Stealing things according to the "If value, then right" theory
Siva Vaidhyanathan's book The Anarchist in the Library identifies a theory implicit in much of the copyright wars called, "If value, then right." It holds that if something has some value, then the person who made it has a right to be compensated for using that value.
For example, your DVDs have value as discs you put in a player, which you pay for when you buy them at a store. But when you rip the disc and put it on a portable player, then you realize some new value. According to "if value, then right," the studio that made the DVD has the right to be compensated for that new value. Otherwise, you're stealing.
Exploring this idea, David "Everything is Miscellaneous" Weinberger has compiled a list of "20 things I’ve stolen" according to the "If value, then right" theory.
1. I took an extra napkin from a Taco Bell for unspecified use “later.”20 things I’ve stolen
2. I sat on a bench on a hot day, enjoying the breeze as the man next to me fanned himself.
3. I read the headlines of a newspaper that was for sale in a kiosk box.
4. I divided a single-serving DingDong in two, and had it for dessert on two consecutive days.
5. I listened all the way through to a Metallica song emanating from my neighbor’s radio, but closed my window when the commercial came on.
6. I remembered the movie times in my newspaper from the day before so I wouldn’t have to buy a copy of the paper today.
7. When a friend’s cat chose my lap to sit in, I petted it, precisely to discourage it from moving to the lap of its rightful owner.
8. I said “What a long, strange trip it’s been” without air quotes.
9. On the Amtrak “quiet car,” I listened to a man in the seat ahead of me explaining to the bored woman next to him how he gets such a great shine on his shoes. I have since used his technique, successfully.
10. I have stared carefully at reproductions of great paintings.
#7 is based on the fallacious assumption that one can own a cat. Anyone who's ever shared a residence with a cat knows that cats certainly don't perceive the relationship in those terms!
That's hilarious.
I do like #8. I said “What a long, strange trip it’s been” without air quotes.
I read BoingBoing without looking at any of the ads...
This is one of the things that I think becomes obvious BS when you look at copyright as a "bounty" for writers. An offer of payment to whoever is willing to perform the services.
Bounty hunter Bob goes out and catches Evil Eve, gets a $10,000 bounty. A year later, Bob goes to the Mayor and says "Hey, aren't you glad Eve is off the streets?" Mayor says "Sure". Bob says "Well, you can thank me by paying me another $10,000 for catching her."
This repeats and you get infinite rewards and infinite terms. Shakespear's works can still make money, so if one argues that money->copyright then the heirs of shakespear's estate should still be getting paid for the latest Leonardo DiCaprio version.
The even weirder outcome of this is that this argument basically says that copyright should expire only after no one wants the work anymore. And if that's the case, what's the point of having copyright expire in the first place?
Copyright is a bounty, a reward offered by the state for an author's SERVICES of creating new works. Copyright terms can't be based off of VALUE of the work, because intrinsically, any work once created will forever have value.
"4. I divided a single-serving DingDong in two, and had it for dessert on two consecutive days."
According to my lawyer friend (Vinny Boombatz, Esq.), an infringement may or may not occur depending on what order you eat the halves. Do you eat the "Ding" half first, or the "Dong" half?
I loaned my copy of Tom Waits' "Orphans" to a friend who had never heard any of his music.
She loved it, and now buys all the Tom Waits CDs she comes across.
Tom Waits owes me money for increasing the value of his property?
I love it but I would say number 1 is actually stealing. The napkin is a physical object with a real (but tiny) cost. What if you took 10 or 100 or all of the napkins in the Taco Bell? Is it only not stealing if its one napkin? Is "unspecified use" so you don't have to buy napkins at home?
Sometimes I steal the English language. I use words without compensating the people who created them.
Oh no, I just stole some of it then!
Arghhhh, I've done it again!
This is the wrong way of looking at it. But he's thinking along the right lines.
"If paid, then mine"
And if the value you have to pay is 0 (i.e. for Napkins) then it is yours to do with as you please, unless there is some kind of a "do not take more napkins than you require" rule.
The DVD example fits my theory too, if you buy a DVD the copyright owner has already been fully compensed for any subsequent transactions of "value" I may make.
Going by this guy's theory if I went to the Louvre and bought the Mona Lisa for $1b how much would Leonardo Da Vinci (or w/e foundation in his name) be entitled to? Or what about the donations made to the Louvre by the thousands of visitors coming to the Mona Lisa anually?
Similarly would the work of an architect be subject to this if I decided to pay entrance to a museum designed by him?
If a transaction has been made for a copyrighted item, then whatever the new owner decides to do with it is fine. Even if that transaction was gratis.
Somehow that list reminds me of CrimethInc. Something about the characterizing of simple pleasures as theft - the romanticization of living a life that the authorities would deny you if they could.
Every song whistled, every meal shared, a revolt against the soulless bean counters who would make you a consumer and nothing more.
:)
just an honest question.
