Re: book piracy, law, morality and copyright history (was What kinds of Books are pirated and made into EBooks?)

>From: "Erica Frank" 
>On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 4:52 AM, joseph harris <[email protected]> wrote:
>...........
> I have some potential quibbles over the history of
>copyright (I don't use the term to refer to conditions before 1710, no
>matter how well-supported by the church), 
........

I am always most concerned when the straightforward history line of copyright is questioned. The frequent error is to assume the 1710 Act placed limitation on a previously free situation. There is also, too often, failure to appreciate that education and readerships, of the sorts familiar now, are not much more than a century old.

The basic argument now, about rules for copying, has sprung up in variations with every technological breakthrough in copying methods, starting with Gutenberg.

However a lot of your arguments circle around moral issues; this is not the place to argue those in depth. Nonetheless they are the elephant in this particular room.

............
>
>Much of my disagreements stem from the length of current copyrights,
>gradually increased from "time to likely make a profit" to "time for
>blockbuster creations to wring every shred of profit out of the
>public."

This has nothing to do with the issue of copyright observance. There are ways of arguing this legally and democratically. The slowness or difficulty of resolution is not a permit for ignoring; slowness and difficulty are features of democracy. I'll argue publishing of written matter. While there is broad similarity, sound and vision have considerable differences in business model, and i nthe nature of control of the industries. Book publishing is more truly the 'small man's' industry.

Issues of corruption are, in my opinion, failures by citizens to pay ettention to their democracy. And I speak as one who has taken very active part in political activity which did change policies of government - and more than once.

>
>> First Xerox offered a very easy way round this with the photo-copying machines [though not
>> their first ones ;-)]. This was stamped on and this is now policed by industry organisations.
>
>And yet Xerox copies abound. 
...........
This has long been a clear matter and the courts have ruled on it. In the early Xerox days bulk copying took place - the torrent of its day. Few doubt that they will be sat on for that. Individual copying comes down to honesty and trust.

. and right
>now, *nobody* understands the limits of copyright law.

a) not true; most people have no doubt that if it is not theirs they should pay. Conspirators try to draw people into the torrents and other routes, just as smokers feel better if others join them.
b) once reminded or given clarity most people observe copyright (from substantial anecdotal evidence).

>
>[insert six-page entirely tangential rant about fanfiction here]

One of the most interesting discussions on this for me was with a fanfic writer. I have great sympathy for those impelled to give the characters and worlds of others different lives. However, that does not entitle them to make anything they write as a derivative public, even less to sell it, if the author does not want it done. Any such entitlement would draw in those seeking to make a quick buck on the backs of and to the detriment of original thinkers.

Most authors do object; a few turn it to part of their business model. Few would be able to operate that way, and it would apply only to limited areas of fiction anyway.

>
>> The internet and the digital file offers a new easy copy system. This is in process of
>> being stamped on, and for the same reasons as before, and under the same
>> understandings about invention and culture.
>
>The stampings will be ineffective as long as various types of copying
>fall into the same legal niche. Right now, there's no legal difference
>between someone who places 500 currently-being-sold ebooks into the
>torrent network, someone who does the same with scans of out-of-print
>comics from a bankrupt company, and someone who copies a dozen
>publisher-released freebie ebooks from her hard drive to her friend's
>hard drive.

After some years of intense arguing in various places on this I just cannot agree with your take on it. All that is going on now is defining what copies are part of distribution process, and what the purchase of a single copy entitles one to do with it. 'For personal use only' certainly offers clarification of intent. From there the issue will be intent or motivation, something the courts are well used to arguing.

And there is no legal difference between the first two examples you offer because both are breaches of copyright. The orphan argument is merely crying for a licence to 'steal', in colloquial and moral terms. The third is easy to distinguish, and early version software to do so *is* in use; or at least, the other way round, specific material may be compared against a database. A full system may need government funding; and laws are pointless without the power to apply them.

.....
>"Illegal" copying is what local law says is illegal. (Not every nation
>is a member of the Berne convention.) And right now, it's unclear what
>illegal copying is.

Erica, this is no argument at all; the UK is, the US is. In any case 'Since almost all nations are members of the World Trade Organization, the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights requires non-members to accept almost all of the conditions of the Berne Convention.

As of September 2008, there are 164 countries that are parties to the Berne Convention.' [from Wikipedia]. That leaves the Darfurs!

It is perfectly clear what illegal copying is, but it is an area easy to obfuscate.

>
>I have a Sony Reader, three computers (two desktops & a laptop), a
>Clie PDA, and a Rocketbook. I also have a couple of portable drives
>used for backups. Can I legally copy the same ebook to each of them?
>Can I then loan one of them out to a family member? A friend? Can I
>log into the computer from another location, and read that
>way--without downloading anything? Can I let someone else log into it?

