Copyright

NOTE: This is not a discussion of the morality or ethics of copyright or intellectual property--both of which will no doubt provide for fascinating conversations at some future point. We raise the subject because there's been some discussion about copyright law because of the move to Patheos, and TBAT felt it would be helpful to clarify what the law actually is

Why write about copyright?

First, because unless people who write, and who comment on the writings of others, are aware of current copyright law they may unintentionally violate the copyright of others while at the same time being unaware of the fact that other people are violating their own copyright.

Second, because copyright law is changing constantly and even people who work with it have trouble keeping up.

Isn't there a simple set of rules about copyright?

Yes and no. It is a good idea to presume, absent evidence to the contrary, that the things that you are reading have copyright protection. Unfortunately it can sometimes be very difficult to determine exactly who holds the copyright over any particular material, or even different portions of it. Indeed the question of who holds copyright over what can change by simply stepping from one side of a international border to the other.

Copyright law varies from one time to another; one legal jurisdiction to another; one communication medium to another. It is possible for a book to be in the public domain in one country and still under copyright in another. For example, George Orwell’s works are in the public domain in Canada (and Australia) but not in the United States or the European Union.

It is also possible for one edition of a work to be in the public domain and while another, due to materials such as introductions and annotations, may still be under copyright. The Iliad was written thousands of years ago and Eugénie Grandet in 1833 but the editions on the shelves by the desk of this member of TBAT are all firmly under copryright. Indeed, if one looks inside the Robert Fagles translation of The Iliad, one sees that there not only is the (translated) text copyrighted (to Fagles) a different individual holds the copyright to the introduction and the notes and a further two share the copyright to the maps. Robert Fitzgerald holds the copyright to the (translated) text of another edition of The Iliad. One copy of Eugénie Grandet is in the original French (and therefore there is no translator to hold copyright) but has textual notes and a preface and is still in copyright. The estate of the translator holds the copyright on another edition of this Eugénie Grandet. Public domain versions of both texts are available for legally (and for free) on the internet.

Common assumptions about copyright:

#1 A country’s copyright law only protects the copyright of citizens of that country or works created in that country.
Wrong. This is not the case for any country that is a signatory to the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic works. This international agreement, usually referred to as “The Berne Convention,” came into force in 1886. It has been amended and updated many times over the intervening years to reflect changes in (among other things) available communication and copying media among other things. The Berne Convention is not the only international agreement/treaty that concerns copyright and there are still a few countries that are signatories to none of them. You can find a summary of the various copyright conventions and the date various countries became a signatory to each of them here.

#2 Copyright is just an idea that companies/corporations came up with in order to make more money.
Wrong. While it is true that companies/corporations are often in the forefront in the legal efforts to enforce copyright writers were among the driving forces behind the creation of modern copyright law. Victor Hugo founded the Association Littéraire et Artistique Internationale in 1878. The work of this group to protect the rights of authors led to the creation of the Berne convention. Charles Dickens received rough treatment from many Americans when, during his reading tours of the United States, he criticized American publishers for printing the works of non-American authors without paying them copyright. Indeed, Dickens went so far as to argue that Sir Walter Scott would not have died in financial distress had American publishers paid him royalties.

#3 If it doesn’t have a copyright notice it isn’t copyrighted.
Wrong. In countries that are signatories to the Berne Convention copyright must be automatic. It is true that some countries (including the United States) limit some legal remedies such as statutory damages and attorney fees to works with registered copyright.

#4 If I put it in my own words I am not violating copyright.
Not necessarily. Except in an instance that falls under the fair use/parody exclusion when you write a story using the settings and characters created by someone else it is considered a "derivative work" and as such is a copyright violation.

#5 If you don’t make any money from it you haven’t violated copyright.
Wrong. However, if you do make money from the material you used without clearing copyright that will probably be reflected in the size of the damage award.

#6 It was on the internet/usenet and that puts it into the public domain.
Wrong. Prior (internet) publication may have a serious impact on the monetary value of a work when the author is negotiating with publishers but it does not put the work into the public domain.

#7 If you don’t defend your copyright you will lose it.
Wrong. The holder of a copyright does not need to protect it to retain it.

#8 It is okay to copy something if it falls within fair use.
Yes, but. Fair use is not an infinitely elastic thing although there are some generally accepted criteria. Quotations for the purpose of fair use must give proper authorial/copyright attribution. They must be no longer than necessary to make the point. Extreme care should be used when their purpose/effect is to damage the commercial value of the work quoted. There is no "safe" number of words (or percentage of words) that will guarantee that the courts will consider a quote to be "fair use" of copyrighted material.

#9 The lyrics of songs can’t be copyrighted.
Wrong. Using the lyrics of a song, except under fair use circumstances, requires copyright clearance. MercuryBlue’s recent article, This is country music, is an excellent example of how a few lines can be used in order to make critical points without violating the copyright of the songwriter.

#10 If it is out of print it is out of copyright.
Wrong.

#11, 12, 13 When someone comments on a board such as this they give up all their copyright. When someone comments on a board like this they own the copyright. When someone comments on a board like this the board owner holds copyright.
Maybe. Maybe. Maybe This is a area of copyright law which is not yet settled and under active discussion in all the relevant communities.


Who owns the copyright on the materials published at The Slacktiverse?
Guest posters own the copyright on the material they contribute. In the event that the administration of the board changes hands guest posters may request that their material be withdrawn from the archive.

TBAT jointly owns the copyright on the material they sign.

While commenters retain some elements of copyright on their individual posts their control over those comments is not unlimited. The administrators of the board will not edit a comment without permission but may delete comments if they violate the house rules of the board. Comments attached to posts that have been withdrawn (at the request of the copyright holder) will "disappear" consequently commenters are advised to crosspost their comments to their own boards or to keep copies of them elsewhere. The "house rules" have been generated by the community at large and may change if that community so desires. Commenters may reprint their commentary elsewhere. The administrators of the board may copy comments for archival/backup purposes and when/if the administration of the board changes hands all comments will be handed over to the new administrators of the board.


-----------
Resources on "the facts" of copyright:
● Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works
● List of parties to international copyright agreements
● Joint Guidelines on Copyright and Academic Research - Guidelines for researchers and publishers in the Humanities and Social Sciences, Published jointly by the British Academy and the Publishers Association, April 2008
● 10 Big Myths about copyright explained
● A Fair(y) Use Tale
● The Copyright Crash Course Online Tutorial
● Copyright website
● Welcome to the primer
● Who Owns Blog Comments?
● Who Has Comment Copyright Ownership In A Disqus Era?
● 5 Copyright Facts Every Blogger Should Know
● EFF's Blogger's legal guide


Resources on the issues of copyright
● Copyright/Copyleft: Myths About Copyright
● A Free Speech Theory of Copyright

__________________________________________________________________________

 

The Board Administration Team
(hapax, Kit Whitfield and mmy)



Comments

[Colleen]

One of the questions I've always had is to what extent you can quote someone in a publicly available article. (Which I suppose is only tangential to copyright, but seems inextricably linked in my mind.) For instance, let's say ... someone wants to write a book about copyright and message boards or blogs. And they quote this comment in its entirety. Okay, I wrote it, but are my words explicitly endorsing the work they appear in?

I don't *personally* care, because I release my words into the wild willy-nilly, but I can see how someone might balk at the idea.

[MercuryBlue]

#4 If I put it in my own words I am not violating copyright.
Not necessarily. Except in an instance that falls under the fair use/parody exclusion when you write a story using the settings and characters created by someone else it is considered a "derivative work" and as such is a copyright violation.

Cue argument over fanfic in five...four...three...

[Choir of Shades]

It's not an exact analogue (and my experience in copyright law is only American), but I know that when using a picture of someone else's publicly available website, you almost certainly have to make "a good faith effort to obtain their permission to use it." If you can't contact them, it's kind of a fuzzy area, but you are required to abide by their permission or refusal thereof.

Erg, fanfic is a contentious issue in the courts, not just on the internet. There's a reason it said "not necessarily," and to quote ourselves, "It's more complicated than that."

Certain sources will head off these kinds of debates. I know that my digital copy of Jenkins' Riven, for instance, includes a legal briefing at the beginning giving people a generous word limit per (web) page that may be used without obtaining their consent and up to which they cannot charge you with copyright infringement for.

One of the most contentious parts of copyright law, at least in America, is the right of consumers to be secure in their possession of legally obtained copyrighted materials. Specifically, the derivative right to create and maintain a backup for your own personal use. The reason this is so contentious is that with electronic media, the same technologies that would prevent illegal copies from being used also prevent the use of legal copies to which consumers have been guaranteed the right to possess (video game companies in particular struggle with this).

One of the questions I've always had re: copyright law to which I've never received even non-commital answers is: If I own a copy of copyrighted media which includes but is not limited to audio (a video game for instance), do I also have a legal right to backup for my own personal use the audio of that media (in the video game example, could I legally obtain a copy of the music from the game under the backup clause or any others)?

Another point of contention I have that I have not seen discussed in the courts is the issue of software "licensing." Namely that most software, after you purchase it, requires you to agree to their Terms and Conditions, one of which is that after you have already purchased your copy of your system/game/software, you are forced give up ownership of your copy in exchange for a license to use it. This is rather problematic given previous rulings on internet terms and conditions policies (you cannot enforce TaC that the user would have no way of knowing or seeing without committing hirself into the website).

