photocopying textbooks?
April 26, 2011 9:17 AM Subscribe
I have been asked to explain to a group of college students the consequences of copyright violation. Specifically, the consequences of photocopying entire textbooks instead of buying them. I know it's illegal because it deprives the publisher of the opportunity to make money off of the book, but what are the legal consequences? Do publishers really ever sue individual college students over illegal photocopying of their books?
I want to be able to tell the students the consequences of breaking the law in this manner, but frankly, all I can think to say is "the publisher COULD sue you, IF the publisher somehow found out about what you did." But, really, that certainly wouldn't scare me straight, and I doubt it would scare a group of broke college students who are tired of paying $150 apiece for books in their general elective courses.
The school is seeing cases in which each student in the class will chip in for the cost of one book. So, thirty students buy one book at $150, each paying $5. Then, one of the students takes the book to a friend's print shop, where they slice off the binding and feed it through a copy machine and make 30 copies, one for each student in the class.
This college has no policy about copyright, so I can only show the students the federal copyright law, and explain to them that this is illegal and is not fair use of a copyrighted work. But I remain at a loss about what to tell them the consequences are, other than there is an extremely slim chance they might get sued.
Are any of you familiar with any cases of publishers suing individual students for this type of copyright violation, perhaps similar to students being sued on college campuses for illegal music downloading? I can find instances in which copy shops were sued for doing mass reproduction of textbooks, but not individual students.
Also, my personal opinion on the matter is that we at the school have no authority to bust these students, all we can do is help them understand the law, and they are responsible for themselves. But, the school wants to show that we have been responsible about informing the students (and probably wants to gain some more sales in the bookstore), and therefore want me to present the "consequences."
Any thoughts or advice would be appreciated.
I want to be able to tell the students the consequences of breaking the law in this manner, but frankly, all I can think to say is "the publisher COULD sue you, IF the publisher somehow found out about what you did." But, really, that certainly wouldn't scare me straight, and I doubt it would scare a group of broke college students who are tired of paying $150 apiece for books in their general elective courses.
The school is seeing cases in which each student in the class will chip in for the cost of one book. So, thirty students buy one book at $150, each paying $5. Then, one of the students takes the book to a friend's print shop, where they slice off the binding and feed it through a copy machine and make 30 copies, one for each student in the class.
This college has no policy about copyright, so I can only show the students the federal copyright law, and explain to them that this is illegal and is not fair use of a copyrighted work. But I remain at a loss about what to tell them the consequences are, other than there is an extremely slim chance they might get sued.
Are any of you familiar with any cases of publishers suing individual students for this type of copyright violation, perhaps similar to students being sued on college campuses for illegal music downloading? I can find instances in which copy shops were sued for doing mass reproduction of textbooks, but not individual students.
Also, my personal opinion on the matter is that we at the school have no authority to bust these students, all we can do is help them understand the law, and they are responsible for themselves. But, the school wants to show that we have been responsible about informing the students (and probably wants to gain some more sales in the bookstore), and therefore want me to present the "consequences."
Any thoughts or advice would be appreciated.
As someone who has been on the end of students mass uploading my company's content to the internets, the answer is no, we don't take action. We demand swift removal and put pressure on the institution to talk to the student.
Corporately, a couple of companies in our area have been caught with their pants down violating other companies' copyright. That is expensive. Really expensive.
If we found it was systematic within one institution, that might be a different scenario. If the college was at fault in any way we'd probably just stop doing business with them. This would be a tiny bit painful for us but actually quite tedious for the many students that use us heavily.
In short, some arguments:
- It's a crappy, and potentially expensive habit to get into if you don't stop doing it before you enter the workplace. We dismiss people instantly if we find them abusing someone else's copyright.
- Publishers know their stuff get ripped off. There is a reason why a lot of academic publications are not getting cheaper as publishers try to make their margins from legit customers.
- Ask how many of your students plan to go into media. Or a business that depends on media. For those that raise their hands, you can tell them that one of the other things publishers do when margins are tight is outsource or simply pay less. Both are happening.
posted by MuffinMan at 9:38 AM on April 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
Corporately, a couple of companies in our area have been caught with their pants down violating other companies' copyright. That is expensive. Really expensive.
If we found it was systematic within one institution, that might be a different scenario. If the college was at fault in any way we'd probably just stop doing business with them. This would be a tiny bit painful for us but actually quite tedious for the many students that use us heavily.
In short, some arguments:
- It's a crappy, and potentially expensive habit to get into if you don't stop doing it before you enter the workplace. We dismiss people instantly if we find them abusing someone else's copyright.
- Publishers know their stuff get ripped off. There is a reason why a lot of academic publications are not getting cheaper as publishers try to make their margins from legit customers.
- Ask how many of your students plan to go into media. Or a business that depends on media. For those that raise their hands, you can tell them that one of the other things publishers do when margins are tight is outsource or simply pay less. Both are happening.
posted by MuffinMan at 9:38 AM on April 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
"Willful" copyright infringement for commercial gain can also result in criminal penalties, including imprisonment of up to five years and fines of up to $250,000 per offense. (Department of Justice pdf Link)
posted by pardonyou? at 9:41 AM on April 26, 2011
posted by pardonyou? at 9:41 AM on April 26, 2011
I think valkyryn is right. I've never heard of an individual student being sued by publishers, just copy shops and bookstores. Googling a bit has revealed nothing.
