Re: NY Times Ethicist Condones Ripping Off E-books

From: "Christopher R. Maden"
> joseph harris wrote:
>> Nothing you say above justifies stealing written works - nor actually
>> anything else.
> 
> ARGH!  It’s not stealing!  It’s copyright infringement, and there is an
> important difference.
> 
> Stealing deprives someone else of their own possession: if I steal your
> car, not only do I have an ill-gotten car, but you no longer have your
> car.  If I copy your book: YOU STILL HAVE YOUR BOOK.  I have an
> ill-gotten book, and I *may* have deprived you of potential income, but
> it is *not* the same as stealing.

Christopher,

Don't be naive. The copyright infringment is breaching my control of all copies of my work. You are most definitely taking something that belongs to me, until you buy it from me under the terms of the contract (and this must of course within the laws of copyright). Such contract may contain anything I wish to put in it which accords with law. In civil law terms it is 'breach', the term normally used in broken contracts, if you do not adhere to those terms. In colloquial  terms you are stealing what does not belong to you, and which still belongs to me. If you believe in the rule of law and the nature of capitalism in a free society, then you are in no doubt that terms of trade apply.

If you don't like my terms you are at full liberty to buy; since I do not control any other of the millions of titles in the world there is no issue of anti-trust or monopoly [the legal reference to'monopoly' in copyright law is not that normally used in the non-legal world]

There may be arguments against the law as it stands, but not agreeing on the rightness of a law is no justification for breach.

> 
> I am not making apologies for the act, but calling it stealing is
> *harmful* to the process of educating the public.
> 
> Let me draw an analogy: in the US, at least, there is widespread drug
> education that tells kids that Drugs Are Bad.  All drugs, all bad, all
> equally bad.  When a kid then later finds out that marijuana is not
> actually *all* that bad, he or she may then conclude that, having been
> lied to about marijuana, clearly cocaine and heroin are not that bad
> either.  And so these drug education programs have the paradoxical
> effect of *increasing* drug abuse.  (According to studies, they actually
> have no effect in urban populations, but do increase drug abuse in
> suburban populations.)

While you may see the parallel, I find it more than tenuous. I also dispute the danger of marijuana, just becasue it is not implicated in deaths. In fact there is little analysis of drug history or use in vehicle accidents, so that is not even known in the way alcohol abuse is. 

However, I certainly take the point that being lied to is not a correct or useful position. But I must point out to you that increased drug use has co-incided with cheapening of drugs and the effects of second and third generation users. Statistics should be used with great caution. 

> 
> When you call unauthorized copying “stealing,” the hyperbole is
> transparent, and Joe Leet may well then disregard everything else you
> have to say on the subject, or even engage in copyright infringement
> just to prove a point.

There is no hyperbole. We communicate a great deal in colloquial terms. I nthe sense that taking what does not belong to you is, in moral terms, stealing it is also technically a correct use. Only in the division between Civil and Criminal law in Anglo-Saxon countries do we trie to pretend that breach of law is any less an issue of trust than stealing a physical object. 

The problem is trying to draw a distinction that doesn't truly exist, because one is definable in scientific methodology, and the other is beyond the physical terms of science. Taking what does not belong to you is stealing, whether you understand its ownership or not; the legal definitions are only that. And gfhe law is only of use in seeking restitution or punishment, not in establishing trust. The law comes into play only after breach of trust. Trust is the fundamental of morality, however described or detailed.

> 
> It also goes back to Chris Meadows’s point.  If I have bought a copy of
> a book, and I am considering making a convenience copy in a different
> format, and I have only your argument to dissuade me, the notion that I
> am “stealing” a book I already bought — and from whom am I stealing it?

If you refer to 'a book', rather than an ebook, the weakness of your position is evident. That copy may be used either to steal from my commercial market, by selling it on, or to undermine my commercial market by giving it away. The same actually applies to the digital. 

> — is so laughable that I will not pause a second before making that
> copy.  But if you have instead attempted to educate me that unauthorized
> copies mean loss of income for the writers whose works I evidently
> admire, you will at the least stand a better chance of dissuading me.

If you are law abiding, the issue of loss is not in itself of importance. 

> 
> It’s not stealing.  Accurate terminology is far more likely to be effective.
> 
> ~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

Well Chris, accurate terminology is that it is stealing, whatever the situation. If you want the narrow legal terms applied then you are guilty of copyright infringment and in breach of contract. In which case you guess your breach of trust will never go to law and you have nothing to worry about. Which adds something to moral stealing.

Accurate terminology means I would never do business with you knowingly, because you try playing with definitions to obscure simple moral issues, and the meanings of laws.

Waht you are also saying is that, because a new technology makes something possible, there fore it is right to do that something, irrespective of extant law.

The road to anarchy and chaos.

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/