tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post6980307761021166085..comments2023-10-10T08:02:18.073-04:00Comments on Rationally Speaking: Information doesn’t want to be freeUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger97125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-44997698629902071352013-03-19T05:22:30.904-04:002013-03-19T05:22:30.904-04:00Many people forget the key differences between fre...Many people forget the key differences between free information and information piracy. Popular international authors like Paulo Coelho have released pirated version of his books online. The effort has contributed towards increasing the sale of his books in several countries, instead of reducing his overall revenue. So the concept of free information must be evaluated by keeping in mind certain criterions and circumstances.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04499195956233101602noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-26202556482254591952013-02-28T11:23:10.746-05:002013-02-28T11:23:10.746-05:00@Tom: You are certainly correct that IP is not an ...@Tom: You are certainly correct that IP is not an easy notion and that there is a lot of complicated legal & moral hairsplitting that would need to be done in order to get a workable theory & set of laws.<br /><br />I'm not really interested in putting in all that work, but it seems like the patch for this particular example would involve some principle to the effect that charging someone to look at your wall must involve a contract freely entered into, and that if you cannot *help* but look at the wall then you have in effect been forced into the contract.ianpollockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15579140807988796286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-67801478400082097862013-02-26T10:32:31.867-05:002013-02-26T10:32:31.867-05:00Ian: Although Massimo has pronounced this thread d...Ian: Although Massimo has pronounced this thread dead, your remarks made me think and want to reply.<br /><br />Suppose that we amend my wall example as follows: Assume that I am unable to prevent people from looking at my wall without paying (e.g. there are zoning laws that do not permit me to put up a screen). Also, I put up a sign: "you must pay if you look"). <br /><br />I'd like to ask the follwing: <br /><br />1) Is it reasonable for me to expect the police to enforce something that is essentially unenforceable -- for example, put an army of police around my house 24/7 to apprehend anybody who looks without paying? <br /><br />2) If the vast majority of people passing by look without paying, are they unethical? Or, has society (as expressed by popular opinion) decided that the particular work I am offering in the particular format in which they view it doesn't merit payment? <br /><br />Tom D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16005219519644708237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-37945692309255364852013-02-26T09:31:09.078-05:002013-02-26T09:31:09.078-05:00Interesting: the latest episode of The Pod Delusio...Interesting: the latest episode of The Pod Delusion podcast deals with an author, Terry Deary, who is clearly not happy that his books are being borrowed from libraries.<br /><br />It seems that in some countries at least (the UK in this case), libraries are not justifiable on the grounds of the author's consent, as the author has no legal right to deny consent.Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-44655968899894261002013-02-26T08:13:57.787-05:002013-02-26T08:13:57.787-05:00What I take people to mean by that strange phrase ...<i>What I take people to mean by that strange phrase is something more along the lines that in the era of the internet people have a right to completely free information</i><br /><br />I think you're misunderstanding it. I take it to mean that the ease and inexpensiveness with which bits can be copied today, makes it difficult to constrain that copying. We are no longer in the era of scribes and carbon paper, and laws fashioned for those days result in many actions which are reasonably perceived as injustice.Jeffrey Shallithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12763971505497961430noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-79131616403613610732013-02-25T16:30:16.835-05:002013-02-25T16:30:16.835-05:00dito :-)dito :-)chbieckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11038854944875543524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-31980750344403366452013-02-25T12:30:01.680-05:002013-02-25T12:30:01.680-05:00Thanks for the courteous and stimulating debate, M...Thanks for the courteous and stimulating debate, Massimo. I enjoyed it very much. It's given me plenty to think about. It may be that we are both right in the context of our own particular moral frameworks.<br /><br />I'm not going to say I'm not disappointed that you're bowing out, but I know you're a busy man.<br /><br />I look forward to hear more on the topic from you in the future.Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-44419465001771450612013-02-25T09:24:07.735-05:002013-02-25T09:24:07.735-05:00Tom, Chris, Disagreeable,