I teach a section on copyright in my cyberethics class, and this exact scenario has come up. Unfortunately, college students tend to be moral consequentialists with this issue--while they might admit that it's "technically" wrong, they don't think (probably correctly as valkyryn points out) that they're likely to get caught, so the benefits for them outweigh the possible costs.
So yeah, you can present them with the kinds of fines they might be faced with if they are caught and sued, but that's about the extent, since there is not an easy way for publishers to track this. All your university can do is inform students of the law and tell them they will be held responsible for their own actions.
posted by DiscourseMarker at 9:42 AM on April 26, 2011
I teach a section on copyright in my cyberethics class, and this exact scenario has come up. Unfortunately, college students tend to be moral consequentialists with this issue--while they might admit that it's "technically" wrong, they don't think (probably correctly as valkyryn points out) that they're likely to get caught, so the benefits for them outweigh the possible costs.
So yeah, you can present them with the kinds of fines they might be faced with if they are caught and sued, but that's about the extent, since there is not an easy way for publishers to track this. All your university can do is inform students of the law and tell them they will be held responsible for their own actions.
posted by DiscourseMarker at 9:42 AM on April 26, 2011
I have to disclose in advance that I did this at some point during my education
I do think that one thing that you could do is get students to understand that someone put effort into creating the content, and you may be taking away from what these people did in terms of profit from his or her work (and although textbooks cost a lot, the amount you get paid is chicken scratch). I think that the only thing that this is the only thing that would have made me feel responsible about not doing this versus some sort of consequence. Maybe you could even find an author to speak about this to them (so maybe they would associate that this does affect real people if they see a face). I also don’t think that they would realize that creating that content requires teams of people – the writer, the factcheckers, editors, creating any sort of supplemental material, etc.
I am going to give a completely different suggestion, though. Why not have the students explain how much this is hurting or hard for them to pay for and they can work with faculty or committees to recommend finding cheaper alternatives (suggest it, not required). To be honest, if it was a nonmajor course (elective), I always found science articles (e.g. NY Times, Scientific American, or basic journal articles that everyone had access to and selected those as material for the students to read. Or, I told students that a textbook may be helpful but was not required (the material was presented in class). I do think an effort should be made to also appreciate that if students need 5 textbooks at a couple hundred bucks a pop, and they are rarely used to supplement the material – why do this to them? I think that if they felt that if they felt someone was making this effort and only a few books were absolutely required, this may be easier for them.
posted by Wolfster at 9:45 AM on April 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
I do think that one thing that you could do is get students to understand that someone put effort into creating the content, and you may be taking away from what these people did in terms of profit from his or her work (and although textbooks cost a lot, the amount you get paid is chicken scratch). I think that the only thing that this is the only thing that would have made me feel responsible about not doing this versus some sort of consequence. Maybe you could even find an author to speak about this to them (so maybe they would associate that this does affect real people if they see a face). I also don’t think that they would realize that creating that content requires teams of people – the writer, the factcheckers, editors, creating any sort of supplemental material, etc.
I am going to give a completely different suggestion, though. Why not have the students explain how much this is hurting or hard for them to pay for and they can work with faculty or committees to recommend finding cheaper alternatives (suggest it, not required). To be honest, if it was a nonmajor course (elective), I always found science articles (e.g. NY Times, Scientific American, or basic journal articles that everyone had access to and selected those as material for the students to read. Or, I told students that a textbook may be helpful but was not required (the material was presented in class). I do think an effort should be made to also appreciate that if students need 5 textbooks at a couple hundred bucks a pop, and they are rarely used to supplement the material – why do this to them? I think that if they felt that if they felt someone was making this effort and only a few books were absolutely required, this may be easier for them.
posted by Wolfster at 9:45 AM on April 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
There is no chance of them getting sued.
You should be aware that you may face some hostility. Even from some faculty (who routinely encourage students to do this sort of thing, imo).
It sounds like you're just doing this to protect the university from potential legal action, so you don't actually need to put any effort into being convincing.
If you really want to stop this, then the university needs to commit to using the same version of a textbook for a number of years to allow resale. Either that or teach from notes. There were exactly four textbooks that I had to purchase for the classes in my physics major, two of which were cheaply available from the university press. As a result if I did need an additional book I actually bought it, because I hadn't blown all my money on $100 paperweights.
posted by atrazine at 9:48 AM on April 26, 2011 [5 favorites]
You should be aware that you may face some hostility. Even from some faculty (who routinely encourage students to do this sort of thing, imo).
It sounds like you're just doing this to protect the university from potential legal action, so you don't actually need to put any effort into being convincing.
If you really want to stop this, then the university needs to commit to using the same version of a textbook for a number of years to allow resale. Either that or teach from notes. There were exactly four textbooks that I had to purchase for the classes in my physics major, two of which were cheaply available from the university press. As a result if I did need an additional book I actually bought it, because I hadn't blown all my money on $100 paperweights.
posted by atrazine at 9:48 AM on April 26, 2011 [5 favorites]
My undergrad university would compile articles, chapters etc for a particular class sort out the copyright and then sell to students legally. It was good because it meant we got only what was needed for a class and we didn't have to find it in the library (this was pre most journals being online) and print or photocopy it.
It also had notices on photocopiers and printers about fair use and acceptable copying.
The other thing that happened was a push for using the same books for multiple years and doing book buybacks. There were also some student run book exchange deals. Although a lot of the time it wasn't worth it when you got half or less back on a expensive text book.
You could encourage students to get books out of the library (which probably works better in say English classes than in the sciences) or Barnes and Noble does text book rental.
