Moderator’s note: Photo is of Maxwell Perkins, who, as an editor for Charles Scribner’s Sons, added value to the works of such immortals as F. Scott Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway and Thomas Wolfe. – DR

Maxwell PerkinsI’m as fond of free books as anyone. Project Gutenberg is a wonderful service, and I am grateful for all of the volunteers and contributors who’ve made this resource possible.

So many great works of the past were either inaccessible or available only in high-cost collectible books until Gutenberg began its epic construction of the new universal library.

The glories of the weed-out

That said, I’m also a publisher. It’s my job to weed through a vast host of not-so-good books and pick out the ones that stand out, that represent story-telling at its best. It’s also my job to work with the authors of these very best books, to help them hone their talents, to strip out the fluff, and to then convert the polished novels into a variety of formats (primarily electronic but also paper).

In addition, it’s my job to help these select and talented authors earn money for all of the hundreds of hours they’ve put into their novels by marketing their works, by arranging distribution for their works, and by paying them regularly. For every book I publish, I probably reject a dozen. For me, every book I publish represents a hundred or more man-hours of research, editing, and production—and then there’s marketing.

E compared to P

In the traditional world of paper publishing, a book went on sale, remained on the shelves of bookstores for a month or three, and then vanished. Velocity was key and “out of print” a meaningful and painful prospect. But we in the e-publishing world live on the Long Tail. Our books remain on sale indefinitely—something we believe is an advantage to authors and to readers who can now buy the entire work of an author rather than hunting fruitlessly through used bookstores for early works. Every quarter, I pay out royalties to authors for works I published for them years ago, as new readers discover them, and as word of mouth allows them to gain in popularity.

So I’m a big believer in intellectual property. Just as a mason who builds her own home has an ownership over her work, so an author has an equity stake in her creation; and so, too does the publisher who represents this author to the world. Constitutionally, the government offered a bargain—it would help preserve our rights to our work, but only if we accepted a limited period of monopoly, after which time these works would become available for free to all. That seems fair, although certainly one could argue over the period of exclusive use of rights (I personally think the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act took things too far, but certainly an author should have exclusive rights for decades, at least).

The bottom line

Here’s the bottom line—neither I nor any other e-publisher could stay in business if my author’s rights expired after a year or two. I couldn’t afford to market these works, negotiate distribution deals, or pay my editors to help perfect the novels. Living on the Long Tail, I find that the majority of my sales take place after the first year of publication. It’s oh-so-tempting to wish that wonderful books could all be free, but authors have to eat too. E-publishing is a radical innovation that means books can be published without being approved by huge conglomerates, that you don’t need to be rich to get out your message, and copyright is the primary protection we small publishers and our authors have. Advertiser support, the major means of offering “free” content generates to the lowest common denominator–is this really what we want out of our literature?

Moderator’s note: Rob runs BooksForABuck.com

60 COMMENTS

  1. I envision a different scenario where the author has the freedom to remove a work for sale at will. If publishers need to recover their sunk costs, they can set up a pricing/royalty structure that takes these costs into account.

    Mobipocket lets the author keep 60% plus remove the ebooks for sale at any time they want. (I think lulu has a similar deal with ebooks at 75%). Editorial & promotional services can be sold a la carte (and yes, that means authors paying more upfront costs).

    The issue of “too many books and authors” can still be a godsend for distributors. More authors are out there now who are willing to publish–that’s good, isn’t it? Works with better marketing/packaging can stand out that much more. But overall, I think the relationship between authors and publishers have changed radically in the last 10 years. Authors are viewed less as “talent” than as “customers.”

  2. A lottery is sometimes cruelly referred to as a “tax on stupidity”. A large lottery entices gullible participants with dreams of massive prizes obtained by simply purchasing inexpensive tickets. Mathematically, the expected value of a lottery ticket is smaller than its cost; hence, lotteries often attract the mathematically illiterate and the desperate.

    How are long-term copyrights related to lotteries? The number of books that continue to earn money “fifty years after the author’s death” or “seventy years after the author’s death” is vanishingly small. The super-extended copyright terms are similar to a “tax on stupid authors”. How many credulous authors work for a pittance while dreaming delusively of creating immortal works that will provide monetary security for themselves, children, grandchildren and even great-grandchildren?

    Worse, the “lottery” of books is sometimes rigged. For example, Stephen King consistently generates best-sellers; however, when he secretly released horror novels similar to his best-sellers under the penname Richard Bachman the sales were dramatically reduced. When King’s surreptitious authorship was revealed the sales skyrocketed.

    Of course, lotteries can be a form of entertainment in which the ticket purchaser knows the odds of success are small. Further, good authors actually have a positive “expected value” for their literary output, and it is possible to earn a living as a writer or an artist. Nevertheless the super-extended copyright terms are a malicious deception that exploits auctorial vanity.

    (One final point, this comment is not a criticism of Rob Preece’s worthwhile article. Preece does say “I personally think the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act took things too far, but certainly an author should have exclusive rights for decades, at least”.)

  3. Thanks for the comments, Robert and Garson.

    Robert, there is an important distinction between book distributors like Mobipocket and book publishers like, uh, me. Book distributors take what books are offered them and sell them. They’re like a bookstore rather than a publisher, with no editorial or even formatting (except what formatting may be done by their software). It’s no skin off their nose if an author withdraws his work. Not so with publishers–I think I’m fairly unique in the industry in how easily I let authors withdraw, should they find a more lucreative outlet.

    Garson, a point I may not have made clearly enough is that I agree with you with respect to the traditional publishing industry. Books go on the shelf, then vanish. Rights should revert to the author after the book goes out of print at which time they can do what they want with them (including selling them to me for re-publication). But eBooks don’t go out of print and sell forever–the long tail. It’s a different business model and one, I think, that is better for lesser-known authors who rarely win the best-seller game.

    Rob Preece
    Publisher, http://www.BooksForABuck.com

  4. Rob, you note that if you lost your monopoly rights after a year or two, you couldn’t stay in business.

    How then did the traditional p-publishers survive, and grow into the massive enterprises they are today, when their books went out of print after ‘a month or three’?

    Indeed, how do traditional p-publishers survive today who publish works in the public domain? I go to a bookstore and see no lack of Dickens, Shakespeare, Darwin, Austen, and the like. Even with only minor editorial costs involved (choosing typeface, cover design and the like), the costs of pulp and shipping (and the cut the bookstore takes) surely would add up to more, a lot more, than your editorial costs on any given book?

  5. Hi Pond,

    Good question. The pPublishing business model is different and largely based on the best-seller. If you’re an author trying to sell to traditional publishers, you’ll often hear discussions of ‘the midlist is dead.’ What that means is, the business makes its money on a few home run books. Nora Roberts, Stephen King, J. K. Rowling, Tom Clancey, John Grisham and a few others constitute a huge percentage of sales–and profit. Then there are publishers like Harlequin which have adopted a magazine model–sell books for a month, then they’re gone.

    There’s nothing wrong with this business model as a model–it works for magazines and newspapers, after all. But there is something wrong with it when it comes to readers and authors. The model relies on extensive investments in getting books on shelves and moving them quickly. The model doesn’t allow for slow builds, for word of mouth advertising, or for authors to be discovered. It also means hitting the lowest common denominator.

    The ePublishing model is the long tail model–because our ‘bookstores’ don’t have to worry about shelf space, books remain on sale and continue to sell. I can take a chance on authors who are unknown, help them grow.

