NYTimes Ethicist: Not Unethical To Download Unauthorized Copy Of Physical Book You Own
from the illegal,-but-not-unethical dept
davebarnes points us to a recent response by the NYTimes' ethicist, Randy Cohen, to a reader question, over the ethics of downloading an unauthorized ebook of a book where he already owned the physical book. Cohen, in no uncertain terms, points out that while illegal, it should not be seen as unethical, and suggests that the law needs to catch up with technology:An illegal download is -- to use an ugly word -- illegal. But in this case, it is not unethical. Author and publisher are entitled to be paid for their work, and by purchasing the hardcover, you did so. Your subsequent downloading is akin to buying a CD, then copying it to your iPod.He goes on to quote a publishing exec who disagrees, insisting that any unauthorized download is "stealing" and warns Cohen: "to condone this is to condone theft." But, of course, that's ridiculous. It is not theft at all. Nothing is missing. No one has lost out on anything. The publisher already got its money from this guy. To have a publisher make a statement that is clearly false makes you wonder what sort of strategic direction that publisher is heading in. If they can't understand the difference between someone who already paid just downloading a digital copy, and someone "stealing" a book, they're never going to understand how to compete in a digital world.
Buying a book or a piece of music should be regarded as a license to enjoy it on any platform. Sadly, the anachronistic conventions of bookselling and copyright law lag the technology. Thus you've violated the publishing company's legal right to control the distribution of its intellectual property, but you've done no harm or so little as to meet my threshold of acceptability.
Thankfully, Cohen makes this same point, in noting (in response to the publisher): "it is a curious sort of theft that involves actually paying for a book."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
BS
Of course, I also bought them (which entailed some effort the last couple of times.) I like to read the paper, and search the digital. (especially after JKR got distracted by the movies and let things lapse, and I was trying to remember why such-and-such was important.)
So go ahead and sue me for a bajillion dollars. Good luck with that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
"You should pay for every page you turn or read. Reading anything without paying is STEALING"
If I was a studio executive I should post here:
"Every minute you watch of a copyrighted contend has to be paid. Watching films at your neighbor TV is STEALING"
"...this internets is full of EVIL pirates who download content. oh my god, this is the end of the world. INTERNET IS KILLING MANKIND, TURN THAT TUBES OFF."
Remember folks: downloading copyright content is a crime just like sex for pleasure was a crime in middle age.
Middle age church = Content industry nowadays.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: BS
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Don't they claim that watching 'the big fight' on PPV at your neighbors and everyone chipping in $10 to pay for it is illegal too?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Remember it took over 2 million years of evolution before humans could understand the concept of "infinite." I'm not surprised these exec's have a hard time grasping such a hard concept.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wrong Analogy. Correct thinking.
"Your subsequent downloading is akin to buying a CD, then copying it to your iPod" Buying a CD and copying it to an iPod would be analogous to buying a book and scanning it with OCR to create a digital document. His correct analogy would be Buying a CD (or DVD) and finding the Bit torrent to get a digital version.
Even though his analogy is wrong his sentiment it correct. It's never made sense to me movies and TV shows on iTunes, Amazon, or what ever cost so much. Often they are more than the DVD. Makes no sense to me. I like to have the ability to watch on more than one platform. It's nice loading my iPod full of movies for a trip with the kids rather than hassling with a stack of DVDs.
But, one has to wonder if he would advocate the removal of the paywall for the NYT? Just a thought.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Something has to give.
The ebook should be either free or dirt cheap, IE not more than $1-2. Paperback and hardcover books should at the same price they are now but should come with a free ebook copy (making the ebook free in the first place makes this REALLY easy to do).
The customer should not have to double paym(or more because ebooks are sometimes more than a paperback) for the same book just to get it in the format they want. Paperback and hardcover books are not going to go away for a long time for exactly the same reason old records have not gone away and thats because some people just like to collect physical copies of items.
