A sociologic sort of question...

[BlackIronCrown]

The issue comes about when those selfish things are being done and will only inconvenience the legitimate customer.

So you are saying I do not have the right to dictate the terms and conditions under which a person will buy the product I have created?
I find it strange that a shopowner can reserve the right to refuse service if not paid in cash or some other restriction and I cannot do the same.
If a customer does not like the terms and conditions I am wanting to do business under, they certainly have the right to vote with their wallet and go elsewhere. Is this not a valid precept?

The point is to provide something for pay that cannot be gotten for free. I'm not sure what that is for music, I really am not. For books, though: Provide multiple format sizes to accomodate different readers. Same for multiple formats. Easy permission to re-download the material at a later date, in case of hard drive failure (or the equivalent). Access to private forums for registered book owners. Access to errata for registered book owners.

Similar can be done for movies. Those things can provide incentive to regular joes to buy, since they cannot download that content easily (or, in some parts, at all).

This simply goes back to what I just said. Why cannot I dictate the terms under which I wish customers to buy my material, so long as they are lawful? Why should I HAVE to do these things? Where does this "obligation" to the customer come forth?

I control supply. Demand is simply generated by people who want what I supply.

Check out the latest Copyright Extension Act for information.

*reads* I see no problem with this. It merely further keeps the copyright in the hands of the creator and his descendants.

[lordlundar]

It's an interesting scenario Mysty, but an odd one. It's boils down to if there is no possible way you would want this, why would you pirate it? Kinda moots it out.

I'll give one that's not only effective, but relevant:

Game company A makes Game A about 20 years ago, and published it all in house. Now that company tanked 10 years ago and is completely gone. No buyout, no new owners for the game, etc. Now Game A has been sold and resold numerous times, and it's been years since the game has generated any money for this company, well before the company tanked.

Now this game has been put up for download completely free with the declaration of abandonware. The thing is, the authors were not the ones who put it up. Now there is absolute proof that the authors would not have made a dime on this, but by the letter of the law it is illegal. Now with no loss and no profit, is is really stealing?

[Pedersen]

Wait until you start shopping for contracts!

Doubt I ever will. What I want to write will be an entertaining story, but I doubt it will be marketable through anything other than self-publishing. That's fine by me.

Who has a copy of the work? The creator, the publisher's editor, perhaps the creator's agent, and perhaps a reviewer. If it got out, ONE of them would have to be the cause, right? And the publisher knows it wasn't HIM...

Right. We both know that nobody in a publishing house would ever let a pre-release copy of a book sneak out the door :smirk:

Legally, I suspect you may actually have a problem. I'd need to check the exact wording of copyright law where you are, and probably need a lawyer's interpretation. However, it's such a small thing that I doubt anyone is ever going to chase you up for it.

Morally and ethically? Nah. I have no problem with it. You purchased one copy for your use, you're only planning to have one copy for your use. No big deal, IMO.

Even legally, I doubt I would have a problem, at least in the USA. Format shifting is legal, and that's precisely what I'm doing. Not a planned for version of it, to be sure, but that is what I'm doing. For other countries, who knows? Not me, that's for sure.

So you are saying I do not have the right to dictate the terms and conditions under which a person will buy the product I have created?
I find it strange that a shopowner can reserve the right to refuse service if not paid in cash or some other restriction and I cannot do the same.

Actually, I'm willing to make a concession here: You can publish it using whatever DRM tools you wish, provided you lose all copyright on it.

I'll use me, again, as an example. Just three days ago (Thursday night), I found out that Dean Koontz is publishing a new Odd Thomas novel. I love the character, so I went looking to see if I would be able to purchase an e-version of it. I found a site that would offer me an Adobe PDF eBook of the new book. Also of another book I'd been looking for.

To say I was thrilled would be an understatement. I eagerly bought a pre-order for the new book, and bought the older book. Downloaded the older book, and went to transfer to my iLiad. Went through a bunch of contortions to download the file, and then tried to read it.

It wouldn't work. I've got Adobe Acrobat Reader 8. And I couldn't read the file. Went back to the retailer, and read their help pages. Seems I have to have "Adobe Digital Editions" to read it. However, since I run Linux, that program is not even an option. They have since refunded me, as they should have.

