doesn't mean I've taken these 105 books and shared them out all and sundry.  I don't share books often  - but I do occasionally share books with specific friends and family.  Some of the comments I've seen in the thread take casual sharing and expand one book loaned out to the collapse of civilization.  I know different ones of us have different opinions on that sort of thing but I don't buy it.

I understand major publishers' misgivings just like I understand their general reluctance to embrace ebooks.  I also think ebooks will go the way of emusic and eventually there will be a single standard ebook format readable by all devices and ebooks will be non-DRM.  We're just not there yet.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Oh, don't get me wrong - I'm not a fan of DRM, either.  I just don't think the presence or lack of DRM is moral justification for stealing.  And no matter how you dance around it, acquiring something that you didn't pay for without the permission of the owner is stealing.  

Case in point - Ubisoft is a computer game developer / publisher whose DRM scheme I find particularly heinous.  Unbearably so, in fact.  While playing their games you must maintain an internet connection and if, for any reason, you lose your connection it will immediately exit the game without saving.  I refuse to deal with that.  My solution was not go out and find cracked version of their games (though I'm sure they're out there) but rather I just haven't bought their products.  I refuse.  It's pretty simple.  Now, if someone else bought the game and then got a cracked version, I wouldn't fault them - they paid for it.  The reason I didn't go this option is because that would be rewarding the company DESPITE their god-awful DRM.

So - I don't have a problem with folk buying a copy and then cracking the DRM.  I actually plan on doing this with my books the next time I get a new Kindle just because I don't wish to re-download all of my books.  Again.  The per device DRM is a pain in the tail, IMO.  I also, from a moral stand-point, don't have a problem with people loaning books.  As many times as they want.  With the caveat that a copy of the work can only exist on one account at a time.  If I loan The Furies of Calderon to Geoffrey, I can't loan it to Brett until Geoffrey returns the book.  Also, as a re-reader, I will get perturbed if, a couple of months down the road, I still don't have my book back.  In fact, I'd be on AIM / email / phone going "Hey - where's my book?"  Actually, that would be a good feature if they implement loaning in a logical way - repo a loaned book with the click of a button   Then I don't have to fight with Geoffrey about it, I can just quietly get my book back


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Arkali said:


> Oh, don't get me wrong - I'm not a fan of DRM, either. I just don't think the presence or lack of DRM is moral justification for stealing. And no matter how you dance around it, acquiring something that you didn't pay for without the permission of the owner is stealing.


Agree 100%. Fair use laws need expanded greatly, and we should get away from DRM that hassles legitimate users while barely slowing down pirates.

But there's never a justification for obtaining a copy of something that's copyrighted and for sale without paying for it. Pay for it, or borrow it from a library etc. Don't obtain a copy for yourself illegally.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> Agree 100%. Fair use laws need expanded greatly, and we should get away from DRM that hassles legitimate users while barely slowing down pirates.
> 
> But there's never a justification for obtaining a copy of something that's copyrighted and for sale without paying for it. Pay for it, or borrow it from a library etc. Don't obtain a copy for yourself illegally.


Abso-[bleeping]-lutely 

And of some interest, I read the other day that Ubisoft was changing their DRM scheme in response to customer dissatisfaction. Too little, too late, IMO. Whoever came up with what they were using should be fired  I sincerely doubt I'll buy another game from them.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

Arkali said:


> Oh, don't get me wrong - I'm not a fan of DRM, either. I just don't think the presence or lack of DRM is moral justification for stealing. And no matter how you dance around it, acquiring something that you didn't pay for without the permission of the owner is stealing.
> 
> Case in point - Ubisoft is a computer game developer / publisher whose DRM scheme I find particularly heinous. Unbearably so, in fact. While playing their games you must maintain an internet connection and if, for any reason, you lose your connection it will immediately exit the game without saving. I refuse to deal with that. My solution was not go out and find cracked version of their games (though I'm sure they're out there) but rather I just haven't bought their products. I refuse. It's pretty simple. Now, if someone else bought the game and then got a cracked version, I wouldn't fault them - they paid for it. The reason I didn't go this option is because that would be rewarding the company DESPITE their god-awful DRM.
> 
> So - I don't have a problem with folk buying a copy and then cracking the DRM. I actually plan on doing this with my books the next time I get a new Kindle just because I don't wish to re-download all of my books. Again. The per device DRM is a pain in the tail, IMO. I also, from a moral stand-point, don't have a problem with people loaning books. As many times as they want. With the caveat that a copy of the work can only exist on one account at a time. If I loan The Furies of Calderon to Geoffrey, I can't loan it to Brett until Geoffrey returns the book. Also, as a re-reader, I will get perturbed if, a couple of months down the road, I still don't have my book back. In fact, I'd be on AIM / email / phone going "Hey - where's my book?" Actually, that would be a good feature if they implement loaning in a logical way - repo a loaned book with the click of a button  Then I don't have to fight with Geoffrey about it, I can just quietly get my book back


It seems like we are talking about two topics here.
One is that I pirate for some reasons and I admit that it is stealing . . . no need to convince me . . . that's a non-argument, feel free to argue my reasons.
The other topic is about DRM, and was how the thread got started. I don't like "leasing" books with DRM; I don't like leasing books at all. I love my Kindle as a reader; I have no problems with the Kindle. 
If I purchase something I wanna keep it, loan it, trade it or sell it. It's a misconception that you are "buying" anything from Amazon except the Kindle . . . that's all you own and that's all you will keep (legally) if something were to happen with Amazon.
Some folks like to argue semantics, like:
1.	If amazon goes under, then it's ok if I strip the DRM and steal the book.
2.	I can strip the DRM and loan the book out as long as I don't keep a copy.
3.	Your method of piracy is wrong because it is not how I pirate; somehow my way is more ethically sound than yours.
I have never said that my piracy is morally superior to anybody else's on this board, what I have said is that the media industry needs to do some rethinking about outdated rules and policies.

I would purchase more books if they were DRM free and I could read them on my Kindle, I doubt I would stop downloading books . . . for instance, I don't wanna pay for old out of print books that I can find for free in or for cheap, and I have heard this argument from a lot of you folks&#8230; why should I pay more for an eBook than a paperback?


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

auge_28 said:


> 1.	If amazon goes under, then it's ok if I strip the DRM and steal the book.


This is you using semantics. If you PAID for the book and then strip the DRM you aren't stealing it. You paid for it. It's when you go to PiratesRUs and download the book and you have NOT paid for it that you're stealing it.



> I would purchase more books if they were DRM free and I could read them on my Kindle, I doubt I would stop downloading books . . . for instance, I don't wanna pay for old out of print books that I can find for free in or for cheap, and I have heard this argument from a lot of you folks&#8230; why should I pay more for an eBook than a paperback?


Nobody says you have to. If you don't want to pay $15 for the latest eBook, don't. The disconnect to me is how you manage to justify going and downloading the book without paying for it. Did your parents raise you to think that stealing was okay? How did you arrive at this place where it doesn't bother you to blithely admit that you're a thief?


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

Did you read the rest of this thread?



Arkali said:


> Did your parents raise you to think that stealing was okay?


I have been careful not to be offensive in this thread as the topic is one of importance to me. Everybody else has done the same. Then along comes you disparaging my parents and their parenting. I take offense to this as would you if I said that your parents raised you improperly. I see no reason to bring any of my family into this much less insulting people you have never met.

Nor am I a child, I am an educated 40 year old man, gainfully employed working in the tech industry at Microsoft. I am capable of making my own decisions on right and wrong independently of my parents influence.



Arkali said:


> How did you arrive at this place where it doesn't bother you to blithely admit that you're a thief?


I have made my reasons clear several times in this very thread, go back and read them, and then we can talk about my reasons. 
However I will say this again: _Just because something is illegal does not mean that it should be, stand up and fight for what you believe, spread the struggle. One should not have activist opinions and covertly act. Some of us have to be less obfuscated, just refusing to pay for tickets and/or downloading is not enough. Millions of people feel the way I do, I am not alone. _


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Of course I read the thread. My intent was not to insult you, or your parents, but to come to an understanding of how you got to a place where you felt that stealing (which you freely admit, refreshingly, that you engage in) was okay. In that context asking about your upbringing is a logical question.



auge_28 said:


> _Just because something is illegal does not mean that it should be, stand up and fight for what you believe, spread the struggle. One should not have activist opinions and covertly act. Some of us have to be less obfuscated, just refusing to pay for tickets and/or downloading is not enough. Millions of people feel the way I do, I am not alone. _


So apparently you're likening yourself to Robin Hood? You're honest about the fact that you're stealing, but yet you're dishonest about your motives, despite the fact that two pages ago you said:



> Well, you got me here.
> I don't want to miss out on the art or lag behind any cultural conversations about the art. I go the additional step for selfish reasons . . . since we are being honest here and I am among friends . . .


So, rather than address how you came to the conclusion that stealing was okay because it's what you want (not what you need) you went on the offensive and decided be all "How dare I disparage this or that, because" - oh, now you're talking to someone who isn't saying "wink, wink, nudge, nudge" about your self-admitted theft. That said, I am honestly interested in how you came to your decision, but I am not interested in you suddenly going into distraction tactics.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

Arkali said:


> . . . I am honestly interested in how you came to your decision, but I am not interested in you suddenly going into distraction tactics.


My motives are not dishonest and by not hiding the fact that I do them, neither are my actions. My intent was to say that I have social/political views as well as not wanting to lag behind in cultural discussions because the price of admission is too high. For instance, all 10 of the Oscar nominations for best picture were announced this week. If I want to stay current I am expected to rush out and pay for 10 tickets for myself as well as 10 for my wife in the next few short weeks, that's $200 on short notice. 
The current paradigm is deeply flawed; we are the boiling frogs that Friedrich Goltz talked about.

*For those who don't know: * _The premise is that if a frog is placed in boiling water, it will jump out, but if it is placed in cold water that is slowly heated, it will not perceive the danger and will be cooked to death. The story is often used as a metaphor for the inability of people to react to significant changes that occur gradually. _

It is VERY difficult in these forums to keep points straight when you are having multiple conversation in one thread, then someone pulls something you said in reply to something specific, pulls it out of context and uses it against you.

Oh, and if you are accusing me taking offense as a distraction tactic then perhaps we should not have this discussion.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

auge_28 said:


> My motives are not dishonest and by not hiding the fact that I do them, neither are my actions. My intent was to say that I have social/political views as well as not wanting to lag behind in cultural discussions because the price of admission is too high. For instance, all 10 of the Oscar nominations for best picture were announced this week. If I want to stay current I am expected to rush out and pay for 10 tickets for myself as well as 10 for my wife in the next few short weeks, that's $200 on short notice.
> The current paradigm is deeply flawed; we are the boiling frogs that Friedrich Goltz talked about


I'm familiar with the frog theory and see it used all the time, specifically with regards to the government. That's a different issue, though. So - let's take the Oscar announcements. Is there some reason that you need to see all 10 movies? Is it not enough that you've seen one or two and can root for your favorite? Where does this moral imperative come from that you must see / read every bit of entertainment media come from?


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

Arkali said:


> I'm familiar with the frog theory and see it used all the time, specifically with regards to the government. That's a different issue, though. So - let's take the Oscar announcements. Is there some reason that you need to see all 10 movies? Is it not enough that you've seen one or two and can root for your favorite? Where does this moral imperative come from that you must see / read every bit of entertainment media come from?


Your reply above is valid and it will take me a while to write up a response . . . it can't be done in a paragraph. So I will have to tackle this later this evening or tomorrow.

I would like to say this:
My intention for joining this discussion was to comment about DRM from the perspective of a media pirate. It was not my intention to hijack a perfectly valid and important discussion with the "whys and wherefores" of my piracy.
It seems I have failed at one of my intentions and for this I apologize to everybody here.
It would not bother me in the least if we talked exclusively about DRM and excluded this other mess. I do not want to be the reason or excuse for this thread getting locked nor do I want to instigate arguments. I do not need this forum to be my soap box. If need be we can continue this here or in another thread . . . or not at all.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

auge_28 said:


> If I want to stay current I am expected to rush out and pay for 10 tickets for myself as well as 10 for my wife in the next few short weeks, that's $200 on short notice.
> The current paradigm is deeply flawed;


Nothing is flawed. Entertainment has seldom been free. If you wanted to see shows in the theater before film was around (or still today) you usually have to buy a ticket unless there was some rare free public performance.

If you want to watch a film, you buy ticket, buy the movie on DVD/Blu Ray, rent it if you want to be cheaper (netflix is dirt cheap) or watch in on TV (which you pay for unless you wait for the edited version to hit the over the air channels). Only legit way to see it for free is to get it from the library or borrow it from a friend. And on that front I agree that DRM sucks and we need some system where we can loan books as many times as we want, or give them away, etc. while losing access to them ourselves while they are loaned etc. to make it work like it does for paper books.

Anyway here's no entitlement to stay current on entertainment or art for free. People are making this stuff to make money--and any artist is free to give away their movies, books, music etc. for free if they so choose--which is easier than every to do in the internet age.

But those that choose to sell it aren't making it for the common good and for anyone to consume. They're making it and choosing to sell it as they want to make money off it, rather than put it out for free so the greatest number can consume it.

So I see nothing flawed unless you have more of a communistic world view and think all art/entertainment should be for the public good and shouldn't be for sale as it limits people's access to it. In that case, we'll just have to agree to disagree as I have a strongly capitalist view of the world and strongly support content creators/copyright holder's rights to control access to their products. It's up to them to decide if they want to give it away for free. If they choose not to, then there is no justification for consuming it for free through illegal means.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

auge_28 said:


> My intent was to say that I have social/political views as well as* not wanting* to lag behind in cultural discussions because *the price of admission is too high.* For instance, all 10 of the Oscar nominations for best picture were announced this week. *If I want* to stay current I am expected to rush out and pay for 10 tickets for myself as well as 10 for my wife in the next few short weeks, that's $200 on short notice.


I've highlighted what appear to me to be the operative phrases of your post.

I understand wanting things. Many desirable things are expensive. Yes, we are all expected to pay for those things we want. Many don't have money for all those things they want.

I don't understand however how this mandates or justifies "steal them."

For me, I don't find the monetary and time cost of going to movies worth it. Thus, I don't go.

If I decide to go, are not actors, artists, writers, musicians, etc. entitled to be paid for their work?

If seeing the ten nominations is truly important to you, save the $200.00 so that you are prepared to go at the beginning of each year as the nominations are announced. Easy. Almost everyone can afford this if they plan for it.

For the first time Ferrari made a car I truly want, the 458 Italia. Car enthusiasts are a buzz. I know a couple of people who have one. To be truly conversant I want one, too. Therefore I am "entitled" and am justified in stealing one?


----------



## jello (Dec 31, 2010)

Elk said:


> For the first time Ferrari made a car I truly want, the 458 Italia. Car enthusiasts are a buzz. I know a couple of people who have one. To be truly conversant I want one, too. Therefore I am "entitled" and am justified in stealing one?


See my post above. Theft is not the same as copyright infringement. If someone will not be a customer losing their 'potential sale' is not a loss to the creator. Physical theft deprives someone else of their possessions, copying does not. These two things you (and many, amny others to be fair) try to equate, theft and unauthorized copying, do not function the same way either in a philosophical sense or in realistic way in the wild.

As I also said above, this is not about me trying to justify my own copying. I do not download works I have not paid for because I do, as a general stance, believe in creators getting paid for their work. However the balance that our copyright system was supposed to strike between the rights of the public and the compensation of copyright holders is broken. For the past century every copyright law in this country has been written by businesses and essentially rubber-stamped into law with little or no concern for anything but how someone can make more money. That has greatly eroded our rights as customers and consumers. In addition it is slowly strangling our ability to create new art due to almost everything you see and hear being owned by someone for the next 150+ years (and that's only if the laws don't extend it again, which they they have everytime for the past 50 years).


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

jello said:


> See my post above. Theft is not the same as copyright infringement. If someone will not be a customer losing their 'potential sale' is not a loss to the creator. Physical theft deprives someone else of their possessions, copying does not. These two things you (and many, amny others to be fair) try to equate, theft and unauthorized copying, do not function the same way either in a philosophical sense or in realistic way in the wild.


Purely semantics. Taking something that does not belong to you without the permission of the owner - that is stealing. People try to wiggle around six ways to Sunday by saying "Well, it's not REALLY stealing because I didn't take the physical item, the owner still has it, blah blah blah." No, it's stealing. You took something that the owner is trying to sell and enjoyed it without paying for it. And let's face it, with movies, books, music, etc. you aren't paying for the physical medium, you're paying for the content. Seriously. You don't care about the physical item - without what's on it, it's just a hunk of vinyl (or plastic or whatever).


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Yeah, and the interesting part of it is that as we move further into the digital age, "theft" becomes less relevant in certain industries.  Once we're at points that the majority of songs, movies and books etc. are downloaded, losing sales to theft, shoplifting etc. is no longer as major a concern to studios, labels, publishers and artists.  The main threat is losing sales through illegal downloads.

What needs to happen is two fold.

1.  Fair use laws need expanded so we don't have DRM that hassles legitimate owners while barely slowing piracy.  And we need some system to allow loaning, giving away or selling digital files of things that we can currently loan, give or sell physical copies of.  So maybe DRM needs to stay but needs to be a more clear license that is user transferable.

2. Piracy needs to be treated both more seriously and fairly.  They need to catch and punish more people.  And the punishments need to fit the crime and not be absurdly huge lawsuits like the RIAA has been getting.  Deterrence research uniformly shows that the certainty of punishment has more deterrent impact than the severity of punishment.  My take is it should be moved from a civil law matter to a criminal law, and make illegal downloading a misdemeanor and the penalty a fine of something like the MSRP of the content downloaded illegally plus 25%  So if it's a $10 MSRP e-book, you get a fine of $12.50 and a misdemeanor on your record (first offenses can be expunged after a year or something if fine is paid and no further infractions committed).


Basically, moving into the digital age we need changes in these laws both to give us legitimate users clear fair use of things we buy, and to protect content creators/copyright holders interests as we move to having piracy be the main threat to their livelihoods.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

I'm on board with both points, Mooshie.  Out of curiosity, what about uploaders?  Theoretically, if nobody wants to download, the uploading problem would solve itself.