    There certainly are publishers who make their living selling public domain books. Some do so by adding value (e.g., a glossary for Shakespeare), while others (e.g. Barnes and Noble, because they have access to shelf space–the rarest commodity in the book world). There are even ePublishers who sell public domain books that can be found on Gutenberg and Manybooks. I think helping connect new authors with readers is a valuable service, and enough readers agree with me that they pay for that service. If they didn’t, I’d go out of business. As I said, though, those sales occur over time in my model, rather than all at once in the first month.

    Rob Preece
    Publisher, http://www.BooksForABuck.com

  6. “Here’s the bottom line—neither I nor any other e-publisher could stay in business if my author’s rights expired after a year or two. I couldn’t afford to market these works, negotiate distribution deals, or pay my editors to help perfect the novels.”

    I’m not so sure about this Rob.

    Take your book, Kingmaker. I see I can buy that on Fictionwise in any number of formats that would make it trivial to redistribute in about 5 minutes. You may have some legal rights to go after people who did so, but practically if people started ripping Kingmaker and posting it to Rapidshare, etc., there’s not a whole lot anyone could do about it. I think the RIAA has done a good job of demonstrating that even the most well-financed efforts to actually enforce copyrights in our Internet age has almost no effect on illegal distribution channels.

    I notice, however, that Kingmaker is currently not easily found on any filesharing network, so I conclude that a) the demand for the novel is poor or b) its probably cheaper if I want a copy to pay you $3.99 for it than waiting for it to show up in a torrent or rapidshare link (and it could be that your customers are happy enough with the product and price that they wouldn’t think of pirating the novel)

    At some point, publishers of all stripes are going to have to recognize that, at least for that part of the audience that is technically savvy, copyrights last functionally for about 15 minutes after you publish, and you’re going to have to incorporate that into your business model.

  7. > Here’s the bottom line—neither I nor any other e-publisher
    > could stay in business if my author’s rights expired after a
    > year or two.

    You shouldn’t make definitive bottom lines like that. In general it’s unwise to state that “there is no possible way around X”, as history has shown us that most such Xs have been circumvented, sooner more commonly than later.

    I bet there are hundreds, or even thousands, of business models that don’t rely on copyright and yet would work well in practice. Just because we haven’t found them or dared to try them doesn’t mean they don’t exist. (In fact, I recently wrote here about one candidate I came up with, but it swiftly vanished in the mysterious “half the site is gone”-thing a week or two ago.)

  8. Just because something can be done, doesn’t mean it should be done.

    Just because ebooks can be pirated easily, doesn’t mean they should be.

    Because pirating is easy, we should all just give up?

    Murder is easy, too. Should we make that legal now, too?

    Don’t get me wrong. I’m glad that music companies now have to offer consumers the choice of buying a single song, as opposed to a whole album of songs.

    Change is good. But if authors NEVER make money from their efforts, guess what? They’ll quit writing. Or quit making their work available to anyone.

    No one asks lawyers, doctors, store clerks, etc. to give their services for free. While they may occasionally donate their time, it is THEIR CHOICE.

    Creative/intellectual property is as much a real property as the house you live in, the car your drive, the television you watch.

    I have no problem with readers who use libraries, lend their print books, or shop used bookstores.

    I do have a problem with someone stealing my work. And I have a right to leave that work to my heirs, if that is my choice. Everyone else gets to leave the fruit of their labors to their heirs. Why should authors be considered vain for wanting to do the same?

  9. Being an ebook/print small press, I am in agreement with Rob here. The copyright extension recently enacted is ludicrous and not beneficial to the literary world nor society. However, if you are saying that authors, and publishers, shouldn’t maintain the rights to their works for more than a few years, then why should people be able to patent their ideas? Both copyright and patents are designed to protect the creators. Without them, people cannot survive. You are also assuming that authors spend a short period of time writing these works. Some authors have spent 10 years or more doing the research, writing, revising, then submitting, resubmitting, and so on, not to mention all of the promotion that goes into getting a book/ebook out to the public. And even if they haven’t spent 10 years writing that particular book, they have created something of value that others want to read, they have done something that not everyone can do. If authors/publishers cannot maintain the copyright, what incentive is there for people to create anything?

    Let’s take a different example: Most people have jobs which pay them a salary/hourly wage. Suppose that after a year or two, the law said that the company no longer needed to pay you for your services. After all, you are doing the same job pretty much every day. There is no reason to continue paying you for the work you have done or continue to do.

    You may not think it is the same thing, but it is. When you work, you are being paid for your contribution. The same thing can be said for an author, musician or any other artist/creator. Why shouldn’t they be able to maintain the rights to their creations? To deny them this because you wish to have something for free is unrealistic.

    Marci

  10. Pauline: “Murder is easy, too. Should we make that legal now, too?”

    Many people treat piracy as simply an enforcement issue. Then it simply becomes a matter of punishment and technical countermeasures.

    But it’s really a matter of compliance and disincentives. Raising the penalty for murder from 10 years to 20 years is not going to reduce murder. With piracy, the central question is NOT how can punish as many infringers as possible. It is: how can we can make consumers feel good about paying for content? And how can we increase the net amount of money that changes into the hands of content creators?

    I’ve written here and here about why I think past pricing strategies don’t work anymore. Pbooks are initially sold at ridiculous prices, and then discounted until people start buying them. When they are discounted (and ultimately sold used), the profits go not to the creator but to everybody BUT the creator. (To see what I mean, read my horrifying account of how NOT to compensate an artist ).

    The one thing I love about Preece’s books for a buck is that it incorporates a “chump change” pricing strategy rather than a price maximization strategy. I would argue that the “price maximization strategy” is inherently vulnerable to piracy. I would be willing to bet that there is almost NO piracy for the ebooks on Preece’s site. That to me is a sign that booksforabuck.com is doing something right.

  11. I recently sold e-rights to Rob for a book I spent just under a year writing and submitting. I appreciate him for taking the effort to make good suggestions for re-writing and being a terrific editor, also for having the gumption and the initiative to start a publishing business.

    About the same time I was getting contracts from Rob, I found on a free download site all EIGHT of Jim Butcher’s “Harry Dresden” novels in MS Reader format. Piracy of an entire series of Jim’s books, I know he works for a living–hard to break out of the midlist and write a successful series of books that is now coming out on the SciFi channel. I reported the piracy to the website manager, and I reported it to the author, within 24 hours the link was down. I check that site every couple of days and report every single book piracy I find–to the author, the publisher, and various writer’s websites. I found books by Nora Roberts, Steven King and several other authors on that site and I reported each and every one.

    Piracy may be easier and easier, but it is still theft from people who work hard to create the content so many of us avidly read.

    Recently an Indian publisher was selling e-books of the Harry Potter series. Ms. Towland never sold e-rights for any of those books, the website is under litigation by Rowland’s publisher and they certainly have pockets deep enough to hurt that pirate badly. I hope they do.

    Regards,
    Scott

  12. > Because pirating is easy, we should all just give up?

    Well, people have traded their natural right to copy for there being more authors and/or higher quality works. If the people would want to quit making this tradeoff, maybe only partly, then the laws of a democracy must be modified to reflect this.

    It seems that a large portion of the population of some countries indeed want to retain their right to copy music, at least to some degree.

