Ahead of the delivery of my Kindle in January I’ve already downloaded 750 ebooks, about 100 of which fit the above description.

I look at the Amazon purchase option as a nice addition, but figure only about 40% of my reading will be from books that will cost me any money.

Why not a Sony ebook? I’ve used the Kindle, and it’s a fantastic solution to my repetitive stress disorder afflicted hands and wrists. Pressing “next page” is physically painful on the Sony units, but easy and gentle on the Kindle. And I didn’t hit the page changing buttons “accidentally, because when I picked up the unit in a hurry, I pick it up “landscape” style, not “portrait”, voila, no buttons. It’s convenient to hold balanced on the hand, without gripping the top, which seems to be what’s tripping up people with accidental page changes.

It seems that a major problem with this issue is that most people don’t have a decent understanding of what the issues–legal, ethical, and economic–really are. I consider myself a pretty online/tech-savvy, liberal, well-informed “citizen,” and yet I sense, as I dive deeper, that there’s a lot of misunderstanding on both sides of this issue.

I’m starting with Lessig’s Free Culture (http://www.free-culture.cc/) and will take it from there. (Yes, I’ll purchase a copy.) Anyone have other “must read” suggestions on either (preferably both) sides of this?

Thanks for the conversation, everyone.

The following is flawed:

“3. of property. = Is money not property? If someone puts a gun to my back in the street and demands my money, has he not stolen from me? If someone were going to give me money, and a third party ran by and took that money from the first so that it never reached me, wouldn’t that be called stealing? The argument (at least for me) is over whether or not an author has been deprived of money he/she would otherwise have gained … isn’t it? [If I have the wrong legal term, forgive me … but the concept isn’t difficult.]”

Your (ehem) “property” in this case is NOT money. “Potential revenue” is not revenue earned. No one has stolen money from you. You never had it. On the other hand, the question you must ask yourself is do these acts cost you money you already have?

The answer, is of course, they do not.

Look, no one is saying that people should be able to use and enjoy these things without paying for them…it is morally wrong, probably. it is certainly ethically suspect.

I don’t believe you solve the problem tho with a dishonest discourse on the thing.

I went thru this, kicked it, fought it, beat it and burned it…and at the end of the day…I still get paid.

There is no effective way to stop this without causing even more destruction. The only way to stop it is by a level of control on a “government” level of the flow of electronic information that really isn’t worth it, in the grand scheme of things.

I write software for a living. It is all distributed electronically. Some people use it without paying the license fee we ask.

They do not steal it from me; I still have it, both in product and source form. You cannot steal it. It is impossible.

What you can do, is deny me compensation for it..but it cost me (literally) pennies. If it didn’t come from my server(s)…the cost to me was Zero.

Contrast this with a stockroom full of boxes of software. Ouch. That hurts. because of the nature of the beast, I’ve opted to not take that particular risk (anymore) for the foreseeable future.

But you know what? A great many people pay what we ask. It is…unrealistic, untenable and unbelievable many in the content creation fields actually hold this…hostile, anti-consumer notion that DRM is the solution to a problem that 1. they little understand 2. is a moral issue, not a technological one and 3. is insulting to their customers.

Look. People aren’t as stupid as many of us that spend a lot of time on the internet like to believe. They do jobs that require them to move objects of value from A to B…to build them, to manage them.

What we do is in essence, etherial to them. You Picture, your song, your book or my software does NOT hold the same value to them when wrapped in a DRM shell because they *cannot resell it and recoup any monies when they are done with it*…it is effectively a rental.

I find it INSULTING that publishers want to charge Damned Near Paper Book MSRP for an *ebook*.

While to YOU the author, the book is “nothing without the words”…I assure you to the consumer, your book customer, there is more value in being able to ditch those words for some other tangible thing than not.

The problem appears to be that many of us in these data-passing industries seem to be almost completely devoid of this realization: data-only products are worth less in the Really-for-Real world, and DRM-restricted ones with no resale rights, doubly so.

I’ve asked. Perhaps you might wish to consider this notion as well

As for “stealing”:

1. Intention = Those who obtain pirated copies of things are generally intending to do so.

2. permanently to deprive someone = They don’t plan on paying me later.