I think the discussion ...Tom, Chris, Disagreeable,<br /><br />I think the discussion is reaching somewhat diminishing returns, as well as expanding into much broader (even meta-ethical) directions that go well beyond my original post. I wanted to thank you for your thoughtful contributions (which is a large part of why I write the blog to begin with!). I'll keep mulling things over and eventually, as it often happens, publish a new post with updated views. Cheers.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-29040113223242353342013-02-24T15:35:09.386-05:002013-02-24T15:35:09.386-05:00>But certainly such precepts must have limits. ...>But certainly such precepts must have limits. Could I charge you to look at the wall of my house after I painted it?<br /><br />Actually, you could; you'd just have to disclose the fact beforehand. Interestingly, the economic transaction thus created would be almost identical to paying to see an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yves_Klein" rel="nofollow">Yves Klein</a> exhibition.ianpollockhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15579140807988796286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-74466304972613244932013-02-24T14:09:19.233-05:002013-02-24T14:09:19.233-05:00Massimo,
You wrote, “…you [D. Me] seem to deny t...Massimo, <br /><br />You wrote, “…you [D. Me] seem to deny that society is right when it comes to copyright, and yet a subset of it turns out to be right when they decide to download material they haven’t paid for.”<br /><br />Massimo, you yourself pointed out that the legal decisions by “Society” are by proxy and not direct vote. If a representative votes for a law that is contrary to popular opinion (which they often do), is it a contradiction that a subset of “Society” (a portion of the populace) should have a different opinion? I think we need to distinguish between the wishes of “Society” as reflected by representatives and the wishes of “Society” as reflected by popular opinion. I think that will explain how society can be wrong in one case and a subset of it right in another case. <br /><br />Disagreeable Me wrote in his Feb. 22 post: “Massimo seems to be assuming that it is necessarily unethical to transgress against the wishes of the author, but he has not yet explained why.”<br /><br />You wrote previously that, “… it seems to me to be a minimum ethical standard that unless an author/publisher agrees to make the work available for free there is a moral obligation not to steal it.”<br /><br />This doesn’t work for me as it wouldn’t be “stealing” if it were not for a law that says it IS stealing. But you say your ethical basis is not legal (“an unethical thing to do, whether permitted by the law or not.”). What then is your basis? It’s not legal. It’s not economics. It’s not popular opinion. So, what is it?<br /><br />I get a vague sense that it is based upon the principle that it is unethical to make use of another person’s work without their permission. But certainly such precepts must have limits. Could I charge you to look at the wall of my house after I painted it? You are enjoying my work without paying me! You wrote, “In lots of interesting cases in life differences are of degree; it doesn’t follow that there are no salient differences.”<br />But how do we ultimately decide a particular case (like copyright) if not by popular opinion -- which you say we must discard on the grounds that it will lead to bans on interracial marriage?<br /><br />Can you clarify your basis for saying that authors should have monopoly rents and that denying them this wish is unethical? <br /> <br /><br />I<br />Tom D.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16005219519644708237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-50870951762160097292013-02-24T13:43:11.930-05:002013-02-24T13:43:11.930-05:00Massimo,
just out of curiosity: did you make mixt...Massimo, <br />just out of curiosity: did you make mixtapes back in the day? Is there a qualitative difference between that kind of copying and the "modern" digital kind and if yes, why? (By your reasoning above I would assume no.)<br /><br />Cheers<br />Chrischbieckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11038854944875543524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-30992255393395280022013-02-24T13:09:48.394-05:002013-02-24T13:09:48.394-05:00Massimo:
