Book Piracy

[Nikhar]

Well, what do you think of book piracy? It's not perhaps as widespread as movie piracy but it does exist. I know, legally and ethically, its wrong. But what when one can't afford it? I personally have resorted to it when I had no choice (don't look at me with such reproachful eyes!). Well, actually my family thinks reading novels is a waste of time and so, they generally don't allow me to buy novels. They'd pay whatever amount I ask if it's a study book, but novels...plain no! In such situations, I am left with no choice to either buy a cheap pirated copy or even download it from the net.

If you are a published writer, I know how much you must be hating me now for doing such a thing. And really, you have complete right to it. I'm enjoying it without paying for it. And you don't get what you deserve.

Personally, when I'm able to earn for myself, I don't think I would be using pirated copies anymore. But till that time comes, I'll continue to do it.

What's your opinion on book piracy? Have you ever been involved in it?

[ktm5124]

What about your local library? Should we assume that the books you're pirating are books you couldn't find at a nearby library?

Supposing this is the case, and considering your circumstances, I really don't see anything wrong with it. Far more important than some vague ethical question is that you have access to the novels you want to read.

Personally, I try to get good deals on books at a used bookstore nearby; failing that, I go to Barnes & Nobles. I really should use the library to save money, but I love adding to my personal library.

Having to buy textbooks for class can be a real pain, though. They're just so obscenely expensive. I'm not going to say whether I have or have not pirated a textbook - this is unnecessary information - but I will say that I would not think any less of a person who pirates a $150 textbook required for class. It is wrong of the class to require a $150 textbook in the first place, when it is quite reasonable to say that all the information contained in the textbook can be gleaned from the school library and the internet.

Just think - if you take 12 classes a year, and 4 of them require $150 textbooks, then you are losing $2400 over 4 years. This is equivalent to several months' rent, two or three hundred paperback novels, a couple of high-end laptops - think of the possibilities!

[Nikhar]

My city does not have a library! Imagine that! I mean, there is a big library but its for the guys from army and not for us civilians.

Anyways, I always borrowed books from my school library whenever I could. In fact, quite a lot of the 50 Agatha's that I've read were borrowed from my school library. My school library's awesum. However my school's over. :( :( :(

[TheFifthElement]

Far more important than some vague ethical question is that you have access to the novels you want to read.


Well there's a statement which doesn't really stand up to scrutiny because it can effectively be used to justify all forms of theft.

Far more important than some vague ethical question is that you have access to the shoes you want to wear.

Far more important than some vague ethical question is that you have access to the TV you want to watch.

Far more important than some vague ethical question is that you have access to the money you want to spend.

The key point being want; access to literature is not a right or a need, although it is a pleasure. I can understand people breaking the law out of necessity - food, water, medicine, things which are necessary for survival, I would even do so myself, but just because you want something? It seems a poor excuse for picking someone else's pocket. And books can be very cheap, especially in the legitimate secondhand market.

It's probably the reason that all piracy crime (where copying is illegal, it's not always the case and where it's legal I have no problem with it) is so prevalent is because the victim is so distant. But just because the victim is distant doesn't mean they're not there. If someone stole funds out of your bank account, it'd still hurt wouldn't it? Would it be more or less of a crime if they'd picked your pocket directly instead?

At the end of the day it is a matter of personal choice, and we all make choices around what laws we're willing to flaut and which we are not. Piracy in its many forms is a pretty common one. I've always taken the view on piracy that it is theft, which in my country is factually true, and on an ethical point I would not steal unless it was out of necessity (to feed myself or my children, etc). But I'm quite reactionary when it comes to theft in particular, as I have a family member who was a compulsive thief and I've seen the damage first hand. And many of the justifications she gave for her activities will probably be parroted back here in some form in this thread, but for all her 'justifications' it didn't stop her being landed in prison 3 times and pretty much destroying her life and ruining her family. Sure it may be petty theft, but it is theft just the same as if you lifted the book out of a bookstore. If you wouldn't do one, why would you be comfortable with the other? Is the only real barrier the fear of being caught?

Put the question another way, if you were a writer, and your writing was your only source of income, how would you feel about it? A theoretical question I know as most writers don't ever earn enough money to make writing their full time career. Or what if you were a bookseller and you lost 5-10% of your income each year from shoplifting. How would you feel about that?