I'm a self publisher, I and a collaborator self published a comedy book called "the gospel of the dead" and did a pitifully small run of 100 copies.
currently living check to check i wrote this for 2 reasons. 1. i enjoy writing. 2. i'd like some extra cash so i've created something that i think people will like. the 100 copies are kind of a quality and response test.
my question is, if someone makes copies of our book and turns it into a pdf and freely distributes it, is that or is that not stealing?
Personally as someone who has pirated i realize there is a general sentiment that stealing from [goliath band/studio] is okay, but stealing from say the HPLHS who are fans who made "Call of Cthulhu" is not. Smaller creative groups a lot of times are just struggling to recoup the costs of producing something.
As demonstrated by Weinberger's list, the whole idea of "if value, then right" is a bit iffy. But at the very least, it's too vague to be truly useful as a guideline.
With respect to the DVD/portable question, the conclusion assumes that the "new value" was in the DVD, rather than in the portable player. But it seems to me one can just as easily argue that the "value" licensed when the DVD is purchased is the common-sense right to use that content for personal use in any context, and that that doesn't change even if one adds value by introducing some device like a portable media player.
Now, if the person had stolen the portable media player (where the "new value" actually lies), then sure...there's a theft there. But that's of no concern to the author of the content on the DVD.
Simply by rearranging the inputs, one gets different conclusions from the same rule "if value, then right". That makes the rule fairly useless in any case, even if it didn't have the other flaws Weinberger's pointing out.
@#7 posted by Syd
That brings up a good point. What if you take two napkins, let's say, with the best of intentions, but you only use one? Would that be stealing? Personally, I'd return it on my next visit, but only because I've been beatified.
This is where leniency comes into play. Strict rules disallow reason, while lenient ones retain common sense. "Harm" is the use of force against others without their permission. I'd say most of those examples would fall under the definition of "sharing" as much as selfish benevolence. Taco Bell realizes that implementing methods to control napkins would inhibit people from patronizing their business so they include free napkins, within reason, as a condiment. This only translates into music piracy if the musicians agree to give their albums away because they earn more money from concerts or whatever, or you giving your books away because it makes you earn more money from speeches you give or advertisement space you sell, for example. Agreement, either tacit or explicit is required. But, if you're not making more money, but losing money, giving things away free because you feel guilty or unworthy for whatever reason, then you're just a scab.
1. Copying a cd means easily making a nearly identical copy. The napkin is likely not going to be replicated to make more napkins for friends.
2. Many primary schools have a lost and found, and each year charitable organizations relish in reusing items no one wants.
3. Many cds and websites have pictures that you can look at, for free.
4. And people say copyright advocates grasp at straws.
5. Does this mean deaf and blind people don’t have to pay admission to baseball games and rock concerts?
6. Kurt Vonnegut is laughing.
7. YOS BEN STOLENZ FENDS CATZ! YOS CAD!
8. I suppose people without arms are not allowed to quote anybody without special prosthetics. (See response to 6 again.)
9. It’s a quiet car, not a silence car. I can hold a conversation in a library without being ejected.
10. If you feel like donating to a museum to get back some karma, please do.
What a thief!
I hate copy protection of all kinds, and it's my opinion that in the long run, content owners do themselves no good by engaging in it. But it's not hard to see that their motivations appear not in a vacuum, but rather in an environment where people rationalize illegal copying selfishly. As ignorant as DRM might be, consumers who don't respect copyright are themselves to blame as well.
Respect all copyright, not just the copyright you think should apply to you. The big goliath groups have every bit as much expectation that their rights will be respected as the smaller groups.
(Noting here that by "copyright" I mean the legal idea, not necessarily the implementation. For example, I don't consider the DMCA in any way part of valid copyright law and have no compunctions at all about violating the DMCA as long as I'm not violating the actual legal idea of copyright).
@ ctp. tim:
It's not stealing, because nobody is deprived of anything.
The obvious counter argument is "But I'm deprived of a potential customer! Giving someone a free copy of the book effectively deprives me of $10 (or whatever the cost was). Surely that's no different from stealing $10 from me!"
But look at other ways that I can deprive you of customers: I can loan my copy of the book to somebody. I can donate my copy of the book to a library. I can write bad reviews about the book, advising others against buying it. These are all ways to deprive you of customers, and they're all perfectly legitimate. Fundamentally, you do not have a right to have people buy your book.
Depriving you of sales, and therefore money, is not stealing, because you had no entitlement to the sales in the first place.
On the bright side, there are plenty of other exciting and functional new models for making money while doing creative work like writing books.
I've finally realized that the RIAA is run by Gringott's goblins.
- I used empty beer cans and pizza boxes to build a college-style coffee table.
- In my head I sometimes play-back favorite scenes from a movie I saw in theater and memorized in great detail complete with music score.
- On several occasions I've read Boing-Boing while carefully covering some of the more distasteful ads with a sheet of paper.
- I swapped-out the license plate protector bearing my dealership's name for blank one.
- I routinely remove brand logos from phones, shirts and other products I buy.
