It’s wrong to steal, Part Whatever

[rolanni]

Very much worth a read: Juliet E. McKenna talks about copyright, piracy, and free speech.

Originally published at Sharon Lee, Writer. You can comment here or there.

Comments

[intuition-ist.livejournal.com]

Casting the copyright wars as "it's wrong to steal" leaves out the whole cost to the consumer when the publishing industry uses the legal cover of copyright to keep a stranglehold on every copy of every title they sell, and to charge more for those titles into the bargain.

For example: If I buy a paperback book, I have a physical object. I can read it multiple times, I can lend it out to friends, I can put it in a lending library, I can sell it to a used bookstore. I own it. The publisher's rights stop at the point where I pull out the nice piece of plastic and hand it to the cashier. Sure, I can't go out and run off 100 copies, and hand them out on the street, but how often did that happen in the days of paper books anyway?

Now let's contrast that with a digital book bought from a Kindle. I have a single electronic copy of this title on my Kindle. I can't read it unless I have Kindle software to do so. I can't lend it, I can't sell it, and if my Kindle gets run over by a bus, I may not be able to get that book back. And to top it all off, Amazon has the power to yoink that title off my Kindle any time they want to. And, I'm paying premium prices for this lovely digital content, as well.

No, I don't own a Kindle. And I never will. Not because I'm a moustache-twirling digital pirate, but because when I buy a thing, it is mine. The publisher's rights should end when I hand over the plastic. They shouldn't have the right to tell me: No, you can't lend this title to a friend. No, you can't read this title in the way you choose. No, you have no right to back up this digital work unless it's in Our Cloud. No, you can't resell this title. No, no, no.

Why should I pay a premium for a restricted digital version of a book when I can pick up an unrestricted used paper copy for $3?

Why should I believe the publishing/recording/music industry's estimates of how badly they're affected by digital piracy?

Why should I accept artificial limits on what I'm allowed to do with things I've paid good money to own?

Why should I pay good money to companies that think that just because I'm buying something in digital form, they somehow have the right to dictate what I can do with it?

Yes, I'm angry. I've been angry for a good long time. This entire misbegotten circus parade of officious alphabet agencies spending billions of dollars to inflict ever-tighter lockdowns of content by waving the spectre of digital piracy has got to stop. It is ridiculous on the face of it. If they spent half the time and energy creating quality content with *reasonable* restrictions, they'd have back their claimed "losses", AND the money they have spent on lawyers and lawsuits, AND have money in the bank besides.

I'm sorry that you've encountered people ripping off your content, rolanni, and I still think that in general, copyright is a good thing. But more and more, copyright is being wielded like a hammer, bluntly and indiscriminately, to protect a series of industries who cannot conceive of a reasonable way to cope with digital content. We need more innovation, and fewer lawyers. Maybe then things will start to settle out.

[jessie-c.livejournal.com]

I think the part of this entire piracy thing that steams me most as a customer is the automatic assumption on the part of the Industry that I'm a criminal if only I could get away with it. It's most prevalent in the recording industry; witness the Sony rootkit debacle for example, but SOPA and its ilk are designed expressly to re-enforce that mindset. The greedy mega-corporations want to exploit me as a customer, they want my money, yet they're constantly seeking to redefine exactly what "ownership" means, and constantly trying to claw back the rights that a traditional sales agreement formerly granted me.

If I purchase a physical item, it is mine to do with as I please. I can hoard it, I can enjoy it, I can throw it out when I'm done with it, or I can resell it on the used market if I so choose. I hold that right because it is mine, not theirs. I am enjoined from making copies of that item to sell, becuase I did not buy those rights, even though I may well have the capability to make said copies. I should be granted those exact same rights and restrictions over any softcopy of an item as well. It's easy enough to install a tracking bug in a softcopy at the time of sale which says "Sold to {foo} on {Bar} date. Reslale as new prohibited." or words to that effect. It's slightly more difficult to make it hard for a pirate to strip out, but it can be done.

Loaning or giving books to friends is one of the most effective word-of-mouth advertising methods available, and the nonsensical restrictions on e-books which too many companies insist on completely cuts that off.

There's a difference between individuals loaning or giving away their personal copies of a work and mass piracy. Too many companies and their pet politicians are not allowing themselves to see that difference. I think that we are witnessing growing pains as the non-traditional electronic market develops. As you've mentioned, Baen does not use DRM for many of their titles ( I haven't had enough experience with them to say categorically "all" of them), and doesn't seem to be suffering from that decision. Perhaps as the market matures and effective anti-piracy measures that don't penalise the customers are put into place we'll see this whole mess become history.

We, your customers, have an investment that you, the teller of our stories, be properly compensated for your work so that you can continue to tell your stories and keep selling them to us for as long as you can. I wonder how a partnership between us to oppose piracy would work? The publishing industry's biggest asset in the fight against piracy is their law-abiding customer base. We need the publishers and they need us. But they cannot alienate us by treating us pre-emptively as criminals.