----------



## Soybomb (Dec 31, 2010)

bluesplayer said:


> Yea gun control (but it's a discussion for other forums not a reading/eBook forum) and I'd like to think I'm NOT rare especially about BUYING, or using (legally) SW or IP that I don't like or have issues with (preposition ending sentence not withstanding ) .
> 
> Which was sort of my point - if I didn't like the Kindle I wouldn't have bought it and I sure as heck wouldn't buy it then complain about its DRM AFTER I bought it. I simply would not have bought it.
> I might have talked to Amazon about my issues with DRM BEFORE hand and let them know they lost a sell because of it (assuming I had heart burn with it, which I DO NOT). I would not have bought a Kindle then after the fact complained about DRM - unless of course it was a hidden fact, purposely obscure and obfuscated, or if Amazon had blatantly lied to me.


You might be surprised, I'm certainly not shy about saying that I don't believe gun control is effective in keeping guns out of the hands of criminals any more than our drug laws are. (mods let me know if I'm going too far off topic but I kind of like the way this all ties in) The way I see it you can take away my right to own a gun but the criminal won't care that his is illegal. You can make it all but impossible for me to get sudafed when my allergies act up but the drug users are still going to find a way to get their meth. A publisher can use DRM to make their product a pain in the butt for me to use and the pirate is going to have the more user friendly experience. I suppose that is the lesson that I wish some publishers would learn, don't hassle your customers and treat them like crooks or you might make them into one.

I can't being to imagine how many PC gamers have been "forced" to learn about piracy from pain in the butt DRM on their games.


----------



## jello (Dec 31, 2010)

Arkali said:


> Purely semantics. Taking something that does not belong to you without the permission of the owner - that is stealing. People try to wiggle around six ways to Sunday by saying "Well, it's not REALLY stealing because I didn't take the physical item, the owner still has it, blah blah blah." No, it's stealing. You took something that the owner is trying to sell and enjoyed it without paying for it. And let's face it, with movies, books, music, etc. you aren't paying for the physical medium, you're paying for the content. Seriously. You don't care about the physical item - without what's on it, it's just a hunk of vinyl (or plastic or whatever).


No, sorry. When talking about points of law you don't get to throw 'just semantics' out there. There is a distinct difference between theft and copyright violation. They have different definitions, fall under different statutes, and have different implications both for the original owner, the accused, and society as a whole. If you want to get down to the most basic level there wasn't even a concept of copying being wrong for the vast majority of human existence. Without the backing of governmental/societal force ideas and expression are completely free. They spread as fast as people can retell the stories. Conversely, taking someone else's belonging has been recognized as improper for about as long as we've been living in groups.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

jello said:


> No, sorry. When talking about points of law you don't get to throw 'just semantics' out there. There is a distinct difference between theft and copyright violation. They have different definitions, fall under different statutes, and have different implications both for the original owner, the accused, and society as a whole. If you want to get down to the most basic level there wasn't even a concept of copying being wrong for the vast majority of human existence. Without the backing of governmental/societal force ideas and expression are completely free. They spread as fast as people can retell the stories. Conversely, taking someone else's belonging has been recognized as improper for about as long as we've been living in groups.


And you're looking at the legal definitions and I'm looking at the moral definitions. Entertainers (singers, actors, directors, authors, etc.) are selling a service - entertainment. By copying for free what they're selling you are, regardless of what moral gymnastics you're engaging in, stealing. It's no different than if you offered to wash someone's car for $20 and then, after you're finished, they refuse to pay you. Are you out materials or goods? No. Do you think that person did the honest thing? I'm betting the answer is still no.


----------



## jello (Dec 31, 2010)

Arkali said:


> And you're looking at the legal definitions and I'm looking at the moral definitions. Entertainers (singers, actors, directors, authors, etc.) are selling a service - entertainment. By copying for free what they're selling you are, regardless of what moral gymnastics you're engaging in, stealing. It's no different than if you offered to wash someone's car for $20 and then, after you're finished, they refuse to pay you. Are you out materials or goods? No. Do you think that person did the honest thing? I'm betting the answer is still no.


Yes, I am speaking of the legal end of things, as that is my primary concern. Given that this thread started with a discussion of DRM and it's implications the legal end is the more relevant discussion, imho. DRM on it's face removes any moral judgement and argument from the equation and attempts to enforce current legal and contractual desire via technology, potentially rendering those restrictions as defacto in perpetuity. That's my problem there.

As for the realms this has drifted into... I never claimed someone breaking copyright simply to avoid paying was morally correct or 'honest', just that it is different. It is not difficult, however, to propose a situation where one is violating copyright but not committing a moral wrong. Over the years I've purchased a particular CD 3 times (Dada - Puzzle) due to copies getting lost or damaged. In the pre-internet days if I didn't know someone else who had a copy I was just out of luck. Right now however, if something were to happen to that CD, say my three year old gets his hands on it when my 10 year old fails to put it back. I would be violating copyright if I were to then download and burn another copy but I think I have a fairly strong case that it is in now way morally wrong to do so. The creators got paid, three times over. My copying it again in no way, shape, or fashion harms those creators. Legally wrong, but not morally. Copying, not theft.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

jello said:


> Yes, I am speaking of the legal end of things, as that is my primary concern. Given that this thread started with a discussion of DRM and it's implications the legal end is the more relevant discussion, imho. DRM on it's face removes any moral judgement and argument from the equation and attempts to enforce current legal and contractual desire via technology, potentially rendering those restrictions as defacto in perpetuity. That's my problem there.
> 
> As for the realms this has drifted into... I never claimed someone breaking copyright simply to avoid paying was morally correct or 'honest', just that it is different. It is not difficult, however, to propose a situation where one is violating copyright but not committing a moral wrong. Over the years I've purchased a particular CD 3 times (Dada - Puzzle) due to copies getting lost or damaged. In the pre-internet days if I didn't know someone else who had a copy I was just out of luck. Right now however, if something were to happen to that CD, say my three year old gets his hands on it when my 10 year old fails to put it back. I would be violating copyright if I were to then download and burn another copy but I think I have a fairly strong case that it is in now way morally wrong to do so. The creators got paid, three times over. My copying it again in no way, shape, or fashion harms those creators. Legally wrong, but not morally. Copying, not theft.


I'll actually agree with you on that, assuming that you
a) paid for the item
b) did not sell or give the item away


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Arkali said:


> I'm on board with both points, Mooshie. Out of curiosity, what about uploaders? Theoretically, if nobody wants to download, the uploading problem would solve itself.


Same penalties for them--misdemeanor and MSRP +25% for each thing uploaded illegally. Maybe you could even get into felonies for people uploading thousands of files (or over certain $ threshold)--but you'd want a very high threshhold for that obviously. Or instead of felonies just larger fines for heavy offenders while leaving it a misdemeanor.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Arkali said:


> And you're looking at the legal definitions and I'm looking at the moral definitions.


And again, that's why the laws need updated. When products go all digital, piracy is the main threat, not theft of physical goods.  Thus we need laws to change to criminalize illegal uploading and downloading and treat it more like stealing the physical versions.

The law is outdated as it wasn't made to deal with digital goods. Similarly, fair use laws are outdated and need updated to protect consumer's rights in the digital age. It goes both ways.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> And again, that's why the laws need updated. When products go all digital, piracy is the main threat, not theft of physical goods. Thus we need laws to change to criminalize illegal uploading and downloading and treat it more like stealing the physical versions.
> 
> The law is outdated as it wasn't made to deal with digital goods. Similarly, fair use laws are outdated and need updated to protect consumer's rights in the digital age. It goes both ways.


Totally agree. I also think that when said laws come more in alignment with their non-digital equivalents we'll see a reduction in piracy.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

jello said:


> See my post above. Theft is not the same as copyright infringement.


We are getting a bit lost in the multiple discussions in this thread.

My example of stealing a car was raised in response to auge's statements regarding justifying stealing (his word) copyrighted files. He spoke in terms of wanting something, frustrated at its asking price, thus justifying its taking. Let us know if you have thoughts on this line of discussion.

The claimed distinction between theft and copy right infringement is weak at best. We previously went through this, including claims of legal distinction. (I can easily lead anyone thorough IP statutes and decisions in great detail, but this would bore both me and most readers).

I recognize that there is an emotional distinction between completely depriving someone of an object v. taking from another their exclusive right to control distribution of a copyrighted work. It remains a taking however. It is depriving someone of what is theirs, it takes money from them and it is a crime.

Whether one calls this taking a "theft" or something else is a matter of nomenclature only. To declare it is not a taking of what belongs to another is intellectually dishonest.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

Arkali said:


> I also think that when said laws come more in alignment with their non-digital equivalents we'll see a reduction in piracy.


Perhaps.

Auge_28 what are your thoughts on this? Your position is the most nuanced.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Arkali said:


> Totally agree. I also think that when said laws come more in alignment with their non-digital equivalents we'll see a reduction in piracy.


We'll only see a reduction in piracy if the likelihood of getting caught and punished increases dramatically. Making it a misdemeanor with a small fine etc. as I suggest will do NOTHING if 99.9% of people are still getting away with it.

Many people just have some sense of entitlement to getting digital content for free through illegal sources. They already have moral failings allowing them to do it. Changing the law isn't going to counter act that. Only being afraid of getting caught and punished will do that.

And that will be the hard part. How can we get that certainty of getting caught up without giving up too much privacy and having all our uploads and downloads tracked etc.?


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

Mooshie, I am afraid you are correct.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

Elk said:


> Whether one calls this taking a "theft" or something else is a matter of nomenclature only. To declare it is not a taking of what belongs to another is intellectually dishonest.


My giving an ebook to my brother to read is not a theft IMO. It is loaning him something of mine. defining it as 'theft' may be your opinion, but that doesn't make either of our opinions more intellectually honest than the other. Current law may side with one over the other, but laws change so that doesn't tend to give more weight to one over the other in my mind.

As I said, loaning an ebook to my brother, whether he would or would have bought a copy himself is not stealing IMO any more than loaning him a paper copy of the book. I don't buy the escalating argument that that book will be loaned and loaned ad nauseum until someone uploads it to the internet for general distribution. To my way of thinking, most people lending a book will do it to only a small group of immediate friends and family members and in most cases will not be loaning out multiple copies at one time.

Now, the side (or central as the case may be) tangent into piracy justifications and refutations doesn't interest me that much as I see it as a separate conversation from casual sharing.

Now, that said, I recognize that laws don't necessarily always agree with my world view and I accept that. Now, that doesn't mean the existing laws are not out of date. These laws need to be updated to better protect the rights of a buyer of intellectual property. Transgressions also need to be treated sanely. If one stole a pbook, even if one made it to trial, the punishment would be light. Same if one stole a CD. If one were prosecuted for giving or accepting a copy of an ebook, any punishment needs to be similar.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Geoffrey said:


> *My giving an ebook to my brother to read is not a theft IMO. It is loaning him something of mine. defining it as 'theft' may be your opinion, but that doesn't make either of our opinions more intellectually honest than the other. Current law may side with one over the other, but laws change so that doesn't tend to give more weight to one over the other in my mind.*
> 
> As I said, loaning an ebook to my brother, whether he would or would have bought a copy himself is not stealing IMO any more than loaning him a paper copy of the book. I don't buy the escalating argument that that book will be loaned and loaned ad nauseum until someone uploads it to the internet for general distribution. To my way of thinking, most people lending a book will do it to only a small group of immediate friends and family members and in most cases will not be loaning out multiple copies at one time.
> 
> ...


Nobody has said that this is theft, in fact, I think we are all in agreement that it is not.

For me, the distinction of whether or not loaning an e-book to your friend, brother, or whoever, is theft is whether or not it is is copied or remains a single copy. If you loan it to Jim and no longer have it yourself, then this is not theft, it is a loan. If, however, you have a copy and now Jim has a copy, too - well, there's one more copy of the work in the world that was not paid for.

Pretty much agree with your post, I just think there was a bit of a misunderstanding (though that could have been MY misunderstanding )

Note: I am arguing purely on the moral side of loaning / copying, not the legal stance.



Elk said:


> Whether one calls this taking a "theft" or something else is a matter of nomenclature only. To declare it is not a taking of what belongs to another is intellectually dishonest.


Exactly. Very eloquently and succinctly put.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

Arkali said:


> For me, the distinction of whether or not loaning an e-book to your friend, brother, or whoever, is theft is whether or not it is is copied or remains a single copy. If you loan it to Jim and no longer have it yourself, then this is not theft, it is a loan. If, however, you have a copy and now Jim has a copy, too - well, there's one more copy of the work in the world that was not paid for.


That's just it. I don't see giving him a copy while retaining a copy as theft.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Geoffrey said:


> That's just it. I don't see giving him a copy while retaining a copy as theft.


Nobody thinks that is theft or anything like it. That's the type of stuff I'm talking about when I say we need both a clarification of fair use laws and advances in technology to allow lending or selling or giving away of digital books, movies and albums. We should be able to do those things just like we can with a physical product. However, the catch is with a physical copy you can't retain your copy, so we need a licensing system that allows loaning or selling/gifting, but you lose access to the copy while doing it.

Loaning while keeping a copy isn't theft, or theft-like, I agree. But there's still some moral wrongs there as you're giving away a copy while not losing your own for the time someone else has it. So two (or more) people have simultaneous access to a copy of something that's only been paid for once.


----------



## jello (Dec 31, 2010)

Elk said:


> My example of stealing a car was raised in response to auge's statements regarding justifying stealing (his word) copyrighted files. He spoke in terms of wanting something, frustrated at its asking price, thus justifying its taking. Let us know if you have thoughts on this line of discussion.


While it is not morally right, in my opinion, it is still distinct from theft. Due to the much-discussed fact that if you are *not* actually a potential customer and you are not actually depriving the author of anything. Example - some studo decides to release a film only in an exclusive $500 edition. I am not going to purchase that, period. Therefor it is a different degree of moral transgression if I were to download that film to see it than downloading something that I would have purchased otherwise.



Elk said:


> The claimed distinction between theft and copy right infringement is weak at best. We previously went through this, including claims of legal distinction. (I can easily lead anyone thorough IP statutes and decisions in great detail, but this would bore both me and most readers).


I disagree. Even in a basic legal sense, one results in jail time while the other gets you a monetary judgement. They are very different animals. At a more basic level physical theft falls within 'natural' property laws. If I take something physical of yours I deprive you of it. That is a pretty obvious wrong and something societies have been addressing as bad for thousands of years. What it means to "steal" has remained pretty static for most of human history. Our ideas of copyright however are very unnatural. In absence of external enforcement stories, songs, art, etc spread. Ideas and knowledge are naturally passed from person to person if they are worth repeating. Copyright is a government granted monopoly on expression that explicitly looks to curtail the natural flow of information.

These are not simply semantic distinctions, they are important to framing the discussion. Free markets fail in the presence of monopolies and those that established most of the cannon of western political ideas were very careful about allowing them to exist. To function properly it requires a careful balance between the desire to have creators being compensated for their work and the publics access to those works. As originally created a work in the US would pass into the public domain (i.e. anyone could copy, transform, etc) after 28 years. Currently it's the full lifetime of the creator plus 70 years (and it has been extended everytime 'Steambot Willy' got close to becoming public). In addition, DRM technologies now allow creators to prevent any and all uses they do not authorize, potentially forever.

This massive imbalance in system that massively favors content owners, typically large multinational companies at this point, is important. We, the public, *grant* authors control of their work. As they increase their control to draconian levels through legislation and use technology to further restrict our rights even beyond the law it is natural that we will begin to push back and assert more of our 'natural' rights to creative works in response. While there will always be those that want to have things (both physical and intellectual) without paying for them, if the balance were in a better place this whole discussion would be nearly moot.

As a side note, as it currently stands pretty much every one of us commits copyright infringement every day. If you surf the web to any degree it's pretty much a given that you will touch sites that have used content they don't have rights to. It might be backgrounds on a blog, music somewhere, or a funny photo but it's there. Since the site didn't have permission to copy it, neither did you. Therefore, you technically violated copyright. And since that media is cached in memory, on your hard drive, and possibly up to 3 or 4 more times inside your processor itself you've committed several counts for every item you've seen without permission. Granted, these would never be prosecuted, but it is the letter of the law currently and servers as an indicator of how out of touch our current laws are with the realities of life in the digital age.



> I recognize that there is an emotional distinction between completely depriving someone of an object v. taking from another their exclusive right to control distribution of a copyrighted work. It remains a taking however. It is depriving someone of what is theirs, it takes money from them and it is a crime.


Here's another subtle but important distinction. No, copying does not "take money from them". To do that I would have to take cash out of their wallet, or numbers from their bank account. Possibly depriving someone of theoretical potential profits is not directly analogous to taking property they already own. You didn't 'steal' money from my local body shop by not hitting my car.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

jello said:


> Here's another subtle but important distinction. No, copying does not "take money from them". To do that I would have to take cash out of their wallet, or numbers from their bank account. Possibly depriving someone of theoretical potential profits is not directly analogous to taking property they already own. You didn't 'steal' money from my local body shop by not hitting my car.


True. But again it's where laws need to change. When we move to a more fully digital age, some industries will no longer have much to worry about in terms of losing tangible products and directly losing cash. The threat to livelihood comes through piracy and illegal copying which cuts down on sales revenue.

Thus the laws need to change to criminalize piracy and put punishments more in line with theft. Though I'd go more for fines that probation or jail time--though I'd do the same for shoplifting. Jails are already terribly over crowded and probation officers are already overworked (average caseload of well over 200 people) so it's silly to waste resources for minor offenses like shoplifting/petty theft or piracy.

Anyway, I'm glad I don't write (other than academic articles that aren't paid anyway) or make music etc. Would be a crappy/scary time for anyone trying to make a living selling books, music or movies with the market going increasingly digital while having no real mechanisms in place to discourage piracy.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

Geoffrey said:


> My giving an ebook to my brother to read is not a theft IMO.


A) As a matter of law, it is wholly irrelevant if making a copy for your brother is specifically called a "theft." The act is unarguably illegal under federal statute (as I cited above) and subjects you to an action for civil damages. Call it anything you like, but it is against both criminal and civil law.

The argument that a copyright violation is not a theft is often made by those engaged in piracy. This argument is fallacious. 1)The act is clearly illegal (see above). 2) It is based in a misunderstanding of statutory interpretation. I have yet to see someone making the argument actually understand the law upon which it is based. I will be happy to provide a brief exegesis of why the argument fails if someone actually addresses the law.

B) On the separate issue of morality, arguing that taking something that belongs to you is not a "theft" is intellectually dishonest. It is a taking, a stealing, a misappropriation, a filching - call it _anything_ you would like but it remains immoral.

The argument is intriguing in that it claims that since I did not deprive the rightful owner of 100% of what he owns, it is acceptable. Very slippery.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

jello said:


> I disagree. Even in a basic legal sense, one results in jail time while the other gets you a monetary judgement [theft v. copyright infringement].


However, this is factually wrong.