[Choir of Shades]

I should note on that last point that it does NOT apply to Europe. According to the copyright law in Britain and the EU, by purchasing a copy of a game/book/console/whatever copyrighted material, you legally have full ownership of it, and companies cannot attempt to strip you of that ownership through "licensing." It still doesn't give you unlimited rights to that material (you still cant copy and distribute it), but you legally own the material.

[Mmy]

@Choir of Shades: my experience in copyright law is only American), but I know that when using a picture of someone else's publicly available website, you almost certainly have to make "a good faith effort to obtain their permission to use it." If you can't contact them, it's kind of a fuzzy area, but you are required to abide by their permission or refusal thereof.

Every time I have tracked someone down they gave me permission (as long as I gave them credit.) I had the sense never to use an image that required I get clearance from an organization I knew would not give it. And I usually received a stunned "huh, you actually asked? Cool!!!" response from people.

[karpad]

Cue argument over fanfic in five...four...three...

"While a writer, artist, and so on has a legal right to assert ownership of their universe and characters and negate fanfic, fan works are generally indicative of affinity and attachment that the fanbase has for the work. As such, enforcing copyright against fanworks should only be done with serious consideration, as it will likely alienate a large portion of your fanbase."

that about covers it, yeah?

Incidentally, was there a thread discussion I missed that prompted this?

[MercuryBlue]

Not that I recall, but the way she phrased it got my hackles up, and if I'm annoyed then there's probably a few other people around here also annoyed by the same thing.

[guest-again]

#11, 12, 13 'This is a area of copyright law which is not yet settled and under active discussion in all the relevant communities.'

#3 'In countries that are signatories to the Berne Convention copyright must be automatic.'

I certainly recognize this is a very complex theme when only dealing with one country's copyright laws, but unless someone posts where the assignment of copyright is clearly stated, then as stated in point 3, all works are automatically copyrighted - caveats including when expressive, creative, and of sufficient length/effort (one musical note in the U.S. is creatively expressive enough for copyright protection, but music is different from text - the music industry most definitely was interested in creating a copyright/patent regime to its benefit from the start of that industry - just ask Edison), etc. (Even a collection of data is copyrightable in the EU, but that goes even further afield than talking about music.)

However, it is fascinating to see how those taking copyrighted material for profit attempt to justify themselves - 'maybe.' Actually, there is no maybe involved when the author of a creative work (some comments here reach that standard) demands that their work not be used by a for profit entity to which even an implied license was never granted. Well, except the fact that the typical Slacktivist commenter is unlikely to have a sufficiently large legal budget to make an impression on a corporate entity. (And to be clear - I would not actually support that commenter in any but the most narrow sense, much in the same way that archive.org will always honor any request to remove copyrighted data - there are rules, and one of the most important developments in copyright law in my life, the GPL, dies if copyright is casually cast aside).

But computers are just infinite copy machines - the idea of copyright is not really appropriate in older terms. Is Patheos responsible for the (let's pretend) thousands of copyright violations involved in thousands (as a number, because using 'tens' sounds so insignificant that the issue can be made to go away by itself) of readers reading an unauthorized copy of a Slacktivist comment (with ads earning revenue for Patheos from each viewing), or do they just violate copyright once by placing it on their server without the copyright owner's permission?

Obviously, no monetary damages are involved, but for those who aren't Americans, there is the fascinating idea of 'moral' rights - and considering how many people who were previous Slacktivist commenters have written that they do not want to support Patheos, it is fascinating to see 'maybe' as an answer to using material, in many cases at least, which is copyrighted automatically according to point #3.

Copyright is not really about principles (apart from people like Stallman, who is a vigorous supporter of copyright to ensure that people can share what they create without a company taking that work and then walling it off).

I don't really care that much, since copyright, in American terms, is simply a state granted monopoly designed to increase the public domain - something that hasn't happened in the U.S. with anything produced since a decade before my mother's birth. And which, according to current American law, won't happen until after my death, actuarially speaking.

The system is broken, but that has been true for a long time - generally, I wouldn't link to anything Baen, but in this area, Baen has been exemplary - and ignored in trying to balance the various rights of all parties, which most certainly includes the readers, who are the real reason copyright exists - to provide them with more to read, in the end.

So for those willing to spend the time, do enjoy Thomas Babington Macaulay -
'On the twenty-ninth of January 1841, Mr Serjeant Talfourd obtained leave to bring in a bill to amend the law of copyright. The object of this bill was to extend the term of copyright in a book to sixty years, reckoned from the death of the writer.

On the fifth of February Mr Serjeant Talfourd moved that the bill should be read a second time. In reply to him the following Speech was made. The bill was rejected by 45 votes to 38.

Though, Sir, it is in some sense agreeable to approach a subject with which political animosities have nothing to do, I offer myself to your notice with some reluctance. It is painful to me to take a course which may possibly be misunderstood or misrepresented as unfriendly to the interests of literature and literary men. It is painful to me, I will add, to oppose my honourable and learned friend on a question which he has taken up from the purest motives, and which he regards with a parental interest. These feelings have hitherto kept me silent when the law of copyright has been under discussion. But as I am, on full consideration, satisfied that the measure before us will, if adopted, inflict grievous injury on the public, without conferring any compensating advantage on men of letters, I think it my duty to avow that opinion and to defend it.'
http://www.baen.com/library/prime_palaver4.asp

Well, we no longer live in the world that Macaulay was in part successful in creating - copyright is broken, but it mainly because of greed. Just ask Patheos and its various accomplices about their respect for copyright as a principle, compared to their Google ranking and their revenue stream.

However, in all seriousness, please read Macaulay - these are not really new issues, especially the balance which copyright is supposed to serve - the creation of wealth as reflected in a growing public domain, not in the wealth of a corporation's shareholders.

I do doubt that anyone is going to demand Patheos remove 'misappropriated material' - and there is the practical fact that Patheos isn't even going to attempt to make an effort to allow a creator to have their work removed.

'but you legally own the material'
As Microsoft learned in Germany - and which they are careful to not acknowledge even to this day, as the licensing terms have not been changed to reflect that legal ruling (the last time I read any Microsoft terms, that is - several years ago) - that part of the terms is simply unenforceable, but the words themselves are not illegal to have users read (this trick is quite common in the U.S., of course). Nor to keep a company like ebay from still preventing users from selling legally bought copies of Windows online.

[MercuryBlue]

Is Patheos responsible for the (let's pretend) thousands of copyright violations involved in thousands (as a number, because using 'tens' sounds so insignificant that the issue can be made to go away by itself) of readers reading an unauthorized copy of a Slacktivist comment (with ads earning revenue for Patheos from each viewing), or do they just violate copyright once by placing it on their server without the copyright owner's permission?

Did you miss the bit where the copyright on the comments could be Fred's as easily as it could be ours? And therefore if Fred wants to make a copy of the comments and earn revenue from same, it's entirely within his rights.

You could be right, I won't deny that, but you could be wrong. Remember that.

And I hereby cede control of the copyright of all of my comments on Slacktivist to Fred and of all of my comments on Slacktiverse to hapax, mmy, and Kit. There. Problem solved.

[Choir of Shades]

As Microsoft learned in Germany - and which they are careful to not acknowledge even to this day, as the licensing terms have not been changed to reflect that legal ruling (the last time I read any Microsoft terms, that is - several years ago) - that part of the terms is simply unenforceable, but the words themselves are not illegal to have users read (this trick is quite common in the U.S., of course). Nor to keep a company like ebay from still preventing users from selling legally bought copies of Windows online.

My point was more that there actually has been a ruling in Europe that the terms are unenforceable. The situation in the U.S. is much more iffy; just take a look at the XBOX360 case where Microsoft launched a massive strike against people who had modded their system, for legal or illegal reasons, to disable even basic functionality of the console. This was right before a massive release season, and so there was a class action suit against Microsoft accusing them of attacking modders to force them to buy new consoles to play the new games. The issue of whether Microsoft had a right at any point to disable modded systems is wholly based on whether they can legally enforce that "licensing agreement," and yet to my knowledge, the issue was basically passed over in court and remains unresolved.

[Mmy]

@guest-again: Your comment is a derail. No one is appropriating anything for the purposes of making a profit.

[Kit Whitfield, who never had any patience with liking things 'ironically']

Baby and TBATting are absorbing quite a lot of my time, but has guest-again contributed any posts that aren't complaints about copyright issues on this site? Because seriously, guest-again, if you're so fond of content, producing some might be a better tribute than complaining about what happens to other people's.

[Kit Whitfield]

Er, ignore the irony bit in my sign-off. Darn computer imported it from the other thread. Darn technology. Mutter mutter.

[Timothy (TRiG)]

I'll agree with guest-again that copyright protection is a very important part of the GPL, and that the GPL is an extremely important licence, which has done a lot to change the world for the better. Remind me to write an article about FOSS some day.

TRiG.

[kisekileia]

Fred's made sure he's on firm legal ground with his Left Behind posts, right? I'm guessing that they would fall under parody, but would his extensive quotes from the source material be a problem?

[Choir of Shades]

Fred's posts would probably count under literary analysis, a branch that typically falls under the umbrella of educational material. While it isn't a perfect defense and on can still be sued for it, in America this is one of the strongest defenses one can have in an infringement case, especially combined with Fred's actual in-depth analysis. Tyndale or Jenkins could theoretically sue him, but given that A) Fred isn't making a dent in their sales figures, B) They would almost surely lose such a case, C) they could be held liable for Fred's legal fees which would likely amount to more than they could get from him, which will itself likely not cover their own legal fees, and D) depending on the jurisdiction in which Fred resides, he may be able to file an anti-SLAPP suit against them if they tried (basically a SLAPP is where some organization or individual tries to file a lawsuit against someone who is speaking poorly of their product/work/whatever for the purpose of getting them to stop criticising them; an anti-SLAPP suit cripples their ability to pursue many charges, restricting their ability to subpoena, shifting the entire burden of proof onto them...etc), neither Tyndale House nor Jenkins is likely to pursue any sort of action against Fred because it just wouldn't be worth the risk and effort.

