Re: NY Times Ethicist Condones Ripping Off E-books

From: "Chris" 
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2010, joseph harris wrote:
> 
>> Any permission to make one's own copy is an invitation to pirates.
> 
> Does this include the day after the work enters the public domain? Also - what 
> if it was a transfer, not a copy? (that is, if the original was destroyed in 
> the process?)

Chris,

;-) Perhaps you can allow me the luxury of not having to state every time 'within the context of copyright law'. One of the arguments is about destruction of prior copy. That is the most logical, but it would be better to make the principle of holder's ownership central, with some personal leeway.

> 
> Of course, this supposes the pirates were waiting for an invitation. I think 
> its pretty clear they were not. I don't think they were even waiting for an 
> electronic version.

My framework there is court of law arguments; your point is an excellent one about the nature of piracy. However, there is little doubt that law enforcement, civil or criminal, must be constant because there is no end to breach or criminality. In copyright the need is for a way to deal with those who bulk usurp the rights of others.

> 
> In general, any focus on *technical* copy control raises other risks.

Yes, certainly. And that is true with any restrictive laws. The need for opposition and support is fundamental to freedom and democracy. Ensuring balance is the best we can do, and recognising the need to change the point of balance is central to that.

> 
> Modern digital systems create copies - in many forms, and in many ways. And 
> although many of these copies are temporary, even small errors on a computer 
> can make transient and ephemeral copies into permanent ones. Copying is 
> fundamental to a computer's operation - right down to the lowest level of the 
> processor, where almost *all* instructions are about copying something from one 
> place into another.

Agreed. There are sometimes requirements to store transient copies, and this is in the middle of arguments in more than copyright. all this becomes easier to rule on when the principle exists; arguments of these practical matters does not affect the central issue of copyrightholder's rights. It is the other way round.

> 
> Much as you would like copy control in some fashion - perhaps even in the form 
> of copy counts - you can't do that in digital systems without risking the 
> reliability and robustness of systems that people depend on. Once a digital 
> copy exists - authorized or not - copy control becomes almost impossible.

I don't agree that the technical needs prevent enforceable laws. This is again to confuse the practical with the principle. For most people the technical is dark and unknown; the issue is one of program and scripts and OS, more than of most user's intent.

> 
> I'm not condoning the unauthorized copying, but condemning it won't make it go 
> away, and might even contribute to proliferation. Moreover, at some point in 
> it's life, every book enters the public domain, and at that point the creator 
> may not restrict copying.

We have no argument on the last point, and I'm not sure why you offer it twice in this post. None of the issues of human nature changes the moral understanding that 'if it isn't yours you have no right to take it [without permission]'. Even in Godless days and circles no one is in any doubt about the rightness and wongness of that.

> 
> As far as I can tell, the only time that copy control works is at the point 
> where the creator controls the only copy.
> 
> 
> : chris smith ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
> : nihil tam munitum quod non expugnari pecunia possit - cicero :

That is patently untrue. Most users of copyright material observe copyright; they work on the principles of right and wrong. From such figures as are available this does not appear to be a generation matter, which it was initially argued as; that was probably because the most visible area on the net has been popular music, which is more actively used by  people when they are younger.

The ease of copying seems to have brought out the worst in a number of people who work on the idea they will not be caught, rather than on the principle of 'am I doing the right thing?'.

While the digital copy is a small sales area of the book publishing industry, and probably will peak at about 50% share, it does not march to a different drumbeat. Berne was partly about theft of copyright, so the issue is not new. Laws and enforcement are not about attacking the majority, but about ensuring the means to plug small leaks so they don't enlarge and end up sinking the boat.

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/