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

[depizan]

On the complicated subject of paying for people's work: What do people think about watching things on YouTube, say, that are not available to buy? Personally, I wish the distributor would take the fact that it keeps ending up on YouTube as a sign that they should release it on DVD, but so far they have not.

[Brin (not Meir)]

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

It took my dad at least eight hours of time and effort to install Ubuntu on my computer. That was with a Linux geek at the wheel. Even if someone knows what they're doing, they may not be able to spend so much time fiddling with a computer.

[Spearmint]

the people who complain about information needing to be free and spending their time scanning and uploading books.

Those people are jerks who seem to have an interest in there being less information in the world, but they weren't the ones you were complaining about earlier- you were complaining about the people who can afford a computer but claim they can't afford to buy books.

One of the services my local library provides is access to computers just for the purposes of online applications.

Exactly. A computer is not necessarily a luxury item. And often there are huge lines for those library computers- a job search would be much more efficient if you had a computer of your own and used the free library (or Starbucks, or college, or wherever) wireless connection. Obviously there are people who cannot afford a $200 computer, but there's also some subset of people who can afford a computer but can't afford to splurge $200 on books. Which was my whole point.

But if all of the people around you adopted the premise of your action

It depends what the premise is. If the premise is "I pirate only things I would never pay for" then there's actually no cost if everyone does it. The problem is people who pirate things they would pay for, and as Kit points out, there's a strong incentive for people in the latter category to convince themselves they're in the former.

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.

This is a perfect analogy. And I guess my question is, how wrong is this, given that we've increased net happiness* and you haven't cost the artist/theater a penny? A utilitarian would argue you actually have a moral obligation to sneak in.

* We're going to assume there is infinite space in the theater so you're not crowding the paying patrons or making the room too hot or whatever with your presence.

You have lowered the price point for her work.

If I'm distributing it, I certainly have, but that's not true if I've downloaded it. If a) I was never going to pay for it and b) I download it in a way that does not encourage piracy in others, it has no effect on the price point whatsoever- it's functionally the same as if I never downloaded it.

I am not advocating piracy here, but these claims are simply wrong.

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.

It certainly differs for countries that don't have copyright laws. Or where the length of copyright differs dramatically.

[Kit Whitfield]

If I'm distributing it, I certainly have, but that's not true if I've downloaded it.

You have become the reason why people distribute it in the first place. You have joined the audience that makes it worthwhile for the distributer, because whatever means you use, you are partaking of the culture of piracy. You're partaking of the culture of piracy by making these arguments right here. By making these arguments you are providing justification for people who steal things they'd pay for.

Look: I've downloaded things illegally sometimes, generally things that I couldn't get by legal means, and if they become legally available I try to buy them. Everyone bends or breaks the law sometimes. But I'm not about to justify it, because it's the justification, the cultural assumption that you're entitled to have something for free, that's the real problem for artists - because it's that that devalues our work.

[Mmy]

@Spearmint: A computer is not necessarily a luxury item. And often there are huge lines for those library computers- a job search would be much more efficient if you had a computer of your own and used the free library (or Starbucks, or college, or wherever) wireless connection. Obviously there are people who cannot afford a $200 computer, but there's also some subset of people who can afford a computer but can't afford to splurge $200 on books. Which was my whole point.

You know those people who can't afford to "splurge" on books? The ones who are going to hapax's library just to get access to a computer? They can borrow books from that library for free.

And your argument is not only undermining support for the artist it is undermining support for the library. As hapax pointed out it costs money (quite a lot of money) to support the library -- and every person who says "well the poor can just go out a buy a 200 dollar computer and get anything they want on line" is undermining taxpayer support.*

But you are avoiding the point of my original complaint. The voices of those crying for information to be free seldom come from those who are truly poor. The person who holds down two jobs just to feed their kids and who has to spend several hours on the bus every day to get to their jobs is unlikely to be the person who spends hours at a time scanning and uploading books.

a) I was never going to pay for it and b) I download it in a way that does not encourage piracy in others,

So, the person who pulls of a museum heist and steals the Mona Lisa in a raid that involves 10 of their henchpersons being shot dead can argue that what they did wasn't really wrong because

a) pictures of the Mona Lisa are still available for everyone to see
b) they never were going to pay for it anyway
c) and it won't encourage other people to do the same

* Before you argue that there are books not held in the library -- yup I know. And often they are the expensive ones that students need to go to law school. And that is why one of the more common graduation gifts (from professor to student) in my circle of academia is either academic books or a book-certificate.

Just one of the books vital for me to put together the data for my dissertation was valued at several hundred dollars. Only one library I had access to held it and you couldn't check it out. It took me several months to input all the data. My dissertation chair gave it to me.**

**Next time you hear about those overpaid and lazy academics you might consider the fact that while I was lecturing my average "books for work" price (money my employer would not recompense) was north of 8 thousand a year. And like many of my colleagues I made a practice of giving all the books I bought to work on a student's thesis TO that student if they went on to graduate school. Those, the really expensive books, are unlikely to be found anywhere online.