Both copyright infringement and what you narrowly define as "theft" can result in both criminal prosecution (prison time) and a civil action for monetary damages. I cited the federal statute establishing copyright violation as a felony earlier in this thread.

Thus, even under your own argument, copyright violations and thefts are the same as they are treated the same.



> You've committed several counts for every item you've seen [on the Web] without permission.


I understand what you are claiming, but once again this is not factually true. There is nothing in the law that so provides.



> Here's another subtle but important distinction. No, copying does not "take money from them". To do that I would have to take cash out of their wallet, or numbers from their bank account. Possibly depriving someone of theoretical potential profits is not directly analogous to taking property they already own.


The copyright owner's lost profits are not speculative. The copyright holder is entitled to compensation _for every copy made_, for every use. The owner is entitled to exclusive control of his intellectual property. If a copy is made without paying the holder compensation he has sustained a monetary loss.

The argument that "I would not otherwise buy a copy" is fallacious. The mere circumstance that I wouldn't otherwise buy the donuts I steal does not make it anything less than a theft. Taking something because you are not buying it is the very definition of theft.

Off for the weekend. Debate away!


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Arguing the semantics never gets anywhere.  I'm fine if people want to call piracy as something other than theft and if laws that are developed refer to it as piracy or illegal copying etc.

The issue isn't what it's called.  The issue is the moral divide.  Most people would never steal a book or album from a store or another person.  But they don't feel any wrongs in downloading the book or album illegally, or making a copy for friends etc.  What has to happen is a movement to change this and make it clear that an illegally download or other type of copying is morally wrong.  That it is taking money from the content creators and copyright holders in the long run.  And that you don't have any entitlement to obtain stuff that "you would never buy" through illegal downloads.

And that's an argument I loathe.  If something isn't worth spending money on the, why is it worth spending time on?  I mean I feel bad if you're broke, but that's what libraries, using Netflix instead of buying Blu Rays/DVDs etc. are for.  Otherwise, if you aren't broke then you're probably busy like most and should value free time more than money.  So why spend time reading/watching/listening to stuff that you don't feel is worth your money?

The sampling before buying excuse is less relevant these days as well with most bands (and stores like Amazon) putting songs up to sample, free samples of e-books, tons of trailers for movies (and Netflix and Redbox being so cheap to rent) as well as the plethora of review sites out there and message boards to get impressions from regular joes.

Anyway, I'm getting into ranting, but point being screw the semantics.  The issues is needing to deal with the moral gap and people feeling entitled to obtain stuff for free if it's things they "wouldn't buy" or feel is priced to high etc.  If someone chooses to sell a book, movie, album, etc. then you either pay for it, consume it free legitimately from a library or other type of fair use, or do without.  Anything else is immoral, and hopefully karma will get those with warped senses of entitlement.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

Elk said:


> A) As a matter of law, it is wholly irrelevant if making a copy for your brother is specifically called a "theft." The act is unarguably illegal under federal statute (as I cited above) and subjects you to an action for civil damages. Call it anything you like, but it is against both criminal and civil law.
> 
> The argument that a copyright violation is not a theft is often made by those engaged in piracy. This argument is fallacious. 1)The act is clearly illegal (see above). 2) It is based in a misunderstanding of statutory interpretation. I have yet to see someone making the argument actually understand the law upon which it is based. I will be happy to provide a brief exegesis of why the argument fails if someone actually addresses the law.
> 
> ...


A) I know there are laws around it - but that's immaterial to my opinion. I'm not talking about the law. There are laws against going over the speed limit and many of us do that all the time. There are laws against eating a grape at the the grocery store before paying but many do it all the time.

B) Morality is not black and white and morals differ from person to person - I have no moral qualms about loaning an ebook. It may be ethically dishonest, but morality doesn't play into it. As I said in the first post, it's a matter of degree. If I make a copy of a book and give it to a friend to read - and if I'm not reading it in that time - then I have no problem with that. If I give a copy to someone I know is going to pass it on to others, then I have an issue.

As for your slippery slope, its apparently a summation of someone else's argument as that's not what I said at all.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> Anyway, I'm getting into ranting, but point being screw the semantics. The issues is needing to deal with the moral gap and people feeling entitled to obtain stuff for free if it's things they "wouldn't buy" or feel is priced to high etc. If someone chooses to sell a book, movie, album, etc. then you either pay for it, consume it free legitimately from a library or other type of fair use, or do without. Anything else is immoral, and hopefully karma will get those with warped senses of entitlement.


This, this, this. That pretty much wrapped it up in a nutshell.


----------



## Tuttle (Jun 10, 2010)

Elk said:


> B) On the separate issue of morality, arguing that taking something that belongs to you is not a "theft" is intellectually dishonest. It is a taking, a stealing, a misappropriation, a filching - call it _anything_ you would like but it remains immoral.


Your argument seems to be "I think this is immoral therefore everyone thinks it is immoral." Which itself is flawed. Morality is necessarily something that varies from person to person. He thinks that replicating sharing a paperback book isn't morally wrong, despite being legally wrong and despite copying being involved.

However, what it my mind is a much more interesting example:

Some theoretical person believes that copyright as it is currently is immoral on the part of Disney. They believe that copyright should be such that after 28 years things should enter the public domain, despite copyright currently lasting 70 years. This thought is because 28 years is how long copyright should last if it wasn't for Disney artificially increasing the length. In their mind they should respect copyrighted material for 28 years and then treat it as if it public domain. This person illegally downloads, or copies off of friends, or something, books that are between 28 and 70 years old. To them this is morally acceptable, that book is effectively public domain, despite it being illegal because the book is not legally public domain.

(I say theoretical person because I have not yet decided whether this is approximately my view on what is acceptable morally and I do not know anyone who acts upon this. However it is an interesting point of discussion to me.)


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

Morality has two principal meanings:
In its "descriptive" sense, morality refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores that distinguish between right and wrong in the human society. Describing morality in this way is not making a claim about what is objectively right or wrong, but only referring to what is considered right or wrong by an individual or some group of people (such as a religion). This sense of the term is addressed by descriptive ethics.
In its "normative" sense, morality refers directly to what is right and wrong, regardless of what specific individuals think. It could be defined as the conduct of the ideal "moral" person in a certain situation. This usage of the term is characterized by "definitive" statements such as "That act is immoral" rather than descriptive ones such as "Many believe that act is immoral."

We haven't yet decided which one we are debating. I feel this is a social topic or the "descriptive" sense described above.
In this sense it is only immoral because that is what is accepted by the majority or what we are used to and expected to follow. This is one of my major points . . . just because something is illegal does not mean that it should be or that the laws should not be altered or *perhaps the onus should be placed on the manufacturers and distributors of media to change their paradigm or system&#8230; there way of doing business. *

The global commercial system is a very recent development. Until the 1980s, media systems were generally national in scope. While there have been imports of books, films, music and TV shows for decades, the basic broadcasting systems and newspaper industries were domestically owned and regulated. Beginning in the 1980s, pressure from the IMF, World Bank and U.S. government to deregulate and privatize media and communication systems coincided with new satellite and digital technologies, resulting in the rise of transnational media giants.

How quickly has the global media system emerged? The two largest media firms in the world, Time Warner and Disney, generated around 15 percent of their income outside of the United States in 1990. By 1997, that figure was in the 30 percent-35 percent range. Both firms expect to do a majority of their business abroad at some point in the next decade.

The global media system is now dominated by a first tier of nine giant firms. The five largest are Time Warner (1997 sales: $24 billion), Disney ($22 billion), Bertelsmann ($15 billion), Viacom ($13 billion), and Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation ($11 billion). Besides needing global scope to compete, the rules of thumb for global media giants are twofold: First, get bigger so you dominate markets and your competition can't buy you out. Firms like Disney and Time Warner have almost tripled in size this decade.

Second, have interests in numerous media industries, such as film production, book publishing, music, TV channels and networks, retail stores, amusement parks, magazines, newspapers and the like. The profit whole for the global media giant can be vastly greater than the sum of the media parts. A film, for example, should also generate a soundtrack, a book, and merchandise, and possibly spin-off TV shows, CD-ROMs, video games and amusement park rides. Firms that do not have conglomerated media holdings simply cannot compete in this market.

The first tier is rounded out by TCI, the largest U.S. cable company that also has U.S. and global media holdings in scores of ventures too numerous to mention. The other three first-tier global media firms are all part of much larger industrial corporate powerhouses: General Electric (1997 sales: $80 billion), owner of NBC; Sony (1997 sales: $48 billion), owner of Columbia & TriStar Pictures and major recording interests; and Seagram (1997 sales: $14 billion), owner of Universal film and music interests. The media holdings of these last four firms do between $6 billion and $9 billion in business per year. While they are not as diverse as the media holdings of the first five global media giants, these four firms have global distribution and production in the areas where they compete. And firms like Sony and GE have the resources to make deals to get a lot bigger very quickly if they so desire.

Behind these firms is a second tier of some three or four dozen media firms that do between $1 billion and $8 billion per year in media-related business. These firms tend to have national or regional strongholds or to specialize in global niche markets. About one-half of them come from North America, including the likes of CBS, the New York Times Co., Hearst, Comcast and Gannett. Most of the rest come from Europe, with a handful based in East Asia and Latin America.

In short, the overwhelming majority (in revenue terms) of the world's film production, TV show production, cable channel ownership, cable and satellite system ownership, book publishing, magazine publishing and music production is provided by these 50 or so firms, and the first nine firms thoroughly dominate many of these sectors. By any standard of democracy, such a concentration of media power is troubling, if not unacceptable.

*But that hardly explains how concentrated and uncompetitive this global media power actually is. In addition, these firms are all actively engaged in equity joint ventures where they share ownership of concerns with their "competitors" so as to reduce competition and risk. Each of the nine first-tier media giants, for example, has joint ventures with, on average, two-thirds of the other eight first-tier media giants. And the second tier is every bit as aggressive about making joint ventures. What is tragic is that this entire process of global media concentration has taken place with little public debate, especially in the U.S. *
The rising costs of movie tickets and concession items have many staying at home rather than attending movies at theaters. A survey conducted by the American Association of Retired People show that 40% of seniors no longer attend films because they can no longer afford the prices. Fewer sold movie tickets tends to cause some panic to movie executives, who earn most of the profits from sales of these. Fewer people going to films, and increasing expense of making films both contribute to higher prices for movie tickets.
The average non-matinee movie ticket now costs about $10. Popcorn costs about $6, and a drink, about $4. Thus, the average expense at a theater is about $20. For a family of four, that's approximately $80 for two hours of entertainment.
The expense of concession stands has much to do with the way in which movie studios are reimbursed by local theaters. In the first week of a film's release, the studio may make as much as 90% of the revenue from sales of movie tickets. So while movie tickets are high priced, they are not benefiting the theater tremendously. Each subsequent week the film brings greater revenue to the theater. So seeing second run films tends to mean one is giving more money to the theater and less to the studio.
The question is, do the studios need to charge so much? That's a debatable point. Some of the best films are made on fairly low budgets. Some high budget films are not well received, such as the colossal failure of the film Pearl Harbor. In general a studio makes up for its losses on high budget films by earning higher returns than expected on low budget films.

So, the cost of media is set by these super media companies that have their hands in each other's pockets. They all agree on prices for movies, albums and DVDs, and we are letting it happen. We are letting them stick it to us . . . well, I say no more. I want affordable media with prices set by *competitive marketing * not by a room full of rich men set on making more money. Local media outlets should be able to engage in price wars to the benefit of the consumers, prices should be set on the economy of the area with the idea of redistributing the wealth . . . both financially and culturally.

As you may have guessed not all of this was written by me, the numbers and some other stuff was culled from the web. This was the fastest way to start to explain the social issue I have alluded to several times.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> The issues is needing to deal with the moral gap and people feeling entitled to obtain stuff for free if it's things they "wouldn't buy" or feel is priced to high etc. If someone chooses to sell a book, movie, album, etc. then you either pay for it, consume it free legitimately from a library or other type of fair use, or do without. Anything else is immoral, and hopefully karma will get those with warped senses of entitlement.


So . . . Just lie down and take it?
What about the immoral and possibly illegal hegemony that sets prices independent of competitive marketing?


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

auge_28 said:


> So . . . Just lie down and take it?
> What about the immoral and possibly illegal hegemony that sets prices independent of competitive marketing?


No but you don't go and acquire stuff illegally.

Vote with our wallet by not buying it, while also writing letters saying why you're not buying. If you think there are illegal practices going on, write the better business bureau and other outlets. If you think laws are improper, write your legislatures and start grass roots movements to get them changed.

Pirating stuff because you don't like the price, the practices of the publisher etc. is just a bullcrap justification for an immoral and illegal act. Not a way to bring about change. It's actually counter productive as it just serves to make corporations more "anti-customer" and less likely to get rid of DRM, less likely to support fair use expansions and less likely to reduce prices (as they're losing potential sales) etc.

If something costs more than I think is fair, I don't buy it and do without (or rent it or get it from the library etc.). No shortage of other books to read, albums to listen to or movies to watch. If I don't like a companies policies or business practices, I totally boycott them. I don't want to give them my money, nor give them my precious free time (which is more valuable to me than money) consuming things they put out.

I'd never acquire their crap illegally and use some lame "sticking it to the man" justification to try and make myself feel better about committing an illegal and immoral act. And I'll never have a shred of respect for those that do and hope some day we have a mechanism for reporting people who admit to such activities to some anti-piracy agency for investigation.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> No but you don't go and acquire stuff illegally.
> Vote with our wallet by not buying it, while also writing letters saying why you're not buying. If you think there are illegal practices going on, write the better business bureau and other outlets. If you think laws are improper, write your legislatures and start grass roots movements to get them changed.
> Pirating stuff because you don't like the price, the practices of the publisher etc. is just a bullcrap justification for an immoral and illegal act. Not a way to bring about change. It's actually counter productive as it just serves to make corporations more "anti-customer" and less likely to get rid of DRM, less likely to support fair use expansions and less likely to reduce prices (as they're losing potential sales) etc.
> If something costs more than I think is fair, I don't buy it and do without (or rent it or get it from the library etc.). No shortage of other books to read, albums to listen to or movies to watch. If I don't like a companies policies or business practices, I totally boycott them. I don't want to give them my money, nor give them my precious free time (which is more valuable to me than money) consuming things they put out.
> I'd never acquire their crap illegally and use some lame "sticking it to the man" justification to try and make myself feel better about committing an illegal and immoral act. And I'll never have a shred of respect for those that do and hope some day we have a mechanism for reporting people who admit to such activities to some anti-piracy agency for investigation.


Wow, I had absolutely no problem with anything you said above the last paragraph as that was your opinion and you are entitled to it.

I respect your opinion and your method of "sticking it to the man".

I will say again that my purpose for speaking on this thread was so that folks can get a pirates perspective on DRM and I was hoping that we could discuss this as adults without being insulted or threatened . . . both of which has happened to me. It was NOT my intention to discuss my reasons but I was constantly asked about it.

So, I answer your questions honestly and then get mistreated, disrespected and my family members disparaged.

Perhaps I should have left well enough alone, and let you talk to all the other people that agree with you because that is how we grow isn't it? No, we grow intellectually by having open and honest dialogue with folks that do not agree with us . . . if not to change each other's minds but to at least help each other understand a different point of view.

Your last paragraph has demoralized me on this discussion as I feel that no matter what argument I use or how painstakingly I chose my words to not be insulting, I cannot expect the same from you and others here . . . with a couple exceptions.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

You're trying to rationalize and justify an act that considered immoral by most and that is also illegal.

Sorry, I don't care about pirates reasoning for do it. And to be fair, I wasn't one asking for reasons as I don't give a crap. It's wrong, end of story, and I have no respect for those who try to justify it or make excuses for why they do it beyond "I wanted this and didn't want to pay for it." The reason for not wanting to pay for it is immaterial.

I'm all for learning--I'm a professor after all. But I care about learning knowledge. I don't give a crap what much of anyone _thinks _about anything. Show me some research, data and other factual knowledge and I'm all ears. But I don't much care about discussing matters of belief, values etc. with others as those topics are futile as no one is going to (nor should) change their values and beliefs because of those of others.

So that's why these topics are futile. Pirates feel entitlement to take things (for whatever rationales they want to throw out as excuses), others look at it as a moral and legal wrong and don't want to hear it and aren't going to respect the views of those who do it (and especially those who do it and offer up excuses/justifications) for it.

And threatened? The only threat is to be reported for illegal activity if there's every such an outlet for such reporting. And that's your own fault. 1. You choose to engage in it knowing it's illegal. 2. You openly post about committing an illegal activity on a public forum. If you're worried about such things, stop number 1 or at least have the common sense to not do number 2.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> Show me some research, data and other factual knowledge and I'm all ears.


I did.



mooshie78 said:


> But I don't much care about discussing matters of belief, values etc. with others as those topics are futile as no one is going to (nor should) change their values and beliefs because of those of others.


Yet you are, but feel free to stop.
Hey Professor, that is how people change their opinions, by learning from others.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

Look folks, this is what I joined this thread to say to the original poster:

_*DRM does nothing to stop pirates . . . Not at all. I get what I want whenever I want it.
The people it bothers and interrupts are the folks that purchase stuff, pirates could care less.*_

So, I hope all of you supporters of DRM enjoy it . . . it is not a part of my life.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

auge_28 said:


> Look folks, this is what I joined this thread to say to the original poster:
> 
> _*DRM does nothing to stop pirates . . . Not at all. I get what I want whenever I want it.
> The people it bothers and interrupts are the folks that purchase stuff, pirates could care less.*_
> ...


I think pretty much everyone agrees that DRM doesn't stop pirates. I couldn't find a post saying anything else ... But once upon a time this was a discussion on the difference between piracy and casual sharing - and an article suggesting publishers are more concerned with the latter than the former.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

auge_28 said:


> Yet you are, but feel free to stop.
> Hey Professor, that is how people change their opinions, by learning from others.


I'm not discussing anything, I'm sharing my opinion. I really don't give crap about other's opinions. If they have hard evidence, then I'll consider it. Otherwise there's not really a person on the earth who I care about their opinion on much of anything. That's a big reason I became a prof. I don't have to deal with other people's opinions much. Colleagues are sharing research findings, students are learning from me, and the majority of time in my office reading, writing and crunching numbers and not having to put up with people period.

Opinions are like a-holes.....we all got them and we don't give a crap about anyone's but our own. Especially when it comes to moral issues like this. Nothing you say is going to ever make me think piracy is ever justifiable. And nothing I say is going to make you feel bad and stop.