[ktm5124]

Far more important than some vague ethical question is that you have access to the novels you want to read.



Well there's a statement which doesn't really stand up to scrutiny because it can effectively be used to justify all forms of theft.

Far more important than some vague ethical question is that you have access to the shoes you want to wear.

Far more important than some vague ethical question is that you have access to the TV you want to watch.

Far more important than some vague ethical question is that you have access to the money you want to spend.


But your examples are very different from my statement. It is important that Nikhar has access to novels because it will help him develop as a person. To deny him novels would cost more to his education than what his education costs the rest of us! ;-)

[kiki1982]

I agree with the text books. Obscenely expensive is an understatement.

Fine, if there is a second hand shop, library, one can go there, and if there isn't one? What does one do then? Right, go ad look for a pirated copy.

And yes, it is stealing, fortunately we are not all short of cash and do not all have no access to libraries and second hand shops and so piracy of books is only for the ones who are clever enough to find those things (I wouldn't be able to). In the meantime, I am waiting for Christie to come out of copyright, because 7 pounds for a paperback of merely 200 pages I find really too much if I can buy peguin ones for 3,10 euro each and can even do Gutenberg for free.

And yes, I agree with Ktm; What a strange family...

[TurquoiseSunset]

But your examples are very different from my statement. It is important that Nikhar has access to novels because it will help her develop as a person. To deny her novels would cost more to her education than what her education costs the rest of us! ;-)

Just a heads up...Nikhar is a boy :D


What a strange family...

I wouldn't say Nikhar's family is strange (I obviously don't know them), because I understand in a sense. Not everyone thinks non-educational fiction is as important even if it can contribute immensely. In my family we went to the library and that was that. In university I had freen reign on the internet and that really helped me to see what was really available and I was able to do research on books. Before my literary world was basically confined to a crappy library.

Our local library really is awful, but since my mom reads J.D Robb, Patterson and so on the library is perfect for her because they seem to be the only books the place ever buys. Sprinks once told me to ask the library to order specific books and I just had to laugh at that, because that's exactly what our librarian would have done. There's just not enough funding and even if there was you can just tell the people who work there have no clue. Two years ago I went there to ask if they had Don Quixote by Miguel de Cervantes. The lady behind the counter gave me a blank stare and then gave me a piece of paper to write the name and author on. I almost died. I mean really.

[TheFifthElement]

But your examples are very different from my statement. It is important that Nikhar has access to novels because it will help her develop as a person. To deny her novels would cost more to her education than what her education costs the rest of us! ;-)

Actually they're no different, or rather they're only different in your mind.

For one, reading fiction is not necessary for a person's education and neither is it 'important'. It is certainly entertaining. And educationally it is complimentary, maybe, but not necessary. One could learn as much by observing the world around us, reading newspaper reports and listening to old and young and middle aged people from different walks of life tell stories about their lives. I agree, reading is a worthwhile pursuit, I enjoy it as much as the next person, but to argue that Slaughterhouse 5, for example, is so critical to someone's personal development that it's okay to steal it is a bit of a stretch.

Secondly, all of the examples I gave could be classed, depending on how you spin it, as enabling someone's development 'as a person'. For example:

Shoes create an image and creating the right image can lead to other opportunities in personal, social and emotional development. The right pair of shoes can make you feel good about yourself and feeling good about yourself promotes confidence and confidence is an enabling emotion. Therefore stealing shoes could help you develop as a person. Aside from that, orthopaedic shoes are quite expensive and it may be that stealing a pair of orthopaedic shoes would improve your life experience because your feet wouldn't be sore. So is it okay to steal shoes if it would help you develop in this way?

Watching TV can be educational if, for example, you watch The History Channel, or National Geographic, or QI. It also helps you keep abreast of current affairs and gives you a broader perspective on what's happening in the world. So is it okay to steal a TV if it aids your education in this way?

Money, well money can be used for any purpose. If you steal money to spend it on your education, is that okay? If someone stole money from your bank account and used it to fund their education or gave it to charity, both noble aims, would you be happy about that?