I think maybe the conversation needs to ...Massimo:<br /><br />I think maybe the conversation needs to be rebooted. As far as I can see, this whole issue boils down to one simple question:<br /><br />Why should an author have the right to control distribution of their work (financial compensation excepted)?<br /><br />In particular, keep in mind that we do not usually grant the author the right to control fair use, second-hand selling, lending etc., so why is distribution different?<br />Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-13586075391239746062013-02-24T12:53:56.102-05:002013-02-24T12:53:56.102-05:00>But opening that book after the copyright is, ...>But opening that book after the copyright is, both legally and ethically.<<br />Well, legally the case is cut and dried, but I don't think you have given a justification for the ethics of it.<br /><br />For what moral reason should reading a copyright notice or other stipulation bind you to agree by it? You obviously did not feel bound to concede the argument just because you read my earlier tongue-in-cheek stipulation that you should.<br /><br />"In lots of interesting cases in life differences are of degree; it doesn’t follow that there are no salient differences."<br /><br />Agreed, of course. However, you are basing your argument on the premise that "authors have the right to control the usage of their work" though this is clearly limited to certain types of control. I'm just pointing out that you have not justified why control of distribution should be protected but not other kinds of control.<br /><br />>That’s precisely what we have been doing.<<br /><br />The general discussion has been on whether it is permissable to illegally copy content, but I'm not sure you have really engaged with the sub-issue of whether an author has a right to have his or her wishes be respected. The only justification you have provided for your position on this matter is that there is a law to that effect. I'm just pointing out that that's not really a justification at all.<br /><br />What I'm trying to get you to concede is that the author's right to control distribution stems from the author's right to be compensated for his or her work. If we can dispense with the author's rights issue, it boils down the economic need to compensate authors.<br /><br />If you want to show that there's more to the argument than economics, then it would be helpful to provide an alternative argument establishing the right of authors to control distribution of their content (as opposed to other rights of control they do not have).<br /><br />>But you seem to deny that society is right when it comes to copyright, and yet a subset of it turns out to be right when they decide to download material they haven’t paid for.<<br /><br />I don't think I'm making any such strong assertions. I'm making the case for uncertainty. I having particularly strong convictions either way is unsupportable.<br /><br />In any case, society is probably right to have a law protecting copyright (as I stated). I just don't think it's clear-cut enough to be able to say that illegal copying is always immoral.Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-38266596451321754812013-02-24T12:49:21.078-05:002013-02-24T12:49:21.078-05:00>Besides the point I have already made, that fi...>Besides the point I have already made, that financial harm is not the only measure of unethical behavior,<<br /><br />Fair enough, but the relevant point in the context is that it's not the same as stealing because it is less harmful.<br /><br />>To begin with, it is hard to imagine someone who can afford a computer and an mp3 player but somehow cannot spare $0.99 for a song.<<br /><br />Plenty of digital goods cost a lot more than $0.99, and plenty of people have more time available to consume goods than they do money to buy them.<br /><br />>It is plainly obvious that one can live without listening to downloaded music<<br /><br />Agreed, which is why it is morally dubious.<br /><br />>I think you need to be clearer on what constitutes begging the question, this isn’t a case of it, regardless of the fact that we may disagree on whether it is or it isn’t unethical.<<br /><br />Begging the question is assuming that which is at stake in order to prove your point. Your argument against illegal copying is that (a)authors need to be compensated for producing their work and (b)authors have a right to have their wishes respected with regard to the use of the work.<br /><br />(b) is an assertion which is equivalent to that which is at stake (unauthorised copying is wrong), and so to assume it is begging the question in my book.<br /><br />I accept (a) and dispute (b) as unfounded or not yet established (if not necessarily incorrect).<br /><br />>There is no salient philosophical difference between morality and ethics, despite the fact - to which I have already agreed - that there is a range of unethical behaviors.<<br /><br />In context I thought the distinction I was making was clear: I was using immoral to refer to an action which is inherently wrong in itself (e.g. because it does harm), and unethical to refer to an action which breaches a code of conduct (as in legal ethics).<br /><br />>reselling a book or record is permissible because you purchased the physical object, it is yours. With electronic material, there is no object, you are dealing only with the content. The difference, therefore, is qualitative, not quantitative.