So get off your high horse about "learning" when you have no desire to learn anything here either and will keep illegally acquiring stuff regardless of what anyone says, and most likely will keep doing it even if prices fall and DRM is gone with some other justification like not being able to afford to keep up with books, movies etc. if you have to pay for them (that you or someone else threw out there early in the thread).

So it's a pointless debate, and I regret letting myself get sucked into them as I try to avoid piracy discussions as I have no patience for all the bullcrap justifications and rationales. If people are going to do it, they should keep it to themselves. In any case, I'll bow out of the thread after this post as I've said my piece.

Shame this site uses forum software about as sophisticated as the Kindle browser and thus doesn't have an ignore user or ignore thread feature that I can tell.


Geoffrey said:


> I think pretty much everyone agrees that DRM doesn't stop pirates. I couldn't find a post saying anything else ... But once upon a time this was a discussion on the difference between piracy and casual sharing - and an article suggesting publishers are more concerned with the latter than the former.


Yep, we all agree that DRM stinks and doesn't stop pirates. I've said repeatedly that fair use laws need to evolve so we have the same rights with our digital content we buy, and not be hampered by DRM that's barely a speed bump for pirates.

But that doesn't justify doing an immoral and illegal act and downloading the files without paying for them. Strip the DRM off stuff you buy if you want--that's wrong but reasonable as long as you aren't distributing the content and just want to put it on multiple devices in your household (i.e. other non-Kindle e-readers etc.). But there's never a justification for piracy. Deal with the DRM, strip it our do a full boycott by not buying from publishers who use DRM and letting them know why you aren't buying etc.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> Shame this site uses forum software about as sophisticated as the Kindle browser and thus doesn't have an ignore user or ignore thread feature that I can tell.


Click the little "NOTIFY" button at the top of the thread&#8230; you will no longer get thread updates.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

Geoffrey said:


> I have no moral qualms about loaning an ebook. It may be ethically dishonest, but morality doesn't play into it.


Very interesting.

What is the distinction between "ethically dishonest" and "morality?"

I am not arguing. I just don't understand what you mean by each term.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

I wrote: _On the separate issue of morality, arguing that taking something that belongs to you is not a "theft" is intellectually dishonest. It is a taking, a stealing, a misappropriation, a filching - call it anything you would like but it remains immoral._

Tuttle reasonably responded: _Your argument seems to be "I think this is immoral therefore everyone thinks it is immoral." Which itself is flawed._

To wish I reply:

My understanding of the argument made by the "copyright violation is not theft" crowd is that somehow the act is ethically acceptable if they can find a way to not call it "theft," or find a way to distinguish the act from what they define as "theft."

I find this argument specious. It is an attempt to focus on and argue the label, not the act.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

auge_28 said:


> I will say again that my purpose for speaking on this thread was so that folks can get a pirates perspective on DRM and I was hoping that we could discuss this as adults without being insulted or threatened . . . both of which has happened to me. It was NOT my intention to discuss my reasons but I was constantly asked about it.


Auge, I think you have done a superb job and I appreciate your willingness to openly discuss your thoughts. I am particularly impressed with your directness when admitting that you cannot fully justify the extra step of piracy over simply not buying the overpriced product.

I understand finding the conglomeration of media in a few hands disturbing. I understand voting with one's pocketbook and not buying from those you dislike and buying from those you support.

I can't see how pirating helps undermine the paradigm however. Rather, pirating supports the existence of DRM. It is an attempt to slow illicit copies. While it doesn't work other than to frustrate the unsophisticated, DRM would disappear if piracy did not exist.

As an example, the RIAA does not care if you make a copy of a CD to play in your car, thereby protecting the original from damage. This copy is not protected by Fair Use, but the recording industry doesn't care. Fair Use also does not protect "backups," nor transcoding to MP3 for a portable player. The RIAA does care when someone distributes their intellectual property however.

As a separate issue, there are format wars. For example, Amazon sells only DRM protected Mobi. Google books does not sell Kindle compliant ebooks. Each is trying to control the ebook market through DRM. This is a separate use of DRM above and beyond mere copy protection.

One can get around this however as removing DRM from a file is legal. You can buy from Google and transcode your ebook onto your Kindle (or vice versa). Yes, this may be a breach of an adherence contract (the term of service) but it is otherwise legal. At least for me, this destroys the argument that you cannot use the file in any way that you would like.

I cannot come up with a way to allow sale of an ebook. This can reasonably exist only if there is no way to copy the file, or if everyone is so honest as to never make an illicit copy. The lack of resale is a good argument for ebooks being priced less than a physical copy.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> I'm all for learning--I'm a professor after all. But I care about learning knowledge. I don't give a crap what much of anyone _thinks _about anything. Show me some research, data and other factual knowledge and I'm all ears. But I don't much care about discussing matters of belief, values etc. ...












Then why are you here? This thread, and most on this board, are expressions of beliefs, preferences, desires, wishes.

There is little on this board that is purely objective; "Click Menu to see the time displayed," or "20% off at DecalGirl today."

Additionally, your writing in this thread is purely subjective - your opinions and beliefs.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

Elk said:


> Very interesting.
> 
> What is the distinction between "ethically dishonest" and "morality?"
> 
> I am not arguing. I just don't understand what you mean by each term.


On it's basest level, Morals are in the realm of the personal and Ethics are in the realm of the collective. Morals are more often concerned with basic ideas of right and wrong or good and evil where Ethics tend to be more of a code of conduct.

Ethics are the code society collectively agrees to and change over time; insider trading or race-based hiring are unethical today but weren't always so. Morals are the personal world view of an individual and may vary from from person to person within a single societal sub-group; abortion and homosexuality show a wide range of personal moral positions when any set of people are polled. Morals can change over time too but on a personal level.

Now, in many cases, our ethics include those items where the vast majority of people accept the same or a similar moral position; murder, slavery or universal suffrage are topics where most people are in agreement over the general morality even if we disagree on certain details. Where things get sticky is when something considered ethical, or unethical, no longer enjoys the support of the vast majority of people within a society. So, there is push back against our collective opinion on marijuana or welfare benefits ...

In the context of this conversation, it may be unethical to make a copy of a digital file and give it to a friend, but to many it's not immoral. And, calls to change the copyright laws to allow for sharing are essentially a call to review and change that portion of our ethical code.


----------



## Tuttle (Jun 10, 2010)

Elk said:


> I wrote: _On the separate issue of morality, arguing that taking something that belongs to you is not a "theft" is intellectually dishonest. It is a taking, a stealing, a misappropriation, a filching - call it anything you would like but it remains immoral._
> 
> Tuttle reasonably responded: _Your argument seems to be "I think this is immoral therefore everyone thinks it is immoral." Which itself is flawed._
> 
> ...


Okay, so your view is just entirely different.

To me specifying it is not theft is not making it moral in their minds rather than not, it just wanting to actually use the right words for things. Copyright infringement and theft are just different things and swapping the words just gets the meanings confused.

The question of morality is entirely separate from whether it would or would not be 'theft'. There are people who say all illegal downloading is necessarily wrong, some who say that it is morally acceptable when you already own a copy, some that say its acceptable if you already own a copy and there isn't a legal ebook alternative, some would say that all information wants to be free and all books are just information therefore they want to be free, among other views.

To take that last extreme (which I actually know people who believe), the difference between physically taking something that is keeping it from others and just taking the information is huge. They'd similarly think it'd be fine to take a scanner into a bookstore and scan all the books into their computer without buying them, because to them the difference between 'information' and 'something physical which I am denying from someone else' is exactly what matters to them.

I care a lot more about actually being precise in my wording than about what people think is acceptable or not, and they are entirely different questions. There are advantages and disadvantages to authors who have books downloaded for free, whether this is legally or illegally.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

Geoffrey said:


> On it's basest level, Morals are in the realm of the personal and Ethics are in the realm of the collective. Morals are more often concerned with basic ideas of right and wrong or good and evil where Ethics tend to be more of a code of conduct.
> 
> Ethics are the code society collectively agrees to and change over time; insider trading or race-based hiring are unethical today but weren't always so. Morals are the personal world view of an individual and may vary from from person to person within a single societal sub-group; abortion and homosexuality show a wide range of personal moral positions when any set of people are polled. Morals can change over time too but on a personal level.
> 
> ...


Yes and oh yes.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

Tuttle said:


> . . . The question of morality is entirely separate from whether it would or would not be 'theft'. There are people who say all illegal downloading is necessarily wrong, some who say that it is morally acceptable when you already own a copy, some that say its acceptable if you already own a copy and there isn't a legal ebook alternative, some would say that all information wants to be free and all books are just information therefore they want to be free, among other views.
> To take that last extreme (which I actually know people who believe), the difference between physically taking something that is keeping it from others and just taking the information is huge. They'd similarly think it'd be fine to take a scanner into a bookstore and scan all the books into their computer without buying them, because to them the difference between 'information' and 'something physical which I am denying from someone else' is exactly what matters to them . . .








The above is interesting and I will have to give it more thought, it brings to my mind that before the printing press was invented that loaned books were hand copied by monks and universities for the purpose of dissemination and education.
I'm not sure if or how this applies to the conversation, I can't think of a way that it will apply, however it is interesting philosophically.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Elk said:


> Additionally, your writing in this thread is purely subjective - your opinions and beliefs.


Honestly, I'll freely admit I have a nice sized ego and like spouting off my opinions even though I don't give much of a crap about other's opinions.  That's a great perk of an academic job, there's few other professions where right from day one you spend most of your career telling other people things rather than listening to to others and following orders.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Tuttle said:


> They'd similarly think it'd be fine to take a scanner into a bookstore and scan all the books into their computer without buying them, because to them the difference between 'information' and 'something physical which I am denying from someone else' is exactly what matters to them.


Mind-boggling to me. Truly.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> Honestly, I'll freely admit I have a nice sized ego and like spouting off my opinions even though I don't give much of a crap about other's opinions.  That's a great perk of an academic job, there's few other professions where right from day one you spend most of your career telling other people things rather than listening to to others and following orders.


I think you must care to some point about others opinions, otherwise you would not be arguing (I mean arguing in the positive sense not the negative) with people.
Or I could be completely wrong about you and you are an egocentric malcontented misanthrope . . . but I doubt it . . . 

Let me take this opportunity to state that I hold no grudges, I know exactly how when hot topics are discussed on forums things get misread, misunderstood and misstated . . . then tempers flare and more things are said and on and on and on . . .

So, if you see me walking the halls of this forum, please do not feel the need to cross to the other side to avoid me.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Yeah, I was being a little facetious.  I enjoy debating things, I just don't care about other's opinions in the sense that other's opinions never change my mind.  Only scientific evidence or personal experience can do that for me. 

I too hold no grudges, especially not on message boards where we're all here to chat and goof off and not take things seriously/personally.


----------



## Anne Victory (Jul 29, 2010)

Agreed about not holding grudges.  It was a great discussion.  And Auge, I do hope you don't feel I was insulting your parents - that was not my intent   

Happy Monday to everyone (or at least as happy as Mondays can be )


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

Arkali said:


> Agreed about not holding grudges. It was a great discussion. And Auge, I do hope you don't feel I was insulting your parents - that was not my intent


In the heat of things that's exactly what it felt like, but now that days have passed and the conversation has moved on . . . it does not matter.
Thank you for clarifying, and I look forward to our next heated argument.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

Geoffrey said:


> On it's basest level, Morals are in the realm of the personal and Ethics are in the realm of the collective. Morals are more often concerned with basic ideas of right and wrong or good and evil where Ethics tend to be more of a code of conduct.
> 
> ...
> 
> In the context of this conversation, it may be unethical to make a copy of a digital file and give it to a friend, but to many it's not immoral. And, calls to change the copyright laws to allow for sharing are essentially a call to review and change that portion of our ethical code.


Thanks! I now understand the point you are making.

It's also illegal to make a copy of a digital file for a friend, but I also appreciate the desire to make a loan. Perhaps the resolution is to make a copy, delete all other existing copies and give the one copy to the friend. This way there remains only one copy. One also takes the same risk of loss as loaning a physical book.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Elk said:


> It's also illegal to make a copy of a digital file for a friend, but I also appreciate the desire to make a loan. Perhaps the resolution is to make a copy, delete all other existing copies and give the one copy to the friend. This way there remains only one copy. One also takes the same risk of loss as loaning a physical book.


That's a good work around for the present.

But what really needs to happen is loaning systems like the Kindle and Nooks to be expanded. All books (or digital movies and albums) allow it. No 14 day timelimit--you simply can't access your file until the digital one is returned. Just like you can't use a physical product while it's loaned out.

Such as system would also allow for selling or giving away an e-book or album etc. permanently.

That way we have basically the same options with our e-content as we do with physical content, while publishers are still protected from files spreading easily even among the non-pirates (those not downloading illegal files, but passing things they buy onto friends etc.) which is the risk with having no DRM scheme.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

Tuttle said:


> To me specifying it is not theft is not making it moral in their minds rather than not, it just wanting to actually use the right words for things. Copyright infringement and theft are just different things.


I appreciate the desire for precise nomenclature. I also appreciate that you are not making the argument that if infringement is not a "theft" it is therefore legal and ethical and moral.

However, in common parlance, there is little distinction. Each is an improper taking. There is similarly identity theft, theft of trade secrets, etc. All involving a taking of something non-physical that exists only as information. These terms are used both statutorily and in everyday speech as the stealing of intellectual property.

The only place that limiting terminology to infringement is the context of IP law. If the issue at discussion is only the legal interpretation there is little to discuss: making a copy of a digital file is illegal. Pretty dull.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> Yeah, I was being a little facetious.


I so assumed. I otherwise would not have actively tweaked you.



> I enjoy debating things, I just don't care about other's opinions in the sense that other's opinions never change my mind. Only scientific evidence or personal experience can do that for me.


As an avowed rationalist I understand your position. Yet, I find that others often bring to the discussion a viewpoint or an idea that has not occurred to me which can change my view - I suppose one could rationalize this as "personal experience" however.


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> All books (or digital movies and albums) allow it. No 14 day timelimit--you simply can't access your file until the digital one is returned. Just like you can't use a physical product while it's loaned out.
> 
> Such as system would also allow for selling or giving away an e-book or album etc. permanently.


Both would be great.

Under the present DRM system this is also readily accomplished.

My cynical side suspects that publishers don't like it as digital files are so easily transferred. Digital files will be much more widely disseminated than a physical book ever would be, and also will never cease to exist - again unlike a real book.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Elk said:


> As an avowed rationalist I understand your position. Yet, I find that others often bring to the discussion a viewpoint or an idea that has not occurred to me which can change my view - I suppose one could rationalize this as "personal experience" however.


Depends on the topic. Little use in debating moral issues like piracy, abortion etc., or spiritual ones like religion etc., as people's beliefs are pretty set on those things and not likely to be swayed.

I'm also not much for discussing subjective things like the quality of books, movies, music etc. as at the end of the day all that matters is whether you yourself enjoyed them.

Now academic things like theory, making sense of quantitative findings, etc., yes discussion does play a large role in shaping ideas and views.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

Elk said:


> It's also illegal to make a copy of a digital file for a friend, but I also appreciate the desire to make a loan. Perhaps the resolution is to make a copy, delete all other existing copies and give the one copy to the friend. This way there remains only one copy. One also takes the same risk of loss as loaning a physical book.





mooshie78 said:


> That's a good work around for the present.
> But what really needs to happen is loaning systems like the Kindle and Nooks to be expanded. All books (or digital movies and albums) allow it. No 14 day timelimit--you simply can't access your file until the digital one is returned. Just like you can't use a physical product while it's loaned out.
> Such as system would also allow for selling or giving away an e-book or album etc. permanently.
> That way we have basically the same options with our e-content as we do with physical content, while publishers are still protected from files spreading easily even among the non-pirates (those not downloading illegal files, but passing things they buy onto friends etc.) which is the risk with having no DRM scheme.


I think the above statements are laboring under the misconception that you own stuff to be traded or sold or loaned out.
The DRM on Amazons products are there to enforce their license agreement on the products we are "leasing".

This thread seems to have two or three topics that are confusingly related . . .


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

auge_28 said:


> I think the above statements are laboring under the misconception that you own stuff to be traded or sold or loaned out.
> The DRM on Amazons products are there to enforce their license agreement on the products we are "leasing".


Well of course. But I've said throughout that fair use laws need expanded to make it so we do own the digital files and can loan them out. I'm anti-piracy, but also pro-legitimate consumer.

My suggestion is just one way they can change the system to give us loaning and selling rights while also giving publishers some protections against one file ending up in multiple places. Wouldn't stop the pirates, but would at least cut down on people who casually give files of e-books or mp3s to a few friends or family members etc. as most of them wouldn't hassle with stripping DRM if there was a more open loaning system in place etc. I'd guess.

Personally, I'm ok with the leasing system for books as I seldom re-read, and I don't have many friends or family who do much leisure reading anyway so books just ended up getting dumped at the Library or Goodwill in the past anyway.

Though I'd love it if they'd do a real rental systems where I could pay $10-20 a month for a book or two out at a time like I do with Blu-rays/DVDs from Netflix.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> Well of course. But I've said throughout that fair use laws need expanded to make it so we do own the digital files and can loan them out. I'm anti-piracy, but also pro-legitimate consumer.
> 
> My suggestion is just one way they can change the system to give us loaning and selling rights while also giving publishers some protections against one file ending up in multiple places. Wouldn't stop the pirates, but would at least cut down on people who casually give files of e-books or mp3s to a few friends or family members etc. as most of them wouldn't hassle with stripping DRM if there was a more open loaning system in place etc. I'd guess.
> 
> ...


I could not agree with you more here (excluding our differences on piracy).

Most folks on this board would love a better lending system and I would have to assume that they represent a pretty decent cross-section of users. 
I don't think it would cut down on piracy either, but it would make me more likely to buy legitimate eBooks if I could trade or sell them to offset the purchase of something new. As I have said, I loathe the idea of spending as much as a printed book for a book I do not own.

Also, some pirated books are formatted poorly, and some PDFs are not worth the effort as they never look right . . . another reason I would purchase more.

I have over 100 legitimate books on my Kindle, I even purchased the new Stephen King book at full presell price because I wanted to read it as soon as it was available. I just can't see spending a small fortune to fill a library with loaned books.


----------



## fictionwriter (Nov 2, 2010)

Hi Geoffrey,

I agree...I think the Web makes it just too easy to steal, especially in bad economic times, when people don't have the money to pay for what they want. In a better world, sharing everything would be great, but then, we'd all have whatever we need. 

Thanks for raising the question.