3. of property. = Is money not property? If someone puts a gun to my back in the street and demands my money, has he not stolen from me? If someone were going to give me money, and a third party ran by and took that money from the first so that it never reached me, wouldn’t that be called stealing? The argument (at least for me) is over whether or not an author has been deprived of money he/she would otherwise have gained … isn’t it? [If I have the wrong legal term, forgive me ... but the concept isn't difficult.]

Look, I think CreativeCommons is great. I think creating intellectual work and sharing it with others freely, for the general betterment of all, is wonderful. When I write on a blog, or contribute to a wiki, or design educational products, I’m more than happy to let anyone take anything they want and use it however they want. It would be nice if they credited me for it, but even that’s not a huge deal.

I also agree with your suggestion that the larger battle is between publishers and writers, not writers and their potential readers.

And I’m not interested in controlling and tracking digital files. I don’t think anyone can create a way to “lock” a file that someone else can’t find a way to “unlock,” so that seems like a never-ending (and pointless) battle.

All I’m saying is, writers (who want to get paid) deserve to get paid if others are enjoying the benefit of the writer’s works. Not taking steps to ensure that the creations of those writers are used in ways that generate income for the writer is, therefore, irresponsible (at least, in a society that values–truly values–intellectual and artistic creations). I’m not saying DRM is the solution (see above), and I suspect the answer lies more in reforming the ways in which revenue is generated and distributed.

I don’t have a solution. But if we can’t find a way (as a society) to at least agree on the problem, then we’ll have a hard time moving forward.

So my argument is with those who feel it is their “right” to have any digital file they want, with no restrictions or obligations, simply because it’s digital. (Curiously, people don’t tend to act or think that way with physical things, and those who do are generally labeled “criminals.”) That attitude of entitlement is implicit in so many of the DRM conversations, and that’s what I’m arguing against.

I don’t know if we can go further in this discussion, here, and in this medium, though I’m not intended to cut off the conversation. I sincerely appreciate your thoughts and challenges so far, and you’ve helped me to clarify my thinking. I wish you well in your writing.

On the other hand, I admit you and I have a different approach to the reader. Yes, I appreciate my readers, immensely. No, I am not personally responsible for collecting–my publisher, small literary house that he is, does that for me. Note libraries do pay for their books, and a very small royalty trickles down to the author. And of course if my content goes on a Web site or into a print pub, I am compensated for that as well.

I can’t compare Gitmo and Iraq to this–for me that won’t work because the political issues are apart from the financial issues relevant to those of us who earn our living writing. I might be easily able to scale my political priorities, but that scale would not be related to a scale delineating the priorities in my business.

I’m thinking that Doctor Who story would have rewarded you initially, however, in that you would have been paid for the broadcast usage to begin with?

I can tell you are a dreamer, Chris, and we can always appreciate that sort of approach. But it just won’t work for those of us who have, for many years, depended on writing as a business. Note we may enjoy those blissful moments when the pen is arrested by what I call a creative seizure–time seems to dissolve and the muse has us firmly in her grip.

But once that bliss concludes, I expect compensation. And I’m thinking you and I have a very different perspective that neither of us will agree to yield.

I’m also thinking you posed some interesting questions, as did the blogger at TechCrunch. best, KBD

I’ve been a full time pro writer since I stopped acting in the mid-’70s. You’re right — I’ve written for the BBC and for Independent TV over here in the UK, and I also write books and articles. I get paid for what I do. But I don”t see it as any part of my duties, obligations or routine to be personally responsible for collecting dues from my readers and viewers. People seem to like my stuff. That’s great. Some people even seem to pay for my stuff. Well, fine. Other people, who evidently like my stuff but for whatever reason don’t feel like paying for it, get hold of it through public libraries, borrowing from friends or downloading from the Internet. Why should that upset me?

C’mon, guys. On a scale of Gitmo to Iraq, how important is it that some fan kid might be enjoying a Doctor Who story of mine downloaded from The Pirate Bay? Serious, eh? How many lashes would you want to give the little bastard?

–
Chris

Are you an independent, or do you have a job and write on the side? I include teaching as a job. If writing independently is your full-time job, would you share some publication credits with us? Thx. KBD

Me too, Joan. So we can speak frankly, pro to pro.

“I’m not groveling and skipping meals in order to get pirate readers.”

No grovelling required — although I’m not sure what you mean by “pirate readers” here. There are several classes of reader who will enjoy your books without any payment to you. How are you going to deal with libraries, with friends who lend to friends, with second-hand book purchasers? Calling them — or indeed any other kinds of readers — “pirates” won’t help you think straight about this. (Real pirates loot and murder on the high seas).

