unethical and illegal behavior on the part of some

[Israel Stein]

At 12:13 PM 2/29/2008, pianotech-request at ptg.org wrote:
>Dave
>
>I want to keep this confrontational.
>
>What is the legal definition of "copy the information?" Does sending 
>information (dates found in the PPA), over the Internet constitute 
>copying of information?
>
>Israel, you seem to have a good handle about legal issues. Can you 
>answer this?
>
>Wim

WIm,

I am not a lawyer, so I cannot really answer this question. All I can 
do is discuss the issues in the light of what I know and how it 
appears to me. And others may have different perspectives...

We are living in an age when the technology (the Internet) has gotten 
ahead of the legal principles that govern intellectual property and 
need to catch up. Until then we have some injustices being 
perpetrated any way you look at it.

First, posting information on the Internet - especially in a public 
forum - is not the same as telling it to someone on the phone or 
sending it to them in a private report or any other such interaction 
as might happen between a practitioner and a client. Posting in an 
Internet forum creates a permanent record in the archives, accessible 
to large numbers of people - and the information could conceivably be 
stored forever in any number of servers and computers as backups, 
archives, files, etc. This is "publication", not private 
communication... So if the information is in some way restricted or 
proprietary - then its posting does constitute a violation.

Now, it seems that currently US law does not protect the sort of 
information found in the Pierce Piano Atlas - at least not under 
routine copyright protections (there may be a contractual basis for 
recourse - but that's more complicated). This is a result of a 
Supreme Court decision, which is at odds with most precedents and is 
completely out of whack with international treaties honored by the 
majority of other industrialized countries. There is legislation 
pending to bring US law in line with the rest of the developed world, 
but so far it has not been passed. As in the last major US Copyright 
law reform (in the 1970's), the US was forced to align its copyright 
laws with those of the rest of the world, and I suspect that it is 
only a matter of time before the same thing happens in this case, 
because it puts US compilers of databases at a competitive 
disadvantage vis-a-vis European firms which enjoy such protection.

OK, let's look at how we use the information in Pierce. If we provide 
it to our clients as a service - well, that's how it is meant to be 
used. We bought the book in order to use it in our business - so 
that's what we are doing.

What about providing the information to strangers over something like 
"The Experts' Forum"? Well, here it gets a bit more complicated. On 
the one hand we are publishing the information and creating a 
permanent record. On the other hand, the people who consult that 
forum are not likely buyers of Pierce Piano Atlas, so there is no 
real harm being done here. If that forum were not available, then 
they would look for some piano technician from whom to get the 
information, or look for some other source - but they would not go 
out and buy a Pierce, since their need for the information is 
one-time, with regard to a specific instrument.

What about this forum here? Well, this is where professional piano 
technicians are asking for information to use in a profit-making 
activity. Instead of buying a Pierce, they simply ask one of us to 
look it up for them in a Pierce. This does harm the publisher in that 
they are using the fruit of his labors in their profit-making 
activity without paying for it - and, regardless of whether there is 
a legal stricture or not, it is real harm, especially if they make a 
habit of it.

Now, let's look at the broader picture. As in all legal issues, there 
are two conflicting interests here. On the one side, there is a 
social interest in the free flow of information. On the other hand 
there are the interests of an entrepreneur who expended a large 
amount of effort in compiling data in an easily accessible form - 
they expect to be compensated for the labor involved by selling the 
product of the labor. This is how our free enterprise system works: 
the motivation for taking risks and investing time and effort in a 
speculative endeavor is wholly dependent on the possibility of a 
profit. Remove or reduce the possibility - and you remove the 
motivation for future speculative endeavors.

Now, let's apply this to Pierce. Most of us have bought our Pierces, 
so we have no need to buy any more. But newbies in the profession, 
they are the potential market. If they get used to the idea that you 
don't need to buy the thing - just ask on the Pianotech list, and 
you'll get the answer. That cuts into sales. Significantly. Suppose 
that when the current printing runs out, Larry Ashley decides that 
his sales volume no longer justifies publication of another printing 
or the preparation of an updated edition? And it makes no difference 
how many times we "mention" his book on the list - if on the other 
hand we are making it unnecessary for anyone else to buy the book. 
Why buy the cow if you can get the milk for nothing?

Now, take it into the future. What about the pianos built after 1996? 
Is anybody going to be willing to compile the information about them 
into a directory for publication (or update Pierce) - knowing that we 
all insist on our right to publish the information away any way we 
wish in widely circulating electronic form? It isn't such an issue 
now - but those of you who are still in this business twenty years 
down the road, I hope you will enjoy trying to get the information 
from the manufacturers (at least those who still exist and whose 
language you speak) every time you want to find out a year of manufacture.

As they say, there is no free lunch. You either pay now, or pay later.

Israel Stein