<<br /><br />In either case the effect is the same: you are gaining the benefit of the work of the author without compensating the author. Why should the fact that you have a physical object make any difference? Whether you own something or licence something is a legal issue not a moral one.<br /><br />(Parenthetically, my position is that second-hand purchases of certain goods is perhaps morally dubious in the same way as unauthorised distribution.)<br /><br />In any case, the argument in your original post stressed the similarities between physical goods and digital goods, especially in terms of costs of production. If you now get to say there is a qualitative difference because there is no physical object, couldn't a pirate say the same thing? "With electronic material, there is no object, you are dealing only with the content, therefore different rules apply. I'm not stealing an object -- I'm disseminating information".<br />Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-62836740853607471712013-02-24T11:43:14.922-05:002013-02-24T11:43:14.922-05:00Disagreeable,
> If you genuinely cannot afford...Disagreeable,<br /><br />> If you genuinely cannot afford to legally copy something, then illegally copying it genuinely harms nobody. If you cannot afford to buy a physical good, then stealing it harms the merchant. <<br /><br />Besides the point I have already made, that financial harm is not the only measure of unethical behavior, I just don’t buy this “I can’t afford it therefore I’m entitled to steal it” attitude. To begin with, it is hard to imagine someone who can afford a computer and an mp3 player but somehow cannot spare $0.99 for a song. Second, unlike the case of the starving person who steals foodstuff, it is plainly obvious that one can live without listening to downloaded music. Which to me means that all of this amounts to a gigantic case of rationalization for one’s unethical behavior.<br /><br />> Begging the question that it is wrong to violate another's wish about how to treat her work. <<br /><br />I think you need to be clearer on what constitutes begging the question, this isn’t a case of it, regardless of the fact that we may disagree on whether it is or it isn’t unethical.<br /><br />> Betraying this rule may not be so much utilitarian immoral, in the sense of causing harm, as it is deontologically unethical, in the sense of breaking a rule which is there to prevent harm. <<br /><br />There is no salient philosophical difference between morality and ethics, despite the fact - to which I have already agreed - that there is a range of unethical behaviors.<br /><br />> Why then, if there is no fundamental difference, is one perfectly permissable but the other impermissable? <<br /><br />Not sure why people seem to have such a hard time with this point: reselling a book or record is permissible because you purchased the physical object, it is yours. With electronic material, there is no object, you are dealing only with the content. The difference, therefore, is qualitative, not quantitative.<br /><br />> Reading the copyright does not constitute a promise on my part. <<br /><br />But opening that book after the copyright is, both legally and ethically.<br /><br />> But how can you justify where you draw the line? <<br /><br />In lots of interesting cases in life differences are of degree; it doesn’t follow that there are no salient differences.<br /><br />> Society could be wrong. That's why I think it's important that we debate the morality of breaking these laws, otherwise we are merely extrapolating morality from legality, which seems fallacious to me. <<br /><br />That’s precisely what we have been doing. But you seem to deny that society is right when it comes to copyright, and yet a subset of it turns out to be right when they decide to download material they haven’t paid for.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-8556237733121129182013-02-24T09:07:12.893-05:002013-02-24T09:07:12.893-05:00>But society has indeed decided in this case. W...>But society has indeed decided in this case. We have laws against copyright infringement.<<br /><br />Society could be wrong. That's why I think it's important that we debate the morality of breaking these laws, otherwise we are merely extrapolating morality from legality, which seems fallacious to me.<br /><br />Furthermore, the existence of even a good law does not necessarily imply that breaking this law is morally impermissable in general.<br /><br />I feel that it would probably be a good thing if we had effective measures that could prevent piracy without limiting legitimate uses of content. If we could prevent illegal copying, this would mean an increased incentive for people to pay for digital works and therefore greater rewards for authors.<br /><br />I think that it's important that we recognise that copyright law is nothing more than a failed attempt to implement such a measure.<br /><br />In the real world, infringement is trivial. While it might be a good thing if we could make infringement impossible or costly in general, it does not follow that each specific case of infringment is morally impermissable.Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-12092248044177095742013-02-24T08:48:50.218-05:002013-02-24T08:48:50.218-05:00"What, exactly, is the difference between thi..."What, exactly, is the difference between this attitude and standard theft, and why should it be acceptable?"<br /><br />The difference is that you are not harming anyone. If you genuinely cannot afford to legally copy something, then illegally copying it genuinely harms nobody. If you cannot afford to buy a physical good, then stealing it harms the merchant.Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-72464706483961327752013-02-24T08:44:20.885-05:002013-02-24T08:44:20.885-05:00>But if that’s the case I don’t see what the bi...>But if that’s the case I don’t see what the big deal is with either of them. It is entirely uncontroversial to have policy that is evidence-based, and of course policy is the concern of political science and economics more than of moral philosophy.<<br /><br />I agree, neither of them is ultimately saying anything terribly controversial or even interesting. In fact Harris in particular seems mystified at why what he's saying is regarded as controversial at all. This is because he is guilty of overstating his case, and it is this overstatement (that all questions of morality are ultimately empirical) that everyone focuses on, when in fact 99% of what he says is about using science (by which he actually means science _and_ _reason_) to figure out how best to advance the well-being of conscious creatures.<br /><br />>There is also the fact that you are violating another’s wish about how to treat her own work.<<br />Begging the question that it is wrong to violate another's wish about how to treat her work.<br /><br />>Really? Is your wife going to be “harmed” if you sleep with someone else and she doesn’t know it? I’d still think it would be unethical.<<br />There's always the risk that she might find out, and in my case I would harm myself due to the feelings of (perhaps irrational) guilt I would experience. From the utilitarian point of view, it's better all around if I simply adhere to a rule whereby I will not sleep with someone else. Betraying this rule may not be so much utilitarian immoral, in the sense of causing harm, as it is deontologically unethical, in the sense of breaking a rule which is there to prevent harm. So there's different types of immoral/unethical acts. Stealing is generally immoral, whereas copyright infringement may be "merely" unethical.<br /><br />>No, but surely you recognize that the cases are distinct. When you resell a book you can only resell one copy (which you had bought to begin with). When you copy a downloaded book (which you may not even have bought) you can make an infinite number of copies.<<br />Yes, but this a difference of scale, not a fundamental difference. In the console games industry, publishers lose a large fraction of sales due to second-hand sales. They lose a comparable (and perhaps lesser) fraction of sales due to piracy.<br /><br />Why then, if there is no fundamental difference, is one perfectly permissable but the other impermissable? If it's only a difference of scale, then I would expect one case to be very slightly immoral while the other is more immoral.<br /><br />>Oh yes, my friend. The copyright of the work is inscribed in every e-version of it.<<br /><br />So what? Reading the copyright does not constitute a promise on my part. Even if I am aware that I am transgressing against the wishes of the author, this is not the same thing as breaking a promise not to transgress. By the way, reading this sentence constitutes an acceptance that I am right and you are wrong, and you are hereby considered to have conceded the argument. ;)<br /><br />>But I wouldn’t go quite that wide, certainly not to the point that the author can dictate things like no criticism allowed, no quotations, etc.<<br /><br />Well, I wouldn't go quite so wide either! Some of these stipulations are more unreasonable than the others. But how can you justify where you draw the line? Why is it unethical for me to violate the creative commons license, but not to criticise your work should you attempt to prohibit this?<br />Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-46734575111956718202013-02-24T08:25:18.636-05:002013-02-24T08:25:18.636-05:00Chris,