[guest-again]

'Because seriously, guest-again, if you're so fond of content, producing some might be a better tribute than complaining about what happens to other people's.'

I do - and the copyright is mine, though the site that publishes has permission to publish it. The same is true of my photography - which does not involve Flickr, where at least some thought has been given to another idea of licensing, Creative Commons. (A less successful attempt to keep something resembling the public domain from being destroyed by the implication of universal and automatic copyright of all creative work.)

The complaint is more about what happens to other people's content when in the hands of ardent defenders of copyright - demonstrating what they believe copyright means is flexible when it comes down to revenue.

There is no 'maybe' that Patheos owns my comments - they don't (not that there is the slightest intention to demonstrate that, lacking not only interest, but a legal budget). Except in the sense that data essentially exists for no reason but to be copied. However, many people at Slactivist/Slactiverse vehemently reject the idea that information wants to be free - and yet, when it finally comes down to it, copyright infringement is just part of how the Internet works whether for love or money (that's right, bottom line, Patheos isn't in it for love).

If TBAT wanted to make a pragmatic argument about violating copyright, it wouldn't bother me too much - for example, too difficult to deal with finding the authors, the infringement is minimal or essentially non-existent, who wouldn't want to help Fred at what is presumably a place he now earns money (though interesting how the profit motive isn't mentioned at all in this discussion). But then, that would seem a bit too much like the people that actually believe copyright is a balance between those who benefit from copyright, readers and by extension, everyone, and those who create - which is not the publisher. Patheos created neither my comments nor Fred's past writing - but they are profiting (in at least a somewhat more than merely theoretical sense) from the current copyright regime - and if somebody else were simply to make an archive of all the comments here (will, there, I guess), and then publish them on the web, with a few ads to generate a bit of revenue, it is a safe assumption that Patheos would claim that their copyright is being infringed, and work to have that data removed from public viewing. And it is further safe to assume that the same people who defend copyright vigorously here would find Patheos to be in the right in such a case.

Sure, Patheos trying to track down Praline would not be simple - though after a certain discussion about anonymity/privacy/sock puppetry at Slactivist (and why yes, a lot of that discussion was prompted by my views concerning commenting), Kit Whitfield, published author, is much easier to find - and I'm sure that being better placed in various search results played at least a (eminently sensible) role in changing user names, and it was not merely a reaction to a bit of blog discussion.

I have no idea what percentage of comments here are mine (having only rarely commented on LB posts), but considering the time frame, top 100 (excluding LB) wouldn't be surprising in the least, at least when counting all the pre-typepad comments also. While Patheos using my writing for profit isn't something personally bothersome (I comment there, obviously), I'm not a person keeping a web site going because Patheos is considered awful. I find the contrast fascinating.

And yes, I still don't have a problem with a link to someone's short fiction available on the web while discussing something, or having data copied from one site to another - that is the fundamental principle of how the Internet functions, copying data from point to point over a network. On the other hand, growing up in a university setting had some effect - and the Xerox machine was the big threat then, but educational institutions in the U.S. have interesting exceptions in terms of reproduction. And academics, especially in research subjects, also don't believe much in copyright as considered in terms of corporate return on investment - knowledge is to be shared and expanded, not sold and restricted.

Copyright is a big discussion - and the creators of the American system felt that the threat of a state granted monopoly was balanced by the benefit. Copyright is for the readers, not the authors - that was the justification for that uniquely provided, state granted and enforced, monopoly.

[Deird, who... seriously, that's a lot of cynicism...]

Guest-again, I'd love to come up with a detailed answer for you, but I'm rather breathtaken by how cynical your comment is. *is fascinated and yet wordless*

[Mmy]

@guest-again: I have no idea what percentage of comments here are mine (having only rarely commented on LB posts), but considering the time frame, top 100 (excluding LB) wouldn't be surprising in the least, at least when counting all the pre-typepad comments also.

Huh? What?

Googling -- yup -- there are fewer than 10 posts from someone name "guest-again" on this site and none over at Patheos.

More to the point -- since you don't bother to source your comments/claims and state some of them in confusingly imprecise ways it is difficult to respond to them with any great preciseness

Example: And yes, I still don't have a problem with a link to someone's short fiction available on the web while discussing something

Are you writing here about inserting a link into a comment that will lead the reader to a site where the short fiction is available AND that short fiction is either in the public domain or available with permission of the copyright holder? If that is the case then I imagine everyone would agree with you.

If by "link" you meant "include in your comment" then it isn't a matter of whether you have "no problem with it" it is a matter as to whether the holder of the copyright has a problem with it.

Example: or having data copied from one site to another - that is the fundamental principle of how the Internet functions, copying data from point to point over a network.

Again your writing is imprecise. If by "fundamental principle of how the Internet functions" you mean "because of the physical principles that underlie the very functioning of the internet" that claim can be used just as easily to argue that no one should ever be able to save a copy of anything or any purposes.

If by "fundamental principle of how that Internet functions" (and I am presuming -- you are again very imprecise -- that you are talking about the "small i" internet as well as the "big I" internet) -- then you are wrong. The push to develop technology and infrastructure that was required did not arise out of the perceived need to copy data.

Also, please remember that this site is not exclusively made up of Americans so calls to "remember what the creators of the American system felt" tend not to have the same "conclusive impact" as your phrasing seems to presume. However your phrasing also implies that that Americans created the modern system of copyright (which they did not). Authors were among the principal forces behind modern copyright law (and America was a late signatory to the Berne convention.) And it is not a "state granted monopoly" is it is a legal limitation of publishers making a profit from the works of non-Americans (or others) who wrote it.

Finally, please do not speak so broadly as to what "academics" do or do not believe: And academics, especially in research subjects, also don't believe much in copyright as considered in terms of corporate return on investment - knowledge is to be shared and expanded, not sold and restricted.

Since almost all of academia can be considered a "research subject" you are speaking for all of us without a single citation.

[hapax]

@guest-again:

I've read your lengthy comment three times and I'm hard-pressed to find anything in it that doesn't boil down to:

"You are justified in ignoring copyright when a)you want to and b)you can get away with it."

But I've only had two cups of coffee this morning. Is there some subtlety that I'm missing?

[Froborr]

Copyright is a big discussion - and the creators of the American system felt that the threat of a state granted monopoly was balanced by the benefit. Copyright is for the readers, not the authors - that was the justification for that uniquely provided, state granted and enforced, monopoly.

No, in the U.S. at least you are 100% wrong about the justification.

Article 1, Section 8 enumerates one of the powers of Congress: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."

Authors and inventors; not a word about readers.

[Froborr]

(TW: Strong language.)

Also, guest-again, as someone who writes proprietary documents for a living, and who dreams of someday being able to quit my job and write fiction instead?

Fuck you. Fuck your "information wants to be free" bullshit, fuck your naked greed, fuck your theft, and fuck your transparent rationalizations.

Yeah, large corporations abuse copyright for their own gain. Your solution is to throw out the baby with the bathwater and guarantee that only people with the luxury of large amounts of free time can create anything. You're a privileged little snot whining because the big meanies won't let you have everything you want when you want it at no cost to you, and all the vague pseudo-philosophical quasi-political nonsense in the world can't hide your short-sighted selfishness, and a single-issue troll to boot.

Why don't you go back to hanging out with your loser buddies on Pirate Bay bragging about how you're totally sticking it to the man and fighting the power by seeding torrents, and leave us grownups be, hmm?

[Ross]

@Froborr: Please do not call copyright violations "theft". THat is part of the line that corporations and investors -- not authors and inventors -- want to sell us. A thing can be criminal without being theft, and the historical notion of theft hinges on the nonpartability of property. Unlicensed copying is unlicensed copying, not theft, and misappropriation of the term in order to drag along the related connotations is wrong in a way analogous to (but I DO NOT WANT TO IMPLY AS BAD AS OR AS HURTFUL AS) misappropriating the word 'rape'.

[hapax]

Please do not call copyright violations "theft". THat is part of the line that corporations and investors -- not authors and inventors -- want to sell us.

Beg to differ, Ross. Every author I follow who has been the victim of copyright violations explicitly calls it "theft" or "stealing."

You do not speak for them.

[Mmy]

@Ross: Please do not call copyright violations "theft"

Then call it "theft of services" which is occurs when:

the person obtains services, known by that person to be available only for compensation, by deception, force, threat, or other means to avoid payment for the services; having control over the disposition of services of others to which the person is not entitled

from UsLegal.com.

[Ross]

@mmy: If you have declared intellectual property to be a service in the eyes of the law, then that is fine. I was not aware the courts had done the same.

@hapax: A few of the ones I've followed have called it rape. I am not making this up.

[Mmy]

@ross:

No, actually the courts just label it as unlawful. I was offering you an alternative phrase.

@Ross: A few of the ones I've followed have called it rape. I am not making this up

That, at the very least, indicates that the authors involved consider it to be a serious crime. We don't endorse that use of the word "rape" but that doesn't change the fact that it is a violation of copyright.*

*Note: this falls under the "a wrong + a damaging, inappropriate and hurtful use of language /= a right"

[Ross]

@mmy: Every time I am lured into a copyright discussion, I feel as though one side is firmly of the opinion that anyone who does not agree with them on eveyr point and in every detail is a vile pirate theif who disrespects all copyright. Nothing I said was suggested copyright violation is not a serious crime, and yet you felt the need to not-excuse-but-partially justify the use of *rape* with "at least that shows they take it seriously".

