5 ms·

I love this argument so much. "But judge, there's no way I could ever afford to buy those jewels, so stealing them must be OK."

by dmd 1y ago

AnthonyMouse 1y ago
The argument is more along the lines of, negotiating with millions of individuals each over a single copy of a work would cause the transaction costs to exceed the payments, and that kind of efficiency loss is the sort of thing fair use exists to prevent. It's not socially beneficial for the law to require you to create $2 in deadweight loss in order to transfer $1, and the cost to the author of not selling a single additional copy is not the thing they were really objecting to.
- exe34 1y ago
  That's right, so I can't individually discuss terms with each and every media creator, so from now on, I can just pirate everything.
  - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
    Needing a copy of one book you're going to spend a week reading has a lot less overhead than needing a copy of every book that you're going to process with a computer in bulk.
    - recursive 1y ago
      I like to glance at the cover art. I can do ten per second when I really get into my flow state. Sometimes I read them also, but that's incidental.
      - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
        If you go to the book store and glance at all the cover art without buying any of them, do you expect to be sued for this?
        freejazz 1y ago
        If you do that and reproduce the covers or the protected elements thereof, you should absolutely expect to be sued.
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
        AnthonyMouse 1y ago
        So for example, if the bookstore has a nice 4k surveillance camera and you have access to it because you work there, sitting at home and using it to look at the cover art on all the books on display is something you'd expect to be sued over?
        freejazz 1y ago
        Re-read my comment: "If you do that and reproduce the covers or the protected elements thereof" This conversation becomes incredibly unenjoyable when you pull rhetorical techniques like completely ignoring the entirety of what I wrote.
        johnnyanmac 1y ago
        Probably not sued, but it's possible Le to be. They'd probably just fire you instead. Having access to a camera doesn't permit you to take the footage home to review.The company still owns that footage, after all. Now, if you had your own camera recording everything at your desk... I guess that falls into one or two party states.
  - Aeolun 1y ago
    This is literally why a lot of people pirate content, yes. It’s pretty much always the only way to obtain the content, even if you are otherwise fine with paying for it.
    - johnnyanmac 1y ago
      Yes, and it's technically copyright infringement, even for private use. It's just that damages and enforcement is in feasible. But if you tried to open a black market selling that media: you'd be hunted down to the ends of the earth. Or to China/North Korea, at least.
      - Aeolun 1y ago
        > But if you tried to open a black market selling that media Why would you ever do that? Nobody would buy it. They'd just get it in the same place you did.
        bombcar 1y ago
        You’d be surprised, almost any flea market/swap meet will still have bootleg DVDs and “PlayStation 2s” preloaded with a billion games. Everyone can out a disk in a DVD player; sailing the high seas is much trickier.
        johnnyanmac 1y ago
        Undercut the competition, mainly. People will do a lot of things for a decent discount.
- freejazz 1y ago
  > and that kind of efficiency loss is the sort of thing fair use exists to prevent. No it's not. And you ever heard of a publishing house? They don't need to negotiate with every single author individually. That's preposterous.
  - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
    It kind of is though? It's not the only reason fair use exists, but it's the thing that allows e.g. search engines to exist, and that seems pretty important. > And you ever heard of a publishing house? They don't need to negotiate with every single author individually. That's preposterous. There are thousands of publishing houses and millions of self-published authors on top of that. Many books are also out of print or have unclear rights ownership.
    - freejazz 1y ago
      >It kind of is though? No, it kinda isn't. Show me anything that supports this idea beyond your own immediate conjecture right now. >It's not the only reason fair use exists, but it's the thing that allows e.g. search engines to exist, and that seems pretty important. No, that's the transformative element of what a search engine provides. Search engines are not legal because they can't contact each licensor, they are legal because they are considered hugely transformative features. >There are thousands of publishing houses and millions of self-published authors on top of that. Many books are also out of print or have unclear rights ownership. Okay, and? How many customers does Microsoft bill on a monthly basis?
      - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
        > Show me anything that supports this idea beyond your own immediate conjecture right now It's inherent in the nature of the test. The most important fair use factor is the effect on the market for the work, so if the use would be uneconomical without fair use then the effect on the market is negligible because the alternative would be that the use doesn't happen rather than that the author gets paid for it. > No, that's the transformative element of what a search engine provides. Search engines are not legal because they can't contact each licensor, they are legal because they are considered hugely transformative features. To make a search engine you have to do two things. One is to download a copy of the whole internet, the other is to create a search index. I'm talking about the first one, you're talking about the second one. > Okay, and? How many customers does Microsoft bill on a monthly basis? Microsoft does this with an automated system. There is no single automated system where you can get every book ever written, and separately interfacing with all of the many systems needed in order to do it is the source of the overhead.
- throwawayffffas 1y ago
  I don't even think their argument is about the money, I think it's more like we couldn't possibly find all these works in any other practical way.
- johnnyanmac 1y ago
  They can. That's how any media service from Spotify to Netflix to Audible have to do things. They simply don't want to and think they can skirt the law while the judges catch up.
- homebrewer 1y ago
  I used to order books in English from the US before shipping costs became prohibitive and the cost of shipping the book went to about twice to thrice the cost of the book itself. Is it fair use for me to download books from Anna's Archive now considering that books in English are not available in my region through other means (including the vast majority of ebooks)? Rhetorical question, we all know that me reading books is not "transformative" so it won't be considered fair use for me to yoink them (transformative as in transforming more damage to the society at large into more money for the already rich).
  - bombcar 1y ago
    What’s more interesting to me is if you can hire someone in the US to buy the book for you, cut the spine off with a bandsaw, and send you the scans and destroy the pages afterwards.
  - HelloImSteven 1y ago
    In the U.S. at least (obviously not the same everywhere), fair use doesn’t necessarily require your work to be transformative. It’s one of several aspects that gets considered, albeit a fairly significant one in many cases. Downloading books/research articles/pirated works in general wouldn’t be fair use as the purpose of the act (obtaining a book to read) directly impacts the market for the work (selling books). There could still exceptions in some cases, mostly related to teaching I’d imagine.
- kelnos 1y ago
  What do you mean by "negotiating"? They can buy the books in paperback form from Amazon. And for e-books available for sale without DRM, they get to skip the cutting and scanning part. If the book is out of print, then tough luck. That's not a license to infringe on the publisher's copyright. If we're not ok with that, we have legislative means to change that. A judge shouldn't be rewriting law in that manner.