    > if authors NEVER make money from their efforts,
    > guess what? They’ll quit writing.

    First of all that’s evidently not universally true. However, it’s very likely that without any kind of compensation a lot of authors would quit writing. IF we want there to be a lot of writers, and many do, then there must be at least one way of compensating them. There can be many, and most are dependent on the surrounding culture to work, and the culture changes over time. With the rise of the internet we have seen many new business models, and certainly we’ll see many more as the various cultures adapt.

    > No one asks lawyers, doctors, store clerks, etc. to give
    > their services for free.

    Of course not, because each of those services requires labour. However, absolutely nothing is required of a musician for me to copy an album that the musician made and sold to my friend. If I could get “service” from a doctor without the doctor having to do anything (possibly not even noticing it) then it should indeed be legal.
    Your comparison is completely apples and oranges. A more fair comparison would be that if your friend goes to the doctor who teaches him to make a mitella out of a scarf then it should be illegal for your friend to teach this to you (and thus you might not have to go to the doctor yourself).

    > Creative/intellectual property is as much a real property
    > as the house you live in

    No, it’s not. At least not by its nature. Some people want to force it into the “property” mold so that it can be more easily treated as tangible property for which there are various trading-, ownership- and exclusiveness-related laws, customs and values.
    Your right to keep someone from breathing is just as much a property by nature as your right to keep someone from copying a book, i.e., not at all.

    Furthermore, the only thing that all different kinds of “creative/intellectual property” have in common is their intangibility. Something intangible is naturally limitless, and thus can’t be natural property.

    > I do have a problem with someone stealing my work.

    Stealing? How is anyone stealing your work? E.g., if you write a book and publish it and someone else copies it without your permission, then it, as such, could under no circumstances be called “stealing”.

    “Intangible property” and “copying is stealing” is a kind of newspeak (in this case rhetorically redefining terms to further some agenda) that just makes discussing these issues much harder, or even impossible.

  13. > However, if you are saying that authors, and
    > publishers, shouldn’t maintain the rights to their
    > works for more than a few years, then why
    > should people be able to patent their ideas?

    What you imply is absolutely correct. They shouldn’t.

    > Both copyright and patents are designed to
    > protect the creators.

    Umm.. not really. Patents are a limited monopoly regarding an invention in exchange for describing that invention. Copyright is the public trading their natural right to copy for there being more authors and/or higher quality works.

    > Without them, people cannot survive.

    Certainly you are joking, or whose life do you think depends on patents or copyrights? Well, perhaps some former artist who now is disabled and lives in a country with poor social security and has no other income than royalties and no relatives and no chance of getting a job.

    > Suppose that after a year or two, the law said
    > that the company no longer needed to pay you
    > for your services. After all, you are doing the
    > same job pretty much every day. There is no
    > reason to continue paying you for the work you
    > have done or continue to do.

    Um.. that’s how it’s now. Nobody forces an employer to pay people for doing work, but if they don’t then they won’t have employees. If are you suggesting that agreements and contracts would suddenly be void then the analogy is grossly invalid.

    > Why shouldn’t they be able to maintain the
    > rights to their creations?

    Why should they be allowed to dictate what other people can and can’t do? Of course they should have the right not to create, or to create but only give copies to particular people, but why should they have a right to dictate what those people can and can’t do with what they’ve been sold/given? Now, the producers and the consumers (if there ever was a distinction) could come to some sort of agreement, but then it’s perfectly fine since everyone involved agrees, right?

    > To deny them this because you wish to have
    > something for free is unrealistic.

    To deny the people’s natural right to copy just because the authors want something (namely that the people give up this right) for free is unrealistic.

    I have never seen anyone successfully argue that authors have a moral right to dictate how anyone he gives or sells copies to can or can’t do with them. People can agree to do or not do certain things in exchange for other things, but that has nothing to do with morals or natural rights.

  14. > With piracy, the central question is […]
    > how can we can make consumers feel
    > good about paying for content?

    Very true.
    The business model I outlined here a while ago (and which was lost in the big accident/malfunction/whatever a few weeks ago) would encourage paying and discourage pirating.

    > And how can we increase the net
    > amount of money that changes into
    > the hands of content creators?

    Ah, more words of wisdom. I think there are many ways around many middle men of the traditional arrangements in many fields. We just have to find them, instead of making laws forbidding any progress that isn’t more of the same old.

  15. Piracy […] is still theft from people who
    > work hard to create the content

    It most certainly is not, the same way littering is not theft.
    >

    Yup, theft.

    What have you created that you wish to just give away with no recompense? And why should I not expect recompense for my labor?

    When my work sells, the individual buys one copy and he may do what he wishes with that copy, including give it away. Copyright law demands that he not make copies and give THOSE away.

    The public has no right to my books unless they pay for them, and they do not exercise the right to copy the work for distribution to others just because they bought it from me.

    I will continue to check all the free sites routinely and every book I find there I will report to the authors so they can take whatever steps they choose. I do not download pirated videos or music OR books.

    Regards,
    Scott

  16. Marci Baun mentions patents. Blog readers may find it useful to compare patents and copyrights. “Under current U.S. law, a patent is valid for 20 years from the date the patent application is filed” according to the online Encarta encyclopedia. The first federal copyright act allowed a total term of 28 years. Specifically, the Copyright Act of 1790 allowed “a term of 14 years, with the right to renew for one additional 14 year term should the copyright holder still be alive” according to Wikipedia. The term for patents has been largely stable historically, but the term for copyrights has grown enormously.

  17. > > > Piracy […] is still theft from people who
    > > > work hard to create the content
    > >
    > > It most certainly is not, the same way littering
    > > is not theft.
    >
    > Yup, theft.
    >
    > What have you created that you wish to just
    > give away with no recompense? And why
    > should I not expect recompense for my labor?

    Huh?!
    If someone copies your book without your permission they have not taken anything from you.

    > The public has no right to my books unless
    > they pay for them

    So just because something is unlawful (or wrong) it is theft? So since littering is wrong it is theft?

    If we’re allowed to make up new definitions of things then I say that copyright is killing. It absolutely kills my natural rights to copy. Don’t be a killer.

    Seriously, you have not provided a single argument for calling copyright infringement “theft”.

  18. > The term for patents has been largely stable
    > historically, but the term for copyrights has
    > grown enormously.

    Maybe that’s partly because patents were so much more evil from the get go?
    I mean, with copyright I’m at least allowed to write the same thing as someone else, as long as I haven’t copied it. With patents someone else can suddenly more or less destroy my business if they have patented stuff my business relies on and I have come up with independently without ever even hearing about those patents. (In fact, as a programmer I bet I’ve already violated many patents I don’t know about. I know about some trivial patents I’m violating right now, although they wouldn’t stand up in court (not that I could afford to go to court, so that doesn’t really matter).)

  19. Theft is the unauthorized confiscation of property. Copyright is intellectual property. Unauthorized confiscation of intellectual property is theft.

    It should be obvious.

    Patents and copyright are evil? By what definition?

    Regards,

    Scott

  20. Copyright is intellectual property. Unauthorized confiscation of intellectual property is theft.

    The original claim was that piracy is theft. Piracy is generally understood to be the unauthorized copying of works. That is not the same as “confiscating copyrights”.

    Neither I nor any other e-publisher could stay in business if my author’s rights expired after a year or two.

    Then get a real job.

  21. > Theft is the unauthorized confiscation of property.