Fine, if there is a second hand shop, library, one can go there, and if there isn't one? What does one do then? Right, go ad look for a pirated copy.
Or, of course, there is another option (as you identified) which is to wait until you can afford it, or compromise on your other spending, or to examine your desires and determine if this is something you really need, or whether you can do without it. Then there's always swapping and borrowing. It's good to have a pool of book reading mates :)

[keilj]

It's stealing. No excuse for it

Particularly when you can get used copies on eBay or Amazon for dirt cheap

And even a lot of podunk towns have used book stores, if libraries are not an option

If you can spend $5 on a burger and fries, then you can spend it on a used book

Also, how is this different than saying, "There are constraints/restrictions that keep me from getting a TV, so I'll go steal one from my neighbor"?

[Jozanny]

As a practical matter, book piracy is inefficient, unless one is simply talking about stealing the text as a physical thing, and even there, values are relative to binding, and expense.

As to the ethics, well, that depends on how one defines copyright and intellectual property, and the economics thereof. My domestic housekeeper bootlegs DVD's, but he is a poor minority in his 60's with little skill other than handling waste management for the disabled, not experience that most middle class people can handle compassionately--but if I got lucky and sold movie rights to one of my stories, I am not sure how sanguine I'd feel about the black market.

Nikar, I do not judge you, but you can read many classics online for nothing, and the issue seems a bit over the top.

When I can no longer buy books as freely as I do now, there are ways I will be able to adapt to that. Delayed gratification is not neccessarily a net negative.

[Nikhar]

Put the question another way, if you were a writer, and your writing was your only source of income, how would you feel about it? A theoretical question I know as most writers don't ever earn enough money to make writing their full time career. Or what if you were a bookseller and you lost 5-10% of your income each year from shoplifting. How would you feel about that?

Well, I mentioned the very same fact in my first post. The biggest reason why I feel piracy is ethically wrong is that I'm depriving someone of his/her earnings. Certainly, that's not what I would ever want to do.



I agree with the text books. Obscenely expensive is an understatement.

And yes, I agree with Ktm; What a strange family...

I wonder which text books you are talking about. Well, I just passed out from school and at school level text books aren't so expensive. Fictional books and text books nearly cost the same.

So, no, I wouldn't consider my family strange. Thank you.


Just a heads up...Nikhar is a boy :D

Thanks. Yeah, I'm a guy. lol :D


I wouldn't say Nikhar's family is strange (I obviously don't know them), because I understand in a sense. Not everyone thinks non-educational fiction is as important even if it can contribute immensely. In my family we went to the library and that was that. In university I had freen reign on the internet and that really helped me to see what was really available and I was able to do research on books. Before my literary world was basically confined to a crappy library.


Exactly, given the fact that English isnt even my first language, my parents think that this non-educational fiction I read is not going to help me at all. And thus, they prefer that I learn something.



Or, of course, there is another option (as you identified) which is to wait until you can afford it, or compromise on your other spending, or to examine your desires and determine if this is something you really need, or whether you can do without it. Then there's always swapping and borrowing. It's good to have a pool of book reading mates :)

Aren't you contradicting yourself? In the previous post you made, you just said that by buying pirated copies, I'm depriving the author of his earnings. By sharing books with my friends, am I not doing the same? By paying the price of just one book, we all are benefiting, are we not? So, in the sense, borrowing books is no better than buying pirated copies.

In fact, I am at least paying someone by buying pirated copies.


It's stealing. No excuse for it

Particularly when you can get used copies on eBay or Amazon for dirt cheap

And even a lot of podunk towns have used book stores, if libraries are not an option

If you can spend $5 on a burger and fries, then you can spend it on a used book


Again, if I buy second hand copies, it doesn't benefit the author does it? It only benefits the original buyer.

So, by borrowing or by buying second hand books, the whole point of the author's rights is being overlooked.

[applepie]

But your examples are very different from my statement. It is important that Nikhar has access to novels because it will help her develop as a person. To deny her novels would cost more to her education than what her education costs the rest of us! ;-)

Nik, I can't imagine not having a library so I'll not pretend to understand your situation. I wouldn't say that novels should be denied, but there are plenty of free source, legal books available. They're older books that are no longer under copyright, but they are more than available. You can keep pretty busy reading just these.

