Re: NY Times Ethicist Condones Ripping Off E-books

Beth,

Thank you for that considered assessment of the points made, and the difficulties in reconciling them. 

There are, as you are seeing, two aspects. The moral [I don't use ethical because it is what anyone thinks is  right; there is no stable 'ethical' principle] is simple. If a person creates something it is theirs; they don't even have to let anyone know about it. Through copyright there is a legal contract which says 'let us know and we [the state; the people] will respect your ownership and give you the right to set the terms we may use it on'. That is achieved by the control of copies [misleadingly referred to as a 'monopoly'].

As part of th contract there is a term decided from time to time. This has ranged, since 1710, between seven years and life plus 70 years.

In practical terms this poses problems, and you neatly illustrate some of those, like photocopying. Mary points out that there are differences between UK and US law - ending neatly with a comment on the enforcement of law!

Chris has presented the case for the effects of new technology and has leant towards the 'we can so we should be allowed to argument'. What I am really arguing with Chris is that the internet has removed the geographical barriers to individual copyright interpretations.

Since even the US has now signed up to Berne, we need to gather at the Berne position [much closer to my description] and then discuss our way to the realities of the new technology.

I don't know if Chris accepts that it is necessary to pay the creator. But there is no way time can be found to create, if that time is need for earning bread, if a practical and working payment system is not in place and enforced.

I know of no system that will achieve that other than control of copies.

The problem, more wit h digital technology than any before, is that any movement away from that control offers a loophole through which the whole earnings system can leak away.

So, for  example, you will, without fear of any problem, photocopy what you like, but there is no reason to actually acknowledge that in law, or in any formal way. To do so moves from 'if I can photocopy I can print it', and from a page or two to the whole book - this is incidentally the Google strategy.

You might note that the UK has just passed a Bill [shortly to be signed into law by the Queen] which attempts to tackle the downloading of music illegally [among many other digital issues]. France and Germany are becoming quite hostile to the US over the Google fiasco of theft of copyright [while it may strictly be civil breach of copyright, it looks to me like conspiracy to defraud - which is criminal].

China has raised its hackles over the issue and many other nations are commenting unfavourably. Many of these are your necessary allies. Are you really going to claim to be the only ones in step? The object of Berne was to have a common basic approach, and there is WIPO, the international body which tries to ensure Berne is alive to needed changes.

So there is no easy answer to your questions, Beth. It is a matter of continuing the process in the US of joining the rest of the world in copyright, and then arguing for those things you think need changing. Any other way is anarchy.

I hope Chris will comment too, since you have made it possible to make a fuller discussion than normally takes place.

