Copyright Alert System

[LotusCarsLtd]

Here’s the way I would do it. I put a book in the iBookstore. You select the title, select the device and it gets to go only to that one device. Any attempt to crack the code on it and it erases itself. Any attempt to port it over to another device and the same thing happens.

First, while you may have the right to do this, people don’t like it and these schemes usually result in lost sales for the author. Plus such schemes are always easily broken. Look at the record labels when they tried DRM.

And you still haven’t explained how creativity is harmed in any way by someone owning the rights for a hundred years. Thousands of new books are published every year.

What about religious music for instance? Much of our religious repertoire is blatant copying of older religious hymns and melodies from folk songs. Do that in the past and nothing happens…do that in today’s world and you get sued. Heck, many of the most famous 18th century composers would heavily draw upon their contemporary’s works for inspiration. Try that today and you get sued for plagarism.

Here’s another scenario for you. I own a book company that drops DRM and allows you to port the book to any device you want. Obvious outcome. I sell a thousand copies at $3.99 and nine thousand copies are out there for nothing. I contact my cover artist and tell him I can’t afford to pay him. I contact the author and tell him I can’t afford to pay him either. I go out of business within 30 days. And by the way, whether I use amazon or the iBookstore, they get a cut. So it’s not, pure profit.

Ironically, most authors/artists/filmmakers find that the opposite happens. Sales jump as piracy jumps, and they make more money and get more exposure. Sales of older titles also jumps as people want the author’s older works.

One corollary is this guy: techdirt.com/blog/casestudies/articles/20120504/06511518781/paulo-coelho-ebook-sales-jump-way-up-thanks-to-099-sale.shtml

Most publishers would yell at him for doing this, saying dropping the price would be suicide. Doesn’t seem to be happening. And imagine what piracy is doing to help!

 

[LotusCarsLtd]

Just look at online music stores. In the beginning, they all used DRM. The record companies insisted on it. Now it is rare to buy music that is DRM-crippled. They realized that if users wanted to, they could download it for free from a pirated source, and that DRM can almost always be cracked as well, as experience has shown.

Here’s another thing to consider: piracy is nothing more than the market’s response to an industry. It’s their way of telling the industry that their works are either overpriced, subject to too many restrictions, of such poor quality it’s not worth paying for it, or a mixture thereof. Instead of treating your customers like criminals, why not listen to them and give them what they want? People will willingly pay for entertainment if the price is reasonable. Just don’t gouge them on an abundant resource, nor put restrictions on it.

As for pirates, leave them alone. They’re doing artists a favor by doing free marketing for them.

 

[Dale_M]

Here’s another thing to consider: piracy is nothing more than the market’s response to an industry. It’s their way of telling the industry that their works are either overpriced, subject to too many restrictions, of such poor quality it’s not worth paying for it, or a mixture thereof. Instead of treating your customers like criminals, why not listen to them and give them what they want?

No doubt shoplifters feel much the same way.

Or persons who steal from their employer (“If they only paid me what I deserve, I wouldn’t have to steal from them. I am just balancing the scales of justice.”)

Or the Somali pirates who, after all, aren’t killing anyone. They are just helping themselves to a slice of the economic pie which the world unfairly denies them.

LotusCars, if someone feels that goods are overpriced, the thing to do is to not buy those goods. Boycott them. The market will respond, if enough people feel that way.

Persons stealing what they want, and coming up with reasons to legitimize their crime is nothing new. But that doesn’t mean its right.

 

[sedonaman]

… So, what’s stopping you from being creative? …

Many years ago, I subscribed to Biblical Archaeological Review, a magazine about archaeology in the Holy Land. One issue had an article about the Dead Sea Scrolls. As close as I can remember, the first * outfit to translate them claimed a copyright. Their position was that anyone who used their translation without permission would be sued, and others who didn’t want to pay them could translate the scrolls and use their own translation. The crux of the situation was that any translation would be similar enough to trigger a copyright infringement lawsuit. In essence, they were claiming ownership of the Dead Sea Scrolls.*

 

[irishpatrick]

Right. And once you are wealthy enough from selling it, you can contribute to a political party that has established a reputation for taking other people’s money and spending it on your favorite causes.