All Best,

Carolyn


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

auge_28 said:


> I could not agree with you more here (excluding our differences on piracy).
> 
> Most folks on this board would love a better lending system and I would have to assume that they represent a pretty decent cross-section of users.
> I don't think it would cut down on piracy either, but it would make me more likely to buy legitimate eBooks if I could trade or sell them to offset the purchase of something new. As I have said, I loathe the idea of spending as much as a printed book for a book I do not own.
> ...


Well your post shows that even for an admitted pirate, loosening DRM would reduce your level of piracy at least a little and get you buying more.

As well as giving legitimate users a loaning system more like that for paper books, vs having them strip DRM (or just having a DRM free e-book from the start) where loaning equals giving away a permanent copy (which could then be copied by that person and passed on) while keeping their own.

So it's something publishers really should get on board with. But they're going to be resistant as every book loaned is 1 potential sale lost. So they'll have to be convinced that allowing unlimited loaning would reduce piracy enough to offset the potential lost sales through loaning. And who knows if that would really be the case?


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> Well your post shows that even for an admitted pirate, loosening DRM would reduce your level of piracy at least a little and get you buying more.


Obviously I do not speak for all pirates, some are out to make money, and others are out for the "thrill" of it . . . it's not very thrilling, trust me . . . 
Sometimes my motives swing into an area I don't understand or fully support and I need to pull back from that edge.
I also think that I may be a digital hoarder, luckily it fits onto a large hard drive or I would have goat trails running through the floor-to-ceiling stacks of magazines and old newspapers and junk that would fill my house, until the city condemns it and makes me move and rips the house down.

That said, I do purchase media, I have a couple hundred printed books (_neatly arranged in shelves, not stacked up in my living room _ ), just over a hundred purchased books on my Kindle, I go to the movies often and most of (99.5%) of my pirated movies I *rented* then "backed-up" to be watched later (_it's my retirement plan_).

Not a justification, just saying how it is.


----------



## matt youngmark (Jan 11, 2011)

My take on piracy in general is that it's just part of the landscape in digital media. And the only way to combat it as a publisher is to make your wares readily available at a fair price. I suspect that the vast majority of people who download stuff from file sharing sites are people who are interested in the product, but not interested enough to buy -- so the number of "lost sales" is FAR lower than the actual number of files downloaded. Genuine fans will always be happy to support their favorite authors, so if someone gets a free copy of my book, I just hope they like it enough to become one.

As far as the original post, I think every attempt at DRM that frowns upon casual sharing is going to be viewed as draconian by readers. When someone buys a physical book, it's theirs to do with as they damn well please. And even if it's physically just a bunch of zeroes and ones, when people buy your ebook they expect to BUY it, not just to license it for personal use.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

mattyoungmark said:


> My take on piracy in general is that it's just part of the landscape in digital media. And the only way to combat it as a publisher is to make your wares readily available at a fair price. I suspect that the vast majority of people who download stuff from file sharing sites are people who are interested in the product, but not interested enough to buy -- so the number of "lost sales" is FAR lower than the actual number of files downloaded. Genuine fans will always be happy to support their favorite authors, so if someone gets a free copy of my book, I just hope they like it enough to become one.


1. Who determines what fair price is? MP3s are dirt cheap with MP3 albums almost always being cheaper than the CDs at places like Amazon. Yet people still pirate music. Movies are pretty cheap--DVDs drop to $5-10 pretty quickly these days, and Blu-rays down to $5-10--just a matter of waiting. If watching new releases matters, rentals are dirt cheap with services like Netflix and Redbox. Yet people still pirate movies.

E-books I'll agree need to work out the pricing so they at least never cost more than the cheapest print versions. But beyond that, I honestly don't think price has much to do with it for most pirates. I think most just get used to getting stuff for free and will keep doing it regardless of how cheap prices get, or if DRM is removed etc. (music is still pirated even though all the MP3 stores are DRM free now). And I think a lot don't care about supporting artists etc. I've had acquaintances who pirate albums from who they say is their "favorite band", for example. Not that all pirates are like that, some support their favorites and pirate other stuff of course.

2. As I said earlier, I always hate the argument that people just pirate stuff they aren't interested in enough to buy. Unless you're stone broke, you're time should be more valuable than money in today's busy society. Why waste time consuming something you're aren't interested enough to buy.

And while you're right that it's impossible to estimate "lost sales" because of that issue, there's still little doubt that pirates in the past would have bought at least some of the stuff they now pirate. So they're are lost sales. I doubt there's many who truly only pirate stuff they would have never bought.



> As far as the original post, I think every attempt at DRM that frowns upon casual sharing is going to be viewed as draconian by readers. When someone buys a physical book, it's theirs to do with as they d*mn well please. And even if it's physically just a bunch of zeroes and ones, when people buy your ebook they expect to BUY it, not just to license it for personal use.


That I do agree with as I've said. A crackdown on piracy MUST be coupled with an expansion of fair use laws for us legitimate consumers.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> E-books I'll agree need to work out the pricing so they at least never cost more than the cheapest print versions. But beyond that, I honestly don't think price has much to do with it for most pirates. * I think most just get used to getting stuff for free and will keep doing it regardless of how cheap prices get, or if DRM is removed etc. * (music is still pirated even though all the MP3 stores are DRM free now). *And I think a lot don't care about supporting artists etc.
> *


*

Honestly, connivance and laziness factor for me as well. 
(I bolded two lines in your quoted text that I strongly agree with.)*


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

auge_28 said:


> Honestly, connivance and laziness factor for me as well.


The hell of it is, that in the digital age, it really isn't more convenient to pirate anymore.

It's just as easy to buy an album through Amazon or iTunes than to grab it off a torrent (and there's no DRM anymore). Probably easier since there's no searching around for a feed required. With e-books it doesn't get much easier than buying with 1 click through Amazon.com. Though their you have the DRM inconvenience, so you're point stands for that.

Movies piracy is probably a little easier since you mostly still have to either buy a disc or rent a disc and wait for it for newer moves as the Netflix streaming, On-Demand on cable etc. is mostly older movies and the pay per view rentals are more expensive.

So I really think it's more just not wanting to pay for something one can get illegally for free with very little chance of getting caught, than anything to do with convenience (DRM aside). If one's morally ok with doing that, then it's a tough sell (pun intended) to get them to pay for it even when its just as convenient to buy a digital file and there is no DRM. Hence why music still gets pirated in the age of DRM free MP3s that are cheaper than cds.


----------



## Jesslyn (Oct 29, 2008)

I have pirated books a time or too, but have since stopped.  In my defense, I always purchased the ebook when it came available (if I finished the book; DNFs were deleted).  What happened is that even when I eventually purchased the book, I just felt too guilty so I had to stop.  I also didn't share them.  So I guess my morality got in the way.

I do, however, remove the DRM from my Kindle books in the unlikely event that I ever switch eReaders.  I really can't see me doing so, I have been happy with the Amazon ecosystem since day one (unlike some *cough* *cough* Apple).  I have a feeling that that has more to do with my age than anything else.  I'm more IT paranoid than some of the 'younger' IT users that I know.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> It's just as easy to buy an album through Amazon or iTunes than to grab it off a torrent (and there's no DRM anymore). Probably easier since there's no searching around for a feed required.


Can't argue with that logic.



mooshie78 said:


> With e-books it doesn't get much easier than buying with 1 click through Amazon.com. Though their you have the DRM inconvenience, so you're point stands for that.


See what you did there, you said "buying", and as I have said . . . this is a big problem for me and paying full printed price for restricted eBooks.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

auge_28 said:


> See what you did there, you said "buying", and as I have said . . . this is a big problem for me and paying full printed price for restricted eBooks.


I know, and I mentioned the DRM on them being an issue when it comes to convenience. I understand your gripe there. I disagree that it's justification for piracy, but I understand the annoyances of DRM and would like it to go away (or be more flexible with lending, reselling etc. at least) myself.

I'm ok with it in the meantime personally as I seldom re-read and was never big on lending things anyway, so it was more just pay for book and then hassle with donating it to the library or Goodwill in the past.

So I'm fine paying for an e-book that's the same or cheaper than the print book as it saves me the hassle of donating or gifting it after reading. But others are collectors or loan a lot or just have problems with the restrictions of DRM in principle even if it doesn't much affect them personally. And that's fine. Not justification for piracy IMO, but I agree the current DRM does nothing but hassle legitimate users.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

Jesslyn said:


> I do, however, remove the DRM from my Kindle books in the unlikely event that I ever switch eReaders.


So even people that feel guilty about piracy have no problems breaking a licensing agreement, and saying they "used" to pirate . . . interesting shades of morality.
So, when is piracy not piracy?

However, she stumbled on something _mooshie78_ should have suggested to me perhaps.
*mooshie78*: Hey Auge28 if your argument for pirating eBooks is that you wanna keep the books, to actually own them if something was to happen to Amazon and because you do not want to be tied to one brand of reader . . . why don't you pay for the books from Amazon and strip the DRM, that way you are paying for a product you want.
*Auge28*: Well mooshie78, now that you mention it (by proxy) that's a great idea . . . I like it. I get a well formatted book that is "unleashed".
Well argued sir . . .


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Yeah, I think stripping DRM is mostly ok.  If you're not giving away any copies to others anyway.

Yeah, it's breaking the license agreement, but morally that's a good bit away from illegally acquiring a copy without paying for it and or passing on free copies to others.  So I personally have no qualms with people who strip DRM for their own use.

It's not piracy as piracy is acquiring a product without paying for it through illegal means--or distributing content illegally.  All stripping DRM is is a violation of the license agreement where you agree to not disable the DRM when purchasing.  Still a "wrong" but a much more mild one than piracy IMO.  You're still giving the author/publisher their cut, and not hurting them at all as long as you don't give away any copies.


----------



## Tuttle (Jun 10, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> 1. Who determines what fair price is? MP3s are dirt cheap with MP3 albums almost always being cheaper than the CDs at places like Amazon. *Yet people still pirate music. * Movies are pretty cheap--DVDs drop to $5-10 pretty quickly these days, and Blu-rays down to $5-10--just a matter of waiting. If watching new releases matters, rentals are dirt cheap with services like Netflix and Redbox. Yet people still pirate movies.


I've actually found that the most common version of music sharing is the passing it between friends such that one person has bought a copy and then the 100 people they know end up with it. However I've also found that if someone gets a copy of something that they enjoy enough, they go out of their way to pay for it despite already having a copy, especially when its 'reasonably priced'. For example _Shoggoth on the Roof_ went around my social group, most people got a copy of it despite it not being legal, and most of the people who actually listened to it went and bought a copy after listening to it and deciding that it was worth their money.

Combining that with the experiences that Eric Flint had. I'd feel reasonably strongly saying that from all my experiences, no, people getting things illegally still is likely to make the people money in the long run. This doesn't make it acceptable, but it really needs to be taken into account in any discussion of the topic.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Tuttle said:


> I've actually found that the most common version of music sharing is the passing it between friends such that one person has bought a copy and then the 100 people they know end up with it. However I've also found that if someone gets a copy of something that they enjoy enough, they go out of their way to pay for it despite already having a copy, especially when its 'reasonably priced'. For example _Shoggoth on the Roof_ went around my social group, most people got a copy of it despite it not being legal, and most of the people who actually listened to it went and bought a copy after listening to it and deciding that it was worth their money.
> 
> Combining that with the experiences that Eric Flint had. I'd feel reasonably strongly saying that from all my experiences, no, people getting things illegally still is likely to make the people money in the long run. This doesn't make it acceptable, but it really needs to be taken into account in any discussion of the topic.


That's a very common type of piracy. But working in a college, trust me torrents and the Kazaa type file sharing programs are still huge.

I'll never buy the argument that piracy makes artists more money. Sure, free file sharing can help a new band build a name etc.--but they can do that by giving out songs themselves, streaming them on their websites, myspace pages etc. So you're right it's not justified as the bands can make their own decisions to put music out there freely if they want to use that to build a fanbase. If they don't, then that's there loss.

But it definitely doesn't make money for established bands who get a ton of radio play and who everyone has already heard of. They only stand to lose money from piracy as they don't need the word of mouth/sampling of piracy to make new fans as they already get a lot of exposure.

I also don't see a lot of people, in my experience, getting a whole album through piracy and going and buying that album. They've got the whole thing already, and had no moral qualms about acquiring it illegally, so why go buy a CD or buy the mp3s from iTunes? Maybe they'll by some other albums or go see them in concert, so that can still benefit the new bands--but again does nothing for the famous bands that sell out every show already etc. And then you have the hardcore pirates who if they like it will just pirate the rest of their albums and never see them live as they're cheapskates etc.


----------



## Alm Hlgh (Dec 6, 2010)

Geoffrey said:


> This is from the Writer's Cafe. Since not everyone goes in there, I thought it would be interesting to bring it out here to see what even more people have to say.
> 
> *thank you Nick for finding this and I hope you don't mind me sharing it.
> 
> ...


 No there isn't anything wrong with sharing. For me the problem came when one of my eBook was scanned and downloaded to another site by someone for profit; that's when I became very appreciative of DRM technology. Sharing books/ CDs, etc among friends is one thing, but stealing another person's work and making a profit is the problem.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

Alm said:


> No there isn't anything wrong with sharing. For me the problem came when one of my eBook was scanned and downloaded to another site by someone for profit; that's when I became very appreciative of DRM technology. Sharing books/ CDs, etc among friends is one thing, but stealing another person's work and making a profit is the problem.


If my opinion matters here, I totally agree.

I would NEVER pirate for profit, it goes against my personal ethics.

Ok, I know . . . here is where you guys scoff and point at the ludicrous oxymoronic idea of an ethical pirate . . . go ahead and get it out of your systems . . . I will wait patiently . . .


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

auge_28 said:


> If my opinion matters here, I totally agree.
> 
> I would NEVER pirate for profit, it goes against my personal ethics.
> 
> Ok, I know . . . here is where you guys scoff and point at the ludicrous oxymoronic idea of an ethical pirate . . . go ahead and get it out of your systems . . . I will wait patiently . . .


 The problem is it's still unethical/illegal to acquire things yourself without paying for them. Loaning them out is ok as that's just the nature of the beat. We've always been able to loan books, movies, CDs etc. so potential sales have always been lost for that.

Though again the added complication with e-files is loaning tends to really be giving a friend a copy while keeping their own, and them then being able to give it to others while keeping their copy etc. So you can have more lost potential sales from one e-file getting passed around than you probably go from one paper book getting loaned to a few people since everyone has a copy of the e-file at the same time and can pass it on to multiple people at once etc.

Hence the real need for a DRM system with an unlimited, but one person has it at a time, type of lending system. That gives us owners the same lending abilities we have with a paper book (can lend as much as we want, but only one person can have it at a time) while also protecting authors and publishers by keeping one digital file from being copied an unlimited number of times.

Again, the real pirates will just crack and distribute it anyway. But it would at least keep casual users from passing on copies in what they consider lending rather than piracy as most of them will live with the one at a time system rather than cracking it.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> The problem is it's still unethical/illegal to acquire things yourself without paying for them. Loaning them out is ok as that's just the nature of the beat. We've always been able to loan books, movies, CDs etc. so potential sales have always been lost for that.
> 
> Though again the added complication with e-files is loaning tends to really be giving a friend a copy while keeping their own, and them then being able to give it to others while keeping their copy etc. So you can have more lost potential sales from one e-file getting passed around than you probably go from one paper book getting loaned to a few people since everyone has a copy of the e-file at the same time and can pass it on to multiple people at once etc.
> 
> ...


I read an article that supports your point.
Media distributors and copyright owners are less concerned with folks making copies of albums or tapes, as each copy of a copy is degraded notably. A little more concerned with folks burning copies of CDs and DVDs as each copy is close to identical in quality as the first. However there biggest concern by leaps and bounds are the fellas that rip a digital copy and make it available online were millions of identical copies are made.
So less about how I do it for my own use and an occasional copy for a buddy over someone that uploads.
So as far as pirates go, I am the lesser of evils . . . but evil none the less.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Yep, that's the real threat of piracy in the digital age.  Exact copies can quickly be uploaded and transmitted to an unlimited number of people.

In the past there were only so many people who were going to read one paper book that got passed around, and only so many friends a person will burn a CD for etc.  

With digital copies the scale of the threat is much great since it's so damn easy to do, and once a non-DRM file is uploaded it can spread around super quick as people download it and pass it on themselves, post it on other file sharing sites etc.

It would be a damn scary time to be someone trying to make a living selling content like books or music in this age.  On the one hand the internet is a great tool for building a fanbase etc.  But once you're established, that becomes moot and you have to worry about all the sales you lose due to rampant piracy.


----------



## Amiedoll (Jun 29, 2010)

I don't think the pirates are distributing millions of copies though Auge. I occasionally get files that are not available to my country, or digital versions of books I already own and usually the number of seeders and leeches is well under 100. The last one was something like 10 seeders, 5 leeches, and while people do stop seeding after a while I do believe that the numbers point to a low amount of copies being made. This is just one site, but it is very popular. 

Of the few books I have got copies of, I do tend to chat about the books and the authors online and hopefully this does encourage others to buy them. Since I am prevented from actually buying the book myself I don't see how I can represent a loss of sales to Publishers who will not open up the sale of ebooks to all regions (I mean my goodness I live in Australia not on the damn moon). They really need to get this stuff sorted out, we may be pretty new to the ebook market but with all the tablet devises coming out I bet the demand for ebooks will sky-rocket.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

Amiedoll said:


> I don't think the pirates are distributing millions of copies though Auge. I occasionally get files that are not available to my country, or digital versions of books I already own and usually the number of seeders and leeches is well under 100. The last one was something like 10 seeders, 5 leeches, and while people do stop seeding after a while I do believe that the numbers point to a low amount of copies being made. This is just one site, but it is very popular.
> 
> Of the few books I have got copies of, I do tend to chat about the books and the authors online and hopefully this does encourage others to buy them. Since I am prevented from actually buying the book myself I don't see how I can represent a loss of sales to Publishers who will not open up the sale of ebooks to all regions (I mean my goodness I live in Australia not on the d*mn moon). They really need to get this stuff sorted out, we may be pretty new to the ebook market but with all the tablet devises coming out I bet the demand for ebooks will sky-rocket.


The high numbers are for music, television shows and movies. 
EBook readers still have a small market.


----------



## Amiedoll (Jun 29, 2010)

Ahh I see what you mean


----------



## jello (Dec 31, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> 2. As I said earlier, I always hate the argument that people just pirate stuff they aren't interested in enough to buy. Unless you're stone broke, you're time should be more valuable than money in today's busy society. Why waste time consuming something you're aren't interested enough to buy.