Hardcover books(and maybe even paperback in the future) are almost like buying collectors edition of a game or movie. You're happy to pay more to have the fancy copy, support the author, just love the look of a them on your shelf, etc.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Just a thought
In one you are drastically changing format—in the other, you are not. Until there is software to easily convert a Hardback into a usable digital format, the more appropriate analogy is: CD is to Mp3 as Hardback is to Paperback. No doubt you are expected to purchase the paperback.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sanity at the New York Times?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: BS
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bad analogy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Just a thought
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Please compare apples to apples.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Nope.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Also, what happens when you lend your print version of the book to a friend or family member while the digital version stays on your Kindle/lolPad/etc.?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Here's the part where the NY Times ethicist makes a leap ignoring all of that: "Buying a book or a piece of music should be regarded as a license to enjoy it on any platform."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Just a thought
The CD is a container for an MP3. A hardback is not a container for a paperback.
CD is to MP3 as Hardback is to Pages Arranged In Specific Order. When you've bought a CD, you listen to the MP3 that's on the CD. (Or whatever format is on the CD) When you've bought a hardback, you read the pages.
You pay for the container in both cases, even though the publisher will insist you're paying for content. Which is why they price MP3's and eBooks so highly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I'm EVIL
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
There is theft in this scenario
You are stealing away the ability for the big corporations to meet their shareholder commitments by selling us the same content over and over and over again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Wrong Analogy. Correct thinking.
I can see how it's legally wrong right away, but I'd put it on very shaky ground ethically as well. First off, these are two very different products -- one is a bound, paper edition that can be read in nearly any environment with no special hardware, software, electricity, or power (other than a light source). The other requires a computer and software to read, is searchable, printable, takes up much less storage space, and can optionally be processed by other programs (e.g., text-to-speech).
Second, purchase of a product in one format does not automatically entitle the consumer to ownership in all formats. I would never make the argument that, having bought an LP, I should be free to get a CD; or, having bought a DVD, the Blu-ray version is mine for the taking/copying.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: There is theft in this scenario
I find it funny when the public screws big corporations because it's usually the other way around.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Wrong Analogy. Correct thinking.
If you buy an LP then take the CD version from somewhere without paying, you are stealing a physical good.
If you buy a DVD then take the Blu-ray version from somewhere without paying, you are stealing a physical good.
If you buy a book then download an infinite electronic copy of it, nothing is missing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Wrong Analogy. Correct thinking.
If you buy a DVD then take the Blu-ray version from somewhere without paying, you are stealing a physical good."
Yeah....that's what Yakko said. Way to disagree by way of total agreement! You must be a politician.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: There is theft in this scenario
It is neither pure, nor simple. Unauthorized downloading is NOT theft. Theft deprives the original owner of the use of an object. This is not the case in unauthorized downloading. Theft also usually results in a negative economic impact to the original owner, whereas the economic impact resulting from unauthorized downloading is at worst unclear and at best positive, depending on the studies you look at. So, saying it is theft confuses the issue.
Unauthorized downloading is wrong not because it is theft but because it undermines the owner's control and interferes with the exercise of their rights.
Most folks on this site disagree with the scope and validity of those government granted rights, not whether or not unauthorized downloading is wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Why??!?!
WHO CARES???
I'm honestly surprised the debate has gone this way. How's about we get back on track:
Regardless of his analogy, is Mr. Cohen's statement correct?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The industry would have had me purchase at least 3 extra copies for all that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: There is theft in this scenario
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Wrong Analogy. Correct thinking.
I know! This one really bothers me, and I wish it got a bit more focus / criticism.
The fact that I can pay $2/episode for a show from the 1970s/80s on a pay-service like Amazon or iTunes, versus owning the box set for cheaper than the combined season doesn't make any sense .... then throw in that a lot of these old shows are getting added to Hulu as well, and it just doesn't add up.
Ah well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Wrong Analogy. Correct thinking.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Why??!?!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
According to Cohen, the ethics of ripping are relative to the title (though this would be news to him)
People (like Cohen) are missing the point when the say "how is copying like theft? It didn't cost the publisher anything, and anyway, once I've bought one copy in one format, I should never have to buy another."