    OK

    > Copyright is intellectual property.

    It’s not property by nature. See my post above.

    Also note that the following is circular reasoning and would, if proven sound, show equivalence, but it still can’t be used to prove anything true or false: “Because copyright is property breaking it is theft, and since breaking copyright is theft it must be property.” (I’m not saying that this is how you think, I’m just telling you not to go there since it would be pointless in this particular discussion.)

    > Unauthorized confiscation of intellectual
    > property is theft.

    Exactly what is confiscated, according to you, if I copy a book that my friend bought? And remember that it can’t be something for which there is an analogy with littering, as my statement was that piracy is theft only if littering is also theft.

    > It should be obvious.

    Actually I think the opposite is obvious, but I can’t be more accurate as long as you refuse to say what it is you think has been taken from the author of the book that has been copied without permission.

    > Patents and copyright are evil? By what definition?

    I just told you. Are you at all reading what I write? Again, patents are particularly evil, and generally anti-progress, because they can be, and are, used to force people and companies to not use their own innovations against their will. (They also greatly hinder innovations to build upon previous innovations, but that’s irrelevant here since copyright has the same problem.)

    So far I have pointed out most of your inaccuracies and you have not shown any of my reasoning to be (or even seem) inaccurate at any point. I have no problem with being proved wrong (it’s in fact a very nice and highly teaching experience), and I hope you will also be reasonable on this point if that is where this is going. Let’s just try to find the truth together.

  22. The original definition of “Piracy” is robbery on the high seas. The derived definition of “Piracy” is copyright violation. Robbery is defined as theft.

    Therefore copyright violation is theft.

    “I just told you. Are you at all reading what I write? Again, patents are particularly evil, and generally anti-progress, because they can be, and are, used to force people and companies to not use their own innovations against their will. (They also greatly hinder innovations to build upon previous innovations, but that’s irrelevant here since copyright has the same problem.)”

    This is a particularly naive notion. Yes, patents can be used as a bludgeon, but the excess of this kind of usage is much better controlled these days than in the day of Thomas Edison and the motion picture industry. The motion picture industry survived even though Edison tried to misuse patent law.

    Edison’s misuse does not constitute “evil” in the concept of intellectualo property.

    That being said: It has nothing to do with copyright law since copyright does NOT apply to ideas, only to the text of a particular book. Want to use somebody’s literary idea? Join the club. The author you borrow the idea from probably borrowed it from someone else. But do not steal the actual text. That is a violation of law. It is theft.

    Laura K. Hamilton took the idea of modern-day vampires from Anne Rice. Anne Rice took the idea from Dracula, and Bram Stoker took the idea from previous penny dreadfuls. None of that constitutes copyright violation. But if I steal the text from one of Laura K. Hamilton’s vampire books and distribute it without her authorization that is theft.

    By the way, I have read every word you have said, and you are mistaken in your reasoning.

    Regards,
    Scott

  23. It is certainly possible for someone to object to the use of the term “theft” when applied to copyrights or ideas because of an adherence to an ideological or philosophical framework that does not recognize “theft” applied to non-corporeal entities. Yet, etymologically the use of “theft” to copyrights and ideas has attestations dating back more than 100 years. Here are four examples:

    A Dictionary of the English Language by Robert Sullivan, 1869
    Piracy, s. the act or practice of robbing on the sea; any robbery, particularly literary theft. Pirate, s. a sea-robber; a ship employed in piracy; a plagiarist or literary theft: v. to rob on the sea; to steal from authors or infringe on copyright.

    Impressions of Theophrastus Such By George Eliot 1879
    After all, however, it must be admitted that hardly any accusation is more difficult to prove, and more liable to be false, than that of plagiarism which is the conscious theft of ideas and deliberate reproduction of them as original.

    The Christian Science Journal By Mary Baker Eddy 1891
    Copying my works verbatim, compiling them in connection with the Scriptures, taking your copy into the pulpit, announcing the author’s name, then reading it publicly as your compilation – is what? We answer, it is a mistake, in common parlance it is an ignorant theft. If you should print and publish your copy of my works, you would be liable to arrest for infringement of copyright, which the law defines and punishes as theft.

    The Life and Adventures of Oliver Goldsmith By John Forster 1848
    In those days, and indeed till the Act of Union was passed, the English writer had no copyright in Ireland: it being a part of the independence of Irish booksellers to steal from English authors, and of the Irish parliament to protect the theft

    Since O’Toole is my pseudonym I must object to the last example which is scurrilous. 😉

  24. The question of “what is theft” hinges upon whether the unauthorized distribution of a copyrighted work diminishes the economic value of the copyrighted work. In many cases, it does not do this; some have even suggested that it enhances the value of the original copyrighted work.

  25. Wow, what an active discussion. Thanks both to those who have supported my points, and for those who have so enthusiastically explained why they disagree.

    I try not to get into semantics–theft vs. unlawful copying, property vs. protected under copyright. I posted my blog entry (with David’s help–thanks David) because I wanted to explain something about my business–the book business.

    It may be true that there are different business models for writing and distributing books. I’ve heard several suggested, although I’m sure that I’ll leave some out. Here are the ones, though, that pop to my mind:
    1. Sell books one by one (the current model)
    2. Assume authors need to have a day job and will write anyway (and that editors are really not needed)
    3. Shareware–make books freely available with a suggested contribution
    4. Advertiser/sponsor support
    5. Government/philanthropist support for authors

    Starting at the bottom, Number 5 is certainly attractive to some authors. Who wouldn’t like getting a government check every month for writing. It’s also the way several of the great literary works of the world, the Greek tragedies, were written. Problem–what if you don’t agree with the government? What if you’re not selected by the government? What if what you want to read is not produced by the government or supported by rich philanthropists? Must you be out of luck?

    Number 4–advertiser-support. Here we have the wonderful world of television as an inspiring example of quality. (Yuck). Also, the model breaks down if viewers can’t be compelled to watch the ads–hence Hollywood’s fear of Tivo. Again, will advertiser-supported works give readers what they want, or advertisers what they want?

    Number 3–Shareware. Talk to shareware software makers. At least they have the advantage that people continue using software day after day–and put up with the nags day after day. I actually attempted to base BooksForABuck.com on a shareware model when I opened our doors–and quickly learned that people simply won’t pay.

    Number 2–Although most authors have day jobs, many are also motivated by hope that all of their work will eventually be repaid and that they’ll be able to devote their lives to doing what they love. I can’t prove that if you take away that hope you’ll take away the writing, but I believe this to be the case. And few books indeed require no editing.

    Number 1–Perhaps, like democracy (the worst government possible except all the others), we’re stuck with a business model that involves readers paying for what they read. Authors who satisfy reader interest are bought, rebought, and rewarded. Readers can buy what they want, and refuse to purchase from businessmen or individuals they disagree with or whose business models they disapprove of.

    By the way, as Robert mentioned several comments back, I do believe in setting prices low enough to discourage illegal copying. I fear, though, that no price would be low enough to eliminate it completely if we didn’t continue to remind people that by copying, you’re taking food out of the author’s mouth.

    Rob Preece
    Publisher, http://www.BooksForABuck.com

  26. The original definition of “Piracy” is robbery on the high seas. The derived definition of “Piracy” is copyright violation. Robbery is defined as theft.