> Could help but notice you mention iTu...Chris,<br /><br />> Could help but notice you mention iTunes again. It does seem curious why the fruit company does not seem to belong to the group of "panic-stricken large corporations" - they are certainly far from saints... <<br /><br />No large corporation is saintly, though some are worse than others. But the target of this particular post was the sense of entitlement to piracy, not the behavior of corporations. I’ve written on the latter before, and will do so again...<br /><br />Kel,<br /><br />> I'd be curious to see explored is how those arguments against would similarly apply to other practices like lending a friend a book or film, or even institutions like libraries or rental stores. And for that matter, how it differs from radio or television. <<br /><br />There are definitely differences there. Rights for use of copyrighted material on radio, television and in libraries are clear and agreed to by all parties involved (and usually do involve compensation of authors and publishers). Lending books and records - as I pointed out before - is also different because there is only one copy (the one you legally own) that you can lend. With internet piracy you can make an indefinite number of copies of the work. Besides, even e-books now can be lent (again, by way of agreement with authors and publishers), so lending clearly isn’t the problem.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09099460671669064269noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-3391283409318899902013-02-24T08:23:00.062-05:002013-02-24T08:23:00.062-05:00TBYITBSITBH:
I agree with much of what you're...TBYITBSITBH:<br /><br />I agree with much of what you're saying, but I think you've made one mistake in particular.<br /><br />>This is most clear in the case of someone who has very limited funds, obviously, but it applies to everyone since everyone has an upper limit on what they can spend.<<br /><br />Once you are wealthy enough, your bottleneck in consuming content is time and not money. If you have time to listen to a piece of music, you can afford to buy it. Your argument therefore doesn't apply to people who are above a certain threshold of wealth.<br /><br />I also want to point out that I agree fully with those who point out that the utilitarian argument leads one open to self-rationalisation. I just think it's important to realise that the utilitarian argument means that there is a fundamental distinction between illegal acquisition of digital products and theft.<br /><br />Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-50818796007144193562013-02-24T08:17:42.572-05:002013-02-24T08:17:42.572-05:00Ian:
You're right that illegally acquiring a ...Ian:<br /><br />You're right that illegally acquiring a work you disagree with is an unusual case, however it's just an extreme example of the more common situation where you don't value the existence of a work at the cost of legal acquisition.<br /><br />Another example might be downloading The Da Vinci Code, 50 Shades of Grey or Twilight just to see what all the fuss is about and so you'll understand the frequent references to them in popular culture, even while being fairly confident that you would find them to be rubbish. In these cases you don't have any moral objection to the content, but neither do you especially care that these products exist.<br /><br />And the same might be true for content that you do like. You might get value from using Adobe Photoshop, but as a hobbyist who is just messing with it a little in your spare time you are not the target audience and so cannot afford to spend hundreds of dollars on it.<br /><br />Your tragedy of the commons argument would apply if none of the professional artists and graphic designers that constitute the target audience paid for it, but since you're not one of them it doesn't really work.Disagreeable Mehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15258557849869963650noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-90554071236192516032013-02-24T07:48:19.395-05:002013-02-24T07:48:19.395-05:00I'm not really sure if piracy can ever be just...I'm not really sure if piracy can ever be justified in a direct sense (perhaps there's some case to be made when there's a different stream of compensation), but what I'd be curious to see explored is how those arguments against would similarly apply to other practices like lending a friend a book or film, or even institutions like libraries or rental stores. And for that matter, how it differs from radio or television. To that effect, I don't think the piracy is anything much different to what we've come to get used to as social creatures with shareable media - we've been getting information for (effectively) free, as well as sharing it with others, long before there was Napster. The internet just makes the practice more pronounced.Khttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12460075520187803334noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-90750292142996876432013-02-24T02:49:24.825-05:002013-02-24T02:49:24.825-05:00Massimo,