For most adults with a 'real job', I tend to agree. And in my experience piracy drops of a lot in that demographic. But teens in HS and students in college often have little to no money but plenty of time. Having literally spent weeks eating ramen in college to afford what games/movies/music I did buy I can attest that there are times when that time/money equation falls way on the side of 'free stuff' for some folks.


----------



## cftodd (Jan 30, 2011)

I do not and would not share my ebooks (on my Kindle) with anyone except those who live with me. I would however loan my paperback (not my hard backs unless they are to a really close friend) out to a friend whom I think would like a particular book. To me it would be the same if they went to the library or to the book store (and read the book there) I do think if you loan your book to a friend and your friend likes the book and wants to share the book they in turn should buy the book and share your own not loan yours out. I am this way about music and movies too... I do not share them with anyone outside of my close group of friends.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

jello said:


> For most adults with a 'real job', I tend to agree. And in my experience piracy drops of a lot in that demographic. But teens in HS and students in college often have little to no money but plenty of time. Having literally spent weeks eating ramen in college to afford what games/movies/music I did buy I can attest that there are times when that time/money equation falls way on the side of 'free stuff' for some folks.


Agreed. That's what I meant with the "unless you're stone broke..." part of my post you quoted.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

cftodd said:


> I do not and would not share my ebooks (on my Kindle) with anyone except those who live with me. I would however loan my paperback (not my hard backs unless they are to a really close friend) out to a friend whom I think would like a particular book. To me it would be the same if they went to the library or to the book store (and read the book there) I do think if you loan your book to a friend and your friend likes the book and wants to share the book they in turn should buy the book and share your own not loan yours out. I am this way about music and movies too... I do not share them with anyone outside of my close group of friends.


Again this falls under the so called grey area of piracy.
"Unless it's done under my specific rules it's not ethical."

How is it different to loan an eBook any different than loaning a paper book?
Books are meant to be passed around, shared by people to disseminate knowledge, culture and entertainment.

When I read printed books, I would freely give it away when I was finished with only a single caveat . . . *that it MUST be passed on when they are finished reading it*.
Its anathema to me that media in general and books specifically be warehoused and horded, this makes no sense to me at all.

On another thread people are talking about the price of eBooks someone mentioned _Swan Song_ by Robert McCammon.
Amazon Prices:
Hardcover - $1,000.00
Mass market paperback - $47.99
Paperback - $12.24
Kindle - $13.99 (yup, more than the paperback)
These prices are for a book that was written in *1987* ! ! !

I had to fight my instincts to offer this poor guy a copy of the non-DRMd MOBI I have for no charge at all. I would have offered it but I fear I would get locked out of this board. So instead I sent him to a site where he can order a readers copy of the book for about $5, including postage.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

auge_28 said:


> How is it different to loan an eBook any different than loaning a paper book?


We've covered that already. With a paper book only one person can have your copy at at time. If you loan it out you don't have access to it, and only one friend can have it at a time. With an e-book (barring a DRM loaning system I've promoted elsewhere in the thread) you can keep your copy while giving it to as many people as you want, who can then pass it on to whoever they want etc.

In short that one copy can reach a limitless amount of people while one copy of a paper book is only going to get passed around so many times before getting lost or getting to someone who decides to keep it and never loans it again etc.



> Books are meant to be passed around, shared by people to disseminate knowledge, culture and entertainment.


That's where we differ. I see that as a function books serve (as well as movies, music etc.), but it's not a right that people should have unfettered free access to it. We live in a capitalist world (and I support that ideal) and content creators should be able to profit of their work. Libraries exist to give the poor in society free access to these things, and loaning (true loaning, not giving a non DRM e-file) to friends is covered under fair use etc. But beyond that, if you want to experience the content you need to pay for it unless the creator chose to make it freely available.

I just can't agree with the communistic notion that artists should be creating things to better society and for the common good. If they choose to do so, then more power to them. If they choose to do it for the purpose of making money and put their material for sale, then we have to respect that and either pay for it, get it from the library or other legal means, or do without.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

I do not know specifically how long it takes for a book to fall into public domain or if it stays nonpublic as long as it’s in print, my ignorance is embarrassing and I will have this information by the end of the week. . . this is something I should know if I want to argue this stuff.

But would it be unreasonable to change the rules on media . . . something like the copyright owner has full rights for 10 years upon publication of the work and on the first day of the 11th year it falls directly into public domain regardless of it being in print or not. 10 years of profit from work I think is reasonable, and then I think it should fall under the heading of cultural property. Having the property change hands in the meantime does not extend the 10 year limit as that is set in stone.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

auge_28 said:


> I do not know specifically how long it takes for a book to fall into public domain or if it stays nonpublic as long as it's in print, my ignorance is embarrassing and I will have this information by the end of the week. . . this is something I should know if I want to argue this stuff.
> 
> But would it be unreasonable to change the rules on media . . . something like the copyright owner has full rights for 10 years upon publication of the work and on the first day of the 11th year it falls directly into public domain regardless of it being in print or not. 10 years of profit from work I think is reasonable, and then I think it should fall under the heading of cultural property. Having the property change hands in the meantime does not extend the 10 year limit as that is set in stone.


In the US it's currently 75 years after death of the author for the book to enter the public domain.

I think that's a bit too long, but I'd not support going any shorter until death of author. Maybe add exceptions that if something is out of print for 5 years then it goes public domain, as there's no point in the copyright if the author isn't making money on it anyway.

But otherwise, being a raging capitalist and caring little about the common good, I can't abide the thought of any author (or other content creator) having to watch others make money off his work after 10 years when it hits public domain in your scenario. The notion of "cultural property" is just way to communistic an ideal for me to support. Other than helping friends or family, I'm not lifting a finger to do any work that I'm not compensated for, and I don't expect others to do so either. Anyone is free to volunteer or give away their creations, but they shouldn't be forced into it by losing copyright during their lifetime when their work is still selling.

Add the out of print exception them most things that only sell for a year or two can go to the public domain, while authors fortunate enough to right stuff that keeps selling can profit it from it until their deaths.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> In the US it's currently 75 years after death of the author for the book to enter the public domain.
> I think that's a bit too long, but I'd not support going any shorter until death of author. Maybe add exceptions that if something is out of print for 5 years then it goes public domain, as there's no point in the copyright if the author isn't making money on it anyway.
> But otherwise, being a raging capitalist and caring little about the common good, I can't abide the thought of any author (or other content creator) having to watch others make money off his work after 10 years when it hits public domain in your scenario.
> Add the out of print exception them most things that only sell for a year or two can go to the public domain, while authors fortunate enough to right stuff that keeps selling can profit it from it until their deaths.


Well, now we are starting another albeit related conversation.

So, your premise says that a creative person should get paid for a lifetime for work he has done.
So, I wonder that if a factory worker making widgets should not get paid for the work already done as long as people are using the widgets that came off of his production line?
Why should a person that spends a few weeks or months on a project (book, film, music) is expected to earn income for a lifetime whilst an equally hard working laborer or manufacturer only make income for hours worked?

Now, I understand that a laborer gets paid for his talented hands and a creative gets paid for a good idea and talented hands are more common than good ideas and a creative may only have a couple marketable good ideas in him.
I still think that a decade of income from a good idea is a decent wage for something that needs no maintenance or upkeep once the work is done.
I am also aware that this is not the audience for this argument as several of you folks are writer types.

I am not even sure that this is an idea I support, I'm just trying to work it out in my head with your help.


----------



## Tuttle (Jun 10, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> That's a very common type of piracy. But working in a college, trust me torrents and the Kazaa type file sharing programs are still huge.


As a recent college student - yes they're still huge, but they're still less than people sharing the music for music. Movies are torrented a lot more, but that's mostly for convenience of people who don't have money, a tv, or such.



> But it definitely doesn't make money for established bands who get a ton of radio play and who everyone has already heard of. They only stand to lose money from piracy as they don't need the word of mouth/sampling of piracy to make new fans as they already get a lot of exposure.


Okay, sure, I'll agree there. However unless you're talking about the biggest mainstream stuff. Did you read what was linked to from Baen free library? That was an author writing about his experiences and his views.



> I also don't see a lot of people, in my experience, getting a whole album through piracy and going and buying that album. They've got the whole thing already, and had no moral qualms about acquiring it illegally, so why go buy a CD or buy the mp3s from iTunes? Maybe they'll by some other albums or go see them in concert, so that can still benefit the new bands--but again does nothing for the famous bands that sell out every show already etc. And then you have the hardcore pirates who if they like it will just pirate the rest of their albums and never see them live as they're cheapskates etc.


While in my experience, I see people doing that for what they feel is worth their money, all the time, including in college settings. They won't go and buy everything because a bunch of it isn't worth deleting but isn't worth going out of their way for, but as soon as there is something good enough in their mind, they want to pay for it.

(Note, my experiences are also with people who don't like things that are mainstream. At least some of the people I know would say that if someone is that big already they don't need the extra money, while if someone isn't as big, they're not already making multi-millions a year. )


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

auge_28 said:


> So, your premise says that a creative person should get paid for a lifetime for work he has done.
> So, I wonder that if a factory worker making widgets should not get paid for the work already done as long as people are using the widgets that came off of his production line?
> Why should a person that spends a few weeks or months on a project (book, film, music) is expected to earn income for a lifetime whilst an equally hard working laborer or manufacturer only make income for hours worked?


It's simple. It's all about creating as it's an issue of intellectual property. The unskilled laborer in the factory didn't invent or create anything. He's assembling something that someone else created/invented.

The person who created/invented that widget should be able to have a patent on it for their lifetimes just like an author or artists should have copyright on their creations for their lifetime. I'm not very familiar with patent law, but I don't think that's the case currently unfortunately and that they do expire during the inventors lifetime.

So it just comes down to creation. An unskilled laborer didn't create anything. They're just getting paid hourly for manual labor, not inventing and creating something to sell. Thinking they're entitled to the creation would be like suggesting printing press employees should get a cut of royalties from book sales! 

Again it's kind of that capitalist vs. communistic world view thing. I don't view laborers as entitled to anything other than a living wage as they're contributing nothing but labor. The inventors, creators and artists are entitled to profit off their work as they are creating new things and advancing the arts, technologies etc.

If you want those kind of privileges you have to do something with your life beyond just working a crap job that anyone can do.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> It's simple. It's all about creating as it's an issue of intellectual property. The unskilled laborer in the factory didn't invent or create anything. He's assembling something that someone else created/invented.
> The person who created/invented that widget should be able to have a patent on it for their lifetimes just like an author or artists should have copyright on their creations for their lifetime. I'm not very familiar with patent law, but I don't think that's the case currently unfortunately and that they do expire during the inventors lifetime.
> So it just comes down to creation. An unskilled laborer didn't create anything. They're just getting paid hourly for manual labor, not inventing and creating something to sell. Thinking they're entitled to the creation would be like suggesting printing press employees should get a cut of royalties from book sales!
> Again it's kind of that capitalist vs. communistic world view thing. I don't view laborers as entitled to anything other than a living wage as they're contributing nothing but labor. The inventors, creators and artists are entitled to profit off their work as they are creating new things and advancing the arts, technologies etc.


I see you are a fan of Ayn Rand's *Atlas Shrugged*.



mooshie78 said:


> If you want those kind of privileges you have to do something with your life beyond just working a crap job that anyone can do.


Harsh, what about skilled labor or craftsmen?
No wonder people have disdain for artists and intellectuals who hold themselves above the common-man. 
Ditches are important to artists and intellectuals, so should be those that dig them . . . don't you think?

So creators are the ubermensch, superior to others because there handful of good ideas makes them more ambitious then the people cooking there food or building there cars?


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

auge_28 said:


> I see you are a fan of Ayn Rand's *Atlas Shrugged*.


Not at all. This is probably the only area I agree with her. I'm not a libertarian at all and I'm actually quite liberal and support strong social programming, welfare, universal health care and all that jazz.



> Harsh, what about skilled labor or craftsmen?
> No wonder people have disdain for artists and intellectuals who hold themselves above the common-man.
> Ditches are important to artists and intellectuals, so should be those that dig them . . . don't you think?
> 
> So creators are the ubermensch, superior to others because there handful of good ideas makes them more ambitious then the people cooking there food or building there cars?


It's not a matter of superiority. Again it's a matter of having intellectual property that you have the right to profit from. Skilled craftsmen are still providing service and thus are being paid hourly or on a per service basis. They aren't selling creations, so it's just a different way of making a living. Not superior or inferior, just different and iwth it's own compensation system.

Of course unskilled laborers, and skilled craftsmen etc., perform crucial functions for society. And they are compensated for it, and we should ensure they are all paid true living wages (have higher minimum wage), have full health care, have a social safety net behind them to aid in retirement etc.

But the type of work they do doesn't involve inventing things or creating art etc.--and thus they have no intellectual property to copyright/patent and have sole rights to profit on as long as people buy it. And again that's key--a lot of these types are worse off than the laborers as most books, albums etc. don't sell for crap anyway. 

Those who do create things should be the only ones who can sell and make money off their creations during their lifetime. It's their produce and that should be their right. I view it going public domain during their lifetimes and having to watch others profit from their work as in the same vein as a laborer being forced to work without pay.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

How much of creation is luck?

Mark Zuckerberg made billions off of essentially one idea. 

So one person can have one idea and live well for a lifetime without doing anything else while the people around him have to work for several hours to be able to afford whatever manifested from his idea?

Sounds terribly unbalanced to me, I still feel that a creation or idea should merit no more than a decade of income. That should give a “talented” creator long enough to come up with another idea.

I never thought as myself as a socialist, and still don’t even though this topic makes me sound like I am. I do believe in earning your way, but being paid for something you did a lifetime ago seems ridiculous.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

auge_28 said:


> How much of creation is luck?


Doesn't matter they should still have sole right to profit off one's ideas and creations while they're alive IMO.



> So one person can have one idea and live well for a lifetime without doing anything else while the people around him have to work for several hours to be able to afford whatever manifested from his idea?


Life's not fair. Some people are luckier. Some are smarter. Some are more talented/creative. Some are smart and talented but still don't succeed due to bad luck or other factors out of their control. That's just life.

And that's why we need social safety nets etc. as some people fail and struggle through no fault of their own.

But what we don't need, IMO, are laws to punish people who do succeed by forcing their creations into the public domain during their lifetimes.



> Sounds terribly unbalanced to me, I still feel that a creation or idea should merit no more than a decade of income. That should give a "talented" creator long enough to come up with another idea.


Just have to agree to disagree. I can't stomach the thought of someone watching their book or album etc. be sold by other companies for money during their lifetimes any more than I can a laborer being forced to work without pay.



> I never thought as myself as a socialist, and still don't even though this topic makes me sound like I am. I do believe in earning your way, but being paid for something you did a lifetime ago seems ridiculous.


I wouldn't call you the a socialist per se. Just that your notion that people's work should enter the public domain for the common good after only 10 years is an idea that leans that way IMO. Vs. the capitalist view that you work to benefit yourself and make money--maximize pleasure/minimize pain and all that jazz. You're proposing a law that restricts the ability to do that for people who create things rather than just do labor--so it is at the least a socialist/communistic leaning ideal.

Nothing wrong with that, tons of people feel the same as you on that front. Just another area to agree to disagree as we're coming from very different political standpoints here.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> Just have to agree to disagree. I can't stomach the thought of someone watching their book be sold by other companies for money during their lifetimes any more than I can a laborer being forced to work without pay.


I just want to repeat a difference here:
1.	The guy that wrote a book may not have done anything else . . . so he writes a book then gets to sit back on his laurels, yes I know this is rare . . . but for arguments sake.
2.	The laborer has to work every day till he is in his 60's.
We may be arguing in circles here . . . yup, I think we are.



mooshie78 said:


> I wouldn't call you the a socialist. Just that your notion that people's work should enter the public domain for the common good after only 10 years is an idea that leans that way IMO. Vs. the capitalist view that you work to benefit yourself and make money--maximize pleasure/minimize pain and all that jazz. You're proposing a law that restricts the ability to do that for people who create things rather than just do labor--so it is at the least a socialist/communistic leaning ideal.
> Nothing wrong with that, tons of people feel the same as you on that front. Just another area to agree to disagree as we're coming from very different political standpoints here.


I am not even sure I really feel this way . . . I am just trying to think this through for myself and you are helping.

I think we hijacked this thread as nobody else is playing along.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

auge_28 said:


> I just want to repeat a difference here:
> 1.	The guy that wrote a book may not have done anything else . . . so he writes a book then gets to sit back on his laurels, yes I know this is rare . . . but for arguments sake.
> 2.	The laborer has to work every day till he is in his 60's.
> We may be arguing in circles here . . . yup, I think we are.


Definitely going in circles as I already addressed that. Some people get lucky, be it writing a book that sells hugely for decades or winning the lottery and could stop working if they want. Others have to work every day until old age. No one said life is supposed to be fair.

And of course it's not all luck. A person has to have the talent to write a book with that kind of appeal etc., while any one can do most forms of labor. So it's also a supply and demand issue. There's a limitless supply of unskilled labor, and a very large supply of skilled labor/craftsmen. There's only a vert few people who can write a great book that can sell tons, much less sell across generations etc.

Plus most of them keep writing and working on their art for most of their lives anyway as they love doing it. But that doesn't mean they should have to give up their sole rights to profit off early works at least until death IMO.


----------



## Geoffrey (Jun 20, 2009)

auge_28 said:


> I think we hijacked this thread as nobody else is playing along.


It wouldn't be the first time.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> Definitely going in circles as I already addressed that. Some people get lucky, be it writing a book that sells hugely for decades or winning the lottery and could stop working if they want. Others have to work every day until old age. No one said life is supposed to be fair.
> 
> And of course it's not all luck. A person has to have the talent to write a book with that kind of appeal etc., while any one can do most forms of labor. So it's also a supply and demand issue. There's a limitless supply of unskilled labor, and a very large supply of skilled labor/craftsmen. There's only a vert few people who can write a great book that can sell tons, much less sell across generations etc.
> 
> Plus most of them keep writing and working on their art for most of their lives anyway as they love doing it. *But that doesn't mean they should have sole rights to profit off early works at least until death IMO*.


Is the bold portion above a typo?
I thought you were arguing that they SHOULD earn profits for their life time.

Just curious, I think it's almost time you and I put this one to bed . . . its tired . . .


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

Geoffrey said:


> It wouldn't be the first time.


Sorry, I am VERY susceptible to taking tangents.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

auge_28 said:


> Is the bold portion above a typo?
> I thought you were arguing that they SHOULD earn profits for their life time.
> 
> Just curious, I think it's almost time you and I put this one to bed . . . its tired . . .


Yep, typo. went back and fixed it.