    The derived definition is a hyperbole. It is similar to when people call you a murderer when you are pro-copyright, because you are “murdering” one’s right to copy. When you want to discuss this in the form of insults and gross exagerations, fine, but I don’t think I want to talk with murderers.

    As Garson shows, piracy was an hyperbole used in the past as a pseudonym for plagiarism in similar debates by those who also lacked actual arguments.

  27. > The original definition of “Piracy” is robbery
    > on the high seas. The derived definition of
    > “Piracy” is copyright violation. Robbery is
    > defined as theft.
    > Therefore copyright violation is theft.

    Here is the description of the exact error you’re making:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
    This kind of manipulation with words is imho one of the most dishonest types of rhetoric.

    > patents can be used as a bludgeon, but
    > the excess of this kind of usage is much
    > better controlled these days than in the
    > day of Thomas Edison and the motion
    > picture industry.

    I couldn’t care less about Edison, but I do care about me and my company. Any number of large companies could at any time they wish crush my company using patents. And I have not knowingly violated any non-trivial patent. Now, this problem with patents is not a problem with copyright. This is what I’ve been trying to say, but you refuse to listen to what I actually say and instead you make straw-man arguments.

    > It has nothing to do with copyright law
    > since copyright does NOT apply to ideas

    That’s what I’m trying to tell you. Stop arguing against straw-men and listen to what I actually say.

    > I have read every word you have said,

    Hah! Well, maybe you are really trying to misinterpret everything I say, or maybe I’m just bad at explaining or you’re just bad at understanding.
    It’s clear that you have no read, or at least not understood, what I wrote here:
    http://newteleread.com/wordpress/blog/?p=6327#comment-278999
    If you had then you wouldn’t try to tell me what I wrote there, namely that copyright is better in the way that I can write about the same things and similar stories, or even exactly the same words and wordings, as long as I’m not copying. (It can be hard to show that I haven’t seen the original, but at least it works in theory, and sufficiently well in practice.)

    > and you are mistaken in your reasoning.

    Do you believe that just stating something makes it so?
    Show me where I’ve made a mistake and why what I said is wrong.

    You are being very uncooperative, and it seems you are not at all interested in the truth, only in pushing your own agenda and/or perception and/or interpretation.

    Please answer this question that I’ve asked three times:

    Exactly what is confiscated, according to you, if I copy a book that my friend bought?

  28. > etymologically the use of “theft” to
    > copyrights and ideas has attestations
    > dating back more than 100 years

    You are correct, and as long as everyone involved is aware of the difference between copyright infringement and what is normally meant by theft I’m OK with it. What I’m not OK with is the equivocation that so many are making when trying to show that since stealing (=hijacking) a car is wrong then stealing (=copying without permission) the contents of a book is also wrong.
    If we would all just write in Lojban then we wouldn’t have this problem, but unfortunately English has good support for this kind of dishonesty.

  29. > The question of “what is theft” hinges
    > upon whether the unauthorized distribution
    > of a copyrighted work diminishes the
    > economic value of the copyrighted work.

    Untrue.
    If it was true then it would be grand theft whenever an influential critic would write a bad review.

  30. Assume authors need to have a day job and will write anyway

    Also the current model. Only a tiny fragment of all those who write for money make a living through that activity (as you yourself pretty much demonstrated when you wrote: “a vast host of not-so-good books and pick out the ones that stand out”. BTW, I predict that you would make your job a lot easier if you selected the books you would like to publish from a vast host of good books.) 🙂

    The question of “what is theft” hinges upon whether the unauthorized distribution of a copyrighted work diminishes the economic value of the copyrighted work. In many cases, it does not do this; some have even suggested that it enhances the value of the original copyrighted work.

    Some studies have been done into the effect of file sharing on music sales, and so far these seem to suggest that popular artists suffer and unpopular artists profit. I would not be surprised that a similar effect
    could be observed for “pirated” books.

  31. > I actually attempted to base BooksForABuck.com
    > on a shareware model when I opened our
    > doors–and quickly learned that people simply
    > won’t pay.

    The model I’d prefer is similar to shareware, except that you promise to pay at least some small amount, X, but you also agree to pay Y1, Y2, Y3 or even Y4 if you like the work. One of the main points is that you can’t pay immediately, only after some time, T. At that time you will get the bill to pay, and it should be made such that it’s very easy to pay Y1, Y2, Y3 or Y4, but if you don’t mind putting in some small effort you can make another bill for an amount as low as X and then pay that.

    There are several psychological factors here. One is that it’s somehow easier for many people to buy stuff when you don’t have to pay immediately. Another one is that many of the cheapskates will pay Y1, especially if they’re also lazy, because next to Y2, Y3 and Y4 the Y1 seems quite small and it’s the smallest amount that’s most convenient. Then X should be small enough so that many of the ones who would otherwise “pirate” the stuff will feel no, or very little, incentive to try to find unofficial, illegal copies.

    This system also suits people who want to try stuff first and then decide whether to support the authors or not. Now these people download the stuff from p2p networks, but even though they have the best intentions they often forget to actually buy the stuff later on even if they liked it.

    And then there are those who really feel that they want to reward good works. (Personally I want to reward good works, and if possible I make donations, but I don’t want to pay even the normal fee of something I think is bad (and if I think it’s degrading I don’t even want to sell it to someone else), but if X is sufficiently low I would rather pay that than getting it illegally.)

    I believe the values of these different variables could be tweaked for very good results and reflecting even small variations in the culture, which shifts faster and faster every year.

  32. Rob, I think what frustrates people is that a small but visible number of people do make a living writing/selling books (especially if they’ve attracted the attention of a major publisher). Authors have this sense, popular Author X (you fill in the blanks) makes a lot of money, and I can write better than X; therefore I could make a lot of money. Ahh, if only life were that simple!

    The layman’s conception of writing success is whether you’ve published and whether you’ve sold a lot of copies. I think authors see it differently; it has to do with building a brand, developing a fan base, and honing your craft, Publication by itself is not the panacea that young writers view it to be, especially in an age of lulu.

  33. “Exactly what is confiscated, according to you, if I copy a book that my friend bought? ”

    If he gives the book to you, or you pay a nominal sum for the book absolutely nothing has been stolen–even if i RECEIVE NOTHING

  34. About advertising model; I think that has been a very successful model for TV, at least until recently. Maybe it doesn’t transfer over to reading books; but having a one page ad at the beginning or end probably wouldn’t detract from the overall reading experience. (I doubt it would raise enough money to make it worthwhile to do though).

    Universities and grant-giving organizations have methods for recognizing significant books and authors. Unfortunately, almost none of them allow ebooks/online books to be considered for their minimum publication criteria.

  35. “Exactly what is confiscated, according to you, if I copy a book that my friend bought? ”

    If he gives the book to you, or if you buy the book from him nothing is stolen even if the author receives nothing for that purchase. The book is a chattel, property and can be disposed of as you please.

    If you make a copy of it and give the original book back to the owner, then you have stolen the right of the author to control the printing of that book.

    The LAW cedes the right to copy original work to the author and the publisher. Do do that without permission is theft of someone else’s rights to publish and sell copies.

    Theft of revenues, theft of intellectual property, theft, larceny, robbery, piracy . . .

    It should be obvious to anyone, the law defines what is property and what is not to take unlawfully is theft. It should be obvious to anyone.

    “> and you are mistaken in your reasoning.

    Do you believe that just stating something makes it so?
    Show me where I’ve made a mistake and why what I said is wrong.