What is the line where something crosses into, “…And once you are wealthy enough…?”

 

[irishpatrick]

Many years ago, I subscribed to Biblical Archaeological Review, a magazine about archaeology in the Holy Land. One issue had an article about the Dead Sea Scrolls. As close as I can remember, the first * outfit to translate them claimed a copyright. Their position was that anyone who used their translation without permission would be sued, and others who didn’t want to pay them could translate the scrolls and use their own translation. The crux of the situation was that any translation would be similar enough to trigger a copyright infringement lawsuit. In essence, they were claiming ownership of the Dead Sea Scrolls.*

The major purpose is to prevent current creative work from being distributed free without any renumeration to the creator or owner.

We have seen how the internet has helped change the face of the music and film industries, and it is poised to do the same to books, and other creative works. It is simply not fair.

 

[edwest2]

edwest2, I agree with your principles, but in practice, you’re way off.

DRM is useless in today’s era. It hinders consumer freedom and discourages legal (i.e. paid) downloads. Why? Because almost all content is also available from pirated sources. The chances of getting caught are minimal. Those who lack a concept of intellectual property or who don’t care will always be able to find almost anything they want through illegal sources.

On the other hand, those who decide to pay for their content usually do so freely. There’s a free alternative out there, but they shell out the money anyway for a legal copy. DRM causes frustration for these legal purchasers, as it inhibits their legitimate enjoyment of the work. For example, I can only watch a video I purchased on iTunes in…iTunes. The only mobile devices I can watch it on are…iDevices (iPod, iPhone, iPad). As I am fond of saying, ten years ago, when there were no legal ways to acquire mainstream media online, you could have downloaded a movie illegally (or a public domain video legally) and played it on any device that supported the codec it was encoded in, or transcode the original file to a file your device supports. Ten years later, you can buy it…but you are severely hindered in your availability to make use of it.

Just look at online music stores. In the beginning, they all used DRM. The record companies insisted on it. Now it is rare to buy music that is DRM-crippled. They realized that if users wanted to, they could download it for free from a pirated source, and that DRM can almost always be cracked as well, as experience has shown.

I know all that. But according to you: your only choices are steal it or buy it and what? Not be able to watch it or listen to it or read it?

Crippled is the wrong term. One device - that’s it. I’m not going to spend years learning my craft and see a book that took months of professional, paid labor, appear on a ‘file sharing’ site within 30 days.

Like I wrote. My book, my hard work, editors, artists and writers that need to get paid. I decide how it is sold. I buy a book first, to read it. I don’t care if I can port it to multiple devices. No one is forcing you to buy it. And no one is forcing you to steal it.

The illegal sites are getting shut down. And will continue to be.

Peace,
Ed

 

[sedonaman]

The major purpose is to prevent current creative work from being distributed free without any renumeration to the creator or owner.

A translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls would technically fall into the “current creative work” category, wouldn’t it?

We have seen how the internet has helped change the face of the music and film industries, and it is poised to do the same to books, and other creative works. It is simply not fair.

What does this have to do with copyrighting the Dead Sea Scrolls?

 

[Dale_M]

Many years ago, I subscribed to Biblical Archaeological Review, a magazine about archaeology in the Holy Land. One issue had an article about the Dead Sea Scrolls. As close as I can remember, the first * outfit to translate them claimed a copyright. Their position was that anyone who used their translation without permission would be sued, and others who didn’t want to pay them could translate the scrolls and use their own translation. The crux of the situation was that any translation would be similar enough to trigger a copyright infringement lawsuit. In essence, they were claiming ownership of the Dead Sea Scrolls.*
Scholarly translations are expensive to conduct, particularly of ancient languages where the number of qualified experts are few. Translations of the Bible are routinely copyrighted, and for good reason. The organization which produced the translation needs to be compensated for the cost and effort.