Joseph

From: "Beth Young" 
> This debate is intriguing.  Even though I've never purchased or created a
> pirated e-book and don't plan to start, I found Chris' reasoning
> persuasive.  But I want to be sure I completely understand Joseph's
> arguments, too.
> 
> Chris, but it seems to me that your argument is based on the premise that
> consumers are buying content, not physical form.  If I buy a hardback novel,
> I buy the story; how I choose to read the story is up to me.  I could ask my
> sweetheart to read it out loud to me, I could read it silently to myself, I
> could photocopy it and read the photocopy in the tub, I could scan it and
> read it on my phone.  As support for this view, you mention the court
> decision about music--same principle, different physical form.
> 
> Joseph, at first I thought you were saying, "It's ok for music because of
> the court case, but it's not ok for something else."  But as I reread your
> message, I think maybe you're saying something different.  You're saying
> that consumers purchase the material object and have no right to transform
> it into another material object without permission.  A cd is already a
> digital file, so there's no real difference between listening to it on your
> cd player or on your hard drive--but if that cd contained (for example),
> software that prevented us from listening on our computers, we would have no
> right to tamper with those restrictions, because it was clear the seller
> hadn't given us that right. Do I have that right?
> 
> Calling on "contract" might settle the legal question, but it doesn't really
> settle the ethical question.  Chris is merely viewing the implied contract
> differently--as a contract to access the content.  If Chris and Joseph enter
> into a contract but they each have a different idea of what the contract
> means, we can't say that Joseph's view is automatically more ethical because
> he is the seller.
> 
> Thinking about how someone could personally use a rapid book scanner, if
> such a thing existed . . . I can think of a few possibilities:
> 
> * switch formats while reading a single book (p-book at the beach, in the
> tub; e-book on a plane, in bed, in large font for glasses-free reading)
> 
> * switch formats for scholarly books (or cookbooks, or textbooks, or
> reference books)  (write comments in the margins of the p-book; use computer
> to quickly locate passages in an e-book, or to accurately copy quotes from &
> insert into articles or emails)
> 
> * make a portable e-copy for travel (e.g., traveling with textbooks while
> teaching online classes; putting guide to theme park on small device for use
> inside the park; bringing to store when buying materials/ingredients for a
> project in the book)
> 
> * make an e-copy when when the e-copy isn't available in a usable format
> (e.g., e-book only available in Kindle format but you don't have a Kindle,
> so you buy the p-book and scan it into whatever format)
> 
> 
> Chris's argument would mean all of these are ethical uses, if I understand
> things right, and Joseph's argument would mean all of these are unethical.
> 
> It's hard to see how a legal prohibition on all these uses would be the
> right balance of interests, though.  For example, switching formats of
> scholarly books would make research easier and potentially more accurate.
> Switching formats while reading a single book could allow people to finish
> books more quickly and potentially buy more books, too.  etc.
> 
> Of course I say this as someone who has happily purchased the Beatles' White
> Album in multiple formats!
> 
> Joseph, would you also find it unethical to use photocopies for some of
> these purposes?  e.g., you're traveling to Helsinki but don't want to drag
> the whole Fodor's guide with you, so you photocopy the restaurant pages and
> bring those.  Or, you're making a complicated recipe and photocopy the
> recipe so as not to risk the glossy photos in the original.  Or, you're
> making a project from one of those Sunset books and photocopy the materials
> page to bring to the store, rather than writing out a separate list and
> maybe making a mistake.  If your argument is premised on the idea that you
> bought the book and can't change its format, I guess the answer is that
> photocopies are unethical too.
> 
> I hope this email doesn't anger anyone . . . I am thinking out loud but of
> course would never steal.
> 
> Beth
> 
> 
> On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 6:24 AM, joseph harris <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
>> From: "Robotech_Master"
>> > And in a somewhat more balanced frame of mind:
>> >
>> >
>> http://www.teleread.org/2010/04/06/p-books-to-e-books-the-ethics-of-downloading-and-the-legality-of-scanning/
>> >
>> > --
>> > Chris Meadows aka         | WWW: http://www.terrania.us      | Somebody
>> > Robotech_Master           | ICQ: 5477383  AIM: RoboMastr     | help, I'm
>> > [email protected] | Skype, LJ-Gizmo: Robotech_Master | trapped
>> in
>> > [email protected]        | Facebook: Robotech.Master        | a sig
>> file!
>>
>> Chris,
>>
>> I can't imagine that you and I are ever going to agree on this, but are you
>> seriously supporting this set of arguments.
>>
>> The court decision quoted deals specifically with music in digital media;
>> it is not about all media, nor is it about approving the obtaining of fresh
>> copies of the files. It deals simply with the issue of how you utilise a
>> digital music file that you legitimately own; and then it must assume that
>> you have not agreed, in the contract of purchase, to other terms.
>>
>> There is a simple issue of contract, by the way.
>>
>> Here (UK) the issue of copying print content was dealt with very early in
>> the existence of Xerox copying machines; it is against copyright law - of
>> course this was before the US joined the rest of the world in Berne. The
>> question was exactly the same; what have you purchased. The answer is you
>> have purchased a single copy with no further rights to publish more copies,
>> or cross media, or even get  paperback free if you bought the hardback.
>>
>> Now it may be hard for the US traditionalists to understand that the net
>> has thrust us all into each other's laps. And since most everything can be
>> made a digital file the potential for taking without payment or respect to
>> law is great.
>>
>> Suggesting that, because you have paid for a copy of something, you are
>> automatically entitled to get other copies that have been stolen,  is
>> ethical correctness gone mad.  I always rear up when I hear the word ethics
>> or ethical - I know it is going to be an attempt to justify why the morals
>> of millenia should be ignored. Truly, here, I was not disappointed -
>> unfortunately.
>>
>> Far from being 'reasoned', it is merely a verbose extension of Cohen's
>> 'permission to steal'. Verbose because the writer hopes the point will be so
>> confused by the verbiage that none will argue against.
>>
>> It is simply an attempt to justify the 'I want, I take' philosophy. Whether
>> the law should sensibly be rewritten in light of technical changes is
>> something worth discussing - internationally.
>>
>> While many think the whole publishing scene is now settled into a brave new
>> world, the truth is the changes have not even finished raising the dust.
>> That other crutch for the taking argument, 'I can so I will', would not be a
>> good principle to encourage elsewhere.
>>
>> The plethora of devices and formats is not a problem created by the
>> publisher or author - why punish them for the actions of others? Because it
>> is easy?
>>
>> 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 cheQuese it is easy
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 
> -- 
> Beth
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> 
> 
> 


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

------------------------------------------------------
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/