Comments on: Borrowing vs. downloading

By: Peter Grant

Peter Grant — Mon, 01 Sep 2008 10:59:00 +0000

But hariseldon was so cool! I assume you were referring to the founder of Psychohistory. Always good to find an Asimov fan. What does your new name refer to?

By: wilkox

wilkox — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 06:13:28 +0000

@ jether: (this is harriseldon, I changed my handle a couple of days ago) My point is not that ‘might makes right’ so much as ‘might can put a practical limit on what is possible, irrespective of right and wrong’. I think that copyright in the pre-internet age was right because it was a sensible way to promote a market in creative goods in which the author could make a living on their work. I don’t think it is right now because (excluding the right to use the work commercially) it is no longer providing that function.

By: jether

jether — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 17:46:54 +0000

@ harriseldon: Do I understand you to say that might makes right?

@ Jorge Bucaran: Do I understand you to say that there are people against dowload per se? (And are you saying that you cannot copy a copy, only the original, when you dowload?)

By: McBloggenstein

McBloggenstein — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 12:46:36 +0000

“Because no new copy is being made. The number of copies in circulation remains equal to the number of copies the creator was paid for.”

Of course that’s right. But going back to the fact that the author makes no money:

Stores that sell used books, cd’s, dvd’s, etc… buy, sell, and trade works with zero money going to the author. Lots of money is being made with no compensation for the artist.

I know this doesn’t violate any copyright law, but the idea of it seems like it would be a bigger deal than just downloading a copy, since people are actually making money from trading someone else’s work multiple times.

By: Jorge Bucaran

Jorge Bucaran — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 12:37:57 +0000

Well, stealing is taking something away, downloading is just making a copy of the original so it’s not stealing at all and that is a valid point of view.

By: wintermute

wintermute — Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:53:06 +0000

“On a related note: I’ve actually always wondered why it’s ok to sell used books and CD’s.”

Because no new copy is being made. The number of copies in circulation remains equal to the number of copies the creator was paid for.

By: harriseldon

harriseldon — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:27:51 +0000

@ jether: I’m not so much concerned with people being a product of their environment as laws being practical in their environment. Imagine trying to make a law against humans having children (’making copies’). It’s just concievable – no pun intended – that this could be enforced, because pregnancy, childbirth and children are highly visible and easy to stop. This is analogous with copying back when it was only possible for rich people with printing presses. Now imagine trying to extend this law to prevent BACTERIA from reproducing. It simply wouldn’t be possible, because no law enforcement agency in the world could cope with every single bacterial cell on the planet and their massive rate of division. Copyright in the age of the internet is a similar situation. There’s just so much information, and it’s so easy to copy, that ethical issues become moot in the face of practical possibility.

By: jether

jether — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 16:29:14 +0000

@ Daniel Florien: The difference is this: when you borrow, you do not make a new copy, so no one´s COPYright is infringed. When you dowload, you do make a new copy, and somebody´s COPYright may be infringed. The book´s lender is “view”right holder, the publisher is copyright holder.

@ harriseldon: Do I understand you to say that people are product of their environment?

By: harriseldon

harriseldon — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:46:30 +0000

Peter Grant’s point is excellent. Copyright has always been based on the shaky premise that copying is something difficult and infrequent, and therefore amenable to regulation. In reality, just reading this web page meant at the very least copying it from the wordpress server to my computer. Information is only going to get easier to copy, and we’ve already long past the point where any kind of regulation of copying could be sustained. It’s time to find a new model.

By: McBloggenstein

McBloggenstein — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:12:23 +0000

I think Wintermute has answered the question quite well. Any counter point to his answer is based on morals, and hypotheticals.

Although you make a good point, Daniel, you speak of hypothetical scenarios where you “destroy” the copy after using it once… and others say that if they weren’t planning on paying for a copy of the work, and they download a copy of it, then we have the same result of no money being made by the author.

While these examples DO have the same result as a library – which is no money going to the author – they really are mostly hypothetical, and are not the reality of the majority.

The most popular argument for it being ok to download illegal copies of music is that they “probably” wouldn’t have ever bought it anyway.

Let’s say you have three people.

One of them does not like “X” band, and would never buy their music, and therefore would never download it.

The second person kinda likes X band, and might illegally download some of their stuff.

The third person loves X band, and will definitely download their stuff.

Now multiply these three people by many many thousands and thousands of times. You will have a LOT of cases where a person who would have bought the media, doesn’t because they downloaded it. Not just a few cases, a LOT.

Don’t get me wrong. I’m not saying I don’t do it myself.

On a related note: I’ve actually always wondered why it’s ok to sell used books and CD’s.

By: Chris Taylor

Chris Taylor — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 12:50:11 +0000

I think you’re asking the wrong question in your post.

The difference is not about whether or not they are making money.

And this has spiraled into a question of ethics – however you didn’t ask an ethical question really.

HOWEVER, to answer the question as is:

There are laws against the one and not the other. It is not about making money or not.

(Now if you want to get into a question of laws of downloading and ethics – that would be a whole separate post and conversation I think :) )

-Chris
http://sharpeningiron.wordpress.com/

By: Slarty

Slarty — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 08:03:02 +0000

In the UK, authors are entitled to a fee from the Public Lending Right fund.

From their website (http://www.plr.uk.com/index.htm):

Public Lending Right (PLR) is the right for authors to receive payment under PLR legislation for the loans of their books by public libraries. To qualify for payment, applicants must apply to register their books with us. Payments are made annually on the basis of loans data collected from a sample of public libraries in the UK.

PLR is funded by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and in 2007-08 received £7.63 million pounds in grant-in-aid, of which £6.66 million was distributed to authors.

By: Peter Grant

Peter Grant — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 05:58:08 +0000

Looking at it from a memetic point of view, if you read a borrowed book or listen to a track it can be argued that a copy exists in your brain. I wonder if that could be seen as copyright infringement.

Daniel, I see you are also an atheist. Perhaps you will find a short story I wrote on faith interesting:

http://scifiwriter.wordpress.com/2008/08/03/faith/

By: jehingr

jehingr — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 03:48:05 +0000

One big difference is that the copyright holder can be certain that the library paid for their copy. When you download there is no guarantee that the person you are downloading it from paid for it either.

By: jether

jether — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 01:05:52 +0000

@ Daniel Florien: Do I understand you to say that a borrowed book is always a book bought by the lender? Maybe it was a gift to the lender. If it was bought, the publisher did make money with that copy. Only if all borrowed books could not be bought in the first place, there would be no difference. / Do I understand you to say that the acts of borrowing a book and making a illegal electronic copy of it does not bring dough to the publisher? If so, sure. But nobody is claiming right over viewing of the product, it is over copy of the product, it´s “COPYright”. When you borrow a book, you are only viewing a copy of it. When you dowload or upload, you are automatically making another copy of it.