As a rule, I think that any sort of piracy like this is theft. In some cases, one may be able to justify it, but to me there is no questioning the morality of it. I would have to agree with Fifth. Ktm, what you have said is like me deciding I can't really afford my house payment, so I'll not pay it and that should be fine. Afterall, who should deny me a place to live? I understand that books are a much smaller, and cheaper item, but theft is theft.


Again, if I buy second hand copies, it doesn't benefit the author does it? It only benefits the original buyer.

So, by borrowing or by buying second hand books, the whole point of the author's rights is being overlooked.

In this case the author has already received compensation for the novel. One single printed copy, which can be sold or given away. The rights to print 100 or 1000 copies off of that one and give them away are not given.

[Nikhar]

In this case the author has already received compensation for the novel. One single printed copy, which can be sold or given away. The rights to print 100 or 1000 copies off of that one and give them away are not given.

Author has received compensation for one novel not two or three (or the number of people you have in your book club or the number of times the book has been resold).


Now, how does it matter if the book has been reproduced in one or thousand ones? After all, as you put it, theft is theft.

[ktm5124]

I am differentiating between intellectual development and the necessaries of living. Literature can be a crucial part of intellectual development for many people. What I am saying is, if this is the case, some crazy circumstance like his (the family not allowing him to buy books) should not get in the way, and the theft would be understandable - it is a greater theft to him to deny him literature.

You can also consider it an investment. I have a conviction that reading literature makes us better people. He will emerge a better person for his theft ;-)

I think we should also look at this from the author's standpoint. Sure, they are not getting their $5 or $10 that they ought to get when he reads their book. But the author is also a person, and I'm sure the author would sympathize with his situation, and perhaps go so far as to encourage him to pirate the novel if there is no way for him to buy it. If I were the author, I'd rather that he read it than not read it, given that he cannot buy it.

There are far more important things in life than piracy. There are plenty of awful people who have walked the moral tightrope all their lives. If you abstain from pirating books or music, good for you - but it has the same practical consequence of not voting. It's not going to make a difference. It means nothing to live your life as a series of decisions that makes no difference, unless you believe in God and Heaven and a very obnoxious gatekeeper. I think it's bad for one's health to aspire to be perfect - you will expend too much energy on the intangible, and lose sight of the things that matter around you.

[applepie]

Author has received compensation for one novel not two or three (or the number of people you have in your book club or the number of times the book has been resold).


Now, how does it matter if the book has been reproduced in one or thousand ones? After all, as you put it, theft is theft.

Because the money given to authors as royalties is for the printed copy and not for the number of people who will read that one copy. If I were to buy a book and ship it to 100 people, one at a time, then there is no infringement upon the author's rights. I've not duplicated their work to do this. If I were to publish it online without their permission then I've duplicated the work and infringed on the copyright. Laws like this are in place to minimize the impact of book swapping and borrowing on the creator of the work. There is a massive difference between sharing a physical book and essentially publishing another person's work for all the world to access.


I am differentiating between intellectual development and the necessaries of living. Literature can be a crucial part of intellectual development for many people. What I am saying is, if this is the case, some crazy circumstance like his (the family not allowing him to buy books) should not get in the way, and the theft would be justified - it is a greater theft to him to deny him literature.

I'm a bit confused. So it is OK to excuse theft for intellectual development but not for necessities? My point, in this case, is that there are more than enough legal venues to gain access to literature. It might not be as ideal as it would if you had free reign to purchase whatever you want, but it is there. An individuals wants, not a need because there are more than enough out of print works online legally to meet any need, does not trump the rights of the author. It all sounds harmless enough until you start to consider the vast number of people participating in such behavior thinking that it isn't that big of an issue and they're only one person afterall.

[ktm5124]

I'm a bit confused. So it is OK to excuse theft for intellectual development but not for necessities? My point, in this case, is that there are more than enough legal venues to gain access to literature. It might not be as ideal as it would if you had free reign to purchase whatever you want, but it is there. An individuals wants, not a need because there are more than enough out of print works online legally to meet any need, does not trump the rights of the author. It all sounds harmless enough until you start to consider the vast number of people participating in such behavior thinking that it isn't that big of an issue and they're only one person afterall.

It has everything to do with the circumstances. To say that theft is always wrong seems to me naive. If you are starving, and you are going to die of starvation, then there is nothing wrong in my mind in stealing some bread from the bakery. If you are homeless in a Chicago winter and the temperature is subzero, is it wrong to break into a heated auditorium, and sleep under the bleachers?