In reality, it did cost the publisher something, in that every additional copy (regardless of who makes it) creates an incremental reduction in value of all other copies. Dilution 101.
The publisher's main concern is in maintaining enough control over the supply to keep it just below demand, allowing him to hit that sweet spot between units sold and cash extracted. If your copying didn't change the overall supply, he wouldn't care. But obviously it does, and so he cares. Deeply.
Consider his aims: it's better for him to sell 500,000 units at $5 than it is to sell 100,000 units at $10, or 1,000,000 units at $1. He doesn't want to be too restrictive, since prices will top out eventually. And he doesn't want to be too liberal, since he'll have to slash his price below profitability if supply outpaces demand. Somewhere between gouging and giving, there's an optimal point of exchange. That's tricky to find with confidence, but it's much easier if you can maintain absolute control over the supply (an advantage not open to guys selling dishwashers or chewing gum).
However, when the publisher loses control over supply (which is what happens when people start making copies on their own, even "just for non-commercial personal use"), then his ability to play (and profit from) his advantage in the price optimization game goes out the window. If his business has evolved so that possession of this advantage has become essential to his survival, then a loss of control on the supply side can be fatal.
Accordingly, downloading a movie is 'just like' stealing in the same way that sudden inflation is 'just like' suffering a bank robbery. Obviously, inflation doesn't change the amount of money in your account. But it can demolish the value. So in terms of effect, yes, it is 'just like' robbery.
Likewise, it's not the copy you're 'stealing' when you make a duplicate, it's the incremental (but real) sliver of market power that the publisher looses every-time someone (aside from him) increases the supply. The more tightly controlled the market, the more damaging each act of infringement becomes.
Interestingly, if Cohen's ethical scale is based on relative harm, it becomes increasingly acceptable to copy as the supply of copies expands. In other words, the ethics of duplication (in his view) are tied directly to the number of copies that already exist, which each new act of unauthorized duplication being slightly less serious than the ones that proceeded it.
Accordingly, leaking an unreleased but eagerly anticipated manuscript is far worse that downloading and old novel by Stephen King, copies of which are already found everywhere. In other words, if you're an especially sensitive soul who wants to copy without guilt, rip the stuff that everyone else already has.
Conversely, be willing to pay more for stuff where fewer copies exist, and every new copy is likley to represent a greater dilution of value. And if you're a publisher, recognize that it's total lunacy to think that you can effectively control the supply of anything for 120 years.
With some things, you can't keep the lid on for 120 minutes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: According to Cohen, the ethics of ripping are relative to the title (though this would be news to him)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Bad analogy
Cohen's article is about the ETHICAL aspects of this activity. Whether you do the format shifting yourself or download a format shifted copy that someone else has already prepared is utterly irrelevant to the ethics involved.
People, please stop making stupid and irrelevant distinctions, especially when it takes the form of a wall of text that says precisely nothing, as per the above.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: According to Cohen, the ethics of ripping are relative to the title (though this would be news to him)
He ignored intangible value when saying that copying 'costs the publisher nothing' because it consumes none of the publisher's labor or materials, and leaves his supply of copies intact. Accordingly, (says Cohen) it's ridiculous for the publisher to say that copying is 'just like' theft, since theft would have deprived him of tangible stock.
However, it's not ridiculous to say that something which decreases value by diluting scarcity is 'just like' theft. It is just like theft in that both dilution and theft reduce the commercial utility of whatever you once had. For this reason, we have strong laws against counterfeiting currency and back-dating stock options, as both strip value from the shells that contained them, even when they leave the shells intact.
So basing an argument (as Cohen initially does) by looking only at the publisher's cost and possession of tangible materials is wrong when you're talking about the value of intangible goods.
But then Cohen turns around and acknowledges the intangible value of scarcity, by reckoning that making an additional unauthorized copy was probably a drop in a a bucket, and was therefore relatively harmless. Suddenly, he is admitting that there's more to this that the cost of materials, and who who possesses them, and that overall supply is a determinant of value.