That really REALLY bugs me. ANd I can't take part in this conversation any more because certain defenses of copyright are triggering for me (A family friend died a poor and broken man because shortly before his first novel was to be released, someone decided that it was too similar to something they held the rights to and shut him down with legal threats), and every time I object to the way in which copyright law has evolved, I feel I am accused of being a criminal.

I shouldn't have said anything in the first place because I can't deal with this calmly. I am not a successful writer, so I have never been in the position of copyright law working to my personal advantage; I have only ever been in the position of someone with money abusing copyright law to hurt me or people I care about (I've also been in the position of "We're pretty sure we didn't do anything wrong, but they have more money than we do, so we'd better just give in rather than risk being bankrupted by a legal battle").

[hapax]

A thing can be criminal without being theft, and the historical notion of theft hinges on the nonpartability of property.

The more I think of this, the more nonsensical it is.

So there is no such thing as "stealing" trade secrets? Intellectual property cannot be "stolen"? Do you get exercised about the term "identity theft"?

True, English common law does limit the term "theft" with regards to certain limited intangible properties.

But that does NOT hold in all jurisdictions, and is in any case a narrow technical usage of the term, which is clearly understood in common usage.

[Kit Whitfield]

Please do not call copyright violations "theft". THat is part of the line that corporations and investors -- not authors and inventors -- want to sell us.

Seriously, Ross? Nonsense. I'm an author and I have no problem at all with calling it theft. How great a theft varies from instance to instance, and I regard some thefts as minor enough to be tolerable or not worth the trouble of pursuing, much as I wouldn't call the police if I saw a kid scrumping apples from my apple tree (supposing I had one), but theft is exactly what I call it.

Corporations and artists are not on opposite sides here. Almost all authors depend on corporations for publication and legal protection of their copyright. Yes, some corporations have forced the right to hang on to copyright after the author's death to an unreasonable extent. That doesn't put us in opposite camps. The relationship between artists and corporations is ... well, look at the website motto. It can be complicated, and it's often positive. As long as an author is alive, their interests and their publishers' are very similar. Both want the books to succeed and the author to be protected enough to keep writing more books that also succeed.

As to authors calling it rape - I wouldn't do it, but more out of a desire not to cause problems for rape survivors than because I'd consider it a minor issue. Authors using it are likely to be saying that someone has unlawfully and selfishly made use of something extremely personal and precious to them for their own pleasure without regard to the rights and feelings of the author. I wouldn't use the word, but I understand where the analogy comes from.

And as there are several authors on this thread who read it, you really should know better than to speak for us.

[Mmy]

@Ross: Nothing I said was suggested copyright violation is not a serious crime, and yet you felt the need to not-excuse-but-partially justify the use of *rape* with "at least that shows they take it seriously".

I did not partially justify the use of the word rape. Please retract that statement.

NOW

[sarah]

So this is completely off-topic, but it has to do with the "bathrooms" essay from last week. Someone mentioned the Philly male-female stickers on transpasses, and the Metro (the free newspaper) had an article on that yesterday:

http://www.metro.us/philadelphia/local/article/835436--transpass-gender-labels-cause-sticky-situation-for-septa

Just thought you all would be interested.

[Mmy]

@Sarah: Thanks for the followup. Things aren't getting any better are they?

Arcila’s complaint with the Philadelphia Human Relations Commission still hasn’t been heard because SEPTA is considered a quasi-state agency and not subject to local regulation. The commission declined comment, citing on-going investigation, but no hearings have been scheduled.

[Lunch Meat]

Another OT post, but I wanted to link to this article from the New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/19/us/19gays.html?_r=1&hp It's about queer students at Christian colleges and different struggles for student groups and discussion. Several of my friends and I were interviewed for it, although I didn't get quoted.

[sarah]

@mmy: Yeah, I know. The sticker issue seems to be one of those things that gets brought up periodically and then dropped--perhaps because people think it's not that big of an issue, or perhaps because Philly's got so *many* issues that it gets buried under things like poverty or the rising murder rate or corruption or whatever. SEPTA (er, Southeastern PA Transpo Authority) has been promising updates on their system for a while--you still have to use tokens if you don't have a pass. I'm not sure if upgrading the system will eliminate the gender issue or not.

Right now, all I can say is, oh, Philly.

[Will Wildman]

I'm baffled at the contorted logic in the SEPTA article. If they were operating without the gender stickers, and trying to figure out how to cut back on fraud, someone who walked into the room and said "Hey, let's tag passes for gender so that people can only commit fraud with a pass taken from someone of the same gender", that person would be rightly laughed out of the room. How do they make that argument with a straight face? (Of course, my cynicism is such that I'm still surprised when newspapers bother to get people's genders right.)

Regarding the bit mmy quoted, if they're not subject to 'local regulation', who does regulate them, and what's their excuse?

[sarah]

@Will: Far as I can tell, SEPTA's operated by a Board of Directors, appointed by Philadelphia and the surrounding counties that SEPTA services, and a General Manager. I know that SEPTA was created by the PA legislature back in the 60s, but I don't think the state has any control over it.

[SweetCraspy]

Thanks to TBAT for the commitment to the binary options of letting posts stand as-is or of deleting them outright. The edit-your-post-as-a-punishment strategies (like disemvoweling or adding mocking commentary) are out of place in any community-driven conversation, and this place has some of the best conversations I've ever found on the web. Keep up the great work!

[Timothy (TRiG)]

Can we drop the assumption that torrenting is illegal? Please?

Legal Torrents

TRiG.

[kisekileia]

I'm curious about something. How do authors and other creators feel about people downloading their work for free if the person cannot afford to buy it or isn't sure whether they want to buy it? I have downloaded TV shows and music in both situations--my reasoning being that I'm not depriving the creators of a sale in the former situation, and that I am more likely to buy something if I can get some sense of whether I like it first in the latter situation (with music this was before iTunes or Pandora). In both cases, I have often bought the content or requested it as a gift (my family does lists for birthdays/Christmas) later. Do creators perceive this as neutral or positive because it can lead to sales for them, or as negative because it's obtaining the content without purchasing it?

[Timothy (TRiG)]

Creators vary. Some would be perfectly happy with that, kisekileia; others wouldn't. I'm generally very good about this kind of thing, but then I find it easy to be: I prefer to read long books from the printed page, and I'm not much interested in music or in most TV shows. (That said, I'm currently trying to track down the episode of 8 Out of 10 Cats which featured Tim Minchin and Uri Geller. It appears to be unavailable outside the UK.)

TRiG.

[hapax]

@kisekileia -- most musicians and authors I know are happy to provide free previews, sample chapters, and the like. I can't tell you how many songs I've later purchased after someone sent me a YouTube link.

But there's a huge honking difference between a bakery handing out free sample cupcakes, and me shoplifting the same out of the case.

Economists -- including some who were once in the forefront of the 'information-wants-to-be-free' movement -- who have studied this point to a more subtle harm of such piracy, "undermining the artificial scarcities that allow the economy to function."

Once the price point of "free" becomes normalized, it becomes harder and harder for for artists to justify charging for their efforts. Go onto any reader message board and see the hoardes of consumers whining about how much some "greedy" authors are charging for their e-books, when so many others are selling them for .99 or giving them away (while simultaneously complaining about the poor quality of editing in such books!)

The result is that it is more cost effective, to be frank, to pick over and repurpose old creative content than for artists and inventors to create new.

[Note: link is to a NY Times article, speaking of creating artificial scarcities in order to salvage economic viability]

[Launcifer]

As a random aside, you've cleared something up for me. Sort of. Following a good friend's run-in with a certain Canadian prog' rock trio, I was rather under the impression that a breach of copyright pertaining to song lyrics occurred on the publication of a complete line and/or seven consecutive words within a complete line. Helpful and informative, so ta very much :).

[Choir of Shades]

Disclaimer: I live in America and so all of my experiences are with American law. Your country's laws may be different from the ones I discuss.

Another fun point of contention: used products, such as books, movies, video games, etc. Such items do not earn the creator any money on their sale, and most go for cheaper prices with little to no drawback; larger companies like EA have actually equated the sale of used items to piracy. As a result, some video game companies are starting to test strategies to either enforce the use of newly purchased copies completely (such as per-copy registration causing that copy not to work for anyone else, or at least anyone else who doesn't already have their own registered copy), or giving unique beefits through 1-use codes to those who purchase new copies.

While I agree that the equation of copyright infringement and theft/stealing is to give the former the moral connotations of the latter, it would be highly financially disadvantageous to treat it as such in court. Theft is FAR more limited in the scope of awardable damages. With copyrght infringement, companies like the RIAA can get away with filing multi-million/billion/TRILLION dollar lawsuits and actually have some of them be enforced. And while I fully agree that we need to have reform to prevent companies like the RIAA from literally mass mailing anyone who may or may not have downloaded songs, the actual creators' interests are at stake here and we should respect them. (Also, for anyone thinking that you are taking a principled stand against corporate overreach, look up Pirate Bay's finances. Depending on the estimate, TPB makes 9-12 million a year from advertising and solicits donations on top of that) And there is a lot of contention on the "downloads for sampling purposes." If memory serves--and I will grant that this was specifically with respect to video game ROMs but likely applies to most media--you as a consumer may legally download material and keep it for up to 48 hours for review, preview, sampling, demo, etc. purposes (after which you must legally obtain a copy or delete your downloaded version).

