Comments on: A matter of ethics http://www.techusers.org/2007/10/23/a-matter-of-ethics/ Tech from an e-booker's point of view Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:07:07 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: Andrew M. Kasper http://www.techusers.org/2007/10/23/a-matter-of-ethics/comment-page-1/#comment-363 Andrew M. Kasper Tue, 30 Oct 2007 01:07:22 +0000 http://techusers.org/2007/10/23/a-matter-of-ethics/#comment-363 Ellen: If copyright went away, there would still be such a thing as attribution. Authors would still have immortality. Forgive me; I don't quite understand your point. Ellen:

If copyright went away, there would still be such a thing as attribution. Authors would still have immortality. Forgive me; I don’t quite understand your point.

]]> By: Ellen Hage http://www.techusers.org/2007/10/23/a-matter-of-ethics/comment-page-1/#comment-361 Ellen Hage Mon, 29 Oct 2007 20:06:27 +0000 http://techusers.org/2007/10/23/a-matter-of-ethics/#comment-361 To Nicolas, It does seem that the good get punished because of what the bad may do. Pirates will find a way so DRM doesn't stop them. To Andrew, I doubt if copyright will ever go away. In a way it's what encourages people to be innovative by giving them their bit of immortality. To Rob, I am glad to see the other point of view. My only problem is this part, "Still, you didn’t purchase an absolute right to use the book in any way you choose" What exactly do I get a right to do? If I can only do what they want me to, then there needs to be a BIG sign spelling it out. Also I believe along with this sign a lower price tag to match my lack of rights. Ellen To Nicolas,
It does seem that the good get punished because of what the bad may do. Pirates will find a way so DRM doesn’t stop them.

To Andrew,
I doubt if copyright will ever go away. In a way it’s what encourages people to be innovative by giving them their bit of immortality.

To Rob,
I am glad to see the other point of view. My only problem is this part, “Still, you didn’t purchase an absolute right to use the book in any way you choose”
What exactly do I get a right to do? If I can only do what they want me to, then there needs to be a BIG sign spelling it out. Also I believe along with this sign a lower price tag to match my lack of rights.

Ellen

]]> By: Andrew M. Kasper http://www.techusers.org/2007/10/23/a-matter-of-ethics/comment-page-1/#comment-360 Andrew M. Kasper Mon, 29 Oct 2007 17:06:43 +0000 http://techusers.org/2007/10/23/a-matter-of-ethics/#comment-360 The obvious difference being that a device that unlocks a car deprives another person of their car. A device that unlocks easily-replicated digital media deprives no one of anything, but for the publisher/ executive who believes intellectual property can be commoditized. We cannot compare intellectual property with physical property: metaphors which aim to do so are both broken and tired. To quote questioncopyright.org: "[Copyright] was designed in an age when reliable reproduction and distribution were the main obstacle in making works accessible to the public. In today's world of perfect copying and zero-cost distribution, we can do better..." In conclusion: yes, artists should have the right to withhold their work from consumers who are unwilling to pay. I do not believe that consumers should not gain full copying privileges upon purchase of a work. There are dozens of business models that could work without criminalizing the consumer. It is now up to the artists and publishers to evolve. The obvious difference being that a device that unlocks a car deprives another person of their car. A device that unlocks easily-replicated digital media deprives no one of anything, but for the publisher/ executive who believes intellectual property can be commoditized. We cannot compare intellectual property with physical property: metaphors which aim to do so are both broken and tired.

To quote questioncopyright.org: “[Copyright] was designed in an age when reliable reproduction and distribution were the main obstacle in making works accessible to the public. In today’s world of perfect copying and zero-cost distribution, we can do better…”

In conclusion: yes, artists should have the right to withhold their work from consumers who are unwilling to pay. I do not believe that consumers should not gain full copying privileges upon purchase of a work. There are dozens of business models that could work without criminalizing the consumer. It is now up to the artists and publishers to evolve.

]]> By: BooksForABuck http://www.techusers.org/2007/10/23/a-matter-of-ethics/comment-page-1/#comment-359 BooksForABuck Mon, 29 Oct 2007 16:14:30 +0000 http://techusers.org/2007/10/23/a-matter-of-ethics/#comment-359 Hum, I look at things in a different way. If you don't like DRM, this doesn't give you the right to strip it, it gives you the right to buy books that come without DRM. Books are like cars. Just because you can buy a device that unlocks someone else's car, that doesn't mean you should unlock someone else's car. What about books you've bought? Well, I agree that the ethics get tricky here (the law, however, is clear, so if your ethics include not breaking the law, you may want to take this into account). Still, you didn't purchase an absolute right to use the book in any way you choose, just as, when you buy software, you don't get the right to, say, manufacture and resell Microsoft Windows, or when you buy a paperback, you don't get the right to copy it and share it with all your friends. I believe that vendors who use DRM and go out of business are ethically bound to perform some sort of warehousing for their existing customer purchases but I'm not sure ethical lapses on the part of some vendors justify ethical lapses on my part. Does it sound like I'm a big believer in DRM? I'm not--I think it has a lot of problems and offer all of my books, DRM-free, on www.BooksForABuck.com (and many of them DRM-free on Fictionwise) because, at this point, I think DRM causes more problems than it solves. But that doesn't mean I don't see the problems of unauthorized copying or believe that authors (and publishers) shouldn't have a right to withhold their books from those who aren't willing to pay for them. Rob Preece Publisher, www.BooksForABuck.com Hum,
I look at things in a different way. If you don’t like DRM, this doesn’t give you the right to strip it, it gives you the right to buy books that come without DRM. Books are like cars. Just because you can buy a device that unlocks someone else’s car, that doesn’t mean you should unlock someone else’s car.