And he's conceding that making additional copies does diminish the commercial value of every other copy (including those still held by the publisher). He goes on to justifies the copying (and the harm) by saying that the dilution is so small that it probably doesn't matter - even if the publisher being harmed by this tells him otherwise.
Given that Cohen does, in fact, recognize the nature of value in intangible goods, the correct response would be to agree with the publisher, and say "yes, unauthorized duplication is just like theft (at least in terms of effect) and yes, I am condoning it since the effect (in this case) is totally inconsequential."
It would be up to the publisher to demonstrate otherwise.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Passion
Anyway I don't believe it is unethical, if the content is not provided by the publisher for a fair price. If the publisher included a digital copy of the book then this wouldn't be an issue; which is something they should have started doing a long time ago...I have always thought that books were overpriced, I love reading but I'm not paying 9.99-??.?? for something that I will most likely read once.
Thanks Library Card!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Victimless crime?
The ethical side is trickier. I think on the face of it there is a fair case for someone who has paid for a physical object to have an additional digital copy at no extra charge. Possibly all the big publishers will move to this model. However, what makes this eventuality unlikely, in my view, is the same thing that makes ebooks in general a dodgy proposition commercially. It can be summed up in two words: the internet. Once digital copies are out there, pirated versions will be made available free (as per music). And as Alex Bowles so rightly says, that will make it impossible for publishers to control supply and therefore price. The result? Well, look at what happened to the music industry. Only authors who have failed to find an agent or publisher can regard an internet filled with self-published books as any kind of desirable future. The majority of the reading public want and need publishers, and they didn't generally kvetch at paying the prices for the paper books until the internet started to warp our notion of value at the same time as revving up our sense of entitlement.
The reader who scans his own paper book and uses the resulting digital file himself, or even copies it for his friends on disc or via email attachment, is not hurting the publishing industry any more than home-tapers were killing the music industry, or that lenders of books ever hurt publishing in the past. But the internet makes files available to virtually everyone in the world, simultaneously, and potentially forever. No one can control that, least of all the publishers.
So unless you are of the opinion that all digital books should be free, regardless of whether paper versions have been bought already, it is unethical to use and tacitly support a service which is designed to provide free copies of other people's intellectual property without permission. That holds even if said service is an inevitability in the age of the internet. Perhaps the real question underlying all this is: are ethics even viable in the age of the internet?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: According to Cohen, the ethics of ripping are relative to the title (though this would be news to him)
Further, to say pirating is "just like" theft in the same way that inflation is "just like" a bank robbery and to then claim that pirates should be held responsible for theft strongly implies that those responsible for inflation (the government, banks?) should be charged for bank robbery. By the same logic, eating at Wendy's is "just like" stealing from Burger King, isn't it? Or would it be that competing with Burger King is "just like" theft?
Finally, how is my downloading a digital copy of content I already own increase anything? So long as I don't then give that copy to someone else (who doesn't already have it) then I've changed absolutely nothing -- unless you think I would (not simply should) pay for a second copy of what I already own. I submit that most people would not pay twice for the same thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Victimless crime?
More to the point, if someone steals something and then, using that as a model, begins to produce replicas and gives away those replicas, there's no longer even any instance of "recieving stolen property."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Victimless crime?
The providers of digital files (the pirates) are arguably not thieves at all. They are merely facilitating the act of theft by anyone who downloads them. This is why so many P2P services still flourish.
The person who makes an unlawful copy of intellectual property is not a thief either, though he or she is likely to be guilty of a crime, since mechanical reproduction of intellectual property is generally prohibited.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: According to Cohen, the ethics of ripping are relative to the title (though this would be news to him)
However, I will repeat that I think it's the internet that is the problem. A few copies of a copyright work circulating freely is no problem. A copy of something made for your own use is not a problem. I don't think publishers are bothered by either of thise situations, which are akin to loans, something they've faced since the nineteenth century. The problem is the means by which you obtain the copy - websites which give you free illegal copies of books are a Bad Thing, even if your own personal ownership of that copy is not a bad thing.