Now, here's the moronic part: I can sign onto any of a number of pirate networks (gnutella, limewire, edonkey, etc). I can do a download of a PDF. I can then read that PDF on my iLiad, without a problem. All of which is illegal, and costs me nothing.

I can't even give money to get what I want. I want to be legal. I want to reward the content creators. And I cannot do so. They won't let me.

Fine, you wanna use the DRM crap? Go for it. But, IMHO, you should lose all copyright protection, because by using the DRM, you are saying that copyright law isn't good enough for you. If it isn't good enough, then you shouldn't be allowed to use it.

This simply goes back to what I just said. Why cannot I dictate the terms under which I wish customers to buy my material, so long as they are lawful? Why should I HAVE to do these things? Where does this "obligation" to the customer come forth?

Why should society reward you as a creator? Why should society give you the benefit of control over your creation? Why should I not just take it, and let anybody I wish read it? Why should I not get the law changed to make your actions illegal? Where does this obligation of society to the creator come from?

Here's a hint for you: Copyright is not natural, it is not normal. It, along with trademark protection and patent protection, are done to try to make creation happen for the betterment of society. Now, with the way copyright is currently, we are entering a stage where new creations will be impossible, as nearly everything is a derivative of something else. And the people who claim that their work deserves protection since theirs is new and others do not since the other stuff is old (Romeo and Juliet, for example) display the height of hubris.

Tell me why Shakespeare's heirs should not be receiving royalties, while you should (as should your own heirs), and make it airtight. Because that's the final problem that copyright is facing.

*reads* I see no problem with this. It merely further keeps the copyright in the hands of the creator and his descendants.

You see nothing wrong with a government extending the copyrights over something where the original creator is DEAD, has been for quite some time, and the only purpose of the extension is to keep Mickey Mouse from entering the public domain (and therefore being ineligible for use as a trademark)?

Damn, and I thought I was jaded.

[otakuneko]

Now with no loss and no profit, is is really stealing?

How could something that is not owned be stolen?

Does a company have the right to protect it's intellectual property at your expense?

Absolutely not.

For example, what if a company created false accounts on P2P programs and uploaded fake song files with viruses inside? Only people trying to pirate a copy of that song would download the virus. Depending on the nature of the virus, I'm tempted to side with the company.

Absolutely not. (again!)

The company spreading the viruses would be just as guilty of computer crime as would be the kid down the street if he did the same thing.

As for ripping a song to an MP3 player from a CD - that's a bit dodgier. I can see the argument that the end user has purchased a copy in a particular format. After all, buying the Lord of the Rings books in paperback doesn't give you the right to a hardback copy as well. Buying Alice in Wonderland in large print doesn't entitle you to a copy in standard print with the original illustrations.

Ah, but that analogy fails in that the owner of the paperback did not make the hardback himself. Of course you are not entitled to a second copy owned by someone else. However, if you have the ability to make a second copy for yourself (as ripping a CD is doing) then go for it.

The way I see it, if I buy a game, a CD, a DVD, what have you, it's none of anyone's business what I do with it short of distributing copies of it to others. I can read it, listen to it, watch it, rip it, install it on all my computers, use it to build furniture, even loan the original to a relative. Whatever. It's no one's business but my own, not until I start distributing copies.


Back to the OP: It is not theft, and it is not copyright infringement until I begin sharing it out. Then you have to prove that the people I shared it to wouldn't buy it either.

I do this sort of thing all the time with PC games and anime. I will grab a pirated copy first, judge it, then delete it if I don't like it enough to buy it.

The anime industry is generally far more tolerant of this behavior, and I consider this an enlightened attitude. I won't buy an anime (or a game) if I haven't seen it first (though some anime gets a special exception, such as Miyazaki films, and extra seasons of a proven anime). Thus, in my case, at least, piracy leads directly to sales.

I'm also speculative that the tolerance shown by the anime industry is a direct result of fansubbing. It's essentially free market research, though this should apply to other industries as well. After all, a wise developer once said, "Don't worry if they pirate your software. Worry if they don't."

[lordlundar]

How could something that is not owned be stolen?

Ahh, but by the letter of the law, the IP is still owned by the former owner of the company, but they have not made any effort to pursue for profit in over a decade.