[Spearmint]

You have joined the audience that makes it worthwhile for the distributer, because whatever means you use, you are partaking of the culture of piracy.

If the download isn't measurable to the distributor, this is simply factually wrong. There's no physical mechanism by which my partaking can influence the distributor.

because it's the justification, the cultural assumption that you're entitled to have something for free, that's the real problem for artists

I'm not convinced this is most people's motivation or a constructive direction from which to attack the problem. Certainly there are a few jackasses who think this- the "all information should be free" guys Hapax mentioned earlier, or Googlebooks- but you certainly don't think this. Going from your argument, we'd assume you'd never pirate anything ever, because merely by the act of downloading (according to you) you're bolstering the whole culture of piracy which you rightly feel threatens your livelihood, and the act (according to you) is necessarily premised on a belief that artists should provide their services for free, which is a belief you don't have.

And yet when we look at your actual downloading behavior we find you're following the same harm-based criteria I am- if it's available in a format you can pay for then you pay, but if it's not, you sometimes pirate it. The two actions don't feel equivalent to you, or you wouldn't engage in one and not the other. You may label both as stealing, but you're distinguishing between them.

This is my whole problem with the "You wouldn't steal a car" ads. They're a bit like those anti-cannabis after school specials where the kids turn into career criminals and murder their parents because they tried weed once. They're so obviously in contradiction of the observable facts that they actively undermine their own argument, because once you've noticed the stoners in your class haven't murdered their families, why should you take anything the ad says seriously? Likewise with piracy. Violating a copyright isn't analogous to stealing a car, and pounding the pulpit and saying over and over again that it's stealing isn't enough even to stop you from doing it occasionally, much less the rest of the internet.

If we're to stop people from doing it, I think we need a different argument, and the harm-based argument actually seems to move people. But if we're going to make that argument we can't start from the premise that piracy is identical to stealing cupcakes from a bakery.

[Spearmint]

well the poor can just go out a buy a 200 dollar computer and get anything they want on line

No one said that. You said "I have no sympathy for people who can afford a computer but claim they can't afford to spend $15 on a book," and I pointed out there are quite a few people who might legitimately fall into this category. No one said these people should pirate books instead of going to the library.

That said, there are some fairly good reasons why this may not be an option for everyone:
- The book is in a foreign language so your library won't buy it
- Republicans, Tories or the local equivalent have cut all the funding to your local libraries and they've had to close
- because of the above point, the closest library is three hours away but there's a Starbucks just down the street

,the person who pulls of a museum heist and steals the Mona Lisa in a raid that involves 10 of their henchpersons being shot dead can argue that what they did wasn't really wrong

It's more like if you violate the museum's no-photography ban by snapping a picture with your cellphone, but no one catches you, and since it's just your phone there wasn't a flash that could damage the painting. Kit seems to be arguing that just by the act of doing this, even if no one ever learns that you did, you have increased the probability that other people will break the no photography rule and take a damaging flash photograph of the painting. I'm not sure how her theory can work under the laws of causality as I understand them.

And again- the ridiculous overblown analogies do not help your case. Lunch Meat's analogy was good, because it was actually analogous. This one isn't.

[Mmy]

@Spearmint:

Lunch Meat's analogy (the theatre) was originally mine. And the second (museum) analogy was not "overblown" -- I merely took the principles that you had articulated and used them in other case in order to make YOU realize the implications of what you are arguing.

That said, there are some fairly good reasons why this may not be an option for everyone:
- The book is in a foreign language so your library won't buy it
- Republicans, Tories or the local equivalent have cut all the funding to your local libraries and they've had to close
- because of the above point, the closest library is three hours away but there's a Starbucks just down the street

Take a look at the majority of books that are available on the torrents. Take a look at the demographics of the people downloading.

More importantly -- look at the demographics / arguments of the people who initially upload the books I have seen people walk into a lab and before they even ran a program for the first time attempt to illegally upload it to a site that redistributes programs for free. [We finally had to disable internet access from the computers without administration password because of this.]

And the people who are busy scanning books and uploading them? Maybe they should put the same time and effort into fighting to keep libraries open. Maybe they should be raising money for the libraries. Maybe they should be collecting books and setting up book swap centers at shelters.

[Spearmint]

I merely took the principles that you had articulated and used them in other case in order to make YOU realize the implications of what you are arguing.

No, you didn't, because implied in the principles of what I was arguing was "No one was murdered or deprived of their own copy of the book in the course of this download." Rather self-evidently, I should have thought. If the things that make the example in your analogy evil- the carnage and depriving the museum of a painting and patrons the chance to view the original- are completely extraneous to the thing you're trying to analogize it to, it's a bad analogy. You could have thrown in an Allosaurus eating babies while you were at it; it wouldn't have been any less relevant.

Take a look at the majority of books that are available on the torrents

I'm not sure what this would tell me? If it's in English than obviously it's in a foreign language to quite a lot of people, the English publishing market is vastly larger than most foreign language markets, and international shipping can be prohibitively expensive.