Also of note is a recently introduced bill in Congress that, as I understand it, would give expanded powers to...some authority to shut down websites accused of copyright violations; from what I could tell, a finding of guilt was unnecessary and a simple accusation was sufficient. They are currently trying to figure how to expand the jurisdiction to include foreign-bsaed websites.

[Kit Whitfield]

How do authors and other creators feel about people downloading their work for free if the person cannot afford to buy it or isn't sure whether they want to buy it?

My personal perspective? If it happens every now and again, it doesn't do me much harm. If a big cultural assumption sets in that you're entitled to have an artist's work no matter what and that paying is optional, and that option can be entirely determined at the discretion of the pirate - who after all has a vested interest in deciding that they shouldn't pay - then that is going to make it very difficult for me to make a living. And if I can't make a living writing books, no more books.

It seems like the difference between institutional justice and charity in politics: right-wingers may prefer the notion of charity because it seems less compelled, but it's also much less likely to provide a reliable system for people to live under because it's dependent on whim and becomes an issue of the giver's virtue rather than the recipient's rights. Getting paid for your work becomes a privilege. And that puts artists at a lower status than any other workers in our society.

Basically I can understand it if an individual does it from time to time, and sometimes it would cost me more to chase up than the download is worth. But I do not think that being unable to afford or unsure if you want entitles you to just help yourself. Nobody applies that logic to the products of someone's labour if they produce chairs or loaves of bread or legal advice or the management of a department; it's only artists who get it. And frankly that rather annoys me. People seem to invest a great deal of emotional value in art, and yet feel this gives them the right to shrug off its financial value. I think it comes down to the basic fact that the easier it is to half-inch something, the less like theft it feels and the easier it is to justify it to yourself.

[syfr]

I pay for my content. If I like something enough to keep it, I will buy it, and even, if I can afford it, pay a little more (a music service I use used to offer you the option of picking how much you wanted to pay, and I would opt to pay more than the usual cost. I also knew that half of what I sent them went to the artist.) If the artist can't make a living, they won't be an artist for long. I pay because I want them to write the next book, and play the next music.

I'm not squeaky clean; I've borrowed CDs from friends - but if I like it enough to keep (not just listen to once or twice, decide I don't like, then delete), I need to find a way to pay the person(s) who made it possible, and that means buying it even though I already have a copy.

[kisekileia]

@Kit and hapax, that makes sense. I will try to avoid doing that in the future.

[Lonespark]

Getting paid for your work becomes a privilege. And that puts artists at a lower status than any other workers in our society.

Well, from this pagan mom's perspective, it puts you on the same level as a lot of clergy and childcare providers/homemakers/etc. But yeah, definitely a disrespectful and untenable way to go.

(Now thinking more about it, I think the deal with clergy and childcare and some other things, like teachers often, is that people expect them to get some kind of non-monetary reward. And that's ok sometimes, up to a point. If you get free room and board, then yeah, you are compensated. But heavenly favor or honor from students doesn't directly feed anybody, if it's even there.)

[Jarred]

Go onto any reader message board and see the hoardes of consumers whining about how much some "greedy" authors are charging for their e-books, when so many others are selling them for .99 or giving them away (while simultaneously complaining about the poor quality of editing in such books!)

Personally, I've wondered about the cost of e-books, but my questions have nothing to do with the authors. I think the authors deserve to get paid for their work, as does anyone. But more than paying the authors goes into determining the price of a book.

If I go to buy an paperback copy of a certain book, that book had to be printed on paper and bound together. That's process with a certain cost associated with it. Part of the price of the book goes towards offsetting that cost. Another portion of the book's price goes toward offsetting the cost of the bookstore or distributor keeping that copy of the book safe and dry in some location until I purchase it.

Now maybe, the cost of keeping an electronic copy on a server for download and maintaining that server's connectivity to the internet works out to cost the same as printing and warehousing paperback versions of the same book. Intuitively, it seems* like it would be cheaper. If I'm correct about that, it would be nice if the cheaper cost of providing the electronic copy was reflected in some degree in the price of the electronic copy. So far** that doesn't seem to be the case.

But my thinking has nothing to do with what the authors themselves should get for their work.

-----

*And I'm certainly open to being proven wrong on this count.

**Granted, I've only bought about a dozen e-books so far.

[hapax]

Jarred, you've touched on an incredibly complicated point.

Publishers don't RELEASE the costs associated with producing and selling books.

(In fact, it's terribly difficult to get accurate *sales* figures. Those "bestseller" lists you see everywhere? Pretty much bogus.)

From what I've been able to follow -- and anyone who works in the industry please feel free to correct me -- by far the biggest chunk of the cost of a book goes to human input: the author, of course, but also the various editors, the designers, the marketers, the various folks that turn a gaggle of words into something pleasant and desirable to acquire, hold, and look at it.

The actually physical costs (paper, ink, printing) are relatively small. IIRC, it costs more to ship and store physical books than it does to produce them.

All the above costs can be eliminated with an e-book, of course. And much of the human work is done digitally nowadays, but the digital format for producing a physical book is NOT the same as the digital format for producing an e-book; so you're still going to need someone to convert it, and edit it after conversion.

(The fact that this conversion is often done automated and unedited accounts for the crappy look of many e-books these days)

Obviously, the physical costs can be cut for an e-book. And publishers are working very hard to cut the human costs as well, for all formats -- editing is becoming more perfunctory, authors are expected to pick up more of their own marketing, sales reps have pretty much been eliminated, and art departments outsourced.

But to say that "therefore books should cost less" ignores the very very slim margin publishers have to work with. As near as anyone outside the business can tell, the vast majority of books lose money. Hardbacks still have a profit margin, and trade paperbacks if the pubs can charge near-hardcover prices; but mass market paperbacks serve mostly as an effort to recoup some of the sunk costs, and as advertising for the author's *next* hardback*.

Publishing is a gamble; profits come mostly from the lucky lightning strike of a bestseller (ah, the lavish parties Scholastic would put on when Rowling was still producing Harry Potter books!) and small steady returns from things like textbooks and repackaged classics.

And with the increased dominance of discounters like Amazon and the wholesalers like B&T and BWI, this margin is shrinking steadily.

It's easy to say that "e-books should be cheaper." But from the publisher point of view, it's more like, "eliminating the physical costs will FINALLY allow us to turn a profit!"

*This explains Baen's strategy of simply giving away e-books of the first books in series they own; it's pure marketing. Some other publishers are also doing this with authors' old backlists. Others are taking the opposite strategy of charging through the nose for them, relying not just on the impossibility of getting hard copies of old titles released straight-to-mmpbk, but also arguing that this keeps these titles technically "in print", so the rights don't revert to the author. It's very complicated.

[Mmy]

@Jarred: Charlie Stross recently posted an interesting piece Reminder why there's no tipjar about downloading, copyrights and why he doesn't have a tip jar on his site.

What Stross emphasizes is that without a publishing contract and editors he would not be able to make a living as a writer. Publishers, for example, have been known to give authors advances which means that they have something to live on while creating the book.

And anyone who has had their work edited by a good editor knows that such a person can a "just okay" piece of writing into a "really great" one. The editor, as well as the proof readers, the printers, the people who distribute the books -- they all deserve to be paid.

And without them we wouldn't have all the great books that line the room in which I type this.

[Jarred]

@hapax: Thank you. That was extremely enlightening.

[Jarred]

@Mmy: he editor, as well as the proof readers, the printers, the people who distribute the books -- they all deserve to be paid.

Erm, I didn't mean to say they didn't. Sorry about that.

[Mmy]

In regards to what hapax posted about costs and profit margins. We could do a series about the "myths around publishing" that would be spectacularly long.

A few years ago I taught a course that covered the costs/profits associated with printing/television/films and the razor thin profit margins of publishing houses was breathtaking. As hapax mentioned much of the really "inside" data is difficult if not impossible to get but one thing is crystal clear -- most of the individual titles published in any year do not make profit.

There are many costs involved in publishing/marketing books that people are generally unaware of. If one undermines the publishing houses those costs just get shifted onto the shoulders of the individual authors. For example, right now I have a pile of books that were sent to me (for free) so that I could write reviews of them. At the moment it is the publishing houses that are shouldering the costs involved in those books not the authors.And before someone suggests that it would have cost them nothing to send me digital copies of the books I remind people that it costs money (in terms of recompensing the individuals who did the work) to format and edit the book whether the final product is print or electronic in form.

[Choir of Shades]

I'm not sure. The most expensive part of the e-book model is bandwidth. A server + storage space will probably cost $5-7K, while setting up bandwidth can cost a good grand in initial costs, and costs $2-4K/month. On the other hand, a print copy needs, the printer, and machinery to assemble the books, paper, adhesive (for the binding), and lots of ink. The startup cost for the print copy is probably heftier. Assuming a constant 100 Mbps line with no data cap, you're probably looking at the high end of the 3Ks/month, but you can, at least in theory, transfer any amount you want and thus have no cap on your sales beyond how quickly you can transfer the data out to people. According to an article I just found, it costs ~$1.50 per book, paperback, to print if you have an large quantity (3000+). Assume that you use the same server for 4 years. Your total monthly cost would run to about $4K (obviously a very imprecise estimate, but we can at least benchmark using it). As an e-book seller, you have the advantage that any book you provide is covered under the same cost, while the printer is having to buy a couple thousand copies per book to get that price. Even if we don't account for shipping, shelving, and maintaining the hard copies for sale, that's still a cost of $4500 to have 3000 books for sale. The e-book seller has spent $4k. So long as the e-book seller sells at least ~2700 books, he's come out ahead of the print seller (assuming the same price for the consumer to purchase the book). And the more the e-book seller sells, the better his margins. (the principle will remain the same no matter how much the server + bandwidth costs: the e-book seller has a fixed price, while the physical seller's costs expand with the number of books he sells).