I love this argument so much. "But judge, there's no way I could ever afford to buy those jewels, so stealing them must be OK."

by dmd 1y ago

I love this argument so much. "But judge, there's no way I could ever afford to buy those jewels, so stealing them must be OK."

AnthonyMouse 1y ago

The argument is more along the lines of, negotiating with millions of individuals each over a single copy of a work would cause the transaction costs to exceed the payments, and that kind of efficiency loss is the sort of thing fair use exists to prevent. It's not socially beneficial for the law to require you to create $2 in deadweight loss in order to transfer $1, and the cost to the author of not selling a single additional copy is not the thing they were really objecting to.

exe34 1y ago
That's right, so I can't individually discuss terms with each and every media creator, so from now on, I can just pirate everything.
- AnthonyMouse 1y ago
  Needing a copy of one book you're going to spend a week reading has a lot less overhead than needing a copy of every book that you're going to process with a computer in bulk.
  - recursive 1y ago
    I like to glance at the cover art. I can do ten per second when I really get into my flow state. Sometimes I read them also, but that's incidental.
    - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
      If you go to the book store and glance at all the cover art without buying any of them, do you expect to be sued for this?
      - freejazz 1y ago
        If you do that and reproduce the covers or the protected elements thereof, you should absolutely expect to be sued.
        deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]
        AnthonyMouse 1y ago
        So for example, if the bookstore has a nice 4k surveillance camera and you have access to it because you work there, sitting at home and using it to look at the cover art on all the books on display is something you'd expect to be sued over?
        freejazz 1y ago
        Re-read my comment: "If you do that and reproduce the covers or the protected elements thereof" This conversation becomes incredibly unenjoyable when you pull rhetorical techniques like completely ignoring the entirety of what I wrote.
        johnnyanmac 1y ago
        Probably not sued, but it's possible Le to be. They'd probably just fire you instead. Having access to a camera doesn't permit you to take the footage home to review.The company still owns that footage, after all. Now, if you had your own camera recording everything at your desk... I guess that falls into one or two party states.
- Aeolun 1y ago
  This is literally why a lot of people pirate content, yes. It’s pretty much always the only way to obtain the content, even if you are otherwise fine with paying for it.
  - johnnyanmac 1y ago
    Yes, and it's technically copyright infringement, even for private use. It's just that damages and enforcement is in feasible. But if you tried to open a black market selling that media: you'd be hunted down to the ends of the earth. Or to China/North Korea, at least.
    - Aeolun 1y ago
      > But if you tried to open a black market selling that media Why would you ever do that? Nobody would buy it. They'd just get it in the same place you did.
      - bombcar 1y ago
        You’d be surprised, almost any flea market/swap meet will still have bootleg DVDs and “PlayStation 2s” preloaded with a billion games. Everyone can out a disk in a DVD player; sailing the high seas is much trickier.
      - johnnyanmac 1y ago
        Undercut the competition, mainly. People will do a lot of things for a decent discount.
freejazz 1y ago
> and that kind of efficiency loss is the sort of thing fair use exists to prevent. No it's not. And you ever heard of a publishing house? They don't need to negotiate with every single author individually. That's preposterous.
- AnthonyMouse 1y ago
  It kind of is though? It's not the only reason fair use exists, but it's the thing that allows e.g. search engines to exist, and that seems pretty important. > And you ever heard of a publishing house? They don't need to negotiate with every single author individually. That's preposterous. There are thousands of publishing houses and millions of self-published authors on top of that. Many books are also out of print or have unclear rights ownership.