And a casual inspection of torrentdom seems to reveal a lot of books in the public domain, as well as the illegal sort.

I've never defended the uploaders, who are clearly enabling a lot of piracy, or people who are downloading and can afford to buy. I just think it's more complicated than "If anyone pirates anything ever they are stealing Kit's income/undermining libraries/bringing the End Times."

[Kit Whitfield]

Kit seems to be arguing that just by the act of doing this, even if no one ever learns that you did, you have increased the probability that other people will break the no photography rule and take a damaging flash photograph of the painting. I'm not sure how her theory can work under the laws of causality as I understand them.

No, I'm not. I'm arguing that making the argument that piracy is harmless and isn't stealing supports the culture of piracy. My very first post on this subject stated that the occasional piracy of my work doesn't do me much harm, but my problem is if a cultural expectation sets in that it's okay to take stuff for free. You're arguing that it's okay to take stuff for free, therefore you're supporting that cultural expectation.

As I've been trying to express from the start, I think that the sense of entitlement is a more serious threat than the occasional download, because the value of an artist's work is only determined by a cultural agreement that it's worth something, and if people feel entitled to have it for nothing, that's the real problem.

[Mmy]

@Spearmint: No, you didn't, because implied in the principles of what I was arguing was "No one was murdered or deprived of their own copy of the book in the course of this download.

I was pointing out that one should be aware of the consequences of actions. No one may die due to copyright violation but spend some time reading about the life that J. K. Rowling was living before she began reaping the rewards of copyright -- by undermining the economic security of authors you are ignoring the possible consequent immiseration of authors and editors and type-setters and book sellers and every person who earns a lifelihood as part of the book distribution system.

I'm not sure what this would tell me? If it's in English than obviously it's in a foreign language to quite a lot of people, the English publishing market is vastly larger than most foreign language markets, and international shipping can be prohibitively expensive.

Because if you look at the books on torrents many of them are available in multiple languages and are not particularly expensive in any of them.

Now as for shipping to foreign countries -- I have actually been involved in that. It is not particularly expensive to ship a book from the US to Australia, or Hong Kong, or Spain or Brazil. In fact it would cost less to ship many of these books than to pay for internet access for a month.

And a casual inspection of torrentdom seems to reveal a lot of books in the public domain, as well as the illegal sort.

But you don't need to use torrents to get most public domain books. Indeed I have a list of dozens of sites that make public domain books available (and well formatted ones at that) for free. Absolutely free. For example the entire body of S. S. Van Dine's work is available quite legally online (see project Gutenberg/Australia). As are the absolutely fantastic Dr. Thorndyke (R. Austin Freeman) books.

Also easily available (legal and free) are Charles Dickens, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Wilkie Collins, Sinclair Lewis, Homer, Shakespeare, Balzac, Edith Wharton, much of E. F. Benson's work, John Stuart Mills, Marcus Aurelius, the Bible, and many other works.

Torrents will include books in the public domain but the people who upload them are not providing a service not available for free (tax payer/donation supported) already.

[Lonespark]

Utterly irrelevant to the general argument, I think, but...
I really only know about torrents (not enough to actually use one) because of people suddenly deciding they need a specific detail about a scene in a book or movie RIGHT NOW at 3am local time because INSPIRATION. These people pretty much always buy the book or movie if they can get it where they live, which often they can't. Sometimes they already own it but are staying elsewhere.

Demographics are interesting. Folks in the fannish contexts I roll around are often very priveleged in several ways, having their own computers, having enough income to live on, ranging up to a lot more than that, having the privilege to be college or grad students. And often they are marginalized in other ways. There are a ton of QUILTBAG folks. In several communities the majority. And a lot of folks whose major source of income is from disability support. A lot of communities are mostly white and white-character-focused, others are POC spaces and POC-character-focused.

[hapax]

Spearmint: I've never defended the uploaders, who are clearly enabling a lot of piracy, or people who are downloading and can afford to buy. I just think it's more complicated than "If anyone pirates anything ever they are stealing Kit's income/undermining libraries/bringing the End Times."

Well, then, what IS your purpose here?

If it is that "there are worse crimes possible to commit than violating copyright", okay, then, we all *get* that, we've read Les Miserables, nobody here is suggesting that anyone who downloads a copy of a song illegally has started forth on a path of irredeemable depravity.

What people *have* argued is that every act of piracy encourages a culture of piracy. While any individual action -- like any individual act of running a red light -- could possibly be defensible in context, to reflexively dismiss the act as "well, no harm done" is exactly what creates the harm -- it endorses and reinforces the perception that a creator has no inalienable rights to the appropriation of zir creation.

It essentially posits artistic production as a "common resource", and accelerates the degradation of that resource in a manner analogous to the "tragedy of the commons."

I doubt that there's anybody here claiming that they've never violated copyright -- I have never downloaded a book or song illegally, but yes, I HAVE appropriated images that were not in the public domain (not in last several years, though, not since I educated myself on this issue) -- but I doubt there's anyone here who drives who has never speeded or ran a red light either.