- Having photographic memory, I've walked through a highly secure, "photography-strictly-prohibited" art exhibition, failing to erase it from my memory.
- Every winter I am warmed by air raising from apartment below, and every summer cold air escapes from the floor above me and pours into my apartment cooling it a little.
- I have learned a new trick shot while watching professional billiards on ESPN. I made $20.00 performing it at a local bar.
- I learned a foreign language by listening and imitating native speakers, often without their consent.
- I used to tell jokes about E-Meter.
- I entered 5318008 in my calculator and flipped it up side down.
- I looked in a barber shop mirror from outside to fix my hair on my way to work.
...On the bright side, there are plenty of other exciting and functional new models for making money while doing creative work like writing books...
Which are?
if someone makes copies of our book and turns it into a pdf and freely distributes it, is that or is that not stealing?
It's copyright infringement. If someone breaks into your apartment and steals your TV, you could report it and the police would take it from there. If someone infringes your copyright, it's mostly up to you to deal with it in civil court. (DMCA violations are criminal violations, and there are other exceptions, so take everything with a grain of salt)
Basically, you'd probably nicely ask the person to stop, if that failed, and if they're making serious money, then get a lawyer and see if a lawsuit is justified. In between, you might use a threat of lawsuit to get the person to stop selling or giving away copies of your work but you might not get money from them for whatever copies they gave away.
Deprivation of something is not a definition of stealing or theft. Depriving someone of something through theft is not a valid definition of theft. I'm a bit tired of that straw man.
You claim something defines theft which does not and then you complain that burning cds doesn't reflect your minority view of what theft is. Strangely enough, people who I talk to that continue to promote this theory are often confused that the majority of society and governments do not agree with this minority view.
It's very frustrating reading the same old same old stories repeated ad nauseum when looking at these outsiders.
You have willfully misdefined theft and willfully misdefined what you've bought when you buy (or rent) a DVD- do not expect that many others to agree with you.
Neener,
Whom are you addressing?
Neener, Whom are you addressing?
Never mind that, I can't even figure out what he's saying.
He's stoned.
to continue with those who say my example is not theft.
If you think it is not theft, do you think it is moral?
Like i said, me, and many people I've met in my line of creative expression are merely trying to recoup costs. I either sell them at cost, or enough above costs that i can give out copies to other people are free.
Obviously since i've admitted i've pirated things before i'm not standing up for any establishment, and i'm essentially a person in glass house here. My own personal copyright infringment policy is if i download something like a dvd or a screener of a movie, I buy it when it comes out. Unless it was so bad that I don't even finish it. Then they haven't provided me with any real service or enjoyment.
that in itself is shaky logic but it ensures that I end up giving my money to people in the hope that they make more of the stuff that I like.
I think in a lot of respects people which capitalism considers 'consumers' have come to have a narrow view of what is value these days. If we are disappointed in something paid for we view it as a waste of money, even if there is the ability to keep said object with us... and yet when we are offered something which we find great value in for free we feel pretty guilty about it. [See the occasional happyrant like commentary from Corey on people trying to send him money for reading his books for free.] We don't like wasting our money we want value for every penny that leaves our hands, and yet world around us we are perceiving as giving us less and less value every day. People don't interpret value in the ways that our economy has come to expect us to interpret it, and that is the main issue behind most of these serious disconnects when it comes to the larger producers of supposed value who are growing more and more distant from what the average person thinks and eventually views the average person as simply a consumer which is pretty much a resource or commodity in their eyes (as Kiki and Bubu have talked about in their illuminating discussions) as opposed to more independent producers of supposed value which spend most of their time being an average person and thus tends to work with people, and understands when we do strange things with their stuff for our own enjoyment (and thus our own Value) as opposed to trying to nail us against a wall for acting independently with their stuff.
@ #3, BoingBoing has ads??
:D
Maybe part of the problem is that the contract between the buyer and seller is not adequately specified, so that what you're buying is not made clear.
When I buy a CD, I believe that I have purchased the right to listen to the music recorded on it - played directly from CD, ripped to MP3 and played back from my computer, downloaded to my iPod etc. I also believe that I may play it for my girlfriend or my friends when they come over.
Someone else may feel that they have purchased the right to copy the music and give it to all their friends.
Someone else may feel that they have purchased the right to rip the CD and share it with the entire planet. (I work for a video hosting service, and one user whose account we terminated for uploading copyrighted anime angrily protested that the videos were his "legal property", because he had paid for the original DVDs).
The record company might like to claim that I have the right to listen to the CD and nothing more. If I want to listen on my computer, I need to buy another license. If I want to listen on my iPod, I need a third.
I believe that my interpretation is the 'fair and reasonable' interpretation, but none of the others are likely to agree with me.
First though, an apology. File sharing is not theft. It has never been theft. Anyone who says it is theft is wrong and has unthinkingly absorbed too many Recording Industry Association of America press releases. We know that script line was wrong. It was a mistake. We're very, very sorry. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4758636.stm
Theft is a criminal offense, copyright infringement is a civil matter. "A person is guilty of theft, if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft#Theft_in_English_law
Just to destroy the basic premis of this argument now onto the specifics:
1. I took an extra napkin from a Taco Bell for unspecified use “later.”
Not theft as the restaurant gives them away freely and you can besides you paid for it in the price of your meal just like the soap in the toilet and the flower on your table.