[Choir of Shades]

Welp, as I didn't refresh, I just managed to put my foot in my mouth in a massive way. Yay.

[Will Wildman]

Just to throw in one more perspective on the e-book thing, there's the purely economic question of costs and revenues. I remember the day in graduate class when the prof asked "What function determines the amount that a firm will charge for a good?" and the correct answer was "As much as they can get for it", and I thought: ah, so grad school will be about reality.

So if a paperback book sells for X and it costs Y to produce (let's say that X > Y here), then the paperback brings X - Y = Z net revenue. Setting aside all sorts of complicating factors*, even if the costs for producing an e-book are less than Y, there's no reason for the publisher to settle for Z net revenue if everyone is still willing to pay the standard X for the e-book. I mean, in simple theories it will happen automagically because MARKET, but in the words of my (usually most boring) prof in perhaps his finest moment, 'good little economists believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and perfect competition'.

All of which is a roundabout way of saying that if e-books were cheaper to produce and publishers didn't cut their price but instead increased the pay of all the people whose work goes into those books, I'd be okay with it.

*Paperbacks and e-books are imperfect substitutes even if the content is the same, the vast majority of books are not substitutes of any kind for each other**, etc.

**"I'm sorry, reverend, your copy of A Brief History of Time has been delayed, but we do have Pregnesia."

[PastyAndUnhealthy]

[Squints suspiciously]

Will, do you listen to Made of Fail?

[Will Wildman]

Never heard of it, nope.

[PastyAndUnhealthy]

Oh, OK. It's a geek-oriented podcast, that's where I heard of Pregnesia.

[sarah]

[[Will: "I'm sorry, reverend, your copy of A Brief History of Time has been delayed, but we do have Pregnesia."]]

Damn you, Will. I almost started laughing out loud, and I'm at work.

[Spearmint (who apparently has forgotten how to spell her own handle)]

Nobody applies that logic to the products of someone's labour if they produce chairs or loaves of bread or legal advice or the management of a department; it's only artists who get it.

At the risk of having Kit punch me (although she shouldn't, 'cause I just bought a new, physical copy of In Great Waters, and it was very good, BTW), I do feel obliged to point out that this may have less to do with artist being oppressed qua artists and much more to do with the fact that due to the nature of art and digital reproduction, no physical object is being stolen.

If I steal a loaf of bread, the baker can no longer sell that loaf to another customer. If I pirate a copy of a book, the bookstore has no fewer copies of that book than they did before I pirated it, and can freely sell them to everyone else. So from my perspective, if I was never willing to pay for that book, I haven't actually imposed a cost on the author/publisher/distributor complex. It's a qualitatively different act.

Of course I am expecting to get the author and editor's intellectual labor for free, but the marginal cost of them supplying me with that labor was zero. And as anyone who works in IT can tell you, random people expect to get the free benefit of other people's intellectual labor all the frickin' time anyway- that's hardly an burden unique to writers.

Furthermore, this is a more general problem in the digital age than just with respect to piracy- I'm certainly paying for fewer books and newspapers than I would be if I couldn't read intelligent articles here at the Slactiverse for free.

[Kit Whitfield]

If I pirate a copy of a book, the bookstore has no fewer copies of that book than they did before I pirated it, and can freely sell them to everyone else.

Who, if they all follow your example, won't buy it either, and then the author can't afford to write another one.

The fact that no physical object is stolen, I think, just refers back to my assertion that the easier something is to steal, the easier it is to rationalise. Have you read Predictably Irrational? They did an experiment where people could steal money or could steal or con tokens that could be exchanged for money: the amount of dishonesty rocketed up when there was a step between the dishonesty and the money, even though the result was exactly the same.

Something being intangible makes it extremely easy to steal, and thus extremely easy to rationalise. It's still stealing.

[Mmy]

@Spearmint: I cannot answer for Kit but I find that particular argument ahistorical and less than economically convincing.

First (the ahistoricity) Charles Dickens and Victor Hugo, both of whom wrote and published long before the advent of the digital age, raged against copyright infringement. Dickens faced a storm of protests and anger in the United States when he complained (while on tour there) that American publishers had reprinted his work at their own profit and without his receiving a penny.

Victor Hugo was himself a driving force behind writing/signing of the Berne Convention.

Digitization has made it easier to more people to take the work of artists without paying for it -- but the urge to do so (and the practice of doing so) long predates digitization.

Second, as for economic harm -- yes the person who pirates a book/doesn't pay copyright does do an economic harm to the author because had they not done so they would have had to PAY the author in order to read the book. Every pirated copy reduces the total amount of royalties that author could receive.

To not pay for a book and argue that "you wouldn't have bought it anyway so the author shouldn't complain" is like saying that you should not have to pay when you go to the theatre because if you had to pay you wouldn't go.

[Spearmint]

Who, if they all follow your example, won't buy it either, and then the author can't afford to write another one.

Right, this is the crux of the problem- freeriders who would pay for the book but now won't because they could get it for free. And as you pointed out earlier, everyone has a vested interest in convincing themselves they're not a freerider, so for every person who genuinely isn't one, you probably get dozens or hundreds who are. I'm not trying to minimize the danger.

My only point is that an act of theft that has no impact except on a Kantian level is qualitatively different, in terms of harm, from an act of theft that removes a physical object, which is probably one of the reasons it's psychologically easier. It's not just a question of how likely people are to be nabbed by a mallcop when they're doing it, although obviously that's a factor too.

[Mmy]

@Spearmint: My only point is that an act of theft that has no impact except on a Kantian level is qualitatively different, in terms of harm, from an act of theft that removes a physical object

While it is certainly easier to argue to oneself that if you haven't removed a physical object you haven't stolen I think that that is just too simplified an argument.

We understand that you can "steal" something without ever laying hands on it. Nothing physical changes hands when I call my broker to buy stocks. Yet the ownership of those stocks changes.

[Spearmint]

Yet the ownership of those stocks changes.

Exactly. You can now sell the stocks and get the money back, and the previous owner cannot.

If I steal money from your bank account, I can now cash in that money for... um, money. Dollar bills. You no longer can.

Whereas if I pirate a copy of a book, the author has no less ability to "cash in" the book by selling it (except possibly to me, since I now have a copy) than they did before I pirated it. It's not a tangibles vs. intangibles issue, it's a "intellectual property is fundamentally different from other forms of property" issue.

[Kit Whitfield]

My only point is that an act of theft that has no impact except on a Kantian level is qualitatively different, in terms of harm, from an act of theft that removes a physical object, which is probably one of the reasons it's psychologically easier.

It's not just that, though. As mmy points out, someone who rips a book off is someone who might otherwise have paid. But even if they personally wouldn't, they're providing support for a system that serves other people who do fall into that category. Nobody would put pirated things online if other people didn't download them: it creates a demand, which means more piracy.

[MercuryBlue]

But even if they personally wouldn't, they're providing support for a system that serves other people who do fall into that category.

Libraries. Used-book stores. (I don't know what my point is.)

[Spearmint]

Or to give an example, suppose I find a copy of the book lying in a dumpster and take it home with me (unlikely to happen to Kit's books, but suppose it's Left Behind). I now have a copy of the intellectual property covered by the copyright, and I haven't paid the author/publisher. (The distributor is a dumpster, and presumably expects no compensation.) If we set aside the Kantian question, how is this substantively different, in terms of harm to Kit, than if I download a copy from Rapidshare? (Not from Bittorrent, because if I seed the torrent I'm aiding in the illegal distribution).

[Kit Whitfield]

Libraries. Used-book stores. (I don't know what my point is.)

So what?

Libraries buy a copy of the book. They can only lend it to one person at a time, and when it falls apart, they buy another one. Money is involved. Nothing is duplicated: when you bring the book back, you don't have it any more.

Used book stores can only sell the books they get. They can't put a book in the window and let three hundred people get duplicate copies of it. They sell the copy they have, and then it's gone.

These are physical books: there is a limit to how much they can be circulated, and they are not duplicated. Neither is comparable to lifting the content from its authorised format and making it available to potentially everyone with computer access in the world.

I don't know what your point is either.

[Kit Whitfield]

I now have a copy of the intellectual property covered by the copyright, and I haven't paid the author/publisher.

Neither have you contributed to the system that takes the text out of the book and puts it on a generally available format. In effect, you've just been given the book as a present by an anonymous stranger. The person who bought it paid money; when they threw it away, they don't have it any more. It's a paid-for copy; you just didn't do the paying.

In other words, it's totally different.

[Spearmint]

Libraries. Used-book stores

Libraries buy a new copy of the book themselves and the demand of the library patrons causes that to happen, but then, if there were no libraries might everyone not be forced to buy more books? And used-book stores are even worse than piracy in a sense, since they're providing physical copies. Of course, they do boost the sale value by creating a resale price and help with advertising for the author- but then, so does piracy help with advertising.

Nobody would put pirated things online if other people didn't download them

I think whether you add to the demand depends on how you download, though? Obviously Bittorrent has the redistribution problem, and if you leave comments saying "Thanks for ripping off this book for me!" you're encouraging the pirates, but if it's just posted to Rapidshare or something they might never know you downloaded it.