But one generally doesn't hear the argument that "Hey, red lights are just advisory, you know, if nobody catches you and you don't hurt anybody, it's cool."

(Or honestly, if they do, I don't want to hear it. It would scare me to know that such people are on the road with me)

So I ask again, what is the PURPOSE of your arguments? If you concede that copyright exists for good reason, that an artist has a right to control the distribution of zir work, that those who upload pirated works for distribution create harm, that those who download them create harm (if there is a record of their so doing, i.e., "someone catches them at it"), that those who can afford to pay for a product legally should do so, that there are any number of avenues for obtaining free legal content (if perhaps not precisely the exact content you want, at the time and in the format that you want it, in a manner that doesn't inconvenience you too much)...

...what exactly is your argument except that you -- not the producer and owner of the content, but YOU -- are entitled to set the price (monetary, time, or convenience) for what you want?

Depriving the rightful owners control over access to and distribution of their property; how is that not a harm?

And why do you want to people to feel good about doing it?

[MercuryBlue]

I've got a question. What's y'all's stance on pirating stuff one has paid for or intends to pay for? Case in point, I downloaded every episode of Supernatural, even though I own the first five seasons on DVD and have the sixth on preorder, because I had vid bunnies and discovered ripping things from DVD is a much much more time-consuming process than downloading.

[Mmy]

@how to get books for free on the internet + support women writers.

Project Gutenberg Australia "collects" books together by topic/area of interest. They have an entire page of links to free/legal downloads of 20th Century Women writers.

All of these are available in formats that read easily on computers so one doesn't need to buy an expensive ebook reader.

Writers all/some of whose books are available include:
Bess Streeter Aldritch, Gertrude Bell, Marjorie Bowen, Emily Carr, Willa Cather, Josephine Tey (under more than one aka), Miles Franklin, Radclyffe Hall, Gertrude Lawrence, Katherine Mansfield, Margaret Mitchell, Lucy Maud Montgomery, the Baroness Orczy, Helen de Guerry Simpson, Gertrude Stein, Edith Wharton, Ethel White and Virgina Woolf.

Happy reading.

[hapax]

MercuryBlue: I've got a question. What's y'all's stance on pirating stuff one has paid for or intends to pay for?

Okay. I'm nobody's confessor. I have no legal or moral or other authority on this topic.

And I hatehatehate the way that DRM is currently practiced with a burning passion that leaks out of my fingertips and occasionally scorches the keyboard.

But you asked. And honestly? Doing what you describe is exactly why we have this horrible DRM. To keep doing it will just ensure that DRM will get worse.

Because the producers of the content have no way of knowing that someone has honestly paid for the material, and just can't access it conveniently.

There's no digital "tag" on an illegal download that proclaims, "Hey, I'm a nice guy, not like all those pirates out there!"

Instead, content producers see their property up in illegal forms online. They see it being accessed. They see their profits declining. And they aren't going to think "Hey, we need to make our content more accessible!" Instead, they'll think, "Hey, we need to protect our stuff even more strictly!"*

A lot of them think, "Screw this whole e-book thing. No way am I going to allow my stuff to be digitized, just so people can steal it."

And so there is less content available, not more.

(How do I know? I read publisher blogs. I read author blogs. I read editor blogs. People are scared and angry and desperate.)

*Correlation doesn't prove causation in science. But in the marketplace, it is pretty persuasive.

[Mmy]

@MercuryBlue: Case in point, I downloaded every episode of Supernatural, even though I own the first five seasons on DVD and have the sixth on preorder, because I had vid bunnies and discovered ripping things from DVD is a much much more time-consuming process than downloading.

Further complicating the situation (see our motto) is that television shows are very, very, very expensive to make. And part of the financial structure is built around the monetary return from airing those shows X number of times with advertising. Simplest case -- the network that broadcasts the shows pays a fee to the production company. The network makes the money to pay the fee in part through advertising revenues. So even purchasing the DVDs rather than watching it AND purchasing the DVDs can undermine part of the revenue structure.

DVDs at least get counted in the 'number of eyeballs' surveys and can be useful in negotiating product placement fees. The eyes that watch the videos on the internet at present are not useful in monetizing the content.

Also, there is a tremendous culture of piracy around TV shows and movies -- I have seen copies of movies/shows go up on the net BEFORE they were available from a legitimate outlet. This availability lowers the value of the legitimate copies.

Like hapax I have read a lot of really angry people who produce material that is later pirated -- and many of them make us sound like friendly fuzzy cotton-tailed bunny rabbits.

[Timothy (TRiG)]

I'm going to stand by what I said. For general purpose use, Ubuntu and Windows are no different in ease of use. In certain specialised areas, one or the other may be better (by all accounts, Adobe Photoshop (available on Windows and Mac, but not on GNU/Linux) is easier to use than the GIMP, and apparently accessibility software for blind or partially sighted users is best on Windows).