Like the answers aren't obvious!!! While you hold a copy for your own use in any way you have no entitlement to loan it out, neither legal nor moral. This is just obfuscation. We are approaching the point where it might be easiest to hold all such material in a memory stick of some sort, that can be fitted to all devices. 

>
>At which point does a copy become illegal? More importantly: *where
>can I find the law* that tells me at which point copying becomes
>illegal? How can I *know* which of my copies is legal, and which is
>not?

Obfuscation again. This obviously concerns both straight issues and DRM and other restriction arguments. The discussions for each are different. For example with Kindles the restrictions are part of the terms for the machine, and separate from copyright mattrs.

>
>If converting and copying a book to my Rocketbook to let my daughter
>read it is illegal (which seems to be what some of the ebook stores I
>buy from are saying), and potentially subject to a fine of $150,000,
>then why should I mind uploading hundreds of ebooks across the torrent
>networks? (I don't do this. I can parse a difference between the two
>acts, even if the law can't.)

HUH? The one in no way follows from the other. Again this is US-centric, where the registration requirement is an attempt to destroy Berne in the US by a reluctant legislature. No other country has a problem. In any case *each act of copying* is subject to the fine, and each day of continuance. Torrent sites could be fined for trillions of dollars. There is also a question of conspiracy, which introduces criminal law.

>
>These words are being copied across dozens, perhaps hundreds of
>servers. Can I say, as author of them, "AOL's servers are not
>permitted to carry my words?" Can I, a year from now, contact Yahoo
>and insist they remove all copies of my words from their servers, or
>sue them for each copy that can be found?

It is well understood; the courts are beginning to define this - they are simply distribution copies. More rules for their control may be needed. But that would affect only the server owners. Purpose plays a large part in determination. 

>
>Computers have *broken* the basic premises on which copyright law is
>founded: the concept that copying takes valuable resources, that
>making a copy is an act of effort. Copies are never going to be harder
>to make; that's not the direction technology goes.

They make no difference whatsoever to the basic premise; the originator controls copying. All that these arguments make clear is that to keep copyright will require much stricter versions of supporting laws, and draconian methods of enforcement. Not desireable, but an inevitable response to the breakdown of moral agreement.

>
>To make sure creators (and publishers who find, edit & promote them)
>get paid, we'll have to find methods other than "punish everyone who
>makes copies in ways that weren't easily available 80 years ago."

Very political; 'hey it's sooo antiquated'! The methods weren't easily available just ten years ago. The digital file for printing is not more than a few decades old either. Technology has been changing for centuries, bringing new challenges regularly. It seems to me an extraordinary arrogance to think we are the first to advance in these terms. It seems we regress in social terms.

>
>> The reason is very simple to understand. They are the principles on which society can
>> operate. Without observance of them society falls apart.
>
>We may have some agreement here. We are at a cusp point: the
>foundations of industry and communication have had drastic changes,
>and our legal system is trying to catch up to them. In some places,
>it's applying a framework that no longer fits our world.

Democracy is a slow beast; the challenges are very new. My fear is that the views you are supporting here will cause very draconian responses, as part of the new feudalism.

>
>> This is easy to understand if one realises they are really extensions of
>> a simple four letter word - trust. Our daily lives are only possible is we are able to trust.
>
>*cough*

Hmmm.  ;-)  How do you propose to live your current life without trust? How much do you actually take for granted? Try a diary for a day or two - see how much you trust other people and organisations and manufacturers to be honest and trustworthy. And how little you would get done if you had to check everything and question everybody.

A lot of that is based on laws; all of which were argued and protested against. Underpinning it is the moral elephant.

>
>> The moment trust is broken suspicion steps in. Thus Bill, the sower of winds, is someone
>> we cannot trust. If he will take books which do not belong to him, and for which he has no
>> permission to do so, what else will he take just because he wants it?
>
>It depends on what ethics Bill is using when he "takes" those books.

And that is the point.

Ethics are merely a representation of what rules a person chooses for themselves. They have no basis, they can be changed at any time, and there is no authority to appeal to about them. They are not agreed, except by Bill (in this example).  A thief's 'ethics' are 'I take what I want.'  

Whenever I hear 'ethics' I know I am about to have my pocket rifled.

>Does he believe he has the right to grab anything he has the power to
>get (which would indeed be frightening)? Or does he believe 
..........?

Speculation - or actually not. He made it clear; he likes to take.

