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