But browsing the Net on Ubuntu is as easy as doing so on Windows. It is also a lot safer for the non-geek user. You don't get used to downloading useful programs through your browser, so you won't download harmful ones either. (There's a really easy-to-use (much easier than anything on Windows) Software Centre panel for downloading programs, completely independent of the browser.)

***

Now, if someone already has a Windows machine and is used to it, that's one thing, but if they've never used a computer before, and all they need is the basic stuff, there's no reason not to start them off on Ubuntu (Firefox, OpenOffice, and a photo manager I cannot recall the name of come as standard). And OpenOffice has an "Export as PDF" function which is as easy as clicking a couple of buttons. It can also open, edit, and save Microsoft Word documents (and Word can open OpenOffice Text documents too).

OpenOffice can even be set to save in Word format by default, so you don't need to pick that option every time.

***

Installing Ubuntu is, I think, easier than installing Windows. Neither are jobs for a newbie. And if you get stuck, you can use it as a LiveCD so you can use the computer to browse the Net and look for help. Can't do that with Windows. The occasional horror story about eight-hour installation time can happen with any computer and OS, but it's certainly not the norm.

***

I'm really not seeing privilege in what I'm saying. I'm suggesting an option which is (a) free and (b) just as easy to use (for most purposes). It's also Free, which is a philosophical point which may or may not be important to you. (It is to me. That's why I'd never buy an Apple iAnything, which have to be among the most non-Free consumer devices on the market right now.)

TRiG.

P.S. Apologies for the multiply nested parentheses.

[Jarred]

(There's a really easy-to-use (much easier than anything on Windows) Software Centre panel for downloading programs, completely independent of the browser.)

I've used Synaptic Package Manager on Ubuntu. I'm not sure I'd call it easy. Sure, it's easy if you know the name of the software you're looking for or are a whiz at picking good search keywords to zero in on what you're looking for. (And that's neglecting the fact that there's a serious lag-time between the release new versions of software and when that new version becomes productized for Ubuntu and made available in SPM.

And then there's the issue of adding new hardware. If my parents go out and buy a new printer/scanner/copier, it comes with a handy install CD with all the necessary software and drivers to use that device with their Windows laptop. Getting the necessary drivers (which, if you're very lucky, are available for download from the device manufacturer's website) installed and software configured for use on an Ubuntu machine would be far more daunting for them.

[Mmy]

@Timothy: Installing Ubuntu is, I think, easier than installing Windows

Most of the people we are talking about would be utterly lost trying to install either. Their best hope is to find an old battered machine that someone else is unloading for a minimal amount of money. And those are disproportionately Windows.

Now, if someone already has a Windows machine and is used to it, that's one thing, but if they've never used a computer before, and all they need is the basic stuff, there's no reason not to start them off on Ubuntu (Firefox, OpenOffice, and a photo manager I cannot recall the name of come as standard).

You give almost anyone I have ever dealt with a machine with nothing but the operating program installed and tell them to "go find the basic stuff" themselves and they will not even know where to start.

Yes, I know. But they don't.

So now all the librarians and service workers at government offices should be trained to help teach people these new internet skills? Cause I don't know a lot of computer stores that offers that training for free.

I am doing someone no favours to answer their monetary complaints by pointing them to a computing system that has a very expensive (in knowledge if nothing else) entry point.

It is another case of people having to be rich to afford to have only one pair of shoes. I can afford to buy food cheaper than the poor person across town because I can buy it in bulk. I can afford to have free computer programs because I either have the knowledge or can afford to hire it.

And BTW the provincial library system is not at all friendly to Ubuntu.

[Literata]

TRiG, to some extent, knowing what an operating system is is an example of privilege. Especially at the level Mmy and hapax are talking about. Understanding about file formats, and software options, and being able to set Open Office to save as Microsoft Word as default? Privilege: you're soaking in it. The fact that MS Word is the standard file format means, among other things, that MS Word is inherently easier to use in the sense that Mmy and hapax and I are talking about in terms of privilege.

What you're saying is about on the level of "Well, it's just as easy to take the stairs as it is the elevator - I mean, look, the elevator has all these buttons that you have to push and you have to pick the right one and everything, and you definitely know if you're going up or down on the stairs..." if we were explicitly talking about physical privilege and spoon conservation.

[Deird, who thinks you're simplifying]

I'm really not seeing privilege in what I'm saying. I'm suggesting an option which is (a) free and (b) just as easy to use (for most purposes). It's also Free, which is a philosophical point which may or may not be important to you. (It is to me. That's why I'd never buy an Apple iAnything, which have to be among the most non-Free consumer devices on the market right now.)

I have a Macbook. You know why?

Because I have no clue what an operating system is or how to install things, and the money to pay for stuff that comes entirely pre-installed. It's awesome.

My philosophy around things being Free is, in this case, subordinate to my philosophy that being able to use my computer is better than being stuck with one I can't set up.