2. I sat on a bench on a hot day, enjoying the breeze as the man next to me fanned himself.
Not theft - what property have you deprived the man of?
3. I read the headlines of a newspaper that was for sale in a kiosk box.
Newspapers use headlines to catch peoples attention and thus provoke sales. Its called an invitation to treat and its why most shops have both glass fronts and impulse displays near the counter. If you choose not to buy thats their fault and not theft.
4. I divided a single-serving DingDong in two, and had it for dessert on two consecutive days.
Sorry Im English and I dont get this! I cannot concieve of a situation where saving half of a confection for another meal could be construed as theft if the confection was obtained by honest means.
5. I listened all the way through to a Metallica song emanating from my neighbor’s radio, but closed my window when the commercial came on.
Not theft yet again but also as you are not the listener how can you feel obliged to listen to the advertising? Even if you were the listener its a shaky argument that says you are in the wrong if you refuse to ignore adverts.
6. I remembered the movie times in my newspaper from the day before so I wouldn’t have to buy a copy of the paper today.
Movie times in newspapers are paid advertisments from the movie theatres - they WANT you to remember! Also not theft!
7. When a friend’s cat chose my lap to sit in, I petted it, precisely to discourage it from moving to the lap of its rightful owner.
Not theft but it shows how fucked up this guy is - go see a counselor about your attachment and jealousy issues...
8. I said “What a long, strange trip it’s been” without air quotes.
Not theft OR infringement ffs!
9. On the Amtrak “quiet car,” I listened to a man in the seat ahead of me explaining to the bored woman next to him how he gets such a great shine on his shoes. I have since used his technique, successfully.
Not theft - how could it be? The normal way for us humans to grow socially is by aping others...
10. I have stared carefully at reproductions of great paintings.
Once again not theft but the reproduction might be an infringement of the artists rights if not authorised.
I think it just goes to show that theres a lot of profit in rehasing the fallacious arguments of those with vested interests and visibly dirty hands and very little in logical thought. I am astonished at the effort some people will go to in searching for problems in life!
@cpt. tim:
It's about as moral as taking a swim in the deserted pool of a country club to which you don't belong. Which is to say, it's not really hurting anyone, and I wouldn't say you really have an obligation to compensate anyone for your swim, but if you really enjoyed the swim and want to be able to swim there in the future, it's both honorable and wise to contribute to the existence of the pool in some way.
To continue this (perhaps ill-suited) metaphor, while the country club might insist that the only moral way for you to use the pool is to pay them a fee for it, in reality I feel there are any number of ways you could use the pool "morally". For example you could pick up trash when you're there, or trim weeds. You could bring free sodas for other people who also use the pool. You could donate pool-maintenance equipment that you have handy. All of these things effectively contribute to the continued existence and enjoyability of the pool, and help ensure that it will be there for you to enjoy in the future.
So ultimately I think it's immoral to always be a "freeloader" who depends on others for free stuff and never contributes, but I think that contributing can take many forms outside of what the supposed "owner" dictates and still be perfectly fine. Better than fine in a lot of cases. Sometimes contributions will be subtle or indirect, sometimes they'll be nonexistent, but there's really no practical way to police or enforce such an "honor-based" system of exchange, so there's not much point in worrying about it. Ultimately, if enough people are freeloaders, the resource dies and everyone loses, so there is an overall incentive for most people to contribute in some way.
Bah. Both the original idea and the satirical retort are both ridiculous.
Copying a DVD for personal use does not create some "new value". The value of a DVD is that you get to see the movie whenever you want. If you make a personal copy for backup or watching on your laptop, it adds a small measure of convenience. However, the value of the convenience is not equivalent to the value of owning the movie itself. And it is of no value to the copyright holder.
Also, most of the examples provided in the "20 things I've stolen" article also don't fall under the category of having any value. For example, splitting a ding-dong. The value in the ding-dong is one whole ding-dong's worth of whatever (flavor, calories, etc.). Splitting the ding-dong also splits the value. The net value is the same. Splitting it doesn't create any new value. So there's no "right" even according to the "if value, then right" theory. Being cooled by someone else's fan also doesn't create any new value. Once the air blows past the person, it's waste.
Taking a napkin from Taco Bell, however, is actually stealing. Of course, trying to get Taco Bell to prosecute someone for 1 or 2 napkins...and trying to find a judge who would see the case...probably not going to happen. Now, if you wandered of with a couple of large packages of napkins, or came in daily to empty the taco sauce repositories...well, they probably still wouldn't try to prosecute you, but they'd ask you not to return to the store and could call the police if you did. But that's because it's private property and you'd be trespassing.