    You are being very uncooperative, and it seems you are not at all interested in the truth, only in pushing your own agenda and/or perception and/or interpretation.”

    I must ask: Are you familiar with the phrase “The pot calling the kettle black . . .”? You are doing exactly the same thing and calling me uncooperative? Is “uncooperative” defined as not agreeing with you in everything you say?

    If so, I am uncooperative, but then so are you.

    Regards,
    Scott

  36. “If we would all just write in Lojban then we wouldn’t have this problem, but unfortunately English has good support for this kind of dishonesty. ”

    If you translate a book of mine into Lojban without my permission you have stolen my property.

    Regards,
    Scott

  37. > If you make a copy of it and give the
    > original book back to the owner, then you
    > have stolen the right of the author to
    > control the printing of that book.

    Are you seriously suggesting that in that case I have the right to control the printing of that book?
    No, in reality I have not stolen anything, since the author still has everything he had, even though this one particular unenforcable detail has in fact not been enforced. I have broken the law on this point. I have made something I am not allowed to, but it is not in any way like theft as the word is used regarding theft of physical property. Both are illegal and the words are homographs, but there the similarities end. For this reason you can’t argue that one being morally wrong makes the other one morally wrong, too.

    > The LAW cedes the right to copy original
    > work to the author and the publisher. Do
    > do that without permission is theft of
    > someone else’s rights to publish and sell
    > copies.

    As I wrote above it is not theft. If you have some argument for why it would be then I’m all ears.

    > Theft of revenues,

    So writing bad reviews is theft, too, since they rob you of revenue? Hardly.

    > theft of intellectual property,

    What you’re trying to prove of course can’t logically be used as an argument itself.
    Besides, what is this mysterious “intellectual property”?

    > theft, larceny, robbery, piracy . . .

    Ah, more opportunities for equivocation. Just let go of the rhetorics and loaded words and explain what you mean using neutral words if you have such a big problem with equivocation.

    > Are you familiar with the phrase “The
    > pot calling the kettle black . . .”?

    Yes.

    > You are doing exactly the same thing
    > and calling me uncooperative?

    How so? I’m describing what and where your errors are, I’m giving arguments for my position and against yours. You are just disagreeing and saying I’m wrong, and you’re using straw-men and not answering my questions. Big difference.

    > Is “uncooperative” defined as not agreeing
    > with you in everything you say?

    Not at all, as should be clear if you read what I’ve written here. Uncooperative in this case means your unwillingness to answer questions, refute my claims, stop using cheap rhetorics and actually giving arguments for your claims.

    Now, let’s get back to the issue, and let’s both try to not use very loaded or ambiguous words.

    You have yet to provide a single argument for why copyright infringement should be considered similar to theft of physical property.

    I claim that they are different because in the case of “IP theft” the author is not directly deprived of anything, but in the other case the owner is deprived of the property that is stolen. This can be observed.

    I claim that copyright infringement can be made with physical object, too, and since it in those cases is quite clear that there is a difference between copying the object and taking the object, it follows that there should also be the same difference between taking an object and copying something intangible. The fact that intangible things can’t be taken does not change the nature of copying such things.

    I claim that intangible entities can’t be regarded as naturally property since they’re limitless. Property is based on scarcity* and such a thing does not exist with something that’s limitless. Only by applying artificial restrictions to something limitless can it be forced into a property-like mold, but that would become circular reasoning and thus can’t be objectively true or false.

    *There have been some tries to pervert Lockean property ownership to the intangible, but this has been thoroughly refuted.

  38. > > “If we would all just write in Lojban then
    > > we wouldn’t have this problem, but
    > > unfortunately English has good support
    > > for this kind of dishonesty. ”
    >
    > If you translate a book of mine into Lojban
    > without my permission you have stolen
    > my property.

    Why do you still apparently believe that stating something makes it so? Try to understand that it is utterly pointless to just keep repeating your point of view without providing any arguments.

  39. I said: “Why do you still apparently believe that stating something makes it so? Try to understand that it is utterly pointless to just keep repeating your point of view without providing any arguments. ”

    I hae to ask you why are you still apparently believing that stating something makes it so? Don’t you understand that when you keep repeating your point of view without providing any argument that it is [pointless?

    /INSERT picture of Bugs Bunny pointing and saying “What a Maroon!”/

    Intellectual Property is clearly defined in the English Language–so much so that it is a legal practice specialty.
    “intellectual property
    –noun Law. property that results from original creative thought, as patents, copyright material, and trademarks.
    Random House unabridged dictionary
    ————————————

    intellectual property
    n. A product of the intellect that has commercial value, including copyrighted property such as literary or artistic works, and ideational property, such as patents, appellations of origin, business methods, and industrial processes.

    American Heritage Dictionary
    ————————–

    noun
    intangible property that is the result of creativity (such as patents or trademarks or copyrights)

    WordNet at Princeton University
    ——————————–

    intellectual property legal
    (IP) The ownership of ideas and control over the tangible or virtual representation of those ideas. Use of another person’s intellectual property may or may not involve royalty payments or permission, but should always include proper credit to the source.
    (1997-03-27)

    The Free On-line Dictionary of Computing, © 1993-2007 Denis Howe

    By the way, a review is not an infringement of copyright as it does not use the text of the book in its entirety. Quotes from the text of a book used for review constitutes “fair use”.

    Do I have to define “fair use”?

    Regards,
    Scott

  40. > I said: “Why do you still apparently[…]

    That’s a flat out lie. It was clearly I who said (or rather wrote) that. More cooperation, less dishonesty, please.

    > I hae to ask you why are you still apparently
    > believing that stating something makes it so?
    > Don’t you understand that when you keep
    > repeating your point of view without providing
    > any argument that it is [pointless?

    What are you basing those questions’ implications on? If you think I’ve said something that needs arguments to back it up then be more specific, like I have been with you. Or is this just more of your pointless, pseudo-rhetorical arguing?

    > > > If you translate a book of mine into Lojban
    > > > without my permission you have stolen
    > > > my property.
    > >
    > > Why do you still apparently believe that
    > > stating something makes it so?
    >
    > Intellectual Property is clearly defined in[…]

    Those definitions are utterly irrelevant to whether translating a book without permission is or isn’t theft as the word is used regarding theft of physical property. The texts you quoted don’t even contain the word “theft”. Stop making straw-men out of everything I say. How about refuting the claims I made, or perhaps make any arguments yourself instead of just rambling pointlessly? Or if you had some point with the definitions then please explain it.

    > > > Theft of revenues,
    > >
    > > So writing bad reviews is theft, too, since
    > > they rob you of revenue? Hardly.
    >
    > a review is not an infringement of copyright
    > as it does not use the text of the book in its
    > entirety. Quotes from the text of a book
    > used for review constitutes “fair use”.

    It should be blindingly obvious that bad reviews causes revenue losses not by infringing on copyright but by making people buy less copies. There’s no reason for you to hijack the topic and try to turn it into something about fair use. Instead you could say if you think these revenue losses are theft or not, and if not then howcome “revenue losses” define what’s theft when it suits your agenda but not when it doesn’t.

    None of your quotes about “intellectual property” provide any arguments about why something intangible should be property or even how it could. Sure, you can define any term you want to have any meaning you want, but that doesn’t mean that that meaning is in any way related to the meaning of any homograph.