[MaryKaye]

I read a book by Sisella Bok in college that changed my moral reasoning. She was writing about lying in particular but I think it's generally applicable: and she said two useful things about it.

First, that an action should be evaluated in terms of its effects on self, on the immediate target, and on the community. Often we focus on effects on the target: I shouldn't lie because it hurts the person I directly lie to. But it might also hurt me--damaging my self-esteem or moral sense, giving me a nasty secret I have to hide, draining my energy trying to keep my lies in order, possibly getting me branded as a liar. And it might hurt society--raising the general distrust, replacing truthful information with garbage, encouraging draconian anti-lying measures. These are often overlooked.

Second, that sometimes you really have to keep a secret, but in such situations you should ask yourself if you can disclose the principle of your secrecy and defend *that* in public. A therapist can't talk about his patient but he can publically defend therapist/patient confidentiality. A government can issue clear guidelines on what is a national secret and what is not. I can tell my teenage son that I have a sex life but the precise details are none of his business. If you cannot defend even the *type* of secrecy it's likely to be a bad secrecy.

"Downloading this material does no harm as long as no one knows I'm doing it" fails these tests bigtime for me. *I* know I'm doing it, and harm to me is still very possible. And the aggregate result is likely to be harm to society even if my particular instance can never be identified.

I am pretty hostile to modern copyright law--I think we are losing a lot of cultural richness by protecting our iconic stories from being reworked the way the Arthurian stories, say, have been, and keeping that protection for such a long time. You see an amazing flowering of creative and original stuff around properties which aren't protected, and I think we are losing out. But I'm not hostile to the idea that creators need to make a living and if we take their stuff for free, they'll end up creating less. I used to pirate music for personal use, but I thought it out, and I stopped. I still pirate images for teaching sometimes, when I am desperate, but I will not defend the practice, and I am trying to find copyright-free alternatives whenever I can.

[Choir of Shades]

Heck, just knowing about Ubuntu puts you into highly-educated layperson territory (though nice to see someone else uses Linux Mint). Hell, knowing what the hell a LiveCD is puts you beyond most people who are even comfortable using and learning about computers. Very much "this" to "I am doing someone no favours to answer their monetary complaints by pointing them to a computing system that has a very expensive (in knowledge if nothing else) entry point." (note: I am completely comfortable discussing the advantages and disadvantages of the LINUX kernal, and can discuss different distros without problem; I have done the research on free programs, and so all of my major computer programs are freeware or free versions; in short, I can afford to be a computer nerd and am one, as evidenced by the fact that I nearly put the sentiment "My computer sucks and should be replaced, it was top-of-the-line 5 years ago [high school graduation present] but sucks now").

hapax:Doing what you describe is exactly why we have this horrible DRM. To keep doing it will just ensure that DRM will get worse.

This reminds me of the game Demigod by Stardock. It received excellent reviews before coming out, and IMO, is a pretty fun game. It failed big time because it was a Day 0 crack (for those unfamiliar with the term, Day 0 piracy is when a product is pirated and cracked at some point before it becomes legally available). Not just because people downloaded it instead of buying it, though that was huge. After the official release, their multiplayer server (and it is a game centered on multiplayer) was flooded with something like 3-4 times the server capacity (which was already multiple times larger than the number of launch copies shipped). The server crashed and stayed down for like the first week. This lead to tons of bad reviews, and the game just sunk.

Well, then, what IS your purpose here?
I can't speak for spearmint, but I agree with a lot of what she is saying, not for the fact that pirating or whatever isn't wrong, but that the justification being given is incorrect. For me, I acknowledge, the argument is one of mostly pedantry (what do you expect, I'm a philosophy nerd, angels dancing on the head of pin and whatnot).
I oppose the argument that intellectual property theft is the same as stealing because while they might inflict the same or similar harm on the victim, the mechanism by which they inflict it is different. Were it worded as a comparison, rather than an equation, I'd basically agree with the point (the harm to an intellectual property owner done by intellectual property theft is similar to the harm inflicted by robbing them). I also oppose the argument because we treat them quite differently in how we punish the thief and award the owner (guess which is worth more in court, stealing 10 CDs or copying 10 CDs worth of songs? The former is ~$200 plus interest and legal fees [punitive damages as well if a jury decides to do so], the latter is, assuming 10 songs per CD, over $2 million + legal fees; at least these are the rough values according to Californian law).

I'm not saying that all those poor people should just go out there and buy computers and eat cake, as Mmy seems to suggest I said. I'm saying that the standard of wealth is much different than what she seemed to claim by suggesting that cell phones and computers were somehow extreme luxuries (if your argument in saying "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" was not to suggest that those items were luxuries, then I apologize for misreading you, and I did and do agree that for the time being, iPads are purely luxury goods).

Another good way to fight piracy will be to change the image of a pirate from this to this

[Literata]

Really good points, MaryKaye. May I ask if you remember the title of the book?