Honestly with the internet I think you're going to see that most of the infringement is going to start being with ebooks and pdfs. At my current school I've received multiple books from profs which have been copied and scanned.
posted by SpaceWarp13 at 10:00 AM on April 26, 2011
It also had notices on photocopiers and printers about fair use and acceptable copying.
The other thing that happened was a push for using the same books for multiple years and doing book buybacks. There were also some student run book exchange deals. Although a lot of the time it wasn't worth it when you got half or less back on a expensive text book.
You could encourage students to get books out of the library (which probably works better in say English classes than in the sciences) or Barnes and Noble does text book rental.
Honestly with the internet I think you're going to see that most of the infringement is going to start being with ebooks and pdfs. At my current school I've received multiple books from profs which have been copied and scanned.
posted by SpaceWarp13 at 10:00 AM on April 26, 2011
It raises the prices on textbooks for all later consumers ... publishers need to make more marginal profit on each book. By trying to avoid the problem they're worsening the problem.
Not that textbooks aren't obscenely priced and students don't pay way, way too much for them. I am still trying to convince my department (philosophy) to go to e-texts for our primary source material, since MOST OF IT HAS BEEN OUT OF COPYRIGHT SINCE GOD WAS BORN. But no, we buy an $85 textbook of translated primary source material (where the translations are no better quality than the out-of-copyright versions on Gutenberg) with Wikipedia-quality general introductions to each piece. I could do it better and hella cheaper with Gutenberg and permission from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (Or I could do it exactly the same with Gutenberg and Wikipedia!)
We use another textbook with a lot more commentary that I feel is worthwhile for the students, but the price is $115 which pays for full-color printing and high-quality paper stock ON EVERY PAGE. There aren't even any charts ... just color "this is interesting" boxes. It's ridiculous. And sometimes color pictures of portraits of 16th century philosophers or of busts of greek thinkers, which, hey, those are on Wikipedia too! I feel like it'd be reasonable in black-and-white on regular paper stock at $50.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:11 AM on April 26, 2011 [2 favorites]
Not that textbooks aren't obscenely priced and students don't pay way, way too much for them. I am still trying to convince my department (philosophy) to go to e-texts for our primary source material, since MOST OF IT HAS BEEN OUT OF COPYRIGHT SINCE GOD WAS BORN. But no, we buy an $85 textbook of translated primary source material (where the translations are no better quality than the out-of-copyright versions on Gutenberg) with Wikipedia-quality general introductions to each piece. I could do it better and hella cheaper with Gutenberg and permission from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. (Or I could do it exactly the same with Gutenberg and Wikipedia!)
We use another textbook with a lot more commentary that I feel is worthwhile for the students, but the price is $115 which pays for full-color printing and high-quality paper stock ON EVERY PAGE. There aren't even any charts ... just color "this is interesting" boxes. It's ridiculous. And sometimes color pictures of portraits of 16th century philosophers or of busts of greek thinkers, which, hey, those are on Wikipedia too! I feel like it'd be reasonable in black-and-white on regular paper stock at $50.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 10:11 AM on April 26, 2011 [2 favorites]
foxinthesnow: "I have been asked to explain to a group of college students the consequences of copyright violation. Specifically, the consequences of photocopying entire textbooks instead of buying them.
[...]
This college has no policy about copyright, so I can only show the students the federal copyright law, and explain to them that this is illegal and is not fair use of a copyrighted work."
This is throwing up a few red flags for me, piggybacking on valkyrn's comments. Who, specifically, i asking you to do this? Is it a teacher for a specific course, or the institution itself? Without any kind of school policy you can point to with tangible consequences, I'd be worried that the school is essentially treating your talk as their due diligence.
posted by mkultra at 10:18 AM on April 26, 2011
[...]
This college has no policy about copyright, so I can only show the students the federal copyright law, and explain to them that this is illegal and is not fair use of a copyrighted work."
This is throwing up a few red flags for me, piggybacking on valkyrn's comments. Who, specifically, i asking you to do this? Is it a teacher for a specific course, or the institution itself? Without any kind of school policy you can point to with tangible consequences, I'd be worried that the school is essentially treating your talk as their due diligence.
posted by mkultra at 10:18 AM on April 26, 2011
While the students are unlikely to get busted, the print shop certainly could be.
The Copyright Site has a brief summary of the lawsuits, though they focus primarily on course packs. Back when I worked at Kinko's (back when there were Kinko's), the management would flip the fuck out over anything that looked like someone copying all the pages of the books.
At one point, we were told to call the police if we saw anyone doing that (an edict that was widely ignored).
posted by klangklangston at 10:32 AM on April 26, 2011
The Copyright Site has a brief summary of the lawsuits, though they focus primarily on course packs. Back when I worked at Kinko's (back when there were Kinko's), the management would flip the fuck out over anything that looked like someone copying all the pages of the books.
At one point, we were told to call the police if we saw anyone doing that (an edict that was widely ignored).
posted by klangklangston at 10:32 AM on April 26, 2011
One of my profs was so fed up with text book cost and the low amount of changes per edition that he actually scanned one chapter out of each edition (legal) and put them together for us as a pdf. He figured if they had 15 editions in less then 15 years they were asking for it. That guy rocked.
I have also had professors actually copy the entire text book and give it to us as a pdf. with the understanding that it was illegal but they would never be caught and, in general, text book companies are evil.