>
>Knowing *why* he is making unauthorized copies is a big part of
>figuring out how to stop him--or more importantly, the thousands like
>him who don't bother to speak up on ebook forums.

LOL I haven't seen any arguments that don't resolve to 'I want, I take'. 

>
>Yelling at Bill will get him to shut up. He may leave the board. If
>someone were particularly clever, perhaps his IP address could be
>traced and he might be sued for copyright infringement (although I
>doubt that). But that won't fix the actual problem. To make progress
>towards getting authors & publishers paid what they're due, they/we
>will need to understand why people who would never steal a candy bar
>will happily download 50 ebooks from Mediafire.

Bill has been open about what he does; to that extent I don't criticise. And whether he shuts up or not makes no difference to the discussion, which is some years old. 

However, I object to your unsupported assumption that those who breach copyright obey every other law and are moral at all other times. Psychology is against you and the idea that copyright is the only law any individual doesn't like is stretching my credulity.

>
>And the goal should be, "get authors & publishers paid," not, "punish
>the ones who make unauthorized/ illegal copies." If punishing the
>rulebreakers helps, that's great--but if punishing them doesn't
>increase the likelihood of payments in the future, it's pointless.

This is not the argument that concerns me. Download by A is not the same as A being a paying customer. The sequence effects are exceedingly complex chains, and the underpin is the moral dimension. Either there is trust or the whole social order crumbles. As I said: law or Mad Max. It is hard enough to maintain law when trust is high; without it...

......
>When the law is placed in the service of the wealthy and powerful to
>the detriment of the poor and oppressed, I'm on the Mad Max side of
>things.

Never, ever, is this an argument that relates to copyright. The corruptions of the system, which are glaring, are very serious issues. I have fought many of them one way and another. I hope to produce my book, on the areas that need addressing for the future of society, in a year or thereabouts. 

Marion pointed out for copyright there are six conglomerate publishers in US, tens - if not hundreds - of thousands of small publishers, and, I add, millions of aspiring authors.  To think you hit the big publishers by ignoring copyright is actually to drop those small businesses and individuals who truly rely on copyright in the cesspit.

>
>Which doesn't mean I think copyright law is entirely doing that--but I
>believe parts of it are. Big companies get away with copyright
>infringements that they sue individuals for, because suing for
>infringement was designed to be done at a corporate level. False DMCA
>takedown notices are almost impossible to prosecute, regardless of how
>much damage they do. Copyright law supports the right to put DRM on
>digital content, but many corporations are unwilling to release
>content without the DRM, even if the authors request it--proving that
>the purpose of DRM is not "to prevent unuathorized copies," but to
>limit the end-user's rights and expectation of rights to manage their
>purchases.

Look, Erica, when I accuse you of obfuscation, it is exactly this kind of thing I mean. Deep pockets can use anything to get their way. The problem you point to has nothing to do with copyright itself.  It is an issue of the corruption, specially of Congress. We in the UK had been  fairly free of corruption directly i n the political process, though in the past thirty or so years it has been galloping in.

DRM is a quite separate issue. It is a choice of rights holder whether they try to defend their right by using it or not. It is not an issue of copyright law. As I point out above, with the reading devices any DRM is a matter of contract,a different set of laws.

As to big companies getting away with murder (sometimes literally), that is precisely why I detest Google. 

>
>And heh, that's before we get into the whole "remix culture" tangle of issues.
>
>I'm in favor of laws--that serve the people in their countries. Not
>laws that serve whatever organizations have the most money & political
>power.

Copyright serves people far more than it serves the feudalist corporations. That is why Google wants to destroy copyright law by deep-pocketing the courts. The corporations can control what they want with money, whatever the law. For individual and small company writers and publishers copyright law is all we have.

Joseph

Joseph Harris - Debt Control Man
http://www.controlyourdebtcrisis.co.uk
Author: Control Your Debt Crisis on Your Own Terms
http://twitter.com/debtcontrolman 
SAQ - SAve the cheQue


------------------------------------

------------------------------------------------------
Post a message:   ebook-community [[at]] *
Unsubscribe:      ebook-community-unsubscribe [[at]] *
Switch to digest: ebook-community-digest [[at]] *
Switch to normal: ebook-community-normal [[at]] *
Put mail on hold: ebook-community-nomail [[at]] *
Administrator:    ebook-community-owner [[at]] *

(* == yahoogroups.com)
-------------------------------------------------------Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ebook-community/

<*> Your email settings:
    Individual Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ebook-community/join
    (Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
    [email protected] 
    ebook-community-fullfeatured-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    ebook-community-unsubscribe-hHKSG33TihhbjbujkaE4pw@public.gmane.org

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/