And in his case, when you have no access to a library, and your family prohibits you from buying novels, and you are still a minor (a very temporary condition), is it really wrong to pirate novels? His circumstance is very unjust; why should he be a slave to unjust circumstances?

You can't say, "theft is theft", "stealing is stealing". Every act of theft has a unique set of circumstances. Sometimes it's even justified - this is made clear in some of the cases I stated above (when you're starving, when you're freezing...)

[applepie]

I would not suggest that he be a slave to such a circumstance. I do suggest that there are perfectly legal ways to gain access to novels and because of this there is no need for piracy. We are all subject to some circumstance that limits what we can and can not do in this life. As much as I hate to say it (I sound like my own dad) it is a lesson better learned young. His parents do not allow the purchase of novels. That sucks in more ways than I can count, but he can access many online through legal channels. Will it be the same selection you'll find at Borders? Certainly not, but there is enough there to meet the need.

I'm not saying that all theft in inexcusable. If there were no legal sites with novels then I would view things differently, but there are. We've hundreds of works on this site alone. If you have truly read every book that you can legally access then I would view downloading pirated books as meeting a need, but that is a lot of reading.

[keilj]

Thelma you are right

If someone is doing something that is wrong, be a big enough person to admit it and take responsibility for it. Don't drown me with rationalizations and justifications for what you are doing.

Everyone has done things that are wrong. But to sit there and try to explain it away is f*cking annoying

[applepie]

Thelma you are right

:lol: I'm Thelma? I really need to change my avatar back to my orchid. Geek weekend is over:D

[keilj]

:lol: I'm Thelma? I really need to change my avatar back to my orchid. Geek weekend is over:D

ha - yeah. Thelma was shorter than spelling your user name

[applepie]

ha - yeah. Thelma was shorter than spelling your user name

Meg works as well :)

[Nikhar]

Because the money given to authors as royalties is for the printed copy and not for the number of people who will read that one copy. If I were to buy a book and ship it to 100 people, one at a time, then there is no infringement upon the author's rights. I've not duplicated their work to do this. If I were to publish it online without their permission then I've duplicated the work and infringed on the copyright. Laws like this are in place to minimize the impact of book swapping and borrowing on the creator of the work. There is a massive difference between sharing a physical book and essentially publishing another person's work for all the world to access.



I think you took my meaning too legally. When I said, author's rights were overlooked, I was not actually referring to the legal definition of 'rights'. The only problem (or at least the major problem) that I find with book piracy is that the author is not paid for what he deserves. You may think I'm mad and too obstinate to keep on stressing on the same point again and again. But I want to make my viewpoint clear. Legally, many things that are right are not actually so and many that aren't correct, are. So, lets put the lawful aspects apart and consider things from author's point.

Your answer was perfect in one way and yet it wasn't. The law does not permit piracy but permits sharing. The author, earns just one supper, however, in either of the cases.


Thelma you are right

If someone is doing something that is wrong, be a big enough person to admit it and take responsibility for it. Don't drown me with rationalizations and justifications for what you are doing.

Everyone has done things that are wrong. But to sit there and try to explain it away is f*cking annoying



Well, am I trying to explain myself? I am not. You guys took my thread to new dimensions. This wasn't meant for personal woes. Rather it was to discuss book piracy as in piracy. Do you see that in my original post I asked you to judge me? No! Is the poll- 'Did I do right?' Again freaking NO!

Why I wrote all that I did was to show that piracy sometimes becomes unavoidable. And what are your opinions on that. Also, this thread was to discover author's rights.

Now , if someone gets annoyed for no particular reason, its their friggin problem!

[TheFifthElement]

Aren't you contradicting yourself? In the previous post you made, you just said that by buying pirated copies, I'm depriving the author of his earnings. By sharing books with my friends, am I not doing the same? By paying the price of just one book, we all are benefiting, are we not? So, in the sense, borrowing books is no better than buying pirated copies.
No, I'm not contradicting myself. For a start it was a question, not a statement, see:

Put the question another way, if you were a writer, and your writing was your only source of income, how would you feel about it? A theoretical question I know as most writers don't ever earn enough money to make writing their full time career. Or what if you were a bookseller and you lost 5-10% of your income each year from shoplifting. How would you feel about that?
and secondly from the outset I made the qualification about legality, see:


The key point being want; access to literature is not a right or a need, although it is a pleasure. I can understand people breaking the law out of necessity...