Readers come to us in all shapes and forms, Joan. When they stop coming — that might be the time to grovel, if that’s your thing.

“The readers I value are those who respect that if my writing merits their attention, it also merits (and legally requires) that they read my book legally, i.e. either buying it or borrowing it from the library.”

Writers’ valuation of their readers isn’t at all important in the grand scheme of things. Or probably at all. What might matter somewhat is how our readers (of all kinds) value us. In dollars and cents, perhaps. But more importantly, otherwise.

“I am offended that you think I should be grateful for you donating your time to read my book when all it costs me, in your terms, is a meal, so that you could pirate it.”

As a pro writer for most of my life I can’t ever remember being offended by the fact of having been read. I have felt waves of anger reading some of the contracts publishers have attempted to present me with, but that’s about the extent of my wrath.

“No man but a blockhead ever wrote except for money” — a useful guideline from S. Johnson when dealing with publishers. But you can’t derive from this the corollary that readers who don’t pay you are rogues and thieves.

The bond between a good writer and a good reader (both skills of course are required) is immensely powerful. In comparison the cash nexus to which you attach such importance really hardly figures. I don’t discount it altogether: royalties trickle in, as Jefferson intended, encouraging me and feeding me while I get on with the next lot of work. But it really isn’t worth getting into a fight with folks who go out of their way (in whatever fashion) to become your readers. Fight publishers, by all means — they’ve been gypping you for centuries. And all power to the Hollywood writers in their dust-up with the bean-counters in the studios.

“Did you eat yesterday?”

And today, Joan. And for tomorrow I’m figuring out how I’m going to get Joan to pay for the meal writing this carefully crafted entry has surely earned me.

–
Chris

Book publishers love to take people to court.

I’m a writer, so I’m not happy it’s that easy to rip off a book. But most freelance writers are at the bottom of the income heap anyway (unless you’re a best-selling author), so I guess most of us will suffer in silence. Thing is, I don’t think our publishers will.

I did a story about the FBI sting on the EliteTorrents network, including some info about the technology in general. Hope it’s okay to specify the link in the spirit of sharing; if not, well I’m sure you have tech ability to zap this: http://coveringflorida.blogspo.....ating.html

best, KBD

eReaders, like Sony’s and Amazon’s, are not backlit. That is the point. This is why an e-reader is superior to a PDA or Laptop for books. So, yes you need a separate device for reading. A backlit PDA is not a suitable replacement for a reader.

Excuse me, but I’m a professional writer. Profession. Writer. I’m not groveling and skipping meals in order to get pirate readers. The readers I value are those who respect that if my writing merits their attention, it also merits (and legally requires) that they read my book legally, i.e. either buying it or borrowing it from the library.

I am offended that you think I should be grateful for you donating your time to read my book when all it costs me, in your terms, is a meal, so that you could pirate it.

Did you eat yesterday? Was it because you did good work and were rewarded by receiving your pay for it? Shouldn’t I and the other professional writers receive the same?

Joan Price
author of several books, which I hope you’ll either buy legally or get from your local library

No. I think he wouldn’t understand why you were calling it “property”. The quote you cite makes this clear, and this seems to be TJ’s stance passim. It was Madison who managed to pursuade TJ that this limited monopoly thing would be a good idea, but I don’t get the impression that TJ was ever crazy about it. Neither of them ever saw artistic works as anyone’s “property”

“And, yes, I’m still saying that copying-and-distributing someone else’s work without permission or pay is “stealing” (under current laws)”

Well. no. Even the more stringent new laws don’t confuse unauthorised use of (c) with stealing. Stealing is:

1. Intention

2. permanantly to deprive someone

3. of property.

But this discussion has encouraged me to start a new movement. It makes sense and is completely right that good deeds should be rewarded. It takes time and trouble to perform good deeds, and the world is better for them. So I intend to legislate that in order to encourage the performance of good deeds, any recipient of a good deed should pay a sum of money to the do-gooder. The deed itself will henceforth be known as “the property” of the do-gooder, and its transfer to the do-goodee will be considered as a form of limited licence. Lots more work for lawyers, but, oh, what a lovelier world it will be.

I lied. I’m not really going to do this. It’s just a thought experiment.