    If I define your goldfish as a “car”, then will you pay a car tax for it “because one must pay car taxes for cars and this goldfish is a car as per the previous definition”? Let’s say some pro-veihicle lobbying organisation makes governments define all pets as “cars”, and it gets inserted into the dictionaries. Does that mean that pets are by their nature cars? Or are they just forced into a “car mold” just so that certain organisations will get more money from pet owners? Will the pets then feed on gasoline instead of pet food because “cars work on gasoline and pets are cars”?

    I don’t mind very much to call some intangible things “intellectual property” as long as everyone involved understand that this “property” is not property by nature, but only by having it forced into a “property mold” so that various existing laws, customs and values can be easily be applied to it.

    You have still not provided any argument why copyright infringement should be considered similar to theft of physical property, and you have not refuted any of my 3 claims above. You have not even tried. It seems more and more likely that you have no arguments what so ever for your points of view and no counterarguments for my claims, and yet you won’t admint that you’re wrong. It seems you are not at all interested in the truth, only in preaching your own, seemingly unfounded, interpretations. This is highly counterproductive behavior in a debate or even in a discussion.

  41. “It should be blindingly obvious that bad reviews causes revenue losses not by infringing on copyright but by making people buy less copies. There’s no reason for you to hijack the topic and try to turn it into something about fair use. Instead you could say if you think these revenue losses are theft or not, and if not then howcome “revenue losses” define what’s theft when it suits your agenda but not when it doesn’t.”

    A review may or may not cause revenue loss but regardless it is not theft or infringement. Distributing copies of a book copyrighted without permission is direct theft of revenue, because you are taking ownership of copyright away from the author and the publisher.

    Hey, I encourage you to try the experiment with Steven King or J. K. Rowlands or someone with the clout to take you to court and pound you with lawyers and see how you do proving your point of view in a U. S., Canadian or UK court. Go ahead, make my day. Put some real balls behind it and charge money for your unauthorized copies, just to cover your ‘expenses’.

    You would be putting your money where your mouth is and upholding your interpretation of intellectual property limitations.

    You would also be thoroughly crushed by the courts.

    Regards,
    Scott

  42. Distributing copies of a book copyrighted without permission is direct theft of revenue

    No, it is not. If you think it is, please provide data from actual research.

    A review may or may not cause revenue loss but regardless it is not theft.

    According to your previous definition it is theft. If potential loss of revenue is not theft, then copyright infringement is not theft. Hey, how convenient it is then that your hallowed courts of law make a distinction between theft and copyright infringement…

    Anyway, I am glad to see that copyright is such a hot topic. I have always been a little hesitant to blog much about it here, since it seemed a little tangential to the digital library. Now I think I will be a subject for my entries at the Teleblog more often. Stay tuned.

  43. Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review. It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author’s work under a four-factor balancing test. It is based on free speech rights provided by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The term “fair use” is unique to the United States; a similar principle, fair dealing, exists in some other common law jurisdictions.

    From Wikipedia~ Please note that quoting here constitutes ‘fair use’ doctrine and is not an infringement of copyright

  44. Personally, I don’t care one way or another whether or not people view piracy of electronic works as theft or not. I can make the argument either way.

    But the claim was made that a book publishing business could not survive if legally enforceable monopoly rights to intellectual property expired in a year or two. But regardless of whether you think it is ethical or not, enforceable monopoly rights pretty much vanish the second you publish something these days (just look at how successful trademark and copyright law has been in preventing illegal electronic versions of the Harry Potter books from surfacing online).

    Business models for fiction, movies, music etc. which rely on the ability of publishers to enforce said monopoly rights are doomed. We’ve had an ongoing decade-long experiment on the ability of publishers to exclude illegal distribution channels; it has been an utter failure and everyday the options consumers have to circumvent legal distribution channels only increase.

  45. The point being raised was that copyright has been extended beyond reasonable limits for no good reason. Before the Bono law went into effect copyright was 26 years, extendable for a similar time frame. That seems more reasonable.

    Regards,
    Scott

  46. > Distributing copies of a book copyrighted
    > without permission is direct theft of
    > revenue,

    It most certainly is not “direct theft of revenue”.
    I once copied a CD from a friend. Nobody lost any revenue what so ever because of it. The one who sold me the blank CD got some revenue and I got some music, but nobody lost revenue or music, since I would never have bought that CD.
    This case in point completely refutes your claim as such, so either refute my rebuttal or don’t use the same claim again.

    > because you are taking ownership of
    > copyright away from the author and the
    > publisher.

    I have already shown that this ownership is not taken away from the author, and you have not refuted that. Understand that you can’t use that in an argument until you have provided a rebuttal for my rebuttal of it.

    Not only do you seem to think that you saying something makes it so, but you also seem to think that you ignoring something makes it not so. Why would you believe you are the one defining truth? Do you think you’re God?

    > I encourage you to try the experiment with
    > […] someone with the clout to take you to
    > court and pound you with lawyers and see
    > how you do proving your point of view in a
    > U. S., Canadian or UK court.

    Huh? Why on earth would anyone in court claim that “theft” in “IP theft” is closely related to the homograph in “car theft”? Certainly they would argue that it constitutes breaking the law, and they would be correct, and I fully agree.
    I think you are very, very confused.

    > Put some real balls behind it and charge
    > money for your unauthorized copies,
    > just to cover your ‘expenses’. […]
    > You would also be thoroughly crushed
    > by the courts.

    That has absolutely nothing to do what we’re debating here. Copyright infringement being illegal does not as such imply that it’s similar in nature to theft of physical property. If it did then it would follow that everything illegal (e.g. killing, trespassing, speeding, …) would be similar in nature to theft of physical property. I claim that the only think everything illegal have in common is being illegal.

    Stop making straw-man arguments!

    You have still not provided any arguments for why copyright infringement should be considered similar to theft of physical property, you have not refuted any of my claims and you have not refuted any of my counter-arguments to your claims.
    You’re not debating, or even discussing, you’re just trolling.

  47. > You have still not provided any arguments
    > for why copyright infringement should be
    > considered similar to theft of physical
    > property

    No, I think I’m wrong on that point. You have, namely your claims that there is no relevant difference between intangible property and tangible property. However, since you have not provided any arguments for it, while I have provided arguments against it, I’m not sure it counts as an argument. But even if it’s not valid is still might count, so, to be truthful, I’ll have to change my statement to “You have still not provided any founded arguments […]”.

  48. “2 a : something owned or possessed; specifically : a piece of real estate b : the exclusive right to possess, enjoy, and dispose of a thing : OWNERSHIP c : something to which a person or business has a legal title d : one (as a performer) who is under contract and whose work is especially valuable e : a book or script purchased for publication or production”

    A book or script IS a tangible property.

    Regards (fewer and fewer all the time),
    Scott

  49. > A book or script IS a tangible property.

    So???
    Do keep in mind that book is not “intellectual property”. The contents of it might be, though, but that’s information/data and thus intangible.

  50. A book or script e-pub or p-pub, novel anthology, TV or movie is indeed a tangible item. It isn’t a data record, it’s as tangible as a portrait, sculpture, Persian Rug, historical quilt, or a Beanie Baby for those of us old enough to remember them.

    Data records have no artistic value, no value at all except to those who own those files and those owners have a right to consider their data files proprietorial.

