

The publishers are not the enemy - andreyf
http://andreyf.tumblr.com/post/143882829/the-publishers-are-not-the-enemy

======
gchpaco
There is no argument here. There is a lot of "but they're simpletons who don't
understand the Internet" and "the CEO has to answer awkward questions from
other simpletons if he doesn't insist upon the right to 'unpublish' a book".

Never mind that the whole _point_ of being a publisher is to _publish_ books.
Never mind that a bunch of people, clearly, had bought these and were
therefore paying more than the paperbacks for those cost in store for fewer
rights. The whole foundation of ethics is that just because you can do
something does not mean you should do something.

~~~
andreyf
_just because you can do something does not mean you should do something_

But that misses my point precisely: if this was your buddy Josh, an appeal to
ethics would make sense, but a corporation isn't a person. Publishers _can't_
do anything else, just like moths _can't_ help but fly to light. Bringing up
ethics here is like bringing up ethics when your car won't start.

In most publishers, if an "enlightened" CEO decides to give up rights, he
needs to justify the business value of that - and "the 0.1% of our customers
who know what DRM is and care will buy paper versions of our books instead of
getting a Kindle" is just not enough business value to justify it.

A CEO isn't being paid to make his company an ethical actor in the world, he's
paid to maximize the value of the company. If a CEO's ethics regarding DRM
don't agree with maximizing the value of the company, he'll say "I can't do my
job because it's unethical" and be replaced with someone else.

~~~
olefoo
"""A CEO isn't being paid to make his company an ethical actor in the world,
he's paid to maximize the value of the company. If a CEO's ethics regarding
DRM don't agree with maximizing the value of the company, he'll say "I can't
do my job because it's unethical" and be replaced with someone else."""

That is wrong, and wrong in a way that is very symptomatic of the illness
afflicting our society as a whole. A CEO or other officer of a company has a
fiduciary responsibility to her shareholders, but she also has an ethical
responsibility to the society in which her company exists; and without which
it would not exist.

That the myth that fiduciary responsibilities trump all other responsibilities
is so widespread that many here hold it up as an unquestioned truth should be
disturbing to you. If you believe that your companies profitability outweighs
any moral, ethical or legal obligation; then you are criminally insane and it
is societies right and duty to limit you so that you do not harm others.

~~~
andreyf
"Wrong" meaning you wish it wasn't that way, or _wrong_ meaning inaccurate in
describing the state of the world? The former I agree with, the latter you
don't seem to give much evidence for.

If you wish it wasn't that way, how do you suppose we should define
corporations? You can't just stick a "must has an ethical responsibility to
the society in which her company exists; and without which it would not exist"
clause in a law somewhere...

 _myth that fiduciary responsibilities trump all other responsibilities_

Again, this is like talking about the myth of gravity after a rock falls on
your head. Fiduciary responsibility _is the law_ under which corporations like
publishers operate.

If you don't like the law, it would be a nice exercise to suggest an
alternative (which we can debate).

 _If you believe that your companies profitability outweighs any moral,
ethical or legal obligation; then you are criminally insane and it is
societies right and duty to limit you so that you do not harm others_

Let's simplify: a rock fell on a baby's head and smushed it. I point and say
"hey look, a rock fell on a baby's head and smushed it, because it's really
heavy". You say: "If you believe that babies should be smushed by rocks; then
you are criminally insane and it is societies right and duty to limit you so
that you do not harm others". See my point?

See, and this confuses me - in your last sentence, you used "fiduciary
responsibilities", which makes me think you went to college. But this shows
such a lack of reading comprehension... oooooh... are you one of those
"globalization" majors?

    
    
        <offtopic>Geezus fuck, has news.YC really come to this!?</offtopic>

~~~
saikat
Your logic does not take into account the entire ecosystem in which these
companies exist. If you take it as law that companies exist only to make
profit and they cannot help it, then you should also take it as law that when
companies do things people don't like, people will get upset, and this will,
hopefully, reduce the company's profits. This is how people can try to make
companies do what they want, and this is how markets work. So, using your
logic, there is nothing wrong with people getting angry and blaming the
company - it is part of the system to make the market produce what people
want.

~~~
andreyf
But we were talking about morality, and I'm afraid markets aren't moral when
it comes to externalities. Most people don't care if slaves picked their
strawberries or if children made their shoes.

Business transactions are business transactions - I give you $$$, you give me
laptop. Whether or not you dumped toxic waste on villagers halfway around the
world to make it just isn't part of the equation for most people.

[AGAIN: Not saying this is right, or optimal, it's just reality folks, with no
way I can see of changing it]

------
DarkShikari
_I bet it would gravitate toward his next meeting with the board, the part
where someone asks, slowly:_

 _So copyright law gives us rights over our content that you decided to waive
why, exactly?_

 _But that would never happen, because if there’s one thing he knows how to to
best, it’s to avoid risk._

What about most obvious risk--the one the article conveniently overlooks--the
risk of customers not buying your product? Would you buy a book that included
a remotely operated kill switch which could dissolve the pages at the wishes
of the publisher?

~~~
andreyf
_the risk of customers not buying your product_

I agree that the world would be better off if this were true. But considering
it's their careers on the line, I imagine they do a lot of research into
customers' behavior and how it related to DRM. I imagine that the biggest
competitor to a DRM-ed e-book is the dead-tree version of that same book, in
which case, it's all a win-win for them.

But again, while I imagine people _do_ buy e-books, I agree that most of them
don't realize the fine print of the transaction. Morally speaking this isn't
fair, in a way, Amazon is facilitating a fraudulent transaction between their
customers and the publishers.

But corporate law isn't written by ethics philosophers, it's written by
lobbyists, lawyers, and politicians (hopefully). And so corporations don't
behave according to a human's sense of morality, but according to corporate
law.

