Now I'll argue the opposite of what I posted the other day :) While I
am largely sympathetic to what Bill posts here, the counter argument for
the originators of creative works is that by unauthorized use of our
work, the theft is in the loss of earnings from a potential sale of said
work.
For example, I should get a royalty every time someone buys a new copy
of my first book, "Upheaval from the Abyss." (I get nothing from
resales, however). If someone uploads a pdf of the work for all to
download -- I get no royalty. Everyone who would download that copy for
free would be doing the same thing as someone who grabs a box of cigars
and runs out of the store without paying.
For authors in particular, such "theft" of individual copies may also
hurt an author's chances to get future book contracts, as a prospective
publisher would say, "Well, your last book didn't sell so well." In
that case, the loss of income is compounded.
As for journal articles, I have little sympathy for commercial
publishers who charge dozens of dollars for individual copies of the
work. They force the creative agents -- those of us who do the research
-- to sign over copyright prior to publication. Such contracts are
coercive and should be fought.
The publishers can protect most of their commercial interests by
allowing us -- the creators -- to retain copyright in exchange for us
assigning them non-exclusive uses in print, electronic databases, etc.,
in perpetuity.
They could also request clauses that prohibit publication of the
identical work elsewhere, which I think is fair -- as long as they
allows re-use of graphics by the creators, a right I feel is important
for us to retain.
My guess is that such contracts will allow the commercial guys to
continue to make boatloads of money, while removing any impediment to
our ability to use, and share, our work. (Frankly, I doubt they get a
significant income from single-copy sales -- most of their money has to
come from institutional subscriptions.)
Most of these battles over rights would likely have to be fought on the
scientific society side, as I doubt an individual researcher's complaint
would carry much weight.
Dave
William Silvert wrote:
Jane's posting brings two thoughts to mind. First, there are scientists
who feel that you have no right to use their published results without
their permission. On one occasion I even had a colleague within DFO
lodge a formal internal protest because I used his data from an
international journal in a paper of my own (fully attributed of course).
The complaint was of course dismissed, and the idea that one could not
publish a paper refuting someone else's work without their permission is
absurd.
The other has to do with the idea of copying as stealing. Copyright
owners believe that they have absolute control over their intellectual
property, and legally this is pretty much the case, but this is not
widely respected. Some restrictions, such as that of someone who decided
that his software could only be used by white christian gentlemen,
probably would not stand up in court. But others, that restrict access
even though there is no loss to the copyright holder, are not widely
seen as reasonable and are therefore not respected - this accounts for a
fair share of what legally is piracy. Examples include the widespread
copying of old material that is no longer for sale, such as old computer
games like Pong and discontinued recordings, those in "cut-out limbo".
Recent extension of the copyright term has made this situation worse.
Other practices, such as that of Hollywood studios which buy up the
rights to classic movies and suppress them so that they can turn them
into corny blockbusters, are really abusive to the whole concept of
creativity which copyright is supposed to protect. (For example, a major
studio bought up the entire Marcel Pagnol trilogy and pulled it from the
screens so that they could make their own version of "Fanny".)
The distorted publicity given to some cases of copyright violation has
further weakened the posture of copyright holders. Why do software
companies go after teen-age kids with shelves full of cracks of
protected software and not after the businessmen who who run whole
typing pools on a single pirated copy of an office suite? Do they really
think that if the kids were not pirates they would pay the millions of
dollars that they claim as theft losses?
So I think that what it boils down to is that although copyright law
grants all kinds of legal protection, the guideline that most of us
follow is the one that Jane puts forward, copying is really considered
theft only when there is an actual loss involved - money, prestige, etc.
Copying a CD or DVD instead of buying it is theft, but if a CD is not
available for sale, why enforce the copyright? If a grad student uses
your photo in a presentation and doesn't pay you for it, what have you
lost (unless the student might really be willing and able to pay for it)?
I should however add that there are a lot of photos relevant to ecology
that really are commercial. Aside from those taken by professionals,
which are often sold to publications like National Geographic, I have
discovered that very few photos of gelatinous cnidarians are available
for free. I recently searched the ASLO website for photos of ctenophores
and siphonophores and found almost none. A colleague explained to me
that most of the photos are taken commercially and are only for sale,
which is perhaps not surprising given the work involved - also of course
photos are often the primary data in studies of these animals.
I respect the rights of those who expect to profit from their work and
who lose out when their photos or other materials are copied or stolen.
But if there is no real loss involved, I am not very sympathetic, and I
also think that when a copy is properly acknowledged, they benefit even
if they did not give prior authorisation.
Bill Silvert
----- Original Message ----- From: "Jane Shevtsov" <jane....@gmail.com>
To: <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 2:11 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] stealing from websites
Jim,
Please note that what follows is meant mainly as a general discussion
of intellectual property, not of your particular case.
"Why would you think that you can use my hard work without asking?"
For the same reason you can cite or quote a paper of mine without
asking -- even if you're using it to make a case I strongly disagree
with. (That case is not directly analogous, as you wouldn't be copying
the entire paper, but then if I use a photo of yours in a
presentation, it'll only be on screen for 30 seconds or so.) Moreover,
you can make copies of my paper and give them to students or
colleagues without my permission. They can read the paper or use it to
line the birdcage. If I'm sending you, say, a prepublication copy as a
favor, I can ask you not to redistribute it, but once it's published,
it's out of my hands.
I am honestly intrigued by how people come to think of copying as
stealing. If I walk into your house and steal your TV, you no longer
have a TV. If I use a photo from your website and credit you, what
have you lost? Now, the situation is different if you are a
professional photographer and rely on photography to make money. Then
the problem becomes truly difficult -- and beyond the scope of ECOLOG!
(But keep in mind that hardly anyone is going to pay for a photo for a
presentation. If it's not free, I'm just not going to use it.)
Don't worry -- I'm not actually going to use anything from your
website. You can set whatever conditions you want and, morally and
legally, I have to abide by them. But this line of discussion is
closely related to that about access to the scientific literature.
BTW, why do you set such restrictive conditions on who can use your
photos?
Best,
Jane
--
------------------------------------------------------
David M. Lawrence | Home: (804) 559-9786
7471 Brook Way Court | Fax: (804) 559-9787
Mechanicsville, VA 23111 | Email: d...@fuzzo.com
USA | http: http://fuzzo.com
------------------------------------------------------
"We have met the enemy and he is us." -- Pogo
"No trespassing
4/17 of a haiku" -- Richard Brautigan