What about books you’ve bought? Well, I agree that the ethics get tricky here (the law, however, is clear, so if your ethics include not breaking the law, you may want to take this into account). Still, you didn’t purchase an absolute right to use the book in any way you choose, just as, when you buy software, you don’t get the right to, say, manufacture and resell Microsoft Windows, or when you buy a paperback, you don’t get the right to copy it and share it with all your friends. I believe that vendors who use DRM and go out of business are ethically bound to perform some sort of warehousing for their existing customer purchases but I’m not sure ethical lapses on the part of some vendors justify ethical lapses on my part.

Does it sound like I’m a big believer in DRM? I’m not–I think it has a lot of problems and offer all of my books, DRM-free, on http://www.BooksForABuck.com (and many of them DRM-free on Fictionwise) because, at this point, I think DRM causes more problems than it solves. But that doesn’t mean I don’t see the problems of unauthorized copying or believe that authors (and publishers) shouldn’t have a right to withhold their books from those who aren’t willing to pay for them.

Rob Preece
Publisher, http://www.BooksForABuck.com

]]> By: Andrew Kasper http://www.techusers.org/2007/10/23/a-matter-of-ethics/comment-page-1/#comment-358 Andrew Kasper Sun, 28 Oct 2007 01:03:30 +0000 http://techusers.org/2007/10/23/a-matter-of-ethics/#comment-358 I'm glad I read Nicolas before I posted, since I was essentially going to say the same thing (almost verbatim). The other point I was going to make is that all information "wants" to be free (in the "liberated" sense), and that to impose copy-protections is a violation of the consumers' rights. Disclaimer: I am an advocate of ending copyright law outright. Check out http://questioncopyright.org/ for details. I’m glad I read Nicolas before I posted, since I was essentially going to say the same thing (almost verbatim).

The other point I was going to make is that all information “wants” to be free (in the “liberated” sense), and that to impose copy-protections is a violation of the consumers’ rights. Disclaimer: I am an advocate of ending copyright law outright. Check out http://questioncopyright.org/ for details.

]]> By: Nicolas http://www.techusers.org/2007/10/23/a-matter-of-ethics/comment-page-1/#comment-357 Nicolas Fri, 26 Oct 2007 08:07:15 +0000 http://techusers.org/2007/10/23/a-matter-of-ethics/#comment-357 Sometimes it helps to take a step back and look at it from a distance. The market in general is a mechanism of supply and demand, which is well known. When people no longer want to spend money on a product it will become cheaper and eventually disappear. Same for books. If people don't spend money on books by copying them, they will disappear. The same can be said for music. I don't think that is bad. When everybody ignores copyright and nobody pays for a type of goods, after a while these goods will no longer be for sale. But there will always be some demand, so different market models will be tested until one is found that is viable. Consumers still have money to spend. And do. What we see here is a group of companies that want to remain in the old market model by forcing consumers to pay for things they don't want to pay for. Consumers saying they want products but don't want to pay for them is like your boss saying your work is exemplory but does not want to raise your wage. Not wanting to pay up means no demand, means eventually no product. So the only ethical dilemma I see here is that of producers (perhaps by proxy) forcing something on consumers. If I am a good mural painter and people love to look at my work but don't want to pay for it I can complain and force them, paint for free or stop painting. It's as simple as that. Same for authors or musicians, or any producer/artist. Getting money for your work just because it was much work is simply not how the world works. Taking the above filosophy to your example, I don't think anyone did anything wrong, except the company trying to take away freedom from the consumers that actually paid money for their products to prevent other consumers from not paying. Sorry for the long reply. I don't seem to be able to make a point in fewer words :) Sometimes it helps to take a step back and look at it from a distance. The market in general is a mechanism of supply and demand, which is well known. When people no longer want to spend money on a product it will become cheaper and eventually disappear. Same for books. If people don’t spend money on books by copying them, they will disappear. The same can be said for music. I don’t think that is bad.

When everybody ignores copyright and nobody pays for a type of goods, after a while these goods will no longer be for sale. But there will always be some demand, so different market models will be tested until one is found that is viable. Consumers still have money to spend. And do.

What we see here is a group of companies that want to remain in the old market model by forcing consumers to pay for things they don’t want to pay for. Consumers saying they want products but don’t want to pay for them is like your boss saying your work is exemplory but does not want to raise your wage. Not wanting to pay up means no demand, means eventually no product.

So the only ethical dilemma I see here is that of producers (perhaps by proxy) forcing something on consumers. If I am a good mural painter and people love to look at my work but don’t want to pay for it I can complain and force them, paint for free or stop painting. It’s as simple as that. Same for authors or musicians, or any producer/artist. Getting money for your work just because it was much work is simply not how the world works.

Taking the above filosophy to your example, I don’t think anyone did anything wrong, except the company trying to take away freedom from the consumers that actually paid money for their products to prevent other consumers from not paying.

Sorry for the long reply. I don’t seem to be able to make a point in fewer words :)

]]>