  - freejazz 1y ago
    >It kind of is though? No, it kinda isn't. Show me anything that supports this idea beyond your own immediate conjecture right now. >It's not the only reason fair use exists, but it's the thing that allows e.g. search engines to exist, and that seems pretty important. No, that's the transformative element of what a search engine provides. Search engines are not legal because they can't contact each licensor, they are legal because they are considered hugely transformative features. >There are thousands of publishing houses and millions of self-published authors on top of that. Many books are also out of print or have unclear rights ownership. Okay, and? How many customers does Microsoft bill on a monthly basis?
    - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
      > Show me anything that supports this idea beyond your own immediate conjecture right now It's inherent in the nature of the test. The most important fair use factor is the effect on the market for the work, so if the use would be uneconomical without fair use then the effect on the market is negligible because the alternative would be that the use doesn't happen rather than that the author gets paid for it. > No, that's the transformative element of what a search engine provides. Search engines are not legal because they can't contact each licensor, they are legal because they are considered hugely transformative features. To make a search engine you have to do two things. One is to download a copy of the whole internet, the other is to create a search index. I'm talking about the first one, you're talking about the second one. > Okay, and? How many customers does Microsoft bill on a monthly basis? Microsoft does this with an automated system. There is no single automated system where you can get every book ever written, and separately interfacing with all of the many systems needed in order to do it is the source of the overhead.
throwawayffffas 1y ago
I don't even think their argument is about the money, I think it's more like we couldn't possibly find all these works in any other practical way.
johnnyanmac 1y ago
They can. That's how any media service from Spotify to Netflix to Audible have to do things. They simply don't want to and think they can skirt the law while the judges catch up.
homebrewer 1y ago
I used to order books in English from the US before shipping costs became prohibitive and the cost of shipping the book went to about twice to thrice the cost of the book itself. Is it fair use for me to download books from Anna's Archive now considering that books in English are not available in my region through other means (including the vast majority of ebooks)? Rhetorical question, we all know that me reading books is not "transformative" so it won't be considered fair use for me to yoink them (transformative as in transforming more damage to the society at large into more money for the already rich).
- bombcar 1y ago
  What’s more interesting to me is if you can hire someone in the US to buy the book for you, cut the spine off with a bandsaw, and send you the scans and destroy the pages afterwards.
- HelloImSteven 1y ago
  In the U.S. at least (obviously not the same everywhere), fair use doesn’t necessarily require your work to be transformative. It’s one of several aspects that gets considered, albeit a fairly significant one in many cases. Downloading books/research articles/pirated works in general wouldn’t be fair use as the purpose of the act (obtaining a book to read) directly impacts the market for the work (selling books). There could still exceptions in some cases, mostly related to teaching I’d imagine.
kelnos 1y ago
What do you mean by "negotiating"? They can buy the books in paperback form from Amazon. And for e-books available for sale without DRM, they get to skip the cutting and scanning part. If the book is out of print, then tough luck. That's not a license to infringe on the publisher's copyright. If we're not ok with that, we have legislative means to change that. A judge shouldn't be rewriting law in that manner.