Since modern translations of the Bible can often differ with one another, I suspect the same is true of modern translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls. On the other hand, I imagine the claim that a new translation plagiarized an existing translation would be difficult to prove.

Regardless, a copyright on a translation is not a copyright on the source text. It doesn’t matter whether it is the Bible or the Dead Sea Scrolls.

 

[irishpatrick]

A translation of the Dead Sea Scrolls would technically fall into the “current creative work” category, wouldn’t it?

What does this have to do with copyrighting the Dead Sea Scrolls?

I was trying to point out that your scenario is NOT the target for this move. A great many modern works require protection. People who create a product should be able to expect protection, and as someone else posted, copyrighting a translation is not the same as copyrighting the source. I would hope you would want the rights to your own translation if you did such work.

 

[sedonaman]

I was trying to point out that your scenario is NOT the target for this move. A great many modern works require protection. People who create a product should be able to expect protection, and as someone else posted, copyrighting a translation is not the same as copyrighting the source. I would hope you would want the rights to your own translation if you did such work.

But any translation would have to be different to avoid a copyright infringement on those who already translated them. I guess the question is, how different does it have to be, followed by, how different can it be?

 

[curlycool89]

Here’s the way I would do it. I put a book in the iBookstore. You select the title, select the device and it gets to go only to that one device. Any attempt to crack the code on it and it erases itself. Any attempt to port it over to another device and the same thing happens.

Where does it stop though? Next are you going to sell me a book and tell me that I can only read it on my couch? That’s completely unfair and unjust.

Also, saying that it should erase itself is complete unjust. Absolutely an outright violation of justice, and a complete violation of the First Sale Doctrine.

FYI, that’s one reason why nobody buys anything from the iBookstore (I love Apple, but the iBookstore has by and large been a flop, especially in Canada). I buy most of my digital books from Amazon (Kindle), which I can read on my computer or iPhone (and which are waaaay cheaper then the dead-tree version). I may also purchase some books from Kobo, which the CEO actually described as being device-agnostic (you can read Kobo books on nearly anything). And you know who has the biggest market share in eBooks? That’s right, Amazon, who allows you to read your books on a variety of devices. I guess capitalism has spoken.

The major purpose is to prevent current creative work from being distributed free without any renumeration to the creator or owner.

We have seen how the internet has helped change the face of the music and film industries, and it is poised to do the same to books, and other creative works. It is simply not fair.

Fair to who? Let’s be serious, the music/movie/book industries are using a system that is, frankly, antiquated. Nobody wants to buy your CDs anymore because there’s only 1 good song on them and the rest of them suck (too harsh? I don’t care). They had a real chance to embrace new formats and new markets, but instead they stuck to their old ways and had to be dragged kicking and screaming into new markets (most of the credit goes to Apple for movie/music and Amazon for books).

They had a chance to define the new market. The failed to innovate, and in capitalism if you fair to change to market conditions then you lose and you get destroyed. It’s nothing personal, it’s just good business.

The customers are the reason that a business exists. What’s happened is that (especially) the music industry is run by pure greed. I don’t think the music industry actually cares about their customers (I’d say that most artists do though), they just think that they deserve money because they’re the best thing since sliced bread. Look at what happened as formats changed, first they wanted you to buy a record, then an 8-track, then a CD, and then a digital copy. That’s not actually fair, there’s no reason I should have to buy an identical thing 4 times when there was no additional effort put in.

I know all that. But according to you: your only choices are steal it or buy it and what? Not be able to watch it or listen to it or read it?

That’s really the kicker. There are some songs that I’d really like to buy that I can’t find. So, instead of making money off of me that I am willing to spend, they get nothing (I don’t pirate, I just don’t have them). How is that being good marketeers? You can’t make money if you don’t offer the product in a way that I can buy it.

 

[irishpatrick]

Fair to who? Let’s be serious, the music/movie/book industries are using a system that is, frankly, antiquated. Nobody wants to buy your CDs anymore because there’s only 1 good song on them and the rest of them suck (too harsh? I don’t care). They had a real chance to embrace new formats and new markets, but instead they stuck to their old ways and had to be dragged kicking and screaming into new markets (most of the credit goes to Apple for movie/music and Amazon for books).