And I see no need to apologize. This discussion is directly related to the topic of the thread as views on copyright laws are the basis for opinions on DRM, fair use, lending issues etc.


----------



## Tuttle (Jun 10, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> Doesn't matter they should still have sole right to profit off one's ideas and creations while they're alive IMO.


So according to you free markets shouldn't exist until after the person who came up with the idea is dead? (Or at least, no free market availability of something) Only monopolies exist before the death of the person who got there first?

When you apply this to patent law as well as copyright law then that's what you get.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Tuttle said:


> So according to you free markets shouldn't exist until after the person who came up with the idea is dead? (Or at least, no free market availability of something) Only monopolies exist before the death of the person who got there first?


Well the free market still helps determine what price the book can sell for etc. But no other company should be able to print that book and profit off that author's work without him getting his royalties during his lifetime.

Again, I'm ok if they add in exceptions for things that go out of print for 5 years or more where the author's making nothing off it, and the author should have the right to end the copyright at anytime they want if they want to "donate" their work to the public domain.

But if they right a book that sells throughout their lifetime they should have the right to get their royalties on every copy sold until their deaths (I see no need for it to go 75 years beyond death as currently though, maybe 5-10 years tops to encourage late in life works, posthumous publications etc.).



Tuttle said:


> When you apply this to patent law as well as copyright law then that's what you get.


Well I think the two can be separate. But I already said I thought patents for inventions should go until the inventors death. Though of course a complication as that many patents go to companies rather than individuals. And there are public need exceptions for things like medicine etc. So patent laws and copyright laws should probably be different.

But in any case, art/entertainment is very different than industries like technology, energy, medicine etc.. With those fields advancement of technology, public health and safety etc. can be held back by things not going to the public domain as you're talking technology inventions, medicine etc. There's not the same need to get a book out in the public domain as there is to get a new drug mass produced in cheap generics that people can afford. So patent law can stay different from copyright law IMO.

An author can profit from the book his lifetime, they're cheap enough most anyone can buy--and if not there are libraries etc. If a company is allowed to have sole rights to a drug until the creators death they can sell it a price that has people dying who can't afford it etc. So it's really apples and oranges.

Entertainment and arts aren't essential. They're luxuries and thus more emphasis can be placed on the creators maintaining control to profiting from them that we can allow in other fields like medicine.


----------



## Tuttle (Jun 10, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> But I already said I thought patents for inventions should go until the inventors death.


Yes and that's what I was commenting on. That means that there cannot be free market. That means that we couldn't have a variety of companies building computers today. That there couldn't be a variety of companies building cars. Large numbers of materials couldn't be used by anyone but the person who first came up with it. Do you require everyone flying to pay royalties for their airplane safety devices keeping them safe in the air?

If you even allow the computer in the first place, what about the scrollbar, or the computer mouse? Those would also have monopolies currently.

Windshield wipers became standard on cars in the 1920s, if the patent had lasted for the life time it would have taken 40 more years for that to have occurred. Airbags started becoming common in the 1970s, they otherwise would have taken until only the past few years to be in common use because until then there would have necessarily been a monopoly.

If that's how patent law worked then we'd really be unlikely to have this conversation.

Copyright - 
Something entering public domain upon death of creator or upon 5-10 years out of print makes entire sense. You just can't reasonably apply this to patent law.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Tuttle said:


> Copyright -
> Something entering public domain upon death of creator or upon 5-10 years out of print makes entire sense. You just can't reasonably apply this to patent law.


Agreed, and that's what I clarified in the latter part of my post above. The laws just can't be the same. Arts and entertainments are luxuries. Technology, medicine etc. is related to improving and advancing human society and can have as many protections for creators as we can have with intellectual property in the arts and entertainment arena.


----------



## jello (Dec 31, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> But otherwise, being a raging capitalist and caring little about the common good, I can't abide the thought of any author (or other content creator) having to watch others make money off his work after 10 years when it hits public domain in your scenario. The notion of "cultural property" is just way to communistic an ideal for me to support. Other than helping friends or family, I'm not lifting a finger to do any work that I'm not compensated for, and I don't expect others to do so either. Anyone is free to volunteer or give away their creations, but they shouldn't be forced into it by losing copyright during their lifetime when their work is still selling.


2 points:

First, as a "raging capitalist" you should understand very well that monopolies are very, very bad for capitalism. Our copyright system grants authors exactly that - a monopoly on expression, something that they naturally have no control over. The only reason our system tolerates this monopoly power is to encourage new works to be produced. You're glossing over, at best, that the 'right' of a person to control the spread of their ideas is a one *granted* by society.

Second, you're also glossing over that nothing is created in a vacuum. Every author, artist, film maker, whatever uses all the inputs he has run into from author creators and blends those previous creations into something 'new' from old pieces. As we lock more and more of our culture behind the doors of increasing copyright control you strangle the ability of new artists to continue creation. I've run into dozens of stories of documentary films that either got cut to pieces or were simply never distributed at all because they couldn't get/pay for copyright clearances for incidental things like TVs playing in the background or someone's cell phone having a song as a ring tone.

A big part of the intellectual push-back we're discussing here has to do with that balance. The only reason our founding fathers agreed to allow copyright protections in the first place was to spur creation and ultimately have a robust and vibrant public domain which in turn fuels further creation. The middle step there has been bypassed for nearly a hundred years now and it's only getting worse.


----------



## jello (Dec 31, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> Definitely going in circles as I already addressed that. Some people get lucky, be it writing a book that sells hugely for decades or winning the lottery and could stop working if they want. Others have to work every day until old age. No one said life is supposed to be fair.


Except, again, this is precisely what those who created our copyright system *didn't* want. That's why the original system was 14 years renewable once to 28 years. They wanted authors to have a reason to created (ability to profit from their creation) but they were also supposed to have a reason to *keep* creating, not be able to sit around doing nothing further for society and living off their government granted monopoly.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

I agree everyone draws from other things.  And that can still happen.  There's no reason one can't reference copyrighted material in their own work--all that is required is citing the source material and not trying to pass it off as your own.  And the copyright holder can always give permission for people to use the material upon request as well.

The reason I want copyright to last at least until death is someone that writes a book that keeps selling shouldn't see their rights to it end during their lifetime and have to watch the worthless publishing houses be able to print it at will and make money off it while the author doesn't get their share.  I just can't abide by that or support that model.

And yes I know what the original intent of copyright law was--I just disagree with it for the arts and entertainment.  It should last at least until death for the reason above IMO.  Doesn't need to go the 75 beyond though.  5-10 years beyond is plenty to encourage late in life work and family publishing things posthumously etc.

As I noted earlier, patents are different as there's a risk in social harm in letting patents on things like medicine or technology last until death (which don't exist for luxuries like the arts and entertainments) as well a complications in many patents going to corporations rather than individuals etc.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> The reason I want copyright to last at least until death is someone that writes a book that keeps selling shouldn't see their rights to it end during their lifetime and have to watch the worthless publishing houses be able to print it at will and make money off it while the author doesn't get their share. I just can't abide by that or support that model.


What if I made my model clearer?
After the ten year mark no one is allowed to profit off of the work. If you wanna publish you do so on your dime and cannot sell it for profit. That will leave the work available pretty much on the internet, eBook or being passed around as unbound pages or something similar.
I agree, if something forcibly falls into public domain and someone is making a profit from it that the creator should get his piece . . . why the hell not?
Unless for matters of national security or corporate espionage, knowledge or cultural works should not be hidden or kept secret, and even in matters of corporate and government secrets they should have a realistic time limit as well then made public.

This is merely a philosophical thought experiment and unlikely to come to fruition.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

I have less objections to that.

But I still don't like the notion that the person loses protection over his book or music or movie etc. and anyone can get it freely at that point.

And none of this stuff is ever "secret"  books, cds and movies are pretty cheap.  And people can freely consume then in the library or borrow from a friend (issue with e-books currently though, but not other formats).  So they're already publicly available.  One just can't profit off the work of someone else or try to claim in as their own--but can use parts of it by citing it or getting permission from the copyright holder.  So I just don't get the big deal about public domain for arts/entertainment things personally.

But it's just something we'll go on circles on as I'll never back off my stance that the copyright for arts/entertainments should last at least until death.  So agree to disagree?


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> But it's just something we'll go on circles on as I'll never back off my stance that the copyright for arts/entertainments should last at least until death. So agree to disagree?


Sure, no problem.
As mentioned, I do not have a passion about this. I am nearly completely ignorant of copyright laws, just trying to follow a thought in my head through to the end. 
You make a good point that media is not hidden . . . it's just not completely at our fingertips 24 hours a day (_well, for some of us it is _ . . . ).


----------



## jello (Dec 31, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> I agree everyone draws from other things. And that can still happen. There's no reason one can't reference copyrighted material in their own work--all that is required is citing the source material and not trying to pass it off as your own. And the copyright holder can always give permission for people to use the material upon request as well.


Sorry, but this is just flat incorrect. Outside of an academic context you have to have prior written permission from the copyright holder, and usually that involves paying them a fee or royalty. I can't remember the name of the documentary, but I recall a specific instance where a really good interview had to be dropped because the Simpsons happened to be on a TV in the background and Fox wanted something like 150 thousand dollars to allow distribution. That sort of thing *should* in theory be covered by fair use, but since the fair use system is post-facto (try and see if you win the lawsuit) no distributor will touch anything that doesn't have clearances.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

jello said:


> Sorry, but this is just flat incorrect. Outside of an academic context you have to have prior written permission from the copyright holder, and usually that involves paying them a fee or royalty. I can't remember the name of the documentary, but I recall a specific instance where a really good interview had to be dropped because the Simpsons happened to be on a TV in the background and Fox wanted something like 150 thousand dollars to allow distribution. That sort of thing *should* in theory be covered by fair use, but since the fair use system is post-facto (try and see if you win the lawsuit) no distributor will touch anything that doesn't have clearances.


In that case I stand corrected (I'm an academic so that's the only writing I do).

In that case I agree that fair use laws need expanded-as I've said many times in this thread. I just feel that can be done without forcing things into the public domain during the author or musician etc. lifetime.

But of course their need to be limits on it. A company shouldn't be able to use a song in a commercial or a movie etc. without permission of the copyright holder and paying any requested royalties. But someone making a documentary or something should be able to include snippets of something as long as they clearly reference the source material as that's more or less the same as citing something in an academic context. And news companies shouldn't have to worry about things in the background either, just sourcing any clips they actively put in their stories and articles etc.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

auge_28 said:


> You make a good point that media is not hidden . . . it's just not completely at our fingertips 24 hours a day (_well, for some of us it is _ . . . ).


And there's never been any entitlement for it to be at our finger tips 24 hours a day. The only free media have been over the air TV, radio and non-pay websites.

Art, books, movies, music etc. has always been a paid enterprise that you either paid to consume or had to go to a library, rare free concert, a friends house (or borrow something etc.). Heck in the past most art (and still much today) is commisioned/sold to private citizens and hung in their homes rather than on public display.

So I've never quite understood why many have some entitlement that people should be creating stuff for the public good. That's never been the role of art and entertainment. They've always been luxuries and the lower classes have always had more limited access to contemporary things as they've always been paid enterprises done mostly by people for profit.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> And there's never been any entitlement for it to be at our finger tips 24 hours a day. The only free media have been over the air TV, radio and non-pay websites.
> 
> Art, books, movies, music etc. has always been a paid enterprise that you either paid to consume or had to go to a library, rare free concert, a friend's house (or borrow something etc.). Heck in the past most art (and still much today) is commissioned/sold to private citizens and hung in their homes rather than on public display.
> 
> So I've never quite understood why many have some entitlement that people should be creating stuff for the public good. That's never been the role of art and entertainment. They've always been luxuries and the lower classes have always had more limited access to contemporary things as they've always been paid enterprises done mostly by people for profit.


Always has been does not mean always should be.

This is a philosophical argument based on opinion, which has been raging for centuries or millennia . . . we will not solve it here.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

auge_28 said:


> Always has been does not mean always should be.
> 
> This is a philosophical argument based on opinion, which has been raging for centuries or millennia . . . we will not solve it here.


Fair enough.

It will never be solved though as it's one of those polar opposites things. You either thing people should be creating things at least partly for the public good rather than profit (and thus it's ok to take away their copyright during their lifetimes) or you think artists should always be compensated for their work during their lifetimes unless they themselves choose to give up their rights.

I'm not much for the public good--or at least not forcing people to do things for it. I'm more of an everybody only works for money unless they choose to volunteer or give away their work. Their are some exceptions as noted above with things like medicine and technology where lifetime patients would do too much harm to society to allow. And others like having to pay taxes etc. of course.

But that just doesn't apply to luxuries like the arts and entertainments, which being luxuries are by design solely for profit enterprises. Societies aren't advanced by arts and entertainment. If anything they slow progress as people use them as diversions when they could be doing work to try to improve the world, solve cancer etc. etc.! 

As long as we have reasonable fair use laws (which we don't currently, and that needs to change) there's little harm to the public good by making sure artists get royalties for their work during their lifetimes as long as it's still in demand and selling.


----------



## Tuttle (Jun 10, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> But that just doesn't apply to luxuries like the arts and entertainments, which being luxuries are by design solely for profit enterprises. Societies aren't advanced by arts and entertainment. If anything they slow progress as people use them as diversions when they could be doing work to try to improve the world, solve cancer etc. etc.!
> 
> As long as we have reasonable fair use laws (which we don't currently, and that needs to change) there's little harm to the public good by making sure artists get royalties for their work during their lifetimes as long as it's still in demand and selling.


Because I'm curious, what about when the point is teaching? Books that are either written to make something education interesting, written to make something easier to think about, or are non-fiction. Are those necessarily luxuries too? Is education a luxury? Same thing can apply to other modes of art and entertainment as well, but its easiest to discuss books currently.

(I am actually asking this because I am curious, not to argue)


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Tuttle said:


> Because I'm curious, what about when the point is teaching? Books that are either written to make something education interesting, written to make something easier to think about, or are non-fiction. Are those necessarily luxuries too? Is education a luxury? Same thing can apply to other modes of art and entertainment as well, but its easiest to discuss books currently.
> 
> (I am actually asking this because I am curious, not to argue)


Well that's where taxes come in etc. In public schools the textbooks are provided and you have the school library. College education is a luxury to some extent (and I say that as a profess) as you have to have the money (or be willing to take the loans) if you're not on scholarship to pay for tuition and your books. And there you still have the huge university library with tons of books--but still mostly need to buy your text books and other assigned readings.

But in general--be it textbooks, non fiction, or fiction--that's why we have libraries. So even the poorest can have legal access to them. And I'd argue that we should be spending more money on expanding libraries, keeping their collections up to date etc. It's a great way to expand access to books (and videos and music etc.) while still protecting the creators copyrights.

I'd also argue that we need an extension of fair use rights for teaching purposes--being able to provide students with one chapter of a book etc. That's not cutting sales as we wouldn't assign and have them buy the book to read just one chapter. My university is actually being sued (and fighting back) over that type of fair use issue currently.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

Tuttle said:


> Because I'm curious, what about when the point is teaching? Books that are either written to make something education interesting, written to make something easier to think about, or are non-fiction. Are those necessarily luxuries too? Is education a luxury? Same thing can apply to other modes of art and entertainment as well, but its easiest to discuss books currently.
> 
> (I am actually asking this because I am curious, not to argue)


I have yet to read Mooshies reply, but here's my two cents.

Right or wrong, yes, education is a luxury item or pursuit and always has been.
In medieval times education was only available to clergy and later it was only available to gentlemen of means (read as aristocracy) and in several cultures or faiths was or is not available to women at all.

Education is not a right, it is not promised under the constitution even in this nation (I'm American).


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> And I'd argue that we should be spending more money on expanding libraries, keeping their collections up to date etc.


I agree.



mooshie78 said:


> It's a great way to expand access to books (and videos and music etc.) while still protecting the creators copyrights.


Out of curiosity. . . 
Can you tell me how the library model of _one purchase and several readers _ differs from the piracy model of _one purchase and several readers _?

Is it just a subjective matter of numbers?


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

auge_28 said:


> Out of curiosity. . .
> Can you tell me how the library model of _one purchase and several readers _ differs from the piracy model of _one purchase and several readers _?
> 
> Is it just a subjective matter of numbers?


It's the principle of the matter in some sense. And also the scale. Only one person can have a library copy at a time. A pirated book can spread to multiple people who have it all at the same time etc.

But really it's just the one concession that I think is reasonable to impose on content creators. Basically saying--"Hey, there's a bunch of people who can't afford to buy your book, let's have a system where the government buys it and one person can borrow it at a time." There's still no doubt potential lost sales there still. But I think that's a reasonable "public good" compromise to expect from creators.

And it's part of the reason why I think they should have sole rights to profit and control their work until death. They've already conceded to having fair use availability of their works in libraries etc. (and again I think fair use laws need expanded).


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

Found via Slashdot: On the heels of Publishers Weekly’s report that e-book piracy could be costing the publishing industry as much as $3 billion (which we mentioned here) comes a tongue-in-cheek post by blogger Eric Hellman:
Apparently, over 2 billion books were "loaned" last year by a cabal of organizations found in nearly every American city and town. Using the same advanced projective mathematics used in the study cited by Publishers Weekly, Go To Hellman has computed that publishers could be losing sales opportunities totaling over $100 Billion per year, losses which extend back to at least the year 2000. These lost sales dwarf the online piracy reported yesterday, and indeed, even the global book publishing business itself.
He is, of course, talking about public libraries. 
Even if the figures are questionably derived in both cases, it is still a reminder that library lending is considerably more extensive than e-book downloading—and publishers seem to have considerably fewer problems with libraries than e-books. 
But it also reminds us that if e-books do eventually overtake print books in the mass market, this could have consequences for the ability of libraries to lend.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

That's just typical pirate justification BS.

Libraries are reason not to pirate.  You can get it free anyway.  So then the excuse is down to being to lazy to go to the library, which clearly isn't a justification for committing a wrong.

If the library doesn't carry it, then the excuse of "I could get it free at the library anyway" doesn't fly to justify your piracy in the first place.

It's really a pointless endeavor--it's not justifiable.  People that pirate just need to admit that it's wrong (as you've done) and not bother with any lame attempts at justifications.


Now, as for ebooks and libraries, some already lend e-books, so all we need is for that to continue to expand as ebooks grow in market share and their ability to lend is hampered at all.  It's actually helped as they don't have to worry about books getting lost, damaged etc.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> That's just typical pirate justification BS.
> 
> Libraries are reason not to pirate. You can get it free anyway. So then the excuse is down to being to lazy to go to the library, which clearly isn't a justification for committing a wrong.
> 
> ...


