[LINK] In other news....

[Stilgherrian]

Craig, I think the real problem here is that your emotional engagement with
the issue is causing you to assume that because I spoke about some aspects
of this issue I'm holding many other beliefs connected with them.

To make my point clear I'll need to re-arrange the order a little... This is
quite long but (for others) the journey may be worth it.

On 26/6/07 6:40 AM, "Craig Sanders" <cas at taz.net.au> wrote:
>> Let's be concrete. "You can have a copy of my book to read if you pay me
>> $29". You say, "No, I'll just copy it and read it and not give you $29".
> 
> no, i'll borrow it from a friend/the library.   theft?

No, because (in the case of a book at least) that's a deal that we all
understand, and the deal was in place before you chose to take the book in
hand and read it. The social contract is that once you've read the book you
return it to the shelf so others can also us it. It's called "sharing".

I agree with you that there should be an equivalent "right" for us to borrow
works in the digital realm.


> no, i'll read it in the bookshop.  theft?

Not "theft", though certainly a breach of the agreed social contract about
what happens in bookshops. If you want to read it once without paying, you
go to the library (see above).


> no, i'll try buy before i buy by downloading it - if it's any good, i'll buy
> it.  theft?

Well this is where books are different from digital copies of films. And
this is what the law has to explore.

What's wrong, I believe, if your unilateral assumption that you should be
able to do this without consideration of what the other party in the
transaction would like. If you don't like the deal they're offering, you're
welcome not to take it up.


> no, i'll wait for it to appear on the chuck-out tables for $5.  theft of $24?

No, because the people involved in the other half of the transaction have
decided that now, after the passage of time, they're willing to make a new
offer of $5 instead of $29.

In every single one of these examples you're unilaterally deciding that it's
going to be a different deal than the one which was first offered. In ANY
social exchange, YOU can't unilaterally decide what it is. It has to be an
agreement.

If you don't like the deal on offer, you're welcome to decline.


>> Whatever you want to call it, it's not nice behaviour.
> [snip] copyright infringement is NOT "theft", it is NOT "piracy" (murder,
> looting, etc on the seas). it is copyright infringement.

Agreed 100%. 

Something bad HAS been done. Someone has ignored the way that as social
animals we negotiate exchange: offer made -> possible counter-offer made ->
both sides accept [handshake / contact signed] -> exchange takes place.

What's happened here is that instead of the second party accepting the
initial offer or making a counter-offer, they've unilaterally decided
"Bugger the deal, I'll your stuff anyway on my terms without getting an
agreement from you."

Bzzzt! Wrong, that's not how the process goes.

The tribe says they must be punished.

I agree that it shouldn't be called "piracy" or "theft". But I think we need
a word that more strongly indicates that social rules have been broken than
the rather lame "copyright infringement".

This relates exactly to my point from last night in another post: there's
many levels to this argument and they're all being jumbled up -- by both
"sides" -- to further their cause.

I also want to mention the other "frame" on which this seems to operate --
though I'm not saying that you, Craig, suffer this particular blindness.

This whole issue is often perceived as being about Big Bad Corporations
screwing over the little people who just want to watch movies or use
software or whatever. And of course that's party true, because the Big Bad
Corporations are the ones with government friends and can use words like
"piracy" to frame the debate.

However the "content producers" (ugh!) are also little people -- like my
partner who's a photographer. Creating one image for final use might take
days of work -- a couple of half-day sessions exploring the theme,
processing many images, choosing, improving etc before there's a final image
which cab be printed and framed or inserted into a magazine.

If someone wants "benefit" from that effort, then the laws that we create
need to somehow cope with that situation.

It's complex -- and none it it's helped by slogans, alas...

Stil


-- 
Stilgherrian http://stilgherrian.com/
Internet, IT and Media Consulting, Sydney, Australia
mobile +61 407 623 600
fax +61 2 9516 5630
ABN 25 231 641 421