Sorry. I just didn't understand the whole point of either side of the argument. Of course, that also extends to my inane rantings about the articles as well. :D
theft is whatever I have the power to enforce on.
@ #11 CPT. TIM,
I would say that if they made the copies with the intent to make money off of your work, that would be stealing.
If they just distributed it to their friends, saying "This is something you have to see!", I would say that wasn't stealing.
And you can look at it this way. If they are friends, you can say "Hey, man. I need to recoup my costs here." And they would say, if they are friends, "Oh, noes! Let us help you out!"
Also, if it gets distributed enough, it may be SEEN by somebody who might say "That's good. We need to have this guy write a book for us!" or a library might see it and they aren't going to put the .pdf in the library. They are going to buy it. Maybe many copies. Maybe it'll get picked up by a LOT of libraries.
If it's good, and enough people see it, whether they paid for it or not, you'll make more money than you thought you would when you self-published the 100 copies. Maybe not J. Rowling money, but...
http://xkcd.com/294/
What of the "value" of learning from someone else's mistakes? What do I owe them?
Is not this a re-working of the old "labor theory of value" dressed up in terms borrowed from a "Legal Rights" analysis?
Anyway looking for "implicit" theories in copyright is like looking for the same in the Tax Code, IMHO.
Vamidus
"I used empty beer cans and pizza boxes to build a college-style coffee table."
So you stole business from the cable-spool manufacturers?
And you forgot all the air you stole from the neighbor's tree.
cpt.tim,
The original post is about a copyright-maximalist view that as long as someone is willing to pay money for a work, then copyright should cover that work and the money should go to the creator or his great-great-great-great-great-great-grandchildren.
That isn't arguing for or against the idea that you should be able to have the rights to some work you just created a year ago.
If you want a unanimous ruling on that second question, the internet isn't the place to find it. Most people will say it's infringement. Some people won't. But either way, it's fairly unrelated to the original post.
Legally, if someone were to put your specific work (the 100 copies one) on the net for free, then I believe the court would likely award you a relatively small amount of money, based on the idea that whatever infringement they did, it didn't impact you financially too much.
If someone were to, say, start a website where anyone can upload an MP3 of their favorite song written by someone else, and allow anyone to share those songs with anyone else, and the total membership of the site goes into the tens or hundreds of thousands of poeple, (Napster 1.0)then the courts are much more likely to award a larger sum of money, based on the money the works would have made the rights holders.
If, on the other hand, someone takes your work, modifies it, and somehow sells a hundred thousand copies for ten bucks a copy, and they don't give you any of that money, then the courts will likely award you money based on the money they made, rather than the fact that you didn't make any money with your version.
So, you're asking an absolute question (Is is moral? Is it theft?) when the real world answer in the courts is usually "it's relative". and how relative depends on how much money you made, how much money they made, and a bunch of other factors.
If you didn't make any money and they didn't make any money and the number of people who got copies of your work is relatively small, then any monetary award is going to be "relatively small".
If the question is "SHOULD I be able to control the rights to my work for some period of time?" I believe the majority of people in the country would say yes. But it won't be unanimous. Few things are.
If no $$ flow nothing has been lost...
Neener,
So what definition are you proposing...?
Cpt. Tim,
I think it depends on scale and intent, to a certain extent. Cory's own podcasts have a lengthy explanation of what is OK and what is not OK for his work. It is OK to redistribute them, to translate them, to remix them, but it is not OK for anyone to sell them. If someone turned your book into a PDF and sold it for their own profit, that would most certainly be morally wrong (and illegal).
If a fan has taken the time to turn your book, which they love, into a PDF so that people who would not otherwise have access or exposure to your book can read it and also love it, and this fan gives you due credit... that is not so immoral. It is basically illegal, and you could sue them, but you would be ill advised, as they are (for free) offering you the service of getting your work recognized in new audiences, which could lead to future sales.
Dave Matthews would never have got off the ground if he had cracked down on early bootlegs made of his concerts, for example. "Spaced" would never have come out on DVD in America if digital copies had not ignited a devoted fan base. Etc, etc. You see $10 you are losing, but you must look for possible advantages as well, and who you would alienate by causing a fuss. You might also consider forming an alliance with this PDF fan person, so that he could set up a PayPal voluntary donation for use of this PDF.
Cpt Tim:
If they buy your book and make a pdf of it so they can read it on their laptop/ebook reader while off on holiday, then that is emphatically not stealing.
It's fair use.
If they make a pdf of it and put it out on web in its entirety, even with a lauditory note saying how awesome it is, then yeah, it's stealing.
