“You can create social behavior if you create sanctions against [theft],” he said. “If the Chinese government said that you’d get 10 years in prison for [bootlegs], all the video shops in Shanghai would close.”

Echos of Mao, who got rid of the heroin addicts in Shanghai by simply killing them, since he made any herion offense punishable by death.

Why would you expect those who are victims of such an outrageous regime not to, in turn, escalate their rhetoric against IP rights, perhaps responding even with violence to those who have advocated and created a regime that would throw people in jail? Even the RIAA has realized that suing its potential customers IS NOT a route back to profitability for it members. Since the RIAA has begun their ill-considered caimpaign of legal terrorism against grandmothers, I have not and will not buy their products.

Taking an extreme position does not increase the likelihood that some reasonable middle ground will develop.

Also, again you are conflating free culture with theft. They are not the same.

Those who advocate GPL software are not for theft of any kind. Indeed the GPL itself rests on copyright and could not exist in a legal environment which did not recognize copyright.

No responsible advocate free culture has advocated theft from IP owners.

Enigma,

My point about theft above was that piracy should not be sugar-coated with things like sharing or free culture. I'm not equating the free culture movement with theft, but saying that under the moniker of free culture, piracy (and unauthorized use) often finds many euphemisms.

Noel, let's be honest. Exactly how are you not equating the free culture movement with theft? More insidiously you are equating "unauthorized use" with theft. Under even the most conservative reading of copyright law, there are plenty of legal uses that are not authorized by the copyright owner. Your use of "unauthorized" suggests that all uses require permission from the copyright owner, and that just ain't true. If by unauthorized you mean illegal, then why not just say illegal?

Also, how can it be immoral to engage in conduct governed by a law so convoluted that even the best copyright lawyers and judges in the world can't agree on what's legal? Some things we can all agree are infringement, but what about a radio that can record individual songs from a broadcast? What about a garage door opener that works with other manufacturers' doors - is that immoral? Is it immoral to use just a little too much of a song while parodying it, or to reuse three notes of a song? Do you put these all under "piracy" and therefore immorality?

Mr. Gordon, by "piracy" I referred to your garden variety illegal copying and distribution, by "unauthorized" I referred to activity with copyrighted works outside piracy that is still illegal (many of these cases have some claim to fair use). I probably could have simply said "illegal," but it would seem funny to use one specific terms like "piracy" and then one more general term like "illegal" which would encompass it.

You raise several ambiguous issues about fair use, which have also been brought under the DMCA. I think there is still a class of activity thats unauthorized, and would not fall under fair use. Look at YouTube and Viacom.

"No responsible advocate free culture has advocated theft from IP owners."

enigma, you just posted on my Growing Threat post, after about a dozen authors posted bemoaning this site that lets people download books without compensating the author, that you were glad the service existed. You rationalized the theft by saying (1) it might prod publishers to move more aggressively online, (2) you knew better than the publishing industry what a fair price was for a digital book, about 50 cents, and (3) you don't like the quality of physical books today. You could throw in any other rationalization, such as (4) the quality of today's writing sucks, (5) you wish Fabio appeared on more book jackets, and (6) there should really be more books about open-source software, but at the end of the day, none of those rationalizations excuse the fact that author's works are being made available for download without their authorization and without their consent. So it seems to me you just did advocate theft from IP owners.

John, I'd think you'd have to agree that the downloading of entire books going on at eSnips is both unauthorized and theft. I hope that's one on which "we can all agree."

Patrick: yes. My issue is with Noel's terminology.

Noel: If a use has a legitimate claim to "fair use" then it is not "still illegal." If it's not illegal, presumably it is not immoral. And if it's not immoral, than why does it trouble you that it "finds many euphemisms" or that it has been "sugar-coated?" Your terminology suggests that you believe that fair uses (anything in the grey area you call "unauthorized") are immoral.

Is it immoral to engage in a fair use that has never been analyzed by a court?

Looking back at what I wrote, I should have said "piracy" and "infringement." Piracy would entail illegal copying and distribution of copyrighted works. Infringement entails unauthorized use of copyrighted works, whether the characteristic of "unauthorized" results from blatent infringement or use not protected by the fair use doctrine. Both "piracy" and "infringement" can be considered, in most cases, theft, stealing, resulting in loss revenue and therefore immoral.

Activity that *may* fall under fair use is not necessarily immoral or moral. I never said it is. What I did say is that some claims of fair use seem to misinterpret fair use; such as by assuming that the most convenient means of making fair use, or fair use itself, is guaranteed.

Patrick Ross said above:

"enigma, you just posted on my Growing Threat post, after about a dozen authors posted bemoaning this site that lets people download books without compensating the author, that you were glad the service existed."

No. I said that I was glad that it had happeneed because of some of the salutary effects that may occur as a result of this phenomena. I do believe that it is wrong to upload copyrighted works in their entirety.

One could observe, for example, that as a result of a minor traffic accident, some people may become less inclined to speed. That doesn't mean the accident itself was good, just that I have observed that it may have good effects. As usual, you are reading into my comments abit.

In the same way, allofmp3.com may lead to downloads of DRM-less mp3 files by the major labels.

So the legal and grey market and black market economics interact in very interesting ways, which I had observed when I studied in Poland back in the 1980's.

Unfortunately, instead of rationally commenting and observing on the way these markets interact, there is pontification and hysteria, here.

The bottom line, re eSnips, though, is that the effects on book purchases will be microscopic, as a download is NOT a book. (Big difference)

***The bottom line, re eSnips, though, is that the effects on book purchases will be microscopic, as a download is NOT a book. (Big difference)***

Wow, I gotta hand it to you Enigma. After all that discussion, you say something like this.

No, an illegal download is not a book, but it can displace sales of a book or a legitimate download that would return some payment to the author.

"...it may have good effects. ... In the same way, allofmp3.com may lead to downloads of DRM-less mp3 files by the major labels."

Sorry, but abiding the infringement that takes place on AllOfMp3 and eSnips because it "may have good effects" is akin to endorsing extortion.

I'm sure that by blackmailing the proprietor of my neighborhood grocery I could force a better and cheaper beer selection, sold in bottles rather than cans. But that doesn't mean you or society should just shrug and live with it.

'Sorry, but abiding the infringement that takes place on AllOfMp3 and eSnips because it "may have good effects" is akin to endorsing extortion.'

Which is why I don't 'abide' it! However, I don't lose all of my rational faculties when something happens that I don't agree with.

Noel, agian you misquote me. You say:

"No, an illegal download is not a book, but it can displace sales of a book or a legitimate download that would return some payment to the author."

When what i actuallly said was: "a download is not a book." I was drawing everyone's attention to the fact that downloads on books are of much less utility then a download of song. So downloads of books are much less likely to create an economic argument for heavy-handed laws such as the DMCA...