–
Chris

As for history, TJ did support limited “monopolies” (i.e., intellectual property rights) for “individual inventors” (i.e., writers, artists, etc.). He does insist that they are not “natural” or inalienable rights, but he also agrees that they are beneficial to a society because they provide a means of support and encouragement to the inventor.

“Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from anybody… The exclusive right to invention [is] given not of natural right, but for the benefit of society.”
–Thomas Jefferson to Isaac McPherson, 1813. ME 13:333

So, I think TJ would understand my comment about intellectual property law, and furthermore would support laws that protect the interests of the individual artists. (I’m not, by the way, siding with “big business” … my concern is that artists have the chance to profit from their work, as any individual should have the chance to profit from his/her work, whatever the nature of the work might be, if that work is deemed useful / interesting / worthy of attention by the society.)

So I’m asking: where do we go from here? Your suggestion, that I quoted in an earlier comment, is a good starting point. And whatever happens to the law, it should focus on protecting the rights of the artists, not the corporations (and I think TJ would agree). But the protection still needs to happen.

And, yes, I’m still saying that copying-and-distributing someone else’s work without permission or pay is “stealing” (under current laws) and should, IMHO, continue to be called “stealing,” as doing so lessens the potential profits of the writers, editors, designers, etc. of a book (or writers, actors, production crew, etc. of a film … and so on). I believe those individuals are entitled to profit from that work (and simply giving someone attribution doesn’t compensate for that).

–
Chris

Cathy

In the article you reference, this quote appears in the abstract:

“In [place of the right to control copying], we propose as an organizing principle the right to control public distribution of the copyrighted work.”

I agree that “copying of digital works is necessary for normal use of those works.” My primary concern is the distribution of copied works (thereby denying workers pay for their efforts), so if we can enact the kind of principle recommended here (and have it actually work), then I think that would be great.

Does that bring us all closer to an agreement?

I supplied a URL for this, but TechCrunch swallowed it. I’ll try again:

http://www.cs.yale.edu/homes/jf/MF.pdf

–
Chris

“Copyright is a subset of intellectual property law”. Eric, the concept of “intellectual property” is a very recent (20th C) invention. (c) predates it by several centuries, and Tom Jefferson wouldn’t have the faintest idea what you were talking about if you made an assertion like this. I’d enjoy hearing you trying to explain it to him.

“…and does, in fact, directly relate to the “rights to copy” a work.” You say “in fact”. Have you read “Taking the Copy out of Copyright” ?

–
Chris

Copyright is a subset of intellectual property law, and does, in fact, directly relate to the “rights to copy” a work. Specifically, authors of a work are granted exclusive rights over that work (under U.S. and most other copyright laws), including: the right to copy/reproduce the work, the right to display/perform the work, the right to create derivatives from the work, and the right to sell or transmit these rights to others. Unless the author explicitly gives up these rights, he/she is the “exclusive” holder of these rights (which means other people can’t do that stuff without his/her say-so).

And, no, writing does not necessarily “belong to the Commons.” If I create a piece of writing, I can choose to share it with one or two people and then burn it if I want (because I created it), and the Commons can make no claims on me to prevent me from doing otherwise … unless its a fascist state you’re envisioning?

@ Kindler: You’re getting some things confused, the first of which is the self-evident fact that a physical book is different from a digital book and cannot, in fact, be in two places at once. Loaning a physical books, therefore, creates no legal problems, nor does giving a gift of a physical book.

Libraries work legally (and financially) with publishers to “loan” physical books, as well.

Technically, sitting in B&N and reading an entire book is probably not what B&N would prefer … they’re not a library. And it’s very unlikely that most people will read more than a chapter of a book they don’t own while sitting in a book store, so this is a kinda silly argument.

And finally, making a reproduction of an entire book is, in fact, a violation of copyright law.

So the only twisting I see is in your examples, coupled with a failure to recognize the significant differences between physical and digital media and the difficulties those differences bring with them.

“If you enjoy a writer’s work enough to want to read his/her book, why on earth would you not be willing to buy it legally? This mystifies me.”

It shouldn’t do, Joan. There’s no connection between the huge investment I make in the act of reading your book and entering your world on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the small payment I might or might not make for purchasing it.

What you gain is a reader, and this is everything to a writer. What you may or may not also gain is a meal. But a reader is not a meal.

–
Chris