[Jarred]

Libraries buy a copy of the book. They can only lend it to one person at a time, and when it falls apart, they buy another one. Money is involved. Nothing is duplicated: when you bring the book back, you don't have it any more.

As an aside, this is one of the things I don't like about e-books. I personally can't think of a good way to lend them out without risking piracy.

[Mmy]

@Spearmint:

Scenario #1: Imagine that Kit walked down the street and a 10 pound note fell out of her purse. A hour later you are walking down the same street and find the money. You didn't see her drop it and even if you had you don't know how to get in touch with her. You pocket it.

Scenario #2: Imagine you are standing next to Kit on a crowded train and you notice a 10 pound note as it falls from her purse. You say nothing, wait till she leaves the train and then pocket the money.

Scenario #3: You physically assault Kit and remove the money from her purse.

The type of copyright violation you are discussing may be closer to scenario #2 than #3 -- but you have consciously chosen to let Kit lose money none the less.

There is actually a big difference between #1 and #2 -- and people are acting as it there weren't

[Kit Whitfield]

Libraries buy a new copy of the book themselves and the demand of the library patrons causes that to happen, but then, if there were no libraries might everyone not be forced to buy more books?

That's a different issue. The point is that libraries circulate paid-for books in a finite way. Only one patron can borrow a book at any given time, and when they return it, they don't have it any more. If they want a permanent copy, they have to buy one. This is not the case with piracy.

And used-book stores are even worse than piracy in a sense, since they're providing physical copies.

It's exactly the opposite. Providing a physical copy is much less serious than putting a pirated copy online because only one person can possibly buy it. Millions of people could download the same pirated copy.

[Kit Whitfield]

As a general point: I know my stuff has been pirated at times, and I didn't chase it up because I thought it would cause more problems than it solved. If someone downloaded it illegally, I'm a bit pissed off with them and I'm certainly not going to greet them as a supportive fan, but I'm not going to assume they're a horrible, horrible person.

I am, however, going to lose respect for them if they refuse to acknowledge that what they were doing was stealing.

Most people steal things from time to time, even if on a very small scale. It's refusing to own it - or even getting self-righteous about it - that really annoys me.

[Spearmint]

The type of copyright violation you are discussing may be closer to scenario #2 than #3 -- but you have consciously chosen to let Kit lose money none the less.

You haven't though, because the dollar bill is still in her purse. This is my whole point. An analogy to a non-intellectual property simply doesn't work, because I haven't actually taken anything from Kit except some vague Bayesian reduction in the probability I might pay for that book in future. The marginal cost to Kit of me stealing a dollar from her is a dollar, but the marginal cost of me stealing a copy of a book is (E + CxP), where E is the encouragement I give to pirates (some monetary value between 0 and infinitesimal), C is the cost of the book and P is the probability of me buying it if I don't pirate it (some value between 0 and 1). If both E and P are 0, I have cost Kit absolutely nothing. If E is non-zero and P is 1 I've potentially cost her more than the price of the book, but this won't be the case for most people, so the effect on her is cumulative. I as an individual haven't necessarily harmed her.

This is why all those "You wouldn't steal a car!" ads get laughed off, because piracy a fundamentally different act than a theft of non-intellectual property. It's instinctively obvious to people, and attempts to equate the two therefore get mocked as fearmongering.

Which is unfortunate, because piracy is a real, serious problem. It's just not a problem because people don't respect artists qua artists- it's a problem because intellectual property can be easily replicated in a way no other form of property can.

@Kit, re. physical copies: what if the library had an e-book that will never deteriorate and need to be replaced, which they could lend to every patron at once?

Or to take maybe a better example, what if you set up a movie screen in a field and play your DVDs on it? They're not really for your own personal use, anymore, because you're distributing them to anyone who comes to watch for free. How is this different to putting it on a streaming service like Megavideo and letting people watch it that way? Obviously there's a difference in scale, but intellectually the act seems fairly similar.

[Kit Whitfield]

You haven't though, because the dollar bill is still in her purse.

Think of it this way: I make a little robot that mows people's lawns and doesn't get tired. I say I'll send it to mow your lawn if you pay me five dollars. You agree, and the robot accordingly mows your lawn. You do not pay me five dollars. I am no poorer than when I started, but you've still stolen the products of my labour - and the fact that all your neighbours pay me because they like how your lawn no looks doesn't mean you didn't steal it.

[Spearmint]

I say I'll send it to mow your lawn if you pay me five dollars. You agree, and the robot accordingly mows your lawn.

But there I've broken a contract with you.

This is more like someone else left your robot lying in the middle of the road, and I borrowed it, mowed my lawn, and replaced it without you being any the wiser, and maybe I didn't need to mow my lawn in the first place, at least not with your robot, because I already had a lawnmower or a goat.

Now, clearly I have used your robot without asking, and the person who borrowed your robot for $5 and then left it in the middle of the road instead of replacing it in your garage like he should have is a douche. But to demonstrate that I've harmed you, you'd have to prove that I would have rented the robot if I hadn't found it lying in the road. Which would be hard to prove, especially if I do in fact own a goat.

[Mmy]

@Spearmint: You haven't though, because the dollar bill is still in her purse. This is my whole point.

What Kit said. Also, in my personal experience the people I have met who are most insistent on the "okayness" of downloading the arts/music/books also take pride in uploading it and giving it to others.

I write as someone who has a) bought books I loathed because I was going to include them in my research and b) frantically looked for a library sale so I could buy cheap the books that I loathed and know that the money I spent at the sale will be used by the library. And libraries are a major player in the world of book buying.

Also -- don't have any sympathy for someone who owns a computer, an ipad, a cell phone, a tv set (although the cable is often illegal) and yet begrudges spending 15 dollars on a book.

[Kit Whitfield]

And libraries are a major player in the world of book buying.

Indeed. I worked for a publisher that published books specifically for the library market: they were our only buyers. We tended to publish authors who had a following but for one reason or another weren't getting published by the mainstream publishers any more. Libraries were keeping a lot of authors in print.

But to demonstrate that I've harmed you

The point of that analogy was not harm, it was dishonesty. It was using something that you're not entitled to whether it harms me or not.

[Spearmint]

Also -- don't have any sympathy for someone who owns a computer

That's- somewhere between unfair and crazy. A cheap computer costs maybe 500 dollars- less if you buy one used, and for that you get access to the entire internet, plus email which could be essential for work and/or job-hunting. And it can last for five, maybe ten years. It's a much better investment than 35 books- if you only have 500 dollars of disposable income, you should save up for the computer. And there are tons of people not living in the US/Canada/UK for whom getting our books is not a $15 proposition.

I'm not advocating piracy- I don't pirate books myself, and I don't pirate television I could get in the US. (If you refuse to distribute DVDs in a format playable in my region, or at all, you've decided you don't want me as a customer, IMO.) But it's more complicated than just "You have stolen bread from Kit's mouth!"

[Spearmint]

The point of that analogy was not harm, it was dishonesty.

But we normally attach immorality to harm, and 'theft' implies you've lost the thing that was stolen. That's definitionally the difference between theft and borrowing- if I take your robot without asking but return it before you notice, I've borrowed it without asking. You couldn't accurately say I've stolen it.

[MaryKaye]

It strikes me as being one of those Kantian things. It's hard to show any substantial harm at all from pirating a single copy of an Ebook. But if all of the people around you adopted the premise of your action, Ebook authors wouldn't get paid anymore and we'd be reduced to reading what you can get for free--which, yikes, I was a critiquer on Critters for a few years, and while there were some diamonds in the rough there was an awful lot of roughage.

If it would be a disaster for everyone around you to do it, maybe you shouldn't do it, barring exceptional circumstances. (I have sympathy for people who steal when they are really broke and in need.)

[Mmy]

@Spearmint: That's- somewhere between unfair and crazy

Nope, cause I am talking about the people who complain about information needing to be free and spending their time scanning and uploading books.

And there are tons of people not living in the US/Canada/UK for whom getting our books is not a $15 proposition

If we are talking about US/Canada/UK (I don't know the demographics of scanning/torrenting in other parts of the world to make an informed comment) -- then most libraries allow you to join for free. And the people who are seriously fueling the pirating world are not doing so because they can't afford books it is because they don't want to spend their money on them.

And while I certainly understand the logic of individual cases I dislike any argument that is based on undermining the right of authors to be paid. Where all information is free there will a dearth of information to be gotten.

[Kit Whitfield]

@Spearmint: at this point, I feel like you're language-wrangling rather than addressing the basic point. Anyway, I'm going to bed.

[Timothy (TRiG)]

I've just remembered that my second hand computer has a pirated copy of Windows 7 on it. I bought the computer, used Windows to download Ubuntu and burn it to CD, installed Ubuntu dual boot (i.e., I can choose between Ubuntu or Windows on start-up, with Ubuntu as the default). And I've barely used Windows since. The last time I booted into Windows was a couple of months ago, and it gave me a bunch of warnings about piracy*. I haven't used it since.

In these circumstances, I've decided I don't care about having pirated software on my computer. In other circumstances, I would. I do think the seller was dishonest, though.

TRiG.

* It didn't tell me it was pirated at first.

[MercuryBlue]

Delaware Code Title 11 Section 841:

A person is guilty of theft when the person takes, exercises control over or obtains property of another person intending to deprive that person of it or appropriate it.

Appropriate: To take possession of or make use of exclusively for oneself, often without permission

Section 845:

A person commits theft when, with the intent specified in § 841 of this title, the person obtains services which the person knows are available only for compensation by deception, threat, false token, false representation or statement or by installing, rearranging or tampering with any facility or equipment or by any other trick, contrivance or any other device to avoid payment for the services.