You could view it a bit like refusing to do business with someone whose activities you disapprove of in another sphere. You like his goods (the digital books), but you won't shop there since you are helping and encouraging him to continue those activities (ie supplying huge quantities of pirated ebooks to people who have not bought a legitimate copy already, and have no intention of doing so). Now, that would be ethical. N
ot that I expect you (or anyone else) to take that line, but it's hypocritical to blame publishers when faced with own greed and sense of entitlement. If publishers can find a way to stop us ripping them off (which I doubt) I think they have every right to do so.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Victimless crime?
This is wrong. Just because you call it "intellectual property" it does not make it property. It is not. It is a gov't granted monopoly privilege. The Supreme Court is clear on this:
"interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud. The infringer of a copyright does not assume physical control over the copyright nor wholly deprive its owner of its use. Infringement implicates a more complex set of property interests than does run-of-the-mill theft, conversion, or fraud." -- US Supreme Court
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: According to Cohen, the ethics of ripping are relative to the title (though this would be news to him)
Not at all. Because if you steal a Rolls Royce, whoever owned it before has now lost it. That is a net loss.
If you *copy* (not "steal") a digital work, you have actually increased the pie. That is a net gain.
Two totally different scenarios.
but it's hypocritical to blame publishers when faced with own greed and sense of entitlement. If publishers can find a way to stop us ripping them off (which I doubt) I think they have every right to do so.
The only sense of entitlement comes from companies believing that the old way of business must be retained in the fact of technological progress -- even to the point that they would seek to hold back what the technology allows.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Victimless crime?
My comment was 100% intended to invalidate your claim, in your first paragraph, that "[piracy] is definitely theft."
Your response seems to completely contradict this "fact" that you stated because other comments had questioned it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Victimless crime?
I'm fairly certain a strong fair use defense exisits in most cases, especially as we're discussing people who already own the physical book (and are apparently obtaining a digital copy for personal use).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: According to Cohen, the ethics of ripping are relative to the title (though this would be news to him)
I disagree entirely. Besides the obvious flaw that Mike points out above, a Rolls Royce may indeed be expensive, but it's difficult to say that it's "artificially" expensive. Such a car takes time, effort, and materials to create, all of which have non-zero marginal costs. On top of this, the Rolls Royce is a finite item; there may be many, but they are countable and discrete. In such a situation, the familiar factors of supply and demand come in to play, and as more people WANT a Rolls Royce than there are actual cars, the price goes up (as the purchacer effectively has to "out-bid" his competition or lose the car to someone who would pay more for it).
I see no artificial components to the price of a Rolls Royce.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: According to Cohen, the ethics of ripping are relative to the title (though this would be news to him)
Entitlement: publishers actions regarding ebooks have nothing to do with entitlement. They have everything to do with protecting their business. Publishers can do business any legal way they choose. That may not be the way you would like them to do it, but that's tough. Readers can call publishers morons for doing things the way they do, but we can't argue that they have no right. That's what I mean by entitlement - the sense that we are owed something here. We are not.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Victimless crime?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Victimless crime?
Are you saying in fact that, because it's not theft, no crime has therefore been committed? Even the author of the original article isn't claiming that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: According to Cohen, the ethics of ripping are relative to the title (though this would be news to him)
No, it's ethically wrong because copyright violation is against the law, the establishment of which was clearly based on Constitutional principle which has yet to face serious formal challenge.
Also, the copyright holder wasn't foolish to bank on monopoly power. The Constitution made the explicit assumption that the grant of (limited) monopoly power was essential to artistic or scientific enterprise. The fact that more that 200 years passed before this assumption was seriously questioned speaks to how foolish it wasn't–at least for pre-internet media firms (i.e. virtually all major, publicly-traded publishers).
No it does not. It is 'like theft' in terms of effect (i.e. loss of useful power). But it is not actual theft. Which is why you can't charge software infringes with larceny, and nor can you sue the Fed for creating inflation (though lord only knows how many people would if they could).