A friend and I had a similar discussion about Clumsy Cat (my young cat who is handicapped by brain damage and has a highly irregular gait as a result). I said something about how I ought to share some videos of Clumsy Cat, because she's often cute and funny all at the same time, especially when she is chasing something and falls down and keeps chasing it. My friend raised the concept of harm; I said that Clumsy Cat doesn't know we're laughing at her, and she's not hurt by it. My friend replied that it might harm her (the friend) by encouraging her to laugh at handicapped beings.

I still laugh at Clumsy Cat, but I think I can do so because I put in the sweat and tears to bring her through her illness, and I clean up after her when she makes messes by being clumsy, and I love her dearly, and all that means that I'm not laughing at her handicap in a way that does me harm. But I haven't posted any videos of her, and I don't think I ever will.

[MaryKaye]

@Literata: May I ask if you remember the title of the book?

Sissela Bok, _Lying: Moral Choice in Private and Public Life_ (1978)

Recommended reading. She tackles a lot of interesting hard questions. I should look for other books by her; this is the only one I've read. (Thank you, undergrad philosophy professor, whoever you were. I have forgotten your name but I have never forgotten parts of your required reading list.)

[Mmy]

@Choir of Shades: (if your argument in saying "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" was not to suggest that those items were luxuries, then I apologize for misreading you, and I did and do agree that for the time being, iPads are purely luxury goods).

No I did not intend that statement to carry that meaning (that they are all luxuries) but I can see that it could easily be misread that way.

I had a picture in my head of people I know who talk about how they got this "free" and that "pirated" and yet own expensive toys -- and to me the expensive toy is not a "cell phone" it is an iphone or another smart phone. I should have written a tighter, clearer explanation.

Speaking of cell phones (which are basically necessities these days) our cell phone contract is old enough that if we re-up we get a new phone with $Xs off our phone of choice. So we looked at all the phones in the store and decided that on the one that was only $10 and did everything we wanted. There were phones in that store that cost $250/350 dollars (after the rebate).

The "extreme luxury" of computers is dependent on what computer you have and what you are using it for. The computer on which I am typing this definitely would be considered an extreme luxury by any of the people hapax and I were talking about earlier. [stops, looks at the computer and thinks about what it cost]. The computer on which I am typing this costs more than MONTHS of pay for many of those people. The television set my nephew bought himself as a housewarming gift costs more than they would make from months of labour.

And when my nephew was little and he and his mother were strapped for cash (she holding down 3 jobs just to make ends meet as a single mother) the only reason the boy had a computer is that other members of the family got together and bought him one. My sister would have had to save for YEARS to afford the most basic of computers--she had to save for years just to afford some dental work.*

*Yes, my nephew is doing well now but then he has family members who were willing to pay for thing without which he would have been seriously disadvantaged -- such as tuition, braces, and even many of his clothes.

@Mary Kaye: Seconding the Bok book. One of the keepers from my undergraduate days.

[Spearmint]

making the argument that piracy is harmless

I'm not making this argument. I'm making an argument that some of it is harmful and some isn't, and claiming that the kind that objectively isn't is undermines the argument against the harmful kind.

my problem is if a cultural expectation sets in that it's okay to take stuff for free.

This cultural expectation exists already, sufficiently so that even you, champion of "Taking anything for free is stealing" occasionally adhere to it. The horse has bolted on this one. If we're going to catch it we need an argument based on demonstrable harm rather than a norm, because the norm has already shifted to "download everything."

by undermining the economic security of authors

If indeed one has done this. Now, clearly by scanning and making a book available to potential freeriders, one has. By encouraging the uploaders, one has. No one has yet proposed a physical mechanism by which my example can damage Kit's livelihood.

I am totally 100% against undermining the economic security of authors- but I think this is the grounds on which we need to make the argument against piracy, not a vague all-encompassing moral panic.

But you don't need to use torrents to get most public domain books

Well, it's certainly a more efficient (and perfectly legal) way to get batches of them. But my point was that there didn't seem to be anything particularly demographically telling about the torrent book selection, although maybe you see something in it?

Well, then, what IS your purpose here?

As I've said several times, I think Kit is framing the argument in a wrong and unhelpful way, and since I want her to keep having income to write more books, I have a vested interest in trying to persuade her to make (what I find to be) a better argument.

Also there's the whole "Someone is wrong on the internet" thing.

So even purchasing the DVDs rather than watching it AND purchasing the DVDs can undermine part of the revenue structure.

Do people not include their DVDs in what they claim to watch? I hardly watch any live television these days because things like Netflicks and Hulu have made me lose my commercial tolerance, but if the Neilsen people called I would list all that stuff.

TRiG, to some extent, knowing what an operating system is is an example of privilege

Yeah, this.

the aggregate result is likely to be harm to society

People have yet to give me a mechanism for this, and I'm not clear how it's harming me. I mean, if I had to constantly go around lying to people who asked whether or not I'd pirated The Thick of It that would be a nuisance, but they're not going to ask, are they? Whereas I'm certainly harmed if I can't get access to the content because the frickin' Beeb refuses to release it for Region 1.