Statutes do not apply in all jurisdictions, of course, but I find it difficult to believe that the basics differ substantially from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

[hapax]

Spearmint: An analogy to a non-intellectual property simply doesn't work, because I haven't actually taken anything from Kit except some vague Bayesian reduction in the probability I might pay for that book in future.

No. You have lowered the price point for her work. You have devalued her labor. You have made it more difficult for Kit and every other author to make a living writing books, and every publisher, editor, proof-reader, etc. to make a living getting readable books into the hands of readers.

There are tons and tons of writers out there who are so desperate for an audience that they are BEGGING people to take their stuff for free. If you want free books, go there.

If you want Kit's book, you can bloody well pay what she's asking. Or borrow it from a source that she has (indirectly) authorized to lend it. Otherwise, you are stealing it.

Mmy: most libraries allow you to join for free

Clarification: Public libraries are NOT free. Libraries are *tax-supported*. That is why most people are not asked to pay an additional fee when they join; because they have already paid their membership through their taxes.

The idea that "libraries are free" is as pernicious as "information is free". Libraries are extremely expensive*. It's just that, when you share the cost across a population base, each individual's share is pretty small, compared to the potential return.

*There is not a week -- usually not a day -- that goes by without someone in the public indicating that they think that all library workers are volunteers, or that all the materials in the library are donated at no cost, or that the work of processing, cataloguing, classifying, shelving, and keeping track of all those materials is outsourced to elves who are paid with gumdrops and hugs.

[Mmy]

@hapax: Public libraries are NOT free. Libraries are *tax-supported*.

Thank you for that clarification since what I trying to say was that "people in Canada [and most of the places I know of in the US] who are very poor are not asked to pay a fee in order to get the services of their local library."

I pay for the local library in my property taxes. I think it is an excellent investment in the future of my community and my country. Information/libraries aren't free their cost is underwritten by people who both wish the population at large to have access to books and other forms of information AND who believe that the people and institutions who generate them should be paid for their work.

My mother came from a spot on the map where there was no high school, no library, no book store. She worked all her life to make sure that other people had access to those things. But she (and I) believed that access should not be dependent on the "kindness of others" it should be a right that comes with being a resident of our country.

If we don't pay the authors and the people who staff the libraries qualified volunteers will not just magically appear to fill the gap. Society will be the poorer.

[Choir of Shades]

@Trig, On the assumption that it actually was pirated. Microsoft has a history of screwing that up you know...

Also, my library system HAS started offering e-books and digital copies of audio books.
@hapax: I volunteered at a library for three years and I held some of those myths in one form or another, particularly since everything we got in that time was donated (that library was already pretty full though so we didn't really have much room to add stuff), and most of the money we spent on putting on programs (things like puppeteers and jugglers, but also biology presentations, mostly oriented for kids). Learn something new every day. Also, I remember those elves. They get paid in gumdrops and hugs? Were they paid regularly? All I got was a pizza party I couldn't attend, and a good job reference. [/silly] (note: I'm actually incredibly thankful for that reference and I absolutely loved working there)

I admit that I used to be an admin on a private server of an MMO (and played a bunch more but that's a whole different issue). It was completely understandable that the company was going after private servers, but like so many groups, they hid behind a "moral motive." There was a legitimate intellectual property argument to be made, there was a legitimate lost profits argument to be made...And the company's official reason for going after private servers was that they were attempts to hack people's accounts on the official server and that the servers were run by identity thieves, so for me, it was as much out of personal spite for a company that seemed to do little to even maintain the quality of their product. (regardless, I don't regret the existence of private servers for that game in particular since they basically forced the company to improve their absolutely abysmal customer service; this led to the improving of the game tremendously, to the point where I wouldn't play on a private server; this is a phenomenon relatively unique in both its situation and its outcome so it's not something I'd follow as a general principle).

@Mmy, for your list of items that people have that should get no sympathy, I'd agree with the iPad and only the iPad. That is a pure luxury good item. And given that I've seen laptops at BestBuy recently for under $200 (okay, singular, they only had one model for under 200), a computer is quite reasonable to get (I've been applying for a bunch of jobs lately. Everywhere except fast food places and GameStop use online applications, and OfficeDepot is the only place I've gone to that had but didn't insist upon online applications, and all but gamestop wanted a cell number in addition to home number and email). For that matter, you can get a decent TV costs under a hundred dollars.

[hapax]

And given that I've seen laptops at BestBuy recently for under $200 (okay, singular, they only had one model for under 200), a computer is quite reasonable to get

Umm. I don't think of a computer as a "luxury" either, for the reasons you suggest, but...

Okay, for a good portion of the patrons I serve at the library, two hundred bucks is at least two weeks pay. (Assuming they have a job, which many don't.)

And a laptop -- especially a stripped down laptop -- doesn't do you a lot of good without software (at least another hundred) and an internet connection (mine costs a hundred a month, though it's pretty high end).

And you can't discount the knowledge of how to buy a computer, how to set it up, how to connect to the internet, how to get an e-mail address, how to create and attach a resume, how to find a job online to send it to, how to print out a response...

I help people with this stuff ALL DAY LONG. They are not stupid. They are not extravagant.

And I doubt very much that these are the people pirating books.

[Timothy (TRiG)]

@hapax,

You pay for software? For general use (browsing the Net, storing and sorting photos, and editing documents), there's absolutely no need to do that. For more specialised tasks, the Free version may not exist, or may be more difficult to use, but for general use Free is fine. (And, for browsing the Net, free is generally better (with the exception of Opera, which is excellent but non-Free, though it is free*).)

I.e., unless you're doing graphic design or something, get Ubuntu or Linux Mint. If you must use Windows, there's no need for Microsoft Office for general use. OpenOffice plus Thunderbird will do almost everything Microsoft Office does, and the few things Microsoft Office does better are things general-purpose users don't use anyway.

TRiG.

* free: "free as in beer" (gratis); Free: "free as in freedom" (libre).

[Mmy]

@Choir of Shades: given that I've seen laptops at BestBuy recently for under $200 (okay, singular, they only had one model for under 200), a computer is quite reasonable to get (I've been applying for a bunch of jobs lately. Everywhere except fast food places and GameStop use online applications, and OfficeDepot is the only place I've gone to that had but didn't insist upon online applications, and all but gamestop wanted a cell number in addition to home number and email). For that matter, you can get a decent TV costs under a hundred dollars.

Like hapax I have worked with people for whom $100 was a serious amount of money.

One of the services my local library provides is access to computers just for the purposes of online applications. Similarly the local government services office has a wall of computers that people can come in and use for the purposes of filling out applications. If you eavesdrop on these people they are clearly not used to navigating computers in their everyday life -- because they don't own them.

And many of the fast food restaurants only have online applications -- which means that for the truly cash strapped job seeker without a librarian to explain to them how to use a computer to apply for a job they are out of luck.

[syfr]

Problem with using Open Office is that everyone seems to expect MS Office instead. I've never had the nerve to send a resume in OO format; doc and docx are accepted as a matter of course. I could, of course, just print as a pdf.

The thing is, though, that I am good with computers, and I've had the time and opportunities to develop these skills. I don't have kids, I have been a student or held white collar jobs that paid well, and I've had unlimited access to reasonably fast internet for years.

[Mmy]

@Timothy: You pay for software? For general use (browsing the Net, storing and sorting photos, and editing documents), there's absolutely no need to do that

There is so much wrong/privilege in that statement it takes my breath away. Most of the people I know are so unaware of how to "safely" download programs/software from the internet that their computers will be locked up with malware within minutes of attempting to download programs from the net. Yes, I know how to go online and get programs (many of them for free) but the last time I sat down and set up someone's computer from scratch (that is I got all the malware off it and wiped things clean and reloaded things from the net AND taught them how to use these strange programs) it took long enough that if I had charged as much for my time as the people down at the computer store did it would have cost well in excess of 100 dollars.

I have cultural capital, experience in computers and a network of people who also have both. There are many people who have none of those things. That don't know what Ubuntu is and they don't even understand the difference between a Windows machine and a Mac (except one tends to be more expensive than another.) The little training/experience they will have had with computers is with out-of-the-box standard issue Windows machines with a standard-issue interface.

[Lunch Meat]

I think the example of someone going to a movie or a play without paying is really relevant. If you sneak into a play without buying a ticket, even if you weren't going to the play if you had to pay for it, you are still gaining enjoyment without paying the price the performers, the theater, and the staff are asking.

No, there's no deception, no physical or verbal broken contract; and performance enjoyment isn't finite or limited, but you're still gaining from their work without contributing to the ability to continue working. Besides, I feel like there's a kind of open contract between artists and spectators. An artist says, "I'm going to put my work out there to be enjoyed, but only if people are willing to pay for that enjoyment so that I can continue." I feel like if you're not going to pay, you just don't deserve to enjoy the artist's work.

[hapax]

You pay for software? For general use (browsing the Net, storing and sorting photos, and editing documents), there's absolutely no need to do that.

[picks up dropped jaw from the floor, wipes off, reinserts]

Did you read the rest of my post? I'm helping people who don't know how to set up a Yahoo Mail account. Who are puzzled by trying to double-space a document. For whom sending a resume to the printer is a strange and frightening experience.

You really think telling them "Oh, just download Ubuntu" is a viable solution?

[Lonespark]

or that the work...is outsourced to elves who are paid with gumdrops and hugs.

A union buster's pipedream?