Re: Embedded systems publishers

Ray Haddad wrote:
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:08:32 -0800, I said, "Pick a card, any card"
and Jim Stewart <jstewart@xxxxxxxxxxx> instead replied:

Ray Haddad wrote:
On Thu, 8 Nov 2007 19:58:56 +0000 (UTC), I said, "Pick a card, any
card" and Matthew Hicks <mdhicks2@xxxxxxxx> instead replied:

First, refer to the definition of vitriolic in a dictionary and use it properly next time. I said nothing with such a tone, just pointed-out a simple fact. Maybe you will understand it better from someone more respected than I. Einstein once said, "Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." I have simply attemted to point-out that bruitishly trying to "protect" content from "thieves" hasn't worked in the past and won't work in the future, so it is hard-headed (insane by Einstein's definition) to keep heading down that path and expect things to get better. I simply advocate using all information available to think of new ways to monatize your products. Before anyone responds, please read exactly what I wrote throughout the thread. Don't make baseless claims like, "Why do you consider it hard-headed to expect payment for work performed?" that don't accurately represent anything that I wrote.
Your comment was vitriolic. In your world, it seems the thieves win.
How sad for you.
I believe the proper term is "infringer", not
thief.

No. Thief works.


No, "thief" does not work, any more than "pirate".

My understanding (which probably varies according to country) is that there are two separate concepts when making unlicensed copies. One is personal use copying, involving no money - it is "copyright infringement" and is illegal, meaning you can be sued for it in a civil court. The other is when you sell such counterfeit copies for a profit, which is a crime - meaning you can be tried by the state, and jailed (or fined).

In neither case is it theft, but copyright infringement (or possibly also breaking a license or contract).

Theft consists of two parts - the rightful owner loses something, and the perpetrator gains it. With copyright infringement, you only have half of this - thus it is no more "theft" than vandalism or wilful destruction of property is "theft" (it's the first half, but not the second half).

And the subject is far more complex than simply
labeling everyone that has copied a document
or a diskette a thief.

Really? In your world the taking of something that doesn't belong to
you isn't something being stolen? How curious.


It's only stealing if the rightful owner no longer has that "something".

I'm not justifying or defending copyright violation, but mislabelling it helps no one.


People who sell unlicensed copies of books, software, music, or whatever are not thieves - but they *are* criminals, and should be treated as such by law enforcement and justice systems.


When there is no financial issues involved, the people making the copies are breaking the law, but are not criminals. It doesn't help to call them criminals or exaggerate the issues with idiotic valuations of the money "lost" to illegal copying. Almost everybody in the western world is guilty of illegal copying - can *you* claim that you have never videotaped a television program and kept the tape for more than 30 days, or watched it more than once? Have you never copied some music for a friend? Have you never used a demo version of software for more than strictly evaluation purposes? The list of such common petty infringements is endless.


How much of a problem unlicensed copying is varies enormously depending on what is being copied, by whom, why, and where. There are certainly situations where people copy instead of buying licensed versions, and then the publishers lose out. But there are plenty of situations where publishers gain, or at least do not lose. Many studies have shown that people who illegally download a lot of music often buy more CD's than those who do not, and Bill Gates is on record saying that he'd rather people used illegal copies of Microsoft software than legally buy a competitors software. In this case, regarding copies of books, I have absolutely no idea whether illegal copying results in more or less sales in the end - but it certainly leads to a wider audience.

Simply because there is a law against a particular
act does not automatically make that act morally
or ethically right or wrong. Was it ever ethically
right to own a human being? Was it ever ethically
wrong to sell alcohol to an adult? Who *really*
has the law on their side, Larwe or Disney?

Of course something against the law is morally and ethically wrong.
Where do you get to decide? The only chance you have is if you owned
the property and chose not to complain about the theft. If someone
takes your MP3 player because he really, really needs it, you
believe that's all right?


Laws, morals and ethics are three separate concepts which overlap in large parts. But the idea that they are this close is ridiculous. Morals are a personal choice - laws are determined by the state. Ethics lie somewhat in between, and are perhaps more based on the community. Thus a state's authorities may pass a law allowing people to be imprisoned indefinitely without charge - that does not make it ethical, and most people would find it immoral. Similarly, it *is* legal to cheat at Ludo, yet it is unethical.

The legality of various types of copying is complicated (is it legal to copy a song from a CD onto your mp3 player? People disagree) - the morality and ethics is even more complicated. In general, it is not a black-and-white issue. In the particular case of scanning in a printed book, it is undoubtedly illegal (though not a criminal offence unless the scans were sold), and unethical in most cases.

People that publish creative works need and deserve
to be compensated. How that's going to happen in
the future as the cost of making a perfect copy
approaches zero is the big question. I'm pretty
sure it's *not* going to happen by throwing everyone
in jail or fining everyone that makes a copy.

Now you're coming close to the reality of the situation. The
punishment for it is the real issue, not whether or not it's against
the law or ethically wrong. Should the man who steals a car receive
lesser punishment than one who steals a copy of a DVD? Should the
opposite apply? The DVD theft is usually far less in importance than
a car theft and the punishment should probably be commensurate with
value. Jail or no jail? Fine or no fine? Those are the things to
decide - not whether or not it's illegal.


When something is going wrong, the first questions you should be asking is *why* is it going wrong, and how can we stop it going wrong. You don't start by asking who's guilty and how they can be punished. This applies a social issue, such as popular copying of copyrighted works, as any other issue. We all (creators, owners, and users of copyrighted works, and society in general) should be thinking about *why* people make copies, what effect it has, what better systems could be used and how to make such changes. Figuring out how much to fine people should be way down on that list, and is not relevant unless and until it has been decided (by the relevant country) that this is a practical, ethical, and legal reaction, with an overall benefit for society.

How do you differentiate between the guy who steals one copy of a
DVD and one who makes thousands?

The last bit of your post is spot on but the rest is nonsense and
excuse making for the thieves who steal others' work.
--
Ray
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: BBC tell whoppers on downloads
    ... Copyright infringement is not theft. ... counter-productive under current law, even when it's infringing. ... restrictions software that owns your computer and your players, ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: BBC tell whoppers on downloads
    ... Copyright infringement is not theft. ... it's not - you admit a couple of paragraphs later that the law does not ... Volunteers can produce it without pay if they wish ...
    (uk.legal)
  • Re: [PHP] Re: Pirate PHP books online?
    ... copyright infringement, fraud, or theft -- it's still illegal. ... The concept of "theft" does not apply. ... That does not make breaking the law "right", ... the free flow of information is immoral). ...
    (php.general)
  • Re: Embedded systems publishers
    ... Gloss it over any way you wish but it is theft. ... such by law enforcement and justice systems. ... money "lost" to illegal copying. ... lesser punishment than one who steals a copy of a DVD? ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)
  • Re: Embedded systems publishers
    ... Gloss it over any way you wish but it is theft. ... One is personal use copying, involving no money - it is "copyright infringement" and is illegal, meaning you can be sued for it in a civil court. ... When there is no financial issues involved, the people making the copies are breaking the law, but are not criminals. ...
    (comp.arch.embedded)
Loading