Because you do not like how certain materials are formatted, that does not give you the right to take the work without payment. The unpaid for distribution of copyrighted material without permission is theft, plain and simple.

Say you are a plumber. Say you go into someone’s home and do an extensive repiping of their home. Then, after you complete the work, the home owner does not pay you and has no intention of paying you. How would you feel?

 

[curlycool89]

Because you do not like how certain materials are formatted, that does not give you the right to take the work without payment. The unpaid for distribution of copyrighted material without permission is theft, plain and simple.

I never said anything about stealing or pirating (I buy my music a la carte from iTunes). I was giving an example of how the approach in the music industry is old fashion and how they refuse to try and take advantage of new mediums.

The CD/record worked better back in the day because physical medium was expensive and (practically) it took up lots of space. These days, there’s no real reason for the album to be the main marketing tool. Most of the songs I buy I discover on the radio (Satellite Radio, because I got sick of 1 hour having half-ads).

Why did you assume that I was endorsing stealing or pirating (especially since I’ve said I’m against it several time and when I said I don’t do it)? That’s not very charitable you know.

 

[irishpatrick]

I never said anything about stealing or pirating (I buy my music a la carte from iTunes). I was giving an example of how the approach in the music industry is old fashion and how they refuse to try and take advantage of new mediums.

The CD/record worked better back in the day because physical medium was expensive and (practically) it took up lots of space. These days, there’s no real reason for the album to be the main marketing tool. Most of the songs I buy I discover on the radio (Satellite Radio, because I got sick of 1 hour having half-ads).

Why did you assume that I was endorsing stealing or pirating (especially since I’ve said I’m against it several time and when I said I don’t do it)? That’s not very charitable you know.

I made no such assumption, I am simply saying that is where the problem lies. Artists have every right to make money from their labor, and yet in today’s world their work is often stolen without any thought to payment. Many people say, “well they will make their money anyway,” but the truth is the artists often get the short end. The music industry is a shadow of its former self because it is so hard to maintain product to sell, and the same with movies, with books now becoming the third leg. It is all immoral and unfair to the artists and companies who produce the stuff.

It used to be people would buy an entire album or cd, and after they listen to all the tracks, they might two or three hidden gems that they would not know about if they just bought the one song from Itunes. It is destroying creativity and it is picking the pockets of the artists.

 

[sedonaman]

Where does it stop though? Next are you going to sell me a book and tell me that I can only read it on my couch? That’s completely unfair and unjust.
…

If you want to play your record on more than one record player, don’t you have to buy one for each player?

Where will it end? Maybe when they start requiring that you buy a second copy if you get your eyeglass prescription changed.

 

[kelvinf]

No doubt shoplifters feel much the same way.

Or persons who steal from their employer (“If they only paid me what I deserve, I wouldn’t have to steal from them. I am just balancing the scales of justice.”)

Or the Somali pirates who, after all, aren’t killing anyone. They are just helping themselves to a slice of the economic pie which the world unfairly denies them.

LotusCars, if someone feels that goods are overpriced, the thing to do is to not buy those goods. Boycott them. The market will respond, if enough people feel that way.

Persons stealing what they want, and coming up with reasons to legitimize their crime is nothing new. But that doesn’t mean its right.

Making a copy of something is called copying and not stealing. That’s why they call it "copy"right or "copy"left

 

[kelvinf]

If you want to play your record on more than one record player, don’t you have to buy one for each player?

Seriously? If I want to play my DVD on different DVD players, do I need to buy a new DVD for each player?

 

[Dawnia]

Making a copy of something is called copying and not stealing. That’s why they call it "copy"right or "copy"left

No…it’s stealing.

 

[Dawnia]

Seriously? If I want to play my DVD on different DVD players, do I need to buy a new DVD for each player?

If you want to play both of them at the same time…duh.