If they ASK you for permission to put it out on the web in pdf form, and you say "Sure! Thanks! Please put a note in there with my email and paypal account so they can donate if they like it!" then it's not stealing.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1183167
So, If I buy a new CD I guess I "owe my soul to the company store." My son recently gave me a Macbook and an Ipod so I downloaded my entire CD collection to both the book and the pod. I paid full price for every one of over 250 CDs. I OWN them and as long as I don't copy them for profit......I believe I should be able to copy them. I have been making copies of my music for friends ever since I got my first tape deck stereo. Nobody complained about it then. Also, buying any music on Itunes is stupid, it may be cheaper but you can't share it. I work at a junior college and found out that 80% of the students I know only listen to hiphop, so I started to give away compilations. World music, Jazz, Bluegrass, Classical, Metal, Punk, Funk, eclectic Rock, Techno.....the result is that these kids are now buying a more varied selection of music. I also tell them about the advantages of buying their CDs. So I guess I'm still resisting the "establishment." " Do not go gentle into that good night."
Yes rosedarpam I agree. If no $$ changes hands, if it is outside the stream of commerce, sharing is laudable and ought to be encouraged as broadening the hearts & minds of our fellow-critters, not treated as "criminal' nor even as "immoral".
@Cpt. Tim
It's absolutely stealing (and this is probably the wrong forum to ask, since, as much as I love BoingBoing, they do represent a minority - not to mention rather extreme - copyright standpoint). While, of course, you wouldn't try to stop someone from loaning your book, which is really similar, the effect is different. I think they quite probably are depriving you of sales (and while you may not be entitled to sales, exactly, you are entitled to control distribution up to a point) and it is a violation of your copyright.
Now then, pragmatically speaking, some of the commenters were probably right. You could try to sue these people, and maybe get a little money from it, as well as some sense of justice, and you'd be completely in your rights. Or, you could cut your loses and approach these people as an asset. Ask them to give you credit, direct traffic to your website, etc. You could certainly ask for compensation as well. I would direct you to this site:
http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2008/03/1000_true_fans.php
That being said, I would at most give them one chance at some kind of fair settlement, and then run them down as hard as I could, because I would be mighty pissed in your situation. (Although I suppose it is sort of a complement that they bothered to scan an entire book? They aren't Google after all.)
this was just a hypothetical, we're currently sitting on the copies at the moment and no one has a pdf other than the printers we went through*, since the alternative press expo in san francisco got postponed this year.
I just wanted to fuel discussion with a hypothetical situation that involved a smaller entity than a record executive thats busy doing rails off a strippers ass.
*the printer we went through was this place in tenn or kentucky called www.instantpublisher.com theres a lot of print shops out there, so i don't want to shill, but as far as i could see these guys had the best prices, and the quality of the paperbacks was store quality all the way (its the 2nd time i've used them, with a 3rd book on the way). But like i said, shop around, because poor self publishers gotta save money. they also do runs as small as 25 copies, but you end up paying more per book.
cpt.tim, I use lulu.com
Neener is correct. Depriving someone of "something" is not a valid definition for anything. (And I believe his 'you' is third person.)
It might be more interesting to look at the issue of copyright infringement in terms of use-value. If I benefit from sitting next to someone fanning themselves I have benefited from the use-value of their labor. If I am obnoxious enough about it and sit closely I might piss him off enough that he asks me to leave. But I have not stolen the use-value of the labor it took for him to fan himself. However, if I steal his fan or if he has hired himself out to fan another. Then his fan or his labor is now a commodity and that can be stolen.
#48 GregLondon: lulus site is slick, but they look considerably more pricey.
they do do orders under 25 books though so thats a plus.
Check out he book price generator dealy on instantpublisher.com. I can't offer a book quality comparison though since i haven't seen anything from lulu.
Okay, so the corollary is that everyone is financially liable for every depreciation in value. Every fart in an elevator, every mistake the city has made that cost honest citizens their time, every person who has failed to use their turn signal which has resulted in unsmooth traffic...
YOU ALL OWE PAY UP!!
"It's absolutely stealing (and this is probably the wrong forum to ask, since, as much as I love BoingBoing, they do represent a minority - not to mention rather extreme - copyright standpoint)."
Only because the majority are ignorant sheep that don't even understand IP theft.
Here's my hard and fast, overly simplistic view of piracy. If it can be bought, it's stealing, if it can't, it's not. If there is content that someone has made, if I want to buy it, and they don't offer it for sale, yet I can download it, it's their own fault that I must seek other means to acquire it.
CptTim, by my definition what you suggest is only stealing if you've not sold your limited run. If you have sold out and aren't providing a means for the people that want your book to get it, then they have no choice but to pirate it and that's your own fault.
I download a lot of movies, before they hit store shelves but after I've seen them in the theater, but as soon as they get released in stores I buy them (what can I say, I like having the boxes). Therefore my downloading a copy before it's available to buy isn't theft by my rule. Though, I do follow a modified "if value" rule. IE, it's stealing if it's worth being bought(assuming it's purchasable). Good movies and music, download then buy them; crap movies and music, if it's awful it has no value and should not be purchased, and the people that made it should be stopped from further attempts at their horrible productions.
#51 is that just humor or are you trying to make a man out of straw?
"Only because the majority are ignorant sheep that don't even understand IP theft."
suggested alternate "Only because the majority are ignorant of how IP theft. works."
"If you have sold out and aren't providing a means for the people that want your book to get it, then they have no choice but to pirate it and that's your own fault."