This is totally absurd, though it wouldn't be if Burger King had a legal monopoly on hamburgers. That is to say, if Burger King had the right to control the supply absolutely, then anyone messing with the supply would produce an effect 'just like' stealing. Only the thing being stolen wouldn't be the burgers themselves, it would be the portion of Burger King's profit margin that could only be maintained due to an absolute–and perfectly enforced–monopoly.
Um, are you serious? Do you not see how making a copy increases the supply? What you do with it is irrelevant; once you make a copy, that copy–by definition–exists. And even if you don't redistribute it, can't you see how that additional copy produces an effect?
After all, if you've got a backup, you don't care as much about the original. You can loose it, or give it away, or do whatever. It doesn't matter anymore. As long as you maintain access to a copy, your entire pattern of conduct changes because you don't depend on others to reproduce copies for you.
And that's exactly the point of escaping from monopoly control. Your attitudes and behavior change. Instead of treating this object as a singular thing, replaceable only at real expense, you adopt a very casual and uncaring attitude towards copies, and start to think of the work in far more abstract (and hard to monetize) terms.
From the perspective of the monopolist–who wants you to think of master recordings as almost sacred and impossible to access relics, and to hold that single precious copy in the highest regard possible–this is a terrible development. Control over supply is directly related to control over attitudes, behavior, and perception of value, which are all directly related to the amount of money the publisher can extract from you.
In short, a well managed monopoly is economically indistinguishable from a license to print money. And the value of owning a mint, in turn, is directly proportional to your power to control the supply of currency.
The internet ruined publisher's capacity to control the currency supply, which devalued the economic power of their licenses to print money, which (for many) threatened their ability to simply survive.
Now, the real test is whether "the useful arts and sciences" (however that's defined) will manage to survive this implosion. If so, the basic Constitutional supposition that led to copyright law's creation will have been debunked. This will open the law to increasingly severe legal challenge from the courts, while limiting the ability of Congress to enact new law to replace the ones getting struck down.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: There is theft in this scenario
Supreme Court Justice Breyer: "...deliberate unlawful copying is no less an unlawful taking of property than garden-variety theft."
While you might feel differently, his opinion holds more weight, legally speaking.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Victimless crime?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: According to Cohen, the ethics of ripping are relative to the title (though this would be news to him)
Businesses based on copyright can only exist because government law enables them to. Since government-made law is to serve the public as a whole, the public has every right to demand that the law, and what follows from it, suits them.
So to say we are not 'owed' anything (as far as that makes any sense) is utterly wrong.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: According to Cohen, the ethics of ripping are relative to the title (though this would be news to him)
Not sure if (or where) I implied that copyright privilege was granted with no quid pro quo.
To the best of my knowledge, public benefit is derived (in theory) from the general advance "of the useful arts and sciences" which (also in theory) can be accelerated at little cost via the grant of exclusive rights "for limited times", etc.
These theories and assumptions are, of course, what's starting it unravel now.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: According to Cohen, the ethics of ripping are relative to the title (though this would be news to him)
Which would be relevant if something were being stolen. But it is not. There may be infringement, but that's something entirely different. From a purely economic standpoint, the consumer is simply going to a different supplier. If the original supplier can't compete with the aftermarket, that's a business model issue.
Entitlement: publishers actions regarding ebooks have nothing to do with entitlement. They have everything to do with protecting their business.
You don't protect a business, you earn it. If you're protecting it, you've already failed.
Publishers can do business any legal way they choose. That may not be the way you would like them to do it, but that's tough.
And consumers can choose not to buy and to seek out products from alternative, secondary suppliers. That may not be the way you would like them to do it, but that's tough.
That's what I mean by entitlement - the sense that we are owed something here. We are not.
You seem to be claiming that publishers are entitled/owed their old business model, which no longer stands up in the face of modern technological change. That is entitlement.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Victimless crime?
Are you saying in fact that, because it's not theft, no crime has therefore been committed? Even the author of the original article isn't claiming that.
No, a crime has not been committed. There may be infringement, which is a civil dispute, not a criminal one.
