Hi Dave, Some authors and musicians have experimented with free electronic releases of their work and it didn't seem to interfere with sales. The experiences of reading a PDF and a physical book are very different.
Jane On Thu, May 14, 2009 at 2:25 PM, David M. Lawrence <d...@fuzzo.com> wrote: > 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 > -- ------------- Jane Shevtsov Ecology Ph.D. candidate, University of Georgia co-founder, <www.worldbeyondborders.org> Check out my blog, <http://perceivingwholes.blogspot.com>Perceiving Wholes "Political power comes out of the look in people's eyes." --Kim Stanley Robinson, _Blue Mars_