The moral high ground can be taken with text books, you can pay for every last one. You can let them steal from you and then return $300 texts for $10. Or you could not make yourself look like an ass and show them the federal regulations and tell them they SHALT NOT STEAL (even from assholes who are stealing from you).
posted by Felex at 10:34 AM on April 26, 2011 [2 favorites]
I have also had professors actually copy the entire text book and give it to us as a pdf. with the understanding that it was illegal but they would never be caught and, in general, text book companies are evil.
The moral high ground can be taken with text books, you can pay for every last one. You can let them steal from you and then return $300 texts for $10. Or you could not make yourself look like an ass and show them the federal regulations and tell them they SHALT NOT STEAL (even from assholes who are stealing from you).
posted by Felex at 10:34 AM on April 26, 2011 [2 favorites]
Encourge students to band together to buy additional copies of the book to put in the library circulation collection.
posted by WeekendJen at 10:36 AM on April 26, 2011
posted by WeekendJen at 10:36 AM on April 26, 2011
I agree that textbooks are way too expensive for most students to bear that cost easily; I put myself through school, in fact, and bought those books myself, and I know they cost more now. However:
If you, as one who has "...been asked to explain the consequences of copyright violation," are not there to explain the broad and deep ethical considerations of casually ignoring the concept of intellectual property, and of not compensating thinkers and knowledge workers, who is?
posted by amtho at 10:41 AM on April 26, 2011
If you, as one who has "...been asked to explain the consequences of copyright violation," are not there to explain the broad and deep ethical considerations of casually ignoring the concept of intellectual property, and of not compensating thinkers and knowledge workers, who is?
posted by amtho at 10:41 AM on April 26, 2011
Here is a concrete consequence: if the publisher finds out about the involvement of the printing company, the publisher is a lot more likely to sue them for lots and lots of money. The printer should know better.
Also, every instance of copying makes the overall cost of textbooks (and therefore college) that much greater while simultaneously giving the publishers incentive to cut costs which is likely to lead to lower quality texts. In short, systematic copyright violation leads to more expensive books of lesser quality.
Finally, this also give publishers concrete reasons to move away from textbooks (which you control) to on-line learning systems, e-books and other formats (which they control). So we will all end up with fewer rights/options with respect to books.
posted by oddman at 10:56 AM on April 26, 2011
Also, every instance of copying makes the overall cost of textbooks (and therefore college) that much greater while simultaneously giving the publishers incentive to cut costs which is likely to lead to lower quality texts. In short, systematic copyright violation leads to more expensive books of lesser quality.
Finally, this also give publishers concrete reasons to move away from textbooks (which you control) to on-line learning systems, e-books and other formats (which they control). So we will all end up with fewer rights/options with respect to books.
posted by oddman at 10:56 AM on April 26, 2011
I'm an editor at a trade (i.e., bookstore, not textbook) publishing house.
With issues like this, it's really a matter of making the legal thing as easy or very nearly as easy as the illegal thing.
There are several good suggestions in the thread for making that happen. I think it might be most fruitful (assuming these are your own students, in a course that you teach) to make a graded project of it (ideally at the beginning of the course; it's a lost cause if you're already near the end). Get the class to come up with a legal solution which makes it easiest for them to access the material, without wholesale violation of copyright. By doing something like that, they learn a skill for later use, have a stake in doing it right, and get the ideal result for all parties.
posted by ocherdraco at 10:58 AM on April 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
With issues like this, it's really a matter of making the legal thing as easy or very nearly as easy as the illegal thing.
There are several good suggestions in the thread for making that happen. I think it might be most fruitful (assuming these are your own students, in a course that you teach) to make a graded project of it (ideally at the beginning of the course; it's a lost cause if you're already near the end). Get the class to come up with a legal solution which makes it easiest for them to access the material, without wholesale violation of copyright. By doing something like that, they learn a skill for later use, have a stake in doing it right, and get the ideal result for all parties.
posted by ocherdraco at 10:58 AM on April 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
(This has the added benefit, of course, of developing multiple, legal methods of textbook sharing each semester that might be used by any student.)
posted by ocherdraco at 11:00 AM on April 26, 2011
posted by ocherdraco at 11:00 AM on April 26, 2011
If I were to be a student attending your presentation, when the question period rolled around I would ask whether the school has prohibited the apparently widespread practice of faculty accepting kickbacks from publishers to pick the publisher's books, and if so, what sanctions were in place that could be invoked against faculty who did so anyway.
It's an expectable question, and I think you ought to prepare carefully to answer it, because if your answer is 'no', or worse yet 'I don't know', an instant loss of credibility with your audience and then perhaps the wider community as well is also expectable.
posted by jamjam at 11:18 AM on April 26, 2011 [2 favorites]
It's an expectable question, and I think you ought to prepare carefully to answer it, because if your answer is 'no', or worse yet 'I don't know', an instant loss of credibility with your audience and then perhaps the wider community as well is also expectable.
posted by jamjam at 11:18 AM on April 26, 2011 [2 favorites]
The simple fact is that it is stealing. Why should a college student refrain from stealing? Because when you steal will then be either consciously or unconsciously working and/or negotiating from a personal position of moral compromise. I really can not think of a many practical negative consequences--criminal and civil liability is minimal, easily rationalized, somewhat institutionalized. We have already herd all the reasons--greedy publishers, everyone does it, it is so easy, I need it and do not have the money, information should be free. Perhaps the most compelling practical argument against illegal copying is, as one poster stated, a bad habit that can have extremely negative consequences in certain employment situations. Bottom Line--it is one of those practices that that dos not heighten personal integrity, compromises ethics and takes a bite out of honesty.