> I’m beginning to think I’m in the m...Massimo,<br /><br />> I’m beginning to think I’m in the minority, but damn it, I pay for every single one of my e-books, music downloads from iTunes, and videos that I watch. Because it’s the right thing to do. What a sucker.<br /><br />we aren't that far apart, as I agree we should pay for what we consume, I am merely disagreeing about the special case of pre-sampling before you pay (which practically only applies to music). You say going against an artists wishes in unethical, fine. But I still think that even without written consent it is implicit that an artist is ok with "you can listen to my music, whether it's at a record store, a friends house or tempararily downloaded, as long as you legally purchase it afterwards". <br /><br />Cheers<br />Chris<br /><br />P.S. Could help but notice you mention iTunes again. It does seem curious why the fruit company does not seem to belong to the group of "panic-stricken large corporations" - they are certainly far from saints...chbieckhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11038854944875543524noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-90226376954936733142013-02-23T21:48:49.108-05:002013-02-23T21:48:49.108-05:00Seems to me that people who in some sense want con...Seems to me that people who in some sense want content to be free come in several varieties. While some who find it "laudable civil disobedience" to get content through hacking and piracy don't really know what they're doing, others - who might not generally have a problem with IP rights - are consciously targeting corporate systems and entities that they find oppressive or otherwise evil: such people know they are stealing and they get satisfaction from it, as e.g. retribution for past price-gouging, ill-treatment of artists, and so on. Generally, this domain (Massimo's topic) is one that touches on civic anger regarding corporations and corporate interests generally in our society (cf. Occupy Wall Street). Not to say that I necessarily agree with it but the idea that corporations sometimes set themselves up as expensive pay-walls between people and goods, such as creative work and healthcare, that do not add a lot of value, is not so far-fetched. <br /><br />Perhaps a third kind of person who wants content for free, and who represents a different sort of problem, is one who finds so much good content on the web that she becomes reluctant to pay for anything. This puts the would-be content seller in the position of needing to have something very special on offer. This is creating a situation in which any new entrant into the content realm needs to become a web celebrity and sell their content as a "get more" addendum to their free online content. On this matter I think the web is still in a sort of gold rush period wherein 99% of content entrants don't have a chance of getting anywhere. As the difficult of the content business becomes clearer in the general population, the web may become a little less cluttered, making things a bit easier for the more serious. Paul Paolinihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04580285404702244031noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15005476.post-43355539373629477752013-02-23T18:04:03.911-05:002013-02-23T18:04:03.911-05:00Have not yet read through the comment stream but I...Have not yet read through the comment stream but I find the original post very convincing. Two remarks:<br /><br />The desire for open access to publications is understandable and I sympathize. However, as a career scientist one is evaluated at every step for the ranking of the journals one gets into, and it would be career suicide to take the principled stance on that question unless open access journals are available for your area that are as prestigious as the standard ones or you are close to retirement. Family to feed etc. I also see <a href="http://phylobotanist.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/open-access-publishing.html" rel="nofollow">certain problems</a> with the incentives under an open access system.<br /><br />As an aside, I simply do not believe that the restricted access model is such a problem anyway except (and that is a biggie, of course) for libraries. If somebody wants to read my papers and cannot get behind the paywall they can simply send me an e-mail and ask for a PDF. That's how we do it.<br /><br />Second, I think the way illegal copying is treated in many jurisdictions is ludicrous and has too little regard for the actual damage done. There are big differences between the following situations:<br /><br />1. Somebody copies something for personal use that they would not have been able to buy anyway. In this case, nobody loses anything.<br />2. Somebody copies something for personal use that they would have been able to afford. In this case, the author, publisher etc lose money.<br />3. Somebody copies and widely distributes something for free. In this case, the author, publisher etc lose a whole lot of money.<br />4. Somebody copies and widely distributes something for a lower price than the legitimate publisher. In this case, the author, publisher etc lose a whole lot of money, and the copier runs a criminal enterprise.<br /><br />I would throw the book at #4 and can understand people wanting to throw the book at #3, but it is genuinely unclear to me what the big problem with #1 is, for example. The fear mongering campaigns the publishing industries direct against #1 and #2 are completely over the top.Alex SLhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00801894164903608204noreply@blogger.com