Re: NY Times Ethicist Condones Ripping Off E-books

From: "Christopher R. Maden" 
> joseph harris wrote:
>> The moment you exampled DVDs I realised you were trying to apply the
>> situation in one industry to another. Books are not comparable in
>> that way at all. Few people read a book twice. For that reason any
>> distribution against the contract of purchase is a loss to the
>> author; it is also straight breach of contract.
> 
> What?  If anything, the way in which movies and books are different
> suggests that copying books should be *more* OK.

Having already pointed out my interpretation of your thinking, I read on with interest...

> 
> If I am only going to read a book once, and I have bought one copy of
> the book, does it matter what other copies I make in order to complete
> my project of reading it?  If I want a paperbook for the bedside, a
> Kindle copy for the beach, a printout of a single chapter for the tub?

Why, you poor chap. can't carry a copy around like your parents did? What you ***want*** is a question of ambition, what you contract for is a question of law and trust. How many times and in how many places you might read the book is irrelevant.

> I am going to buy one copy and read it once; how do the copies affect
> the author’s income?  

Give me a minutiae of the care you take, the precise nature of your copying, the record you have of copies, your guarantee that nothing you do will in any way affect any sale now or in the future and I might be able to make a sufficient assessment to answer such a straw man question.  

Obviously you cannot appreciate the difficulty in couching laws to do very specific things, without those laws also permitting the undesireable. You might also not understand the rule of unintended consequences. On, but, I forgot, you don't want to wait for a change in law, or appreciate the nature of contract.

 Conversely, in the old world, if I wanted to see a
> movie twice, I would have to pay admission twice.  The experiential
> billing there suggests that I ought to pay for every new format or
> experience in which I want to consume the movie.

Christopher, I think there is a major problem in your thinking that comes from not understanding enough of the situations you example. If you go to a cinema to watch a film you are paying for lot more than the film. If you buy a film to watch at home you are paying for a lot more than  the film itself. Even if you pay only for a copy the film itself yoiu are paying towards the work of somethng in the nature of 1,000 individuals, and many more in a a lot of major films. 

Perhaps you do feel justified in spitting in all their faces with such contempt for the whole process. Certainly if this view becomes prevalent there will no longer be the money to make new films, and millions more will join the dole queue. What you are saying is that you do not see why you should pay.

And by the way, even in the new world you can go to a cinema to watch a film. And if you go back to watch it again, you have to pay again.

> 
> I completely agree with you about the breach of contract issue.  This is
> why I mostly use Free or Open Source Software; I try to abide by
> contracts to which I am a party, and choose not to enter into contracts
> I find unacceptable.

Very good. But that also means you are not entitled to take what is not yours, however much you dislike the contract. And don't now try to tell me that the business of software is similar to book publishing, even ebook. The differences are very substantial.

> 
> However, increasingly, it seems to me that your arguments devolve to:
> This is against the law, and is therefore wrong.  The law has itself
> been wrong in the past, and will likely be wrong in the future.  An
> assertion that the law is currently correct must be backed up by more
> than repetition that it is the law.

None of which permits you to break a law that is extant. But I have made clear that my bigger issue is a question of morality and trust. I am sorry if you pay scant regard to that. I have been discussing this area for some years and on other lists I have put out a challenge to those who do not like the term in modern copyright law [and please remember that America lags behind the rest of the world in this] to offer a logical and clear argument for any term. I have no particular position on it, but simply note how many have worked on this matter for about 150 years.

In the same way, I ask you what your logical and detailed change would be. As it happens I am not wedded to any particular method, only save that it must work. By work I mean that the artist gets paid. I have been given no indication that any system better than copyright has been put forward. 

> 
> I am put in mind of a delightful incident at the SanFranMusicTech summit
> a few years ago, at which a speaker, defending historical copyright,
> came *this* close to calling Mike Godwin a Nazi.  The speaker did
> compare him to slaveowners, but not actually godwin Godwin.  Ah, well.
> 
> ~Chris
> -- 
> Chris Maden, text nerd  <URL: http://crism.maden.org/ >
> “Four freedom boxes: / Soap, ballot, jury, ammo. /
> Use in that order.” — haiku after Ed Howdershelt
> GnuPG Fingerprint: C6E4 E2A9 C9F8 71AC 9724 CAA3 19F8 6677 0077 C319


Clearly you venerate Mike Godwin, but I am afraid I have no idea quite what you mean by this. Since it seems you are trying to put words or attitudes in my mouth I assume you have no actual argument to present. 

And again let me point out that the incident you reference was at a mucic summit. I am concerned about book publishing. If you have changes to propose to the law then please offer the arguments which both explain those changes, and which indicate how the continuation of contribution to culter and invention would operate. 

How would the creator [and there are very, very, very many different types of creator] be in a position to continue to contribute; how would be be suported; how would he be able to market and write at the same time; and how would he be able to research with no money coming in; and how would he be able to edit his work; and how would he be able also to make technical preparation... -and for he please read she or he.

But then, maybe you already understand all this.

Joseph




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

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