posted by rmhsinc at 12:12 PM on April 26, 2011
posted by rmhsinc at 12:12 PM on April 26, 2011
*sigh* copyright violation ≠ stealing
Making that comparison only harms your argument - why would you want do that?
posted by Aquaman at 1:00 PM on April 26, 2011 [4 favorites]
Making that comparison only harms your argument - why would you want do that?
posted by Aquaman at 1:00 PM on April 26, 2011 [4 favorites]
Copyright violation does not equal theft--you are correct, as decided by the U.S. Supreme Court and Wikipedia. However, according to Scott Adams/Dilbert and many content producers copyright violation is a form of stealing. Stealing may or may not be against the law depending on how, when and what is stolen. Interpreting "stealing" in it's narrowest legal definition leads to an overly narrow and limiting discussion regarding the appropriateness of stealing intellectual property.
posted by rmhsinc at 2:17 PM on April 26, 2011
posted by rmhsinc at 2:17 PM on April 26, 2011
rmhsinc, most of these kids probably do not believe that this kind of copyright violation is a form of stealing, and many are likely to be contemptuous of the idea. Thus, making that comparison does harm your argument, no matter what Scott Adams thinks.
One is not "consciously or unconsciously working and/or negotiating from a personal position of moral compromise" when one does something one does not personally believe is wrong. Arguments which begin and end with the assumption that copying is wrong will never convince people who do not share that assumption.
posted by vorfeed at 3:17 PM on April 26, 2011
One is not "consciously or unconsciously working and/or negotiating from a personal position of moral compromise" when one does something one does not personally believe is wrong. Arguments which begin and end with the assumption that copying is wrong will never convince people who do not share that assumption.
posted by vorfeed at 3:17 PM on April 26, 2011
rmhsinc: "However, according to Scott Adams/Dilbert"
Yeah, that guy's not considered much of a credible authority these days 'round these parts...
posted by mkultra at 4:14 PM on April 26, 2011 [3 favorites]
Yeah, that guy's not considered much of a credible authority these days 'round these parts...
posted by mkultra at 4:14 PM on April 26, 2011 [3 favorites]
Publishers know their stuff get ripped off. There is a reason why a lot of academic publications are not getting cheaper as publishers try to make their margins from legit customers.
Remarkably, the same edition of the same textbook can often be had on Amazon.co.uk for half the price of the American edition. I used to buy a lot more textbooks new when I lived on the other side of the Atlantic because they were reasonably priced, available in paperback, and they weren't rushing a 'new' edition with little additional material just because a year had gone buy and there was a new audience of potential buyers who couldn't be allowed to spend their money on a slightly used copy.
Since the demand is somewhat inelastic (students must have access to the book the professor has specified for the course), publishers can and often do respond with monopolistic behavior in the misguided belief that doing so will maximize their producer surplus. Sooner or later this is going to end in a rather expensive class action lawsuit.
posted by anigbrowl at 5:29 PM on April 26, 2011
Remarkably, the same edition of the same textbook can often be had on Amazon.co.uk for half the price of the American edition. I used to buy a lot more textbooks new when I lived on the other side of the Atlantic because they were reasonably priced, available in paperback, and they weren't rushing a 'new' edition with little additional material just because a year had gone buy and there was a new audience of potential buyers who couldn't be allowed to spend their money on a slightly used copy.
Since the demand is somewhat inelastic (students must have access to the book the professor has specified for the course), publishers can and often do respond with monopolistic behavior in the misguided belief that doing so will maximize their producer surplus. Sooner or later this is going to end in a rather expensive class action lawsuit.
posted by anigbrowl at 5:29 PM on April 26, 2011
Also, Stanford University is innovating this area right now. If anyone at an educational institution is interested I could put you in touch with the project lead.
posted by anigbrowl at 5:31 PM on April 26, 2011
posted by anigbrowl at 5:31 PM on April 26, 2011
It *IS* stealing in that they are getting something for nothing, in a marketplace where that something is not available for free. It may not fit the legal code's definition of theft, but it is morally and ethically theft.
Echoing someone from above, this is an opportunity to teach and explore the idea of personal ethics. How two wrongs don't make a right, etc. The publisher may be a greedy asshole, but it is their right to be such.
I would also agree with the suggestion that you get someone from the school to explain how the school selects textbooks and whether there are any money flows back to the school from the publishers.
rmhsinc, most of these kids probably do not believe that this kind of copyright violation is a form of stealing, and many are likely to be contemptuous of the idea. Thus, making that comparison does harm your argument, no matter what Scott Adams thinks.
One is not "consciously or unconsciously working and/or negotiating from a personal position of moral compromise" when one does something one does not personally believe is wrong. Arguments which begin and end with the assumption that copying is wrong will never convince people who do not share that assumption.
And that's why they need old people to explain to them why they are wrong. Honestly, they probably do know there is something not quite kosher about what they are doing, and ought to be presented with what the real world implications are of their behavior.
Hell, I'd write the author of the book a note and ask them to give an argument for why students ought to pay for the book. How many RAs, editors, layout people and such lose their jobs when a book loses money.
posted by gjc at 5:42 PM on April 26, 2011
Echoing someone from above, this is an opportunity to teach and explore the idea of personal ethics. How two wrongs don't make a right, etc. The publisher may be a greedy asshole, but it is their right to be such.
I would also agree with the suggestion that you get someone from the school to explain how the school selects textbooks and whether there are any money flows back to the school from the publishers.
rmhsinc, most of these kids probably do not believe that this kind of copyright violation is a form of stealing, and many are likely to be contemptuous of the idea. Thus, making that comparison does harm your argument, no matter what Scott Adams thinks.
One is not "consciously or unconsciously working and/or negotiating from a personal position of moral compromise" when one does something one does not personally believe is wrong. Arguments which begin and end with the assumption that copying is wrong will never convince people who do not share that assumption.
And that's why they need old people to explain to them why they are wrong. Honestly, they probably do know there is something not quite kosher about what they are doing, and ought to be presented with what the real world implications are of their behavior.
Hell, I'd write the author of the book a note and ask them to give an argument for why students ought to pay for the book. How many RAs, editors, layout people and such lose their jobs when a book loses money.
posted by gjc at 5:42 PM on April 26, 2011
OK, here's a thought out of left field. What if you make possible consequences more personal? One of the problems with acquiring content from somewhere other than the original source is you never know if your "pirated" version is complete or correct. For example, what's to stop the guy who is printing the copies from accidentally not copying a few chapters, or from not copying the exercises at the back of each chapter that you need for homework? What if the guy taking the money for the book never follows through, drops the class and drops out of sight with everyone's cash? What if the printer gives you the wrong copy? Or decides that scanning the newest edition is too much bother, so he'll just run off copies of the old edition, which he scanned last semester? If any of this happens, who are you going to complain to?
Not that any of these scenarios are likely, but like others, I'm having a hard time coming up with any actual consequences that a college kid would worry about. And textbook companies ARE evil and are in bed with college department chairs and administrators and if I had known better, I would have become a texbook publisher and made a killing and retired at 30. But no...
posted by SuperSquirrel at 5:48 PM on April 26, 2011
Not that any of these scenarios are likely, but like others, I'm having a hard time coming up with any actual consequences that a college kid would worry about. And textbook companies ARE evil and are in bed with college department chairs and administrators and if I had known better, I would have become a texbook publisher and made a killing and retired at 30. But no...
posted by SuperSquirrel at 5:48 PM on April 26, 2011
"It *IS* stealing in that they are getting something for nothing, in a marketplace where that something is not available for free. It may not fit the legal code's definition of theft, but it is morally and ethically theft."
Once upon a time, I had an internship that was basically a six-week crash course in the music industry, and one of the day-long seminars was from an RIAA lawyer who took a very similar point of view.
The problem was that by presenting something that's so obviously false to a group of students — and seriously, that's a pretty convoluted and artificial definition of "stealing" — he made it incredibly easy to not be swayed by any of his arguments. If he was going to present something so bullshit so brazenly, why should I trust his opinion on any other ethical matters?
Not only is infringement not morally and ethically theft — it's closer to moral and ethical trespass — but presenting the argument in terms like that immediately makes anyone with a modicum of media literacy unsympathetic to the terms of the argument that you're laying down.
This is aside from the question over whether you're right, rather focusing on whether this will be an effective tack to take. Making statements like that the students need old people to tell them they're wrong is pretty much the exact opposite of a way to get them to listen to you and take you seriously.
posted by klangklangston at 6:34 PM on April 26, 2011 [2 favorites]
Once upon a time, I had an internship that was basically a six-week crash course in the music industry, and one of the day-long seminars was from an RIAA lawyer who took a very similar point of view.
The problem was that by presenting something that's so obviously false to a group of students — and seriously, that's a pretty convoluted and artificial definition of "stealing" — he made it incredibly easy to not be swayed by any of his arguments. If he was going to present something so bullshit so brazenly, why should I trust his opinion on any other ethical matters?
Not only is infringement not morally and ethically theft — it's closer to moral and ethical trespass — but presenting the argument in terms like that immediately makes anyone with a modicum of media literacy unsympathetic to the terms of the argument that you're laying down.
This is aside from the question over whether you're right, rather focusing on whether this will be an effective tack to take. Making statements like that the students need old people to tell them they're wrong is pretty much the exact opposite of a way to get them to listen to you and take you seriously.
posted by klangklangston at 6:34 PM on April 26, 2011 [2 favorites]
klangklangston "but presenting the argument in terms like that immediately makes anyone with a modicum of media literacy unsympathetic to the terms of the argument that you're laying down" and "Making statements like that the students need old people to tell them they're wrong is pretty much the exact opposite of a way to get them to listen to you and take you seriously"
I was not aware that you were conversant with my degree of media literacy nor that you are a professional in teaching ethics. I am confident, however, that your position will find an eager audience among quite a few. Actually, I think it would be fascinating for you and I to do a joint panel with a group of college students. So, to the original poster--have a panel discussion ( I'll do it) with opposing views on the personal and professional ethics and consequences of copyright infringement. Michigan is not that far away. Finally I have no hesitancy about being the oldest person in the room nor being seen, initially or maybe permanently, as media illiterate or even a bit stodgy.
posted by rmhsinc at 7:17 PM on April 26, 2011
I was not aware that you were conversant with my degree of media literacy nor that you are a professional in teaching ethics. I am confident, however, that your position will find an eager audience among quite a few. Actually, I think it would be fascinating for you and I to do a joint panel with a group of college students. So, to the original poster--have a panel discussion ( I'll do it) with opposing views on the personal and professional ethics and consequences of copyright infringement. Michigan is not that far away. Finally I have no hesitancy about being the oldest person in the room nor being seen, initially or maybe permanently, as media illiterate or even a bit stodgy.
posted by rmhsinc at 7:17 PM on April 26, 2011
What are you on about?
Yes, if the OP would like to pay for my plane fare or wait for me to visit my parents, I'd be happy to sit on a panel discussing copyright and ethics.
But as this panel would presumably comprise me, the OP, and some well meaning Dilbert-lover who can't close his tags, I'll just reiterate that for the OP's question the answer is:
—The fines for individuals are relatively steep but the number of people caught is beyond low.
—The cost if the print shop is caught is drastically higher and there's a much better chance of both them being caught and sued; examples of print shops sued include the ones that I linked prior.
I doubt very much that this would be worth the plane ticket, and there are plenty of other ways for you to learn what you're talking about regarding copyright, bore students, or both.
posted by klangklangston at 10:33 PM on April 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
Yes, if the OP would like to pay for my plane fare or wait for me to visit my parents, I'd be happy to sit on a panel discussing copyright and ethics.
But as this panel would presumably comprise me, the OP, and some well meaning Dilbert-lover who can't close his tags, I'll just reiterate that for the OP's question the answer is:
—The fines for individuals are relatively steep but the number of people caught is beyond low.
—The cost if the print shop is caught is drastically higher and there's a much better chance of both them being caught and sued; examples of print shops sued include the ones that I linked prior.
I doubt very much that this would be worth the plane ticket, and there are plenty of other ways for you to learn what you're talking about regarding copyright, bore students, or both.
posted by klangklangston at 10:33 PM on April 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
I think for many students, copyright violations might be like speeding in your car: it's only wrong if you get caught. Because we all speed at least a tiny bit pretty often; it's so easy and so common --and so likely to be overlooked by law enforcement if it's just a couple of miles her hour over the limit -- that it's hard to remember you're just not supposed to do it.
I don't think there any good arguments for these students. Frankly, I would probably suggest telling them to be more discrete about it. And not to make the leap into putting the textbooks online--because that's when the violation becomes a bigger deal potentially.
The school could help solve this problem in a way that doesn't cost each student $500 bucks / semester if that was truly their priority.
posted by bluedaisy at 11:46 PM on April 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
I don't think there any good arguments for these students. Frankly, I would probably suggest telling them to be more discrete about it. And not to make the leap into putting the textbooks online--because that's when the violation becomes a bigger deal potentially.
The school could help solve this problem in a way that doesn't cost each student $500 bucks / semester if that was truly their priority.
posted by bluedaisy at 11:46 PM on April 26, 2011 [1 favorite]
The problem was that by presenting something that's so obviously false to a group of students — and seriously, that's a pretty convoluted and artificial definition of "stealing" — he made it incredibly easy to not be swayed by any of his arguments. If he was going to present something so bullshit so brazenly, why should I trust his opinion on any other ethical matters?
Not only is infringement not morally and ethically theft — it's closer to moral and ethical trespass — but presenting the argument in terms like that immediately makes anyone with a modicum of media literacy unsympathetic to the terms of the argument that you're laying down.
This is aside from the question over whether you're right, rather focusing on whether this will be an effective tack to take. Making statements like that the students need old people to tell them they're wrong is pretty much the exact opposite of a way to get them to listen to you and take you seriously.
It is only "obviously false" to people who choose to believe really hard that they are right when reality and common sense says they are wrong. It is tiresome, just like trying to argue with a Birther.
It is nothing like trespass, because trespassing is someone being in a place they aren't wanted. That has nothing to do with copying textbooks. In some cases, like sneaking into a movie theater, you are ALSO trespassing. But the trespassing is HOW you are stealing.
Obtaining the use of something without compensating the owner/seller in the manner they request is stealing. It is saying "I don't respect your profession as much as I respect other people's. I want the product of your work but I don't want to pay for it."
There is no gray area here. If you want the product of someone's work, you must pay their price. If the price is too high, find someone else who is selling their own work cheaper or create your own. If a student is forced by their school to use a particular textbook that they feel is overpriced, they should complain to the school. Ripping off the author does nothing to solve the problem.
posted by gjc at 7:00 AM on April 28, 2011 [1 favorite]
Not only is infringement not morally and ethically theft — it's closer to moral and ethical trespass — but presenting the argument in terms like that immediately makes anyone with a modicum of media literacy unsympathetic to the terms of the argument that you're laying down.
This is aside from the question over whether you're right, rather focusing on whether this will be an effective tack to take. Making statements like that the students need old people to tell them they're wrong is pretty much the exact opposite of a way to get them to listen to you and take you seriously.
It is only "obviously false" to people who choose to believe really hard that they are right when reality and common sense says they are wrong. It is tiresome, just like trying to argue with a Birther.
It is nothing like trespass, because trespassing is someone being in a place they aren't wanted. That has nothing to do with copying textbooks. In some cases, like sneaking into a movie theater, you are ALSO trespassing. But the trespassing is HOW you are stealing.
Obtaining the use of something without compensating the owner/seller in the manner they request is stealing. It is saying "I don't respect your profession as much as I respect other people's. I want the product of your work but I don't want to pay for it."
There is no gray area here. If you want the product of someone's work, you must pay their price. If the price is too high, find someone else who is selling their own work cheaper or create your own. If a student is forced by their school to use a particular textbook that they feel is overpriced, they should complain to the school. Ripping off the author does nothing to solve the problem.
posted by gjc at 7:00 AM on April 28, 2011 [1 favorite]
"It is only "obviously false" to people who choose to believe really hard that they are right when reality and common sense says they are wrong. It is tiresome, just like trying to argue with a Birther."