I agree wholeheartedly. If you have a media product you're not willing to resupply, don't be surprised when people steal it.
I picked up a newspaper that someone had left behind on the subway. I took it to work, read some of it, then I read some more of it on the way home. Then left it on the seat next to me when I got off the subway.
Did I 'steal' the paper from the publisher, then by leaving it on the train when I was done with it, did I facilitate unauthorized 'distribution' of copyrighted material?
You be the judge.
@31 - Take a deep breath, man. It's pretty clear to me that the original post is a "reductio ad absurdam" satire on copyright law, DCMA, the RIAA, etc and how they seek to criminalize ordinary human activities.
Talk about attacking the straw man...of a straw man.
""If you have sold out and aren't providing a means for the people that want your book to get it, then they have no choice but to pirate it and that's your own fault."
I disagree wholeheartedly!
What if my intention is to make a limited run of 100 copies only?
As copyright holder, I have the right to say when, who, how much, and how in regards to copying (for the duration of the copyright term).
On this theory...
If you're a "bad smell freak" you'll start paying up for other peoples' farts you smell while in crowded elevators...if you are honest.
Perhaps they should make us all pay anyway on the theory that we might just be enjoying the smells... can't have unrecompensed fart values, those raw rock snails aren't free...oh wait they are.
#56 Reductio ad absurdum is tricky because you have to actually reduce it to the absurd. examples like the Hostess cake are not reducing it to the abusurd, its actually reducing it to something else entirely, and then saying the person they are satirizing is making a similar claim.
Reductio ad absurdum's can easily become straw men, as you mentioned, which the example of the ding dong being split in half is.
a proper Reductio ad absurdum, would be far more effective.
@59 I dunno, I think the shoe-shining example is pretty absurd.
OK, I'm off to listen to some electro-acoustic music now.
The reality, however, is much more like the subjective theory of value. i.e. You only know what someone is willing to trade for something else, when they actually make the trade.
Just because you worked really hard and spent alot of money growing tomatoes doesn't entitle you to money for those tomatoes. Someone has to be willing to trade you for them (e.g. in exchange for money). But try telling that to the leviathan pharmaceutical industry who demands monopoly (i.e. patent) compensation for their grossly inefficient research and development.
"As copyright holder, I have the right to say when, who, how much, and how in regards to copying "
you have that right, but good luck enforcing it. my friends have been collecting and circulating pirated UCB episodes for years. MST3K as well. We also buy them whenever new material is released. They can come after us if they want, but they're attacking fans and the people that supply their profits.
to tie that to my question and example. I COULD choose to keep our run at 100 copies, but if enough people were interested in learning the true story about the zombie christ, i'd feel obliged, to either provide a point of purchase, or if i didn't want to deal with it, let fans copy and distribute.
#60 yes, the shoe shining example too. its a very shiny straw man.
I also only watch television programming that's had the advertisements removed.
@#57 Hagbard, if your intention is to make 100 copies, it would seem to me that digital piracy would not devalue the limited edition printing of said work.
Though I would ask, why would anyone choose to forbid their audience access to their content? Seems either utterly foolish, or intentionally mean.
I say, as a copyright holder, (something I myself am) you only have a right to say how your work is commercially used. Let's say I buy your book. And it's amazing, so I give my copy to my kid, and my kid thinks it's amazing, he goes to school and reads the entire book to his class they all love it and insist on knowing more about you and your works. According to your view, I would have to seek your permission for any action, where as instead I just got you 35 new customers.
The reality is that people need to be paid for writing, not for copies of what they've already written.
If your business model rests on copyright, you need a better business model.
Not to mention how copyright and patent violates common law property rights by dictating what you can and cannot reproduce with your equipment, or what processes you can or cannot enact. Instead the government grants a writ external interloper to deny those uses to everyone but themselves (and whoever they subsequently license to). When that "equipment" in question is your body which contains your brain, which is anyone who makes a living as a knowledge worker, you can see how this becomes a problem. Check out Eric Von Hippel's The Sources of Innovation.
c.f. Movement Against Intellectual Property, including Jorge Cortell; also, Is Copyright Dead on the Net? by Lance Rose, as well as Against Intellectual Property by David K. Levine.
-- Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson"The reality is that people need to be paid for writing, not for copies of what they've already written."
except for us putting our own work out there, in that case i cannot pay myself for writing, i can only gather money from copies.
CPT TIM
"you have that right, but good luck enforcing it."
So...might makes right?
I'm perfectly able to distinguish my rights from your crime.
If I don't take a self-defense class, do you have the right to beat me up? If I don't invent the perfect DRM, do you have the right to make copies of my work that I don't wish you to make?
If I can put a trojan horse on your computer, do I have the right to log your keystrokes and access your bank accounts?
Does technology supersede the law? Is technology a special case of might making right?