    If you have an idea or notion about a book or screenlay the IDEA is not a tangible property. Once the actual text begins to hit paper or be stored digitally under current law copyright is automatic and copyright is tangible property.

    Even if you don’t like to admit. I assume you are mostly a software designer or programmer who believes strongly in open code. It’s the creator’s right to make his code open or reserve it to himself or his company. The author of a book or a screenplay has the right to put his work in the public domain–but it’s his/her choice to do so.

    You would take that choice away for everyone.

    There I have argued against the basis of your whole argument–as I’ve been doing all along.

    Scott

  51. > A book or script e-pub or p-pub, novel
    > anthology, TV or movie is indeed a
    > tangible item.
    > […]
    > copyright is tangible property

    It seems we’re using different definitions of the word “tangible”.

    I’ve been using this definition:
    “1. capable of being touched; discernible by the touch; material or substantial.” (dictionary.com)

    Now, re-read my claims with this fact in mind and if you still disagree then please make a new argument for your claims or against mine.

    (I’m sorry for sometimes (or maybe even often) not getting all nuances of the English language. It’s not my first language, and not even my second, but my third, and I have not studied the language in great detail.)

    > Even if you don’t like to admit. I assume
    > you are mostly a software designer or
    > programmer who believes strongly in
    > open code.

    I don’t have a problem admitting what I am. However, what I do or don’t believe about source code is completely 100% irrelevant to whether “IP theft” is similar to “car theft” or not.

    > The author of a book or a screenplay
    > has the right to put his work in the public
    > domain–but it’s his/her choice to do so.
    > You would take that choice away for
    > everyone.

    That is utterly irrelevant to the current debate.
    Why on earth do you think “Although copyright infringement is illegal it’s not by nature similar to theft of material property.” implies “Copyright infringement should be legal.”?
    I’m not arguing against copyright now.

    For the mother of all that is holy, actually read to what I’m writing and STOP MAKING STRAW-MEN!

    > > tell which claim you are arguing for or against
    […]
    > There I have argued against the basis
    > of your whole argument

    Where? Against what argument? Be specific! And how about answering all the questions that I’ve asked and you just keep ignoring? You are being most uncooperative.

  52. Your definition is inadequate:
    “tan·gi·ble (tān’jə-bəl) Pronunciation Key
    adj.

    Discernible by the touch; palpable: a tangible roughness of the skin.
    Possible to touch.
    Possible to be treated as fact; real or concrete: tangible evidence.
    Possible to understand or realize: the tangible benefits of the plan.
    Law That can be valued monetarily: tangible property.

    n.
    Something palpable or concrete.
    tangibles Material assets. ”

    A book is palapable to the touch, placed on a disk it is palpabe as well.

    It is possible to understand the unique nature of the book, one can realize the story within one’s mind, put it to physical reality, submit a manuscript, edit, revise, re-write to the galley stage, and the corrected gallies can be made palapable and remain recognizable during the whole process.

    A manuscript, once it becomes a book under copyright law has monetary value–it’s called the purchase price.

    It meets all the necessary definitions and it is a tangible asset as well when used as a noun.

    Your whole argument as to it being intangible is ridiculous.

    No strawmen standing in the field here.

    But watch out, the tilled field of your argument is full of greenish brown pancakish object ranging from dessicated to soft and squishy, try not to step in them.

    Scott

  53. > Your definition is inadequate:
    > [irrelevant definitions]

    I can use whatever definition I want of any word I want, as long as everybody involved knows what is meant by it, which is why I explained precisely that! You can suggest I use a different word for what I mean, but you can not dictate what I mean by what I say!

    You insisting on keeping a term I’m using ambiguous when I try to remove ambiguity from what I try to communicate is one of the worst behaviors I’ve ever seen in a debate, and I’ve seen, heard, and even been part of, a great many. IMO it’s way, way worse than using ad hominem arguments or even personal insults.

    Why don’t you go to your library and get some books on debating and/or philosophy? Read some Plato, some Socrates.

    > A book is palapable to the touch
    > [irrelevant ramblings]
    > A manuscript, once it becomes a book
    > under copyright law has [a] purchase price.
    > It [I assume this “it” refers to “book”
    > and not to “purchase price”, but please
    > correct me if I’m wrong
    ] meets all the
    > necessary definitions and it is a tangible
    > asset as well when used as a noun.
    >
    > Your whole argument as to it being
    > intangible is ridiculous.

    Where have I claimed that a book or a manuscript is intangible? I have claimed no such thing. The only way you could possibly even begin to think that would be if you can’t see a difference between a book and the copyright of it. Is this the case?

    Considering you’ve said this
    > If you make a copy of it and give the
    > original book back to the owner, then
    > you have stolen the right of the author
    > to control the printing of that book.
    you seem to understand that it’s not the book that’s been stolen, but why then are you now talking about the book again? Your writings simply lack information that would make sense of them. I urge you to be more precise, include all relevant quotes and exclude everything irrelevant to the arguments being debated.

    It’s difficult for me to show you exactly where your errors are since you refuse to show what you are arguing for or against, even though I’ve asked you to.

    > No strawmen standing in the field here.

    I see only straw-men and irrelevant ramblings (mostly definitions and statements only vaguely related to the discussion).
    “Your whole argument as to [a book] being intangible is ridiculous.” is a prime example of one of your straw-men, as I’ve never argued for such a thing.

    You are obviously having great difficulty to form a train of thought, so please, please, please would you quote each relevant, and only the relevant, text needed to follow your train of thought? Please! E.g., in the straw-man above you should have quoted my argument for a book being intangible.

    > But watch out, the tilled field of […]

    Sorry, I did not get that at all. It looks highly irrelevant, and if so then leave it, but if it isn’t irrelevant then please explain more directly.

    Let’s try to make this debate actually go somewhere.

    Why don’t you start by quoting one of my claims from http://newteleread.com/wordpress/blog/?p=6327#comment-279557 and make a counter-argument, adding relevant quotes and excluding irrelevant text as needed by your counter-argument? Try to make this form a proof that stands on its own (i.e., that I don’t have to read any other post to understand what you mean), and preferably as short as possible, but not shorter.

  54. > I guess it’s pointless to continue this past
    > the point of nausea.

    So you feel nausea when you’ve been thoroughly refuted and have no valid arguments of your own? You shouldn’t. Why can’t you just admit it when you’re wrong. Are you one of those people who would rather drive around for hours, instead of asking for directions, and trying to convince yourself that you aren’t lost when it’s obvious to everyone else that you are?

    I’d be very interested to know why you’ve been fighting so hard against getting closer to the truth. And why have you consistently insisted on being so vague where it matters (and where I’ve asked you to be specific) and pointlessly specific where it doesn’t matter? And why have you refused to answer my questions (which have been tries to clear up things)?

    Is it because you really have no arguments supporting your point of view, but yet you feel (or want to believe) that it’s the correct one? Or is it just that you really, really want my point of view to be something that you do have arguments against, even though it isn’t? Or has all this just been some sick experiment to see how much I can take before I give up and declare you unable to understand anything?

    I would like to get answers to these questions, too (in addition to all my earlier ones), but since you seem to refuse to answer any questions (lest we might get somewhere?), I won’t have my hopes up. Do prove me wrong, though.

    And by the way, in which country did you spend the first 18 years of your life?

The TeleRead community values your civil and thoughtful comments. We use a cache, so expect a delay. Problems? E-mail newteleread@gmail.com.