...It's probably the reason that all piracy crime (where copying is illegal, it's not always the case and where it's legal I have no problem with it)...

I have no issues with the legally free methods of distributing literature, like libraries and sharing and so on. And I have no issue with books being freely available once they're outside copyright either. Even the secondhand market is legal (it's know as the first sale doctrine and it applies to movies and music and software too, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine). Any author entering the writing market will be aware of these legal routes to access their literature, so it doesn't infringe their rights in any way. The law protects the author's right to first sale - this is no different to any commodity bought or sold, if you buy a used car you don't send the money back to Toyota so it's really no different. But the fact that there are legal routes to access literature freely or cheaply doesn't give people the right to illegally reproduce those works or absolve them of the consequences of breaking the law, in the same way that being able to buy a secondhand car doesn't give you the right to steal one from a dealer's forecourt. Now the law may be different where you live Nihar so maybe you ought to research that. But in UK it is a criminal offence to copy a book without the author's express permission. Under UK law copyright theft is treated as theft in the same way as if you had walked into the book shop and taken whatever you wanted without paying and, depending on the severity of the crime, can carry a 10 year prison sentence and/or an unlimited fine. So if you pirated in UK you would certainly be committing a crime. If you bought a secondhand book or borrowed a book from your friend or the library you would not be. It's a fairly reasonable distinction.


In fact, I am at least paying someone by buying pirated copies.
So is the person who buys a cheap computer or jewellery from a guy they met down the pub without asking any questions where it came from. And so what if they stole it from the old guy down the street? At least someone got paid for it.


But the author is also a person, and I'm sure the author would sympathize with his situation, and perhaps go so far as to encourage him to pirate the novel if there is no way for him to buy it. If I were the author, I'd rather that he read it than not read it, given that he cannot buy it.
I think you overestimate an author's sympathies. And would you be so sympathetic if you found that the reason the person couldn't afford the book is because they'd spent all their money on booze or going out with their mates or Mars bars or all those other things you can't get by pirating and can only steal by directly interacting with the person you are stealing from at great personal risk? Sometimes people are very selective about what they 'can' and 'can't' afford. On close examination there would be very few circumstances in which someone genuinely had 'no way for him to buy it'.

I'm curious, given that you believe literature is so important to Nihar's personal development (more important, it seems, than food or water or medicine or housing) would you counsel Nihar to shoplift from the local bookshop in order to fulfil that need?


If you abstain from pirating books or music, good for you - but it has the same practical consequence of not voting. It's not going to make a difference.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you suggesting I should break the law because lots of other people do? Isn't that the route to anarchy?

[ktm5124]

<TheFifthElement>

I would strongly advise against shoplifting, in light of its practical consequences.

I also would look down on people who spend their money on booze and then pirate books.

In fact, I would look down on anyone who pirated books in almost any other circumstance. Authors make too little as it is!

<mkhockenberry>

I wasn't aware that there were so many free and legal alternatives. Knowing this, I think I would agree with you - better to quit the pirating and pursue the legal alternatives.

[applepie]

I think you took my meaning too legally. When I said, author's rights were overlooked, I was not actually referring to the legal definition of 'rights'. The only problem (or at least the major problem) that I find with book piracy is that the author is not paid for what he deserves. You may think I'm mad and too obstinate to keep on stressing on the same point again and again. But I want to make my viewpoint clear. Legally, many things that are right are not actually so and many that aren't correct, are. So, lets put the lawful aspects apart and consider things from author's point.

Your answer was perfect in one way and yet it wasn't. The law does not permit piracy but permits sharing. The author, earns just one supper, however, in either of the cases.

I'm horribly literal:). I certainly don't fault you for finding books online, merely argue the legality of it (please be careful as they are cracking down on piracy more and more at the moment. I know it is primarily focused on videos, but I wouldn't like to see you get in any trouble). I really can't imagine not being allowed to purchase novels or not having a library handy. It sounds like you're in a military town, are you sure there isn't one tucked away? I don't mean that you haven't looