Hi John!
First of all, I want to wish you and yours (and our entire AZB family) a very Merry Christmas, and where that doesn't apply (religious reasons), a very happy, healthy, and safe holiday season! Seriously, from the heart.
Second, you're right -- I should've taken a deep breath before responding. Apologies for the strong words.
But let me explain from which the strong words come from:
1. John, I'm a published author. I understand the copyright laws. I also am an established information security professional (it is part of my line of work). I've acted as character witness in several cases where a published work was either stolen or purchased, then made available to the Internet at large on some of the "warez" sites. In some cases copy protection was enabled, in others it wasn't. In those cases where the author enabled copy protection, the case was pretty much a slam-dunk case. The defendant (author) won the case without much fanfare. However, in those cases where the original author did NOT enable copy protection, the case was not an open-and-shut case. The author had to prove, via archived backups of the original website content offering the material in question (backups of which had to be retrieved from Iron Mountain with certified letterhead from Iron Mountain stating that the backups had not been retrieved/tampered with prior to the extraction date from Iron Mountain's facilities) that the original website never offered the material free of charge, that it was indeed pay-for/commercial material. Because the cases also involved hacking and breach of the website's security, the cases are unfortunately closed -- otherwise I'd offer you some links to the case proceedings.
2. Your analogy, "That would be the equivalent of me not being able to have someone charged with theft because they walked into my open front door and walked away with my TV that was not bolted down" fails on several levels. First, you can't (and don't) apply physical premises security with digital security -- they are completely different animals, subject to different laws. As a professed law student, you should know that. Let's analyze why. You can leave your front door open, with a "Welcome" mat prominently displayed outside the front door, and you are *still* protected by law. The authorities would call you a numbskull for leaving your front door open, but they would still pursue any property theft to the extent you have proof that something was stolen. This is never in question, because the premises are, afterall, private property. By leaving your front door open -- "Welcome" mat displayed or not -- you are not "publishing" the contents of your premises to the world. Publishing information, on the other hand, is governed by different rules. By offering information to the public in the form of publishing media, you are indeed doing just that -- publishing it. It's no longer "private" or "confidential" information. Thus, it raises the difficulty of recovering financial losses should the information be illegally copied and distributed unless the author has taken all necessary steps to prove that the information was paid-for information at the outset.
Let me share with you a particular case I'm intimately familiar with. The defendant initially published some information in the form of a CD. For a period of time, the defendant offered the CD without any copy protection, and it was freely downloadable for a short period of time. The product included disclaimers for copyright protection, digital ownership rights, etc. The defendant's intent was to offer the product for a limited time, as an initial "loss leader" for the purposes of generating some buzz in the marketplace. The defendant later changed the download policy to a "paid-for" product. However, the product was already in the wild, being copied and distributed like wildfire. The defendant tried to enforce their "digital ownership rights" and "purchasable product" rights by pursuing some of the folks copying and distributing the media. Long story short, the defendant lost precisely because the initial media lacked any sort of copy protection. The defendant could not prove that they didn't intend for the media to be copied/distributed at the outset. Admittedly, the "gray area" offered by that "initial free download" period also put a damper on their case -- but the lack of any sort of copy protection enabled on that media absolutely killed it.
3. Let's call-out the pink elephant standing in the room. Whenever we see the phrase, "in this day and age," used in the same sentence as "downloadable," we know what that means. Even though the specific word "free" is not used, the implication is there -- it drips in buckets. I got into an argument some time back with a young twenty-something about this. He had asked me where he could get software product so-and-so for his computer. I pointed him to the vendor website, where it was readily downloadable, after he pays a nominal fee. I assumed by just pointing him to the vendor website, that would be that and all decisions are up to him. He came back to me later, and said that I must've not understood him, because he did say "downloadable." I told him that the vendor offers the software in downloadable form. We went back and forth on this, with me not understanding what he was talking about, until he took me to a computer for me to prove to him that the software was "downloadable." When we got to the page where it asks for PayPal information before it offers the download link, he goes, "Aha! See? I want to be able to 'just' download this product." Apparently, to him, "downloadble" meant FREE -- no cost. And later on, I ran into this same situation again and again. "Downloadable," "in this day and age," apparently means FREE. So whenever I see people using these two phrases in the same sentence, I know what the implication is. The sad fact of "this day and age" is that people expect information to be FREE. The whole concept of financial compensation for an information product apparently is becoming dinosaur age. The perception is that the author is "not offering value" (or diminished value) unless the information is readily available, at no cost to anyone who wants it.
I support authors who want a little something to recoup expenses for publishing the material. And shucks, perhaps that little sumthin'-sumthin' is a little more than the publishing costs themselves. What's wrong with a little capitalism to help one's business of offering that information in the first place to survive?
Anyway, I hope this helps explain a little behind-the-scenes of why I feel the way I do. I'm in Stan's shoes -- published author and all. I get it. Those that've never published anything are quick to assume the altruistic stance that "information needs and desires to be free." While this is a noble cause, it doesn't pay the bills for those offering the material in the first place.
Again, apologies for the strong words at the outset, and I sincerely wish the happiest, healthiest, and safest holiday season to all!
-Sean
Your knowledge about this is truly amazing. Your post is a sign of dedication and I am impressed by it.
Merry Christmas