[Literata]

Thank you, MaryKaye! One other question - I'm looking into the contents of various groups' clergy training programs, and since I you gave me great advice about ritual, I was wondering if you had any thoughts on the process or books or content to recommend. If you do, and you have the time and energy to share it, you can contact me off-boards at literatahurley SPLAT gmail.

[Lunch Meat]

Spearmint, I think I understand that you don't want to justify or glorify all illegal downloads, but you think it's unhelpful to overly criticize the forms of privacy that don't seem to harm anyone. The problem I see with that it takes the decision whether or not to pay for someone's work out of the hands of that person and puts it into the hands of people who have an interest in not paying. I think people have a right to set the price for their work, and I think that if someone isn't interested enough to pay for it, artists have the right to decide that they don't want it to go for free. I am uncomfortable with anything that takes that right away, even in limited circumstances.

[Choir of Shades]

@Mmy Ah, okay. I thought you might have meant that, but having recently read Former_Conservative's review of Michael Savage's autobiography, in which he says that he wants to go into the welfare office and kick out anyone with a cell phone...Well, I heard a very unfortunate echo there.

Re:Piracy as a strike against abusive megacompanies: there are still a number of people who pirate for this reason, and on Pirate Bay, whenever you come across a game by a small studio or individual, they're always there saying, "come on guys, this guy/company is small-time and struggling, don't be a dick and pirate their games." Half the time they're ignored, half the time they get jeered out of the discussion

My own downloads tend to be either for demo purposes (the video game demo is an incredibly scarce thing these days), backup purposes, or unobtainability (8 year old Japanese-only games with short runs are notoriously difficult to find). The last tends to be glossed over in most discussions, and the first two are highly contentious (strictly speaking, each is a legal usage of that downloading...but the distribution mechanic is such that it enables and through the magic of normalizing, encourages people to pirate as well).

[Mmy]

@Choir of Shades: No problem -- that was definitely my bad for really bad wording.

Strangely enough this thread has led me to think deeply about issues of privilege -- of which I have a ton.

Although I am a Canadian for various reasons I had to file American tax returns (due this past Monday) and that got me thinking about the good fortune I had to be a citizen of a country with a stable legal system and a (it could be improved, yes) solid health care system that doesn't bankrupt people. My mother died a year ago after what would have been a tremendously expensive hospital stay and we paid not a cent. My father was also hospitalized during that time and again we paid not a cent. My father has TWO, count them, TWO fully indexed pensions with benefits that will only cease if the Canadian government also does so. No one can cut his benefits. No one can cut mmyspouse's.

I am a citizen of no mean country. My parents worked their way up from lower working class (dad) and cash poor (mom) to put their children through university, to pay their grandson's tuition and to know that they owe no one a cent.

I received a good education and personally paid for little for it (due to low costs at that time in Canada and the availability of scholarships) and I benefit from the many services that would not exist without the taxes paid by my neighbours.

I have been fortunate in the lottery of life and I hope I never lose sight of that fact.

[kisekileia]

I have to say it is not strictly true that Canada's health care system does not bankrupt people. It can cause severe financial hardship if you need services that are not covered--e.g. expensive medications, psychotherapy by non-M.D.s. I live in Ontario and I pay about $700-$800 a month in out of pocket health care expenses, despite having had no income for several months. (My parents have been paying.) I would have the same expenses if I were on disability or welfare, because the Ontario Drug Benefit doesn't cover any of my expensive meds and nobody gets psychotherapy covered. However, you're correct that people in Canada don't incur tens of thousands of dollars in bills for hospital stays or necessary surgery.

That, however, is because our health care system is not socialized enough. We have a system of private, usually employment-funded insurance for health care expenses that the government does not cover. It has the same problems as the U.S. system, minus the HMOs and minus the capricious denials of coverage for expenses that the contract says should be paid. My #1 priority for the next federal government (which probably won't happen) is for full pharmacare to be mandated in the Canada Health Act alongside coverage for doctor and hospital visits.

[Mmy]

@kisekileia: Totally agree -- in my opinion we should have dental care and drug prescriptions covered as well.

[Andrew Glasgow]

@Mmy, kisekileia: What? People not having to worry about being bankrupted by medical bills? Why, that's just one step away from Stalinist Comm-Yew-Nisum, don't you know that? Next thing you know, everyone's lost their jobs, starving in the streets, human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!

[Choir of Shades]

dogs and cats living together

The end times, they are acoming.

[Lonespark]

Wouldn't that be, "Teh END TIMES, they are HERE?"

And I am ded from AWWWWWWWWW.

[Base Delta Zero]

A lot of people seem to have brought up the issue of access... I don't know what the major motives for piracy actually are, but I suspect that accessibility and convienence at least among of them. A lot of games, books, movies, shows, etc just aren't available in legitimate versions, or would take a large amount of effort to locate that they're unwilling to spend...

I also feel like I should note that 'torrent' is not synonymous with 'pirated'. Torrent is a handy format for distributing files fairly efficiently with a minimum of overhead.