And, yes, the Supreme Court statement is quite clear on it. Infringement is not theft. It may not be legal, but it is entirely separate from theft. They don't even fall anywhere near each other in the legal code.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: According to Cohen, the ethics of ripping are relative to the title (though this would be news to him)
Uh, saying it's ethically wrong because it's against the law is a non-starter. I mean, freeing slaves was once against the law. Morals and the law are two separate things.
Also, the copyright holder wasn't foolish to bank on monopoly power.
Yes, it is foolish to bank on an artificial monopoly when those monopolies are unenforceable.
The Constitution made the explicit assumption that the grant of (limited) monopoly power was essential to artistic or scientific enterprise. The fact that more that 200 years passed before this assumption was seriously questioned speaks to how foolish it wasn't–at least for pre-internet media firms (i.e. virtually all major, publicly-traded publishers).
I'm afraid this statement is somewhat ignorant of the debate over copyright law that has gone on for nearly 300 years. It is simply wrong to suggest that the law has not been challenged. It has been challenged regularly and repeatedly. In fact, our own founding fathers were quite worried about it, and even considered not including the Constitutional clause for fear that it would cause more harm than good.
No it does not. It is 'like theft' in terms of effect (i.e. loss of useful power).
It is not like theft at all. There is no loss of products or of "useful power."
This is totally absurd, though it wouldn't be if Burger King had a legal monopoly on hamburgers. That is to say, if Burger King had the right to control the supply absolutely, then anyone messing with the supply would produce an effect 'just like' stealing. Only the thing being stolen wouldn't be the burgers themselves, it would be the portion of Burger King's profit margin that could only be maintained due to an absolute–and perfectly enforced–monopoly.
Ok. So here's the question: would you find it ethically acceptable then to fine people for cooking their own burgers in such a scenario?
And that's exactly the point of escaping from monopoly control. Your attitudes and behavior change. Instead of treating this object as a singular thing, replaceable only at real expense, you adopt a very casual and uncaring attitude towards copies, and start to think of the work in far more abstract (and hard to monetize) terms.
And pretty much all of economic history has found this to be a *good* thing with a *positive* effect on society. And, remember, the purpose of copyright law is to promote the progress. If progress is better promoted by ignoring copyright law... well then, don't we have an issue to deal with?
In short, a well managed monopoly is economically indistinguishable from a license to print money. And the value of owning a mint, in turn, is directly proportional to your power to control the supply of currency.
And, as we all know from our economics, monopolies are economically inefficient. So breaking up that monopoly would be a good thing.
The internet ruined publisher's capacity to control the currency supply, which devalued the economic power of their licenses to print money, which (for many) threatened their ability to simply survive.
It only threatens their ability to survive if they are slow to embrace what the new technology enables -- which is a much larger market.
Now, the real test is whether "the useful arts and sciences" (however that's defined) will manage to survive this implosion. If so, the basic Constitutional supposition that led to copyright law's creation will have been debunked.
Well, rather than speculating, why not look at the actual evidence? We recently reported on a study of the music industry that showed music industry output has grown massively over the past decade as copyright has been increasingly ignored. As for the money? The music industry has grown 66% over the last decade as well.
How much more evidence would you like?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: According to Cohen, the ethics of ripping are relative to the title (though this would be news to him)
You most probably didn't, but "Apr 6th, 2010 @ 12:22pm" did.
-- you have to click the 'Threaded' link at the top of the comments, then the juxtaposition clarifies things.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Victimless crime?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Paper copy should come with an e-copy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Paper copy should come with an e-copy
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
If they are equivalent, be happy with the paper version that you have.
If the electronic version provides some benefit, then you should rightly pay for that benefit.
Seems simple to me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Useful OCR tool
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
If we give publishers the benefit of the doubt that there is additional value in the digital format than I would be okay with paying a small additional fee for that additional content ($2-$3). If a reader just wanted the ebook & not the physical copy than he/she would pay the regular book price, same as if it was a physical book. The cost savings from eliminating all the physical processes involved with a traditional book would cover the additional content available in the ebook.
[ link to this | view in thread ]