And ebooks didn't exist back then. Meanwhile, publishing was cost-prohibitive. So illegally copying was an absurdly difficult proposition.
In other words, illicit (I'll use that word instead of illegal for the pedants, here) copying was absurdly difficult BECAUSE (a) there were no ebooks, and (b) publishing itself (printing) was cost-prohibitive.
(1) You might want to look at your history again. The history of books and copying isn't as cut-and-dry as you'd like to think. (And if you want to get really pedantic about it, please note that there were major time periods and regions wherein reading and writing itself was sometimes tightly regulated! That "monks copying the Bible" time period was, in fact, one of them. The legal landscape was not even remotely comparable. I will not, however, sport my own intelligence by continuing this line in this thread.)
(2) "Legal" doesn't mean "moral" or "ethical". Just because there is or was a loophole in the law doesn't invalidate the harm done by piracy.
(3) You do realize you're publicly attempting to cite ancient history as a justification for a wanton commission of a modern crime wherein innocent people are not paid for a work you directly benefit from?
The only reason to get pedantic about the history and legal details of piracy is to justify one's own selfishness. Making an illegal copy of an eBook, wherein the publisher and author are unpaid, is piracy. Piracy is a crime, it is a form of theft, and it does harm others. That's the legal and ethical reality, no matter how you feel about it.
The only reason to get pedantic about the history and legal details of piracy is to justify one's own selfishness. Piracy is a crime, it is a form of theft, and it does harm others.
Right back at you: Copyright is immoral, it is a form of extortion, and it does harm to others. That's the legal and ethical reality, no matter how you feel about it.
You do not have the right to tell other people how they may permutate an array of bytes and how they may not. You do not have a right to tell people what they can and can't do with their private proprety.
innocent people are not paid for their work
If you improve a house, that improves the land values of all the houses around it. However, you can't go around improving houses and expecting the owners of the surrounding proprieties to pay you. You're not the victim if they decide not to. While this analogy isn't 100%, I hope it helps you see the point.
As for the pragmatic side of "who would write the books if everyone pirated", piracy is, as Gabe Newel says, a service problem. I know many people who used to pirate books, but now have Spotify; who used to pirate games, but now buy them on Steam; who used to pirate movies, but now have Netflix etc. When something like that happens for ebooks, maybe you'll do better against piracy.
selfishness
Oh yes, please tell me how I'm selfish, Mr. Author-arguing-for-copyright.
Copyright is immoral, it is a form of extortion, and it does harm to others.
Spoken like someone who has never had a need to survive on his own creation. I'm glad your life is so comfortable.
I won't sport my own intelligence in the attempt to explain your selfishness; I think your response beautifully demonstrates your ethical stance for what it is. I couldn't possibly improve on it.
Perhaps one thing that makes people have a negative view of IP protection is that sometimes it's used in questionable ways to protect questionable economic power.
Nonetheless I think IP is a form of property and must be protected as such. We enjoy huge benefits from the incentives it creates. Eliminating will do much more harm to humanity than good.
I also believe we should advocate for more people to make their intellectual creations as accessible as possible, but never enforce them to do so on other people's terms, especially not people who didn't contribute to IP creations. It can only be sustainable if we achieve the good outcomes through ideas and respectful, peaceful public discourse.
Even if you disagree, I don't think it's fair to say IP protection is a form of extortion. It would be the same to say hotels or AirBnb renters are extorting for a room, which is absurd in my opinion. If we go down that route, there will be no accommodation services and traveling will be a lot less pleasant...
I absolutely agree, and great example with hotels. IP protection itself cannot be extortion, because the individual is by no means required to use the intellectual property. They can always go and make their own.
But, yes, IP protection can sometimes be used in questionable ways. That's why I support the Electronic Frontier Foundation; they fight against copyright abuse, while advocating the system's continued improvement (not repeal). Copyright isn't the problem, copyright abuse is.
Without copyright, no one can ever make a living off of their intellectual property. Without copyright, no creator rights can be legally preserved, meaning that every Open Source and Free Software license loses all of its power and viability. Without copyright, Creative Commons cannot exist. A world without copyright would be like a world where no one can "own" anything...someone could steal everything out of your house while you're away, and get away with it. (And last I checked, the Marxist model failed dramatically.)
When Metallica cracked down on music piracy, it looked very bad for them. Especially after Radiohead started to make their songs available for free download.
But it would be unfair to start labeling Metallica musicians as people who practice 'extortion'. That's just absurd in my opinion... I think that line of thought will lead to the destruction of all economic order, from which every one of us benefits from.
// , “It is not so important to be serious as it is to be serious about the important things. The monkey wears an expression of seriousness... but the monkey is serious because he itches."(No/No)
Perhaps one thing that makes people have a negative view of IP protection is that sometimes it's used in questionable ways to protect questionable economic power.