Just to be clear, that post was not an attempt to justify myself, I was just asking your opinion.
I never thought of libraries and piracy before, what's-his-name above said something that put it in my head and I made a fast Google search&#8230;


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

auge_28 said:


> Just to be clear, that post was not an attempt to justify myself, I was just asking your opinion.


Oh I know. That's why I put the (as you've done) to try and make clear that I was responding to the quote you posted rather than you.


----------



## Tuttle (Jun 10, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> Libraries are reason not to pirate. You can get it free anyway. So then the excuse is down to being to lazy to go to the library, which clearly isn't a justification for committing a wrong.


Note: I have been obtaining books for free legally because of an inability to afford them. Lots of books in exchange for reviews or places like Baen free library, or creative commons books, or public domain books.

What about someone in the case like me where they are hypersensitive to most everything in the air? If someone smoked and read a book then I cannot read that book from the library. If someone used too strong of perfume, I can't read that book, if someone read while around cleaners I can't read it. Because in all of these cases I would have a migraine from the book itself.

So should I just not be allowed to use libraries or anything like that that loan books out? Should I currently have a majorly restricted set of books that I'm allowed to read because I happen to graduate at the wrong time? The economy is terrible and with my medical problems (because my headaches are that bad), I have been completely unable to find any work. I can't afford to buy any books, and people generally say then go to the library, but I can't do that either. Should I not be able to read because its a luxury that I'm not being given?

Yes, I'm managing to read, but I'm also giving up a lot of what I'd like to read because of this. I can afford some indies, and can manage to pull together enough for a few of my favorite authors books, but generally I'm having no choice but to stick with what is very cheap or free.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Well that's an isolated and very unfortunate case (and I'm sorry to hear that).  I'd hope for people with such issues the library would be willing to work with their issues and find way to clean books before you get them, move you to the top of lists for new releases so you get them before they get smoke etc. etc.  

One thing that can help you is library lending of e-books expanding in the future hopefully.  That's the easiest solution.  But if the libraries don't start working with Kindle you may want to buy a nook etc.  And of course your at the mercy of your local library on whether they offer it and selection.  But hopefully hearing about your condition would be something that would push them to start offering (or expand) their e-book lending program.

But, as much as your situation is awful, it's still not a justification for piracy. It's never ok to steal/take things without paying for them.  And its good that you're sticking to free and cheap books and not pirating despite your very unfortunate condition.  Hopefully e-book lending will increase rapidly in the coming years and help solve your problem some.


----------



## failch (Feb 23, 2011)

I don't make up excuses for my pirating; the reason I do it is that it IS perfectly ethical to do so. There's no denying
it may be illegal, but it's certainly morally right.

As it's been explained countless times, copying is NOT theft. You are not depriving the owner of its possesion. This is
not a "semantic" distinction; it is the *very reason* why it's unethical to steal.  Suppose you have a bike, and I somehow
had a mechanism to replicate bikes. So I use it on yours and we end up with two of them.  No harm is done to you by
this; I certainly have not stolen the bike from you. Clearly there would be no moral wrong in my cloning the bike. The
only difference between copying bikes and files is that the latter is much easier to accomplish in practice (and that,
in the case of a piece of art of literature, each piece is different, but that has no relevance to me if I have a
machine capable of making copies of all sorts of bikes).  You may try to argue that bike manufacturing companies's profits
might be reduced, but that's beside the point.  Only them are to blame if they are into a business model that is not
profitable for them simply because people have other perfectly ethical ways of getting hold of a bike.

As another example, suppose I learn a poem (or even a whole book) by heart, and recite it later to someone else. How on
earth can someone claim this morally wrong? Once I read it, no one can or should prevent be from retaining the words if I
chose to, or to tell someone about the book I read. Again, the ONLY difference from digital copies is the ease (and
reliability) with which they are made.

So much for the ethical issues of copying. It can furthermore be argued that it is only beneficial to society that as
much information and culture as possible is made freely available. This enables much faster advances and makes learning
and obtaining information much quicker and easier. For example, most of the books I download I don't read entirely, I'm
usually interested in reading some passages or chapters. If I (or my institute) had to acquire them each time I need to
consult them, there would be considerable delays, but fortunately there is no need to. Up to now I've left monetary
concerns aside, but even if no delays were involved many people needing access to this information could not afford to
buy all those books and don't (yet) work for some institute that has them. (I concede this argument is stronger with
regard to scientific or factual writing than to movies or fiction books, but in my opinion a case can be made for
those too).

Of course the authors should have a way of generating revenue for their work.  They still do; for example, I (as well as
many other people) usually end up buying the books or CDs I *really* like (the bound version, for my Kindle I always
download the PDF versions).  But there are other models too; musicians for example make money by giving concerts, and
filmmakers still benefit from people going to the movies. I for one am a researcher, and the output of my work is
research papers. All of them are freely available from my homepage, as they should (even though this is technically an
infringement of the publisher terms, but they are OK with this in practice because they know they would lose this
battle). Many other scientists do the same. And guess what? We still get paid. The fact that it is easily and freely
available is viewed only as an advantage that helps disseminate our work. I'm not claiming to have the solution to all
the problems, in particular I'm not sure what fiction writers should do, but the first step would be to acknowledge that
people are totally within their rights to make free copies of books, and start from there.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

People create, copyright and choose to sell books, albums, movies etc. to make money.  And that is there right.  The public good doesn't apply to arts and entertainment.  These are luxuries, not necessities. The public doesn't have a right to free access to other people's intellectual property.  And anyone that thinks they do is pretty much a communist.

And even that said, we still have libraries etc. where people can freely access information--and that's a perfectly fine compromise.  Access ton the information/arts, but not right to have your own copy of it for free.


----------



## luvmy4brats (Nov 9, 2008)

Let's please keep this discussion civil and dispense with the name calling. I've edited a couple of threads, but I will delete any further posts that resort to name-calling.

If you need to calm down, I suggest taking a walk away from the computer awhile. 

~Luv


----------



## failch (Feb 23, 2011)

I already explained why it is right, but no wonder you don't give a proper reply since you can't refute my arguments.
Again, do you think is it wrong for me to learn a poem by heart and recite it to someone else? If so, I would say it's
you that has "f'ed up morals". If not, how is this different from copying a book or a movie? This would ultimately imply
that the only thing making the latter immoral is just that making the replica is easier, which is absurd.

And learn to read. I specifically said that the public good argument a) did not apply to whether piracy is ethical or
not, but to whether it is beneficial and b) was not as strong in regard to entertainment (how strong, if at all, would 
be open to debate but that's a separate issue and is not important).

Finally, no doubt libraries are great, but they don't have all the books and can't be accessed anytime.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

Memorizing something is fine as you don't own a copy.

The problem with piracy is owning a copy of material that you acquired illegally.  If you memorize a poem, that's fine.  Most poetry is sold in books, and not on a single poem basis.  Few people can memorize a whole book of poems.  Thus if they want to recall them legally, they must buy the book or check it out from the library.

Access to arts, entertainment and information is not a basic human right.  It's a luxury and we should be thankful we even have libraries as there's not obligation to do that IMO.  Those things are luxuries.  If people want access to them they can not fail and life and do something that provides them enough money to afford them.

I couldn't care less if piracy is in any warped sense beneficial.  It's unethical, immoral and illegally and flies in the face of my extremely strong belief that content creators should have as much protection as possible to maximize profits from their works.  If they want to contribute to the public good they are 100% free to choose to give away their works instead of putting them for sale.  Those who choose to make a profit should have their intellectual property and for sale copies of it protected just as strongly as we each defend our own property.


----------



## splashes99 (Aug 11, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> ...It's never ok to steal/take things without paying for them.


That is a VERY bold statement, and for your sake, I hope that people in your life aren't this black and white.

Also, you think it is morally wrong to memorize something and still own a copy of the literature? Really? So if I want to memorize something, I need to check it out from the library?


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

splashes99 said:


> That is a VERY bold statement, and for your sake, I hope that people in your life aren't this black and white.


It is that black and white. It's never ok to steal or otherwise take things without paying for them. Some forms of theft may be slightly more justifiable than others--i.e.s someone starving stealing food--but the act of stealing is still wrong even in that case.

Piracy is always wrong as we're talking luxury items here, not essentials for staying alive.


----------



## failch (Feb 23, 2011)

Well, memorizing a poem by oneself is hard, but I can easily memorize a poem with the help of a sheet of paper: I can
just write it down. I could also type it up and store it as a file in my computer. My point is that there is no real
difference between this and memorizing. Or are you saying that if people had extremely reliable memories, then
memorizing would become wrong? (This is essentially the case, only that we need the aid of a computer to have such good
memories).

In fact, there is no difference between "memorizing" and "owning a copy", unless by copy you mean having the physical
book. If content is all that matters, memorizing is *exactly* the same as owning a copy. There's no way to make a
distinction between the two.


----------



## splashes99 (Aug 11, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> It is that black and white. It's never ok to steal or otherwise take things without paying for them. Some forms of theft may be slightly more justifiable than others--i.e.s someone starving stealing food--but the act of stealing is still wrong even in that case.
> 
> Piracy is always wrong as we're talking luxury items here, not essentials for staying alive.


Disagree on the first paragraph, and on the last, you did not qualify that "Piracy is always wrong" - you said it is "never ok to steal".

If something is "wrong" in every case, then in every case, it should NEVER be done. Starving 4 year old? Tough, stealing is wrong, so don't do it!

Like I said, I hope that the people in your life are more forgiving and understanding of context and nuances than you appear to be. Lying is "wrong" too, but there are white lies which are considered not as bad. Do you tell someone who asks "does this make me look fat" "YES!"? or do you tell them "You know, let's keep looking. I'm sure we can find something more flattering." ?

Also, I am interested in knowing where you come to the conclusion that memorization is only ok if you don't own a copy. Is this a law somewhere? If not, I'm not sure why you are pushing so hard for your moral compass to be accepted by everyone else. Some people see the world more in terms of context and fairness instead of equalness.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

The content isn't all that matters.

You buy a book (real or electronic) not the ideas in it.  The problem of piracy is you get the same e-book (or mp3 album etc.) that is for sale without paying for it.

Buying a book doesn't make you own the content.  You can't type it up and sell it as your own work, or turn it into a movie or play etc. without paying royalties.

The problem of piracy is obtaining a copy of something illegal.  

It's fair use to memorize content, take notes on it, photo copy sections for personal use etc.  It's not fair use to obtain an exact copy of the e-file that's copyrighted and for sale.


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

splashes99 said:


> Disagree on the first paragraph, and on the last, you did not qualify that "Piracy is always wrong" - you said it is "never ok to steal".
> 
> If something is "wrong" in every case, then in every case, it should NEVER be done. Starving 4 year old? Tough, stealing is wrong, so don't do it!


It is still wrong. It's just justifiable so we shouldn't punish that 4 year old. We should get them in state care and somewhere that they are taken care of. But stealing is still technically wrong. That's why we have welfare, food stamps, soup kitchens, social service agencies for kids etc.

There are different degrees of wrongness is what I'm saying.



> Also, I am interested in knowing where you come to the conclusion that memorization is only ok if you don't own a copy. Is this a law somewhere? If not, I'm not sure why you are pushing so hard for your moral compass to be accepted by everyone else.


Huh, I never said that. Memorization is always ok. The issue of piracy is owning a copy of something for sale that you didn't acquire legally. Memorization doesn't fit that bill. The issue with piracy is the property, not the content.

Currently copyright law is murky as it also covers illegal use of the content--plagiarism etc.--as well as acquiring illegal copies. The law needs clarified and given more specificity.

As for arguing morals--that's what we all do. We all have our own moral compasses and express them strongly. I don't expect everyone to share mine, but like anyone else I feel strongly about mine and try to persuade as many people as I can. And in my social life I have absolutely no use for people who don't share most of my morals and values. I have little enough free time as is to be wasting it with people I don't respect.


----------



## failch (Feb 23, 2011)

The e-book is not exactly like the real book. For starters, it doesn't weight or take space. So not everything is
preserved. Anyhow, what if I type up a book and show it to others? They don't get to see the cover but they do get all
the words. And it wouldn't be the "same" e-book that's for sale (neither would a scan anyway). Would that be ok?

Even if I made the exact copy of the e-book I don't see what would be wrong. Would you say there would be something
wrong in my making a precise replica of a bike of yours?

And right, buying a book doesn't allow me to sell it as my own work, because it isn't. But it does allow me to tell others about its content,
right?  How, again, is this different from telling them the exact content word by word?


----------



## mooshie78 (Jul 15, 2010)

I didn't say it was the same as a paper book.

I said the e-book you pirate is exactly the same as the e-book for sale in the Kindle store or any other e-books store.  The mp3 you pirate is the same as the MP3 you can buy from iTunes.

That is the problem of piracy.  You're owning electronic content that is for sale and copyrighted without paying for it.

But I'm just saying it's time to agree to disagree.  I'm done discussing piracy with pirates on this site.  Neither of us is ever going to change our minds so it's just a huge waste of time.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> I didn't say it was the same as a paper book.
> 
> I said the e-book you pirate is exactly the same as the e-book for sale in the Kindle store or any other e-books store. The mp3 you pirate is the same as the MP3 you can buy from iTunes.
> 
> ...


Im lumped in there to . . . , I like talking to you about this.


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

this thread should actually be locked... its tired out and other threads about this have started.


----------



## pidgeon92 (Oct 27, 2008)

mooshie, I read that last statement before it was removed, and I would like to remind you (and everybody else) that no one is forcing you to participate in any threads that make you uncomfortable. 

Self-restraint is a quality that seems to be lacking in a lot of posts in this thread. People can disagree and still be civil, let's try it.


----------



## Tuttle (Jun 10, 2010)

mooshie78 said:


> It is still wrong. It's just justifiable so we shouldn't punish that 4 year old. We should get them in state care and somewhere that they are taken care of. But stealing is still technically wrong. That's why we have welfare, food stamps, soup kitchens, social service agencies for kids etc.


That assumes that the governments agencies actually are usable by the people who need help. I know people who qualify for basically EVER type of government assistance and get NONE of them. Those people who should be getting food stamps don't. I won't say that stealing isn't wrong; stealing is wrong, but making someone starve because you assume that the government will help them is also wrong.



> If people want access to them they can not fail at life and do something that provides them enough money to afford them.


While I'll think that most of your arguments make sense. This one is only insulting. I'm sorry that I have medical issues and that my health insurance refuses to let me go through the diagnosis to qualify for disability. I'm sorry that I graduated at a bad time with an economy that is terrible. I'm sorry that I have had absolutely no way to make money, despite the fact that this has been my primary goal for the last year, seeing as this makes me "fail at life" and not deserve the ability to actually read and do one of the few things that keep me from feeling like a complete failure. You should NOT tell me or anyone else that they just fail at life because they've had a harder time than you do. You're lucky to not need to worry about things that others have to worry about on a day to day basis.



> As for arguing morals--that's what we all do. We all have our own moral compasses and express them strongly. I don't expect everyone to share mine, but like anyone else I feel strongly about mine and try to persuade as many people as I can. And in my social life I have absolutely no use for people who don't share most of my morals and values. I have little enough free time as is to be wasting it with people I don't respect.


Once again an extreme generalization. Large numbers of people don't care what others believe as long as they're not actively hurting people. I don't expect ANY of my friends to have the same morals as me. I don't expect ANYONE period of have all the same morals as me. I expect them to respect my choices and me to respect theirs. I expect drastic differences to be discussed respectfully rather than argued as the other person being someone who isn't worthy of my respect. Especially because they ARE worthy of respect. Even someone who has drastically hurt someone who I am close to is worthy of my respect unless they prove to me that they don't deserve it until they grow up.

-
Something that might be interesting to discuss if the conversation continues:

Would someone scanning in a book be acceptable? Would someone getting a scan of a book that they own done by a friend of theirs be acceptable? What are the cutoffs in your mind?


----------



## auge_28 (Oct 3, 2010)

Tuttle said:


> Something that might be interesting to discuss if the conversation continues:
> 
> Would someone scanning in a book be acceptable? Would someone getting a scan of a book that they own done by a friend of theirs be acceptable? What are the cutoffs in your mind?


This is actually being talked about now over here: http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,53796.0.html


----------



## Elk (Oct 4, 2010)

failch said:


> As it's been explained countless times, copying is NOT theft. You are not depriving the owner of its possesion.


This argument fails because it ignores what the copyright holder owns.

The copyright is in the content - the words, music, video - that is, the owner possesses intellectual _property_. Copyright grants the owner exclusive the exclusive right to duplicate the content. This is a property interest that can be bought, sold, traded, licensed. It is a possession.

When an illicit copy is made there is a misappropriation - a theft, a taking - of content that does not belong to the thief. Piracy is a taking of property - it just happens not to be physical property.

Thus we have theft of trade secrets, identity theft, etc. None of these thefts require a taking of something physical. That is, property rights exist in things beyond just the physical world. Thus the term, "intellectual property."

Your bike example is irrelevant as it is an apples and oranges comparison. The ownership interest there is in the physical manifestation of the bike, not in the design or ideas from which the bike was made. Thus it is OK for you to make a physical copy for yourself. With a book or recording, the copyright ownership interest is in the content - not in its physical manifestation.

Thus, there are two possible forms of theft of a CD. First, you can still the CD itself from its rightful owner. Second, you can steal the content from the copyright holder.


----------



## failch (Feb 23, 2011)

My argument doesn't ``fail''. You're just repeating that copying a movie violates intellectual
property and is therefore illegal. We all know that. The question is WHY it should be illegal.
And the standard reply is ``because it's theft'', but it's not. You haven't presented an argument
for this, only stated the current situation.

``Identity theft'' is different. Sure, we could argue all day about whether it fits te definition of
``theft'' or not but this is a matter of words and is irrelevant. The reason it's not acceptable is
that it's fraud and causes harm to other people such as the victim. There's nothing wrong in my
copying a movie, and it is not fundamentally different in any way as, say, remembering the script I
saw.

The bike example is perfectly relevant. If you don't like it, replace the bike with a motorcycle or
anything requiring significant design ideas.


----------



## Ann in Arlington (Oct 27, 2008)

Welcome back, failch. 

But I'm going to lock this thread. . .it was started in January, went on for 10 pages into mid-February and then faded. . .the topic has been discussed quite often. . .people have differing opinions on the nuances of the issue and minds are rarely changed. There's not a lot of point in re-opening an 8 month old thread on a topic that's been done to death many times.

Look around, though! There are a lot of OTHER _current_ discussions. . .especially about the new Kindles. Enjoy!


----------