Yeah, appeal to common sense. Fallacy. Sorry. Further, it's not "common sense" that this is stealing. If it were, it'd be called theft. Instead, it's called infringement. (If it were common sense, fewer people would infringe on copyright. As copyright infringement is more widespread than, say, shoplifting, even with higher penalties, it can't be said to be common sense that it is "morally and ethically stealing" unless you argue that it is common sense that common people are immoral, in which case, it's not common again.)
Which is why it's more analogous to trespass — using someone else's property without their consent.
But the underlying property itself isn't harmed, except through the artificial conjuring of use value.
"Obtaining the use of something without compensating the owner/seller in the manner they request is stealing. It is saying "I don't respect your profession as much as I respect other people's. I want the product of your work but I don't want to pay for it.""
This does not follow. First off, it says nothing about the profession — it's possible to respect musicians very much and still infringe copyright. In fact, many musicians do, and the most pernicious infringers I've met have been people who work for major labels. Second off, these students are required to buy something without necessarily having the means to do so — aside from a snide reply that they should drop out, they need these textbooks yet don't have the ability to pay for them, even if they wanted to.
"There is no gray area here. If you want the product of someone's work, you must pay their price. If the price is too high, find someone else who is selling their own work cheaper or create your own. If a student is forced by their school to use a particular textbook that they feel is overpriced, they should complain to the school. Ripping off the author does nothing to solve the problem."
I hope that such simplistic assertions aren't the way you argue in court. I do like the suggestion that the students should create their own textbooks to compete — that sounds like an eminently workable solution, and would not at all be received as clueless puffery from an out-of-touch ideologue.
I would also remind you that this does not answer the OP's question. While it may feel edifying for you to issue sweeping pronouncements about the morality of copyright infringement, it says nothing of the actual consequences, which, as noted, are relatively high but incredibly laxly enforced. Telling students that is honest. Telling them that there's no gray area and that they should make their own textbooks is inane and unproductive.
posted by klangklangston at 8:43 AM on April 28, 2011 [1 favorite]
Yeah, appeal to common sense. Fallacy. Sorry. Further, it's not "common sense" that this is stealing. If it were, it'd be called theft. Instead, it's called infringement. (If it were common sense, fewer people would infringe on copyright. As copyright infringement is more widespread than, say, shoplifting, even with higher penalties, it can't be said to be common sense that it is "morally and ethically stealing" unless you argue that it is common sense that common people are immoral, in which case, it's not common again.)
Which is why it's more analogous to trespass — using someone else's property without their consent.
But the underlying property itself isn't harmed, except through the artificial conjuring of use value.
"Obtaining the use of something without compensating the owner/seller in the manner they request is stealing. It is saying "I don't respect your profession as much as I respect other people's. I want the product of your work but I don't want to pay for it.""
This does not follow. First off, it says nothing about the profession — it's possible to respect musicians very much and still infringe copyright. In fact, many musicians do, and the most pernicious infringers I've met have been people who work for major labels. Second off, these students are required to buy something without necessarily having the means to do so — aside from a snide reply that they should drop out, they need these textbooks yet don't have the ability to pay for them, even if they wanted to.
"There is no gray area here. If you want the product of someone's work, you must pay their price. If the price is too high, find someone else who is selling their own work cheaper or create your own. If a student is forced by their school to use a particular textbook that they feel is overpriced, they should complain to the school. Ripping off the author does nothing to solve the problem."
I hope that such simplistic assertions aren't the way you argue in court. I do like the suggestion that the students should create their own textbooks to compete — that sounds like an eminently workable solution, and would not at all be received as clueless puffery from an out-of-touch ideologue.
I would also remind you that this does not answer the OP's question. While it may feel edifying for you to issue sweeping pronouncements about the morality of copyright infringement, it says nothing of the actual consequences, which, as noted, are relatively high but incredibly laxly enforced. Telling students that is honest. Telling them that there's no gray area and that they should make their own textbooks is inane and unproductive.
posted by klangklangston at 8:43 AM on April 28, 2011 [1 favorite]
This thread is closed to new comments.
However, the "one person buys a book and copies it for thirty others" thing is more likely to attract publisher ire than individual one-offs. There's still the problem of how the publisher would find out--can't exactly use IP networks--but all copyright industry players understandably tend to take organized and semi-organized piracy more seriously than straight-up P2P stuff. Still, you're right: the people most likely to be sued are the copy shop and the direct customer; other participants in the scheme are likely to be difficult to find.
Still, the statutory damages for copyright infringement are pretty impressive: $150,000 per infringement. In those cases where copyright holders have decided to pursue a legal remedy, they tend to go for the gusto, claiming the maximum allowable damages rather than attempting to prove what they may or may not have lost as a result of a particular instance of piracy.
Really though, if you want to be honest about what the actual consequences are going to be, there's a good argument that the answer is "Not all that much." There are many universities that have copyright as a part of their honor code, and piracy can thus subject a student to academic sanctions, possibly including expulsion, but that's something your institution has to decide it wants to do, not something imposed by any kind of law. Your school does have the authority to impose such rules, your personal feelings on the issue aside, but whether or not they want to do that is probably above your pay grade. I'd be tempted to respond to the person that made the request that unless the school is willing to impose consequences of its own, there aren't likely to be any.
posted by valkyryn at 9:32 AM on April 26, 2011 [1 favorite]