Mr. Byrro, you have a British talent for understatement.
Some comments have been hidden by the post's author - find out more
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
What?
You're not reading again. Let me help you.
In other words, illicit (I'll use that word instead of illegal for the pedants, here) copying was absurdly difficult BECAUSE (a) there were no ebooks, and (b) publishing itself (printing) was cost-prohibitive.
Nice editing. Still wrong.
Again, no copyright means no illegal/illicit copying. How is this being pedantic?
(1) You might want to look at your history again. The history of books and copying isn't as cut-and-dry as you'd like to think. (And if you want to get really pedantic about it, please note that there were major time periods and regions wherein reading and writing itself was sometimes tightly regulated! That "monks copying the Bible" time period was, in fact, one of them. The legal landscape was not even remotely comparable. I will not, however, sport my own intelligence by continuing this line in this thread.)
(2) "Legal" doesn't mean "moral" or "ethical". Just because there is or was a loophole in the law doesn't invalidate the harm done by piracy.
(3) You do realize you're publicly attempting to cite ancient history as a justification for a wanton commission of a modern crime wherein innocent people are not paid for a work you directly benefit from?
The only reason to get pedantic about the history and legal details of piracy is to justify one's own selfishness. Making an illegal copy of an eBook, wherein the publisher and author are unpaid, is piracy. Piracy is a crime, it is a form of theft, and it does harm others. That's the legal and ethical reality, no matter how you feel about it.
Right back at you: Copyright is immoral, it is a form of extortion, and it does harm to others. That's the legal and ethical reality, no matter how you feel about it.
You do not have the right to tell other people how they may permutate an array of bytes and how they may not. You do not have a right to tell people what they can and can't do with their private proprety.
If you improve a house, that improves the land values of all the houses around it. However, you can't go around improving houses and expecting the owners of the surrounding proprieties to pay you. You're not the victim if they decide not to. While this analogy isn't 100%, I hope it helps you see the point.
As for the pragmatic side of "who would write the books if everyone pirated", piracy is, as Gabe Newel says, a service problem. I know many people who used to pirate books, but now have Spotify; who used to pirate games, but now buy them on Steam; who used to pirate movies, but now have Netflix etc. When something like that happens for ebooks, maybe you'll do better against piracy.
Oh yes, please tell me how I'm selfish, Mr. Author-arguing-for-copyright.
Spoken like someone who has never had a need to survive on his own creation. I'm glad your life is so comfortable.
I won't sport my own intelligence in the attempt to explain your selfishness; I think your response beautifully demonstrates your ethical stance for what it is. I couldn't possibly improve on it.
There are other ways for writers to make money.
Perhaps one thing that makes people have a negative view of IP protection is that sometimes it's used in questionable ways to protect questionable economic power.
Nonetheless I think IP is a form of property and must be protected as such. We enjoy huge benefits from the incentives it creates. Eliminating will do much more harm to humanity than good.
I also believe we should advocate for more people to make their intellectual creations as accessible as possible, but never enforce them to do so on other people's terms, especially not people who didn't contribute to IP creations. It can only be sustainable if we achieve the good outcomes through ideas and respectful, peaceful public discourse.
Even if you disagree, I don't think it's fair to say IP protection is a form of extortion. It would be the same to say hotels or AirBnb renters are extorting for a room, which is absurd in my opinion. If we go down that route, there will be no accommodation services and traveling will be a lot less pleasant...
I absolutely agree, and great example with hotels. IP protection itself cannot be extortion, because the individual is by no means required to use the intellectual property. They can always go and make their own.
But, yes, IP protection can sometimes be used in questionable ways. That's why I support the Electronic Frontier Foundation; they fight against copyright abuse, while advocating the system's continued improvement (not repeal). Copyright isn't the problem, copyright abuse is.
Without copyright, no one can ever make a living off of their intellectual property. Without copyright, no creator rights can be legally preserved, meaning that every Open Source and Free Software license loses all of its power and viability. Without copyright, Creative Commons cannot exist. A world without copyright would be like a world where no one can "own" anything...someone could steal everything out of your house while you're away, and get away with it. (And last I checked, the Marxist model failed dramatically.)
Linus Torvalds seems to be making money off of Linux, and would probably continue to do so if it were licensed under a Toybox License.
When Metallica cracked down on music piracy, it looked very bad for them. Especially after Radiohead started to make their songs available for free download.
But it would be unfair to start labeling Metallica musicians as people who practice 'extortion'. That's just absurd in my opinion... I think that line of thought will lead to the destruction of all economic order, from which every one of us benefits from.
Mr. Byrro, you have a British talent for understatement.