It's fine to say that copyright holders should bow down before the technological reality of near-zero transaction costs for perfect copies; but as we explore this world of technological might making right, we head towards stuff that Lessig was warning us about -- like more absolute control over your movements, your use of the net, and even the use of your appliances. Either by the government or by corporations (shall we just call them The State?).
Back to your claim "If you have a media product you're not willing to resupply, don't be surprised when people steal it."
Why not go all the way (since we're doing reductios) and say, "if you have a media product you're not willing to resupply at the price I choose, don't be surprised if I steal it."
I'd say you're not battling the RIAA or the MPAA, but artists and authors. Your desire supersedes their rights.
The law and respect for the law are just as important if not moreso as the "cyber" world develops. Just as we don't want the RIAA to be able to install rootkit that takes over control of our own computers and supersedes our fair use and time-shifting rights under the law; we shouldn't want artists and authors to lose their rights under the law to say how their work is utilized.
#59
I thought the DingDong example was perfectly illustrative of a company selling you a product and expecting to be able to tell you how the product may be used or distributed, or when you should pay again if you want to do something different with it.
For the social/moral environment, conjured up by the DingDong example, to be true, we would have to feel morally obliged to follow the portion-advisory on the pack of DingDongs, or otherwise feel we were being dishonest with the makers, depriving them of repeat custom through our frugality. This is an absurd extreme of logic.
Of course we aren't guilty of depriving a food seller of a secondary sale by choosing to use the product in a different way than they advise. They were never guaranteed the second sale, so they haven't lost anything. For that to be true there would have to be DRM on DingDongs.
I see the satrical/absurd parallel to being told how to apportion my music collection amongst my devices, and that somehow I should be morally expected to pay for the tape, and the cd, and the mp3.. rather than buying the cd once and ripping it to my ipod or media center. So for me, it works fine.
Here are two possible alternatives, off the top of my head:
1.) Dominant assurance contracts
2.) Prediction markets
"So...might makes right?"
never said it did, just making an observation based on coveted properties that were unavailable to the public.
"Why not go all the way (since we're doing reductios) and say, "if you have a media product you're not willing to resupply at the price I choose, don't be surprised if I steal it."
yes, let us say that. Lets have a popular star, say that miley cyrus girl or whatever, release her next album with a pricetag of $500 dollars for the CD.
Hmm, yes, i guess that would also be a "don't be surprised if people steal it." scenario. and please don't jump to the conclusion that i'm saying its right again.
I'm getting the sense that zuzu is a lawyer. Is it true that my copyrights apply only when money changes hands? Do I not have the right to say, "I've hand-written this sequel to my famous seven-book fiction series about wizards as a special gift for a special friend, and no one else may copy it?"
I'm waiting for someone to introduce the concept of "Sensory Trespass".
Current theories of intellectual property assume that we have complete control over whether we use intellectual property. For instance, it's assumed that when we listen to a song, we have to "pay" in some form for that pleasure, either with money or attention to advertising.
In reality, we are forced to view/consume intellectual property every time we drive down the street via billboards, newspapers, store signs, ring tones, etc. We are never paid for this.
I think content producers would get a little more rational if we sent them a bill every time we viewed a bus advertisement for an HBO show. I'd also suggest that we charge Nike a dollar every time we see a swoosh without specifically requesting it.
And every time one of our kids is forced to view an advertisement/intellectual property, we should be able to charge double.
Don't worry, content producers. We're willing to be reasonable. We just want to be compensated for the hundreds of hours a year we're forced to view your intellectual property.
"Wrong. Arguing that "the only business model that exists requires copyright" is ludicrous. "
making these arguments in my case is ludicrous.
I have 100 copies of a self published book that I paid for every physical copy of.
I cannot pay myself for writing this book. I mean i can, i can take the paycheck from my day job and say "here tim, here is 1000 dollars for writing this book."
or i can sell the copies and recoup my costs.
or i can pursue publishing through a publisher, but it's not what i'm pursuing at this moment.
I'm not arguing the only buisness model that exists requires copyright either. I'm arguing that your statement that the author should get paid for writing and not for copies is not applicable in mine, and may other producers of self published works(zines), circumstances.
"If you have sold out and aren't providing a means for the people that want your book to get it, then they have no choice but to pirate it and that's your own fault."
I agree wholeheartedly. If you have a media product you're not willing to resupply, don't be surprised when people steal it. "
I think that it's a perfectly reasonable conclusion to leap to that you're saying it's right. Thank you for the clarification of your position.
I don't mean that to sound personal, but Ugly Canuck nailed it first -- you're invoking a labor theory of value, which is bullshit. Figure out another way to earn a living by creating works / writing zines.
You're not entitled to revenue just because you invested $1000 in fabricating 100 copies of your writing printed on pulped dead trees.
I just happen to research "intellectual property" policy as a subset of my work in economics, finance, and organizational theory. All so-called "IP" are writs of monopoly granted by government for the purpose of exclusion (hence, "exclusive right") of others from a particular set of information. It has no sound basis in economics, and ultimately is a form of protectionism (i.e. corporate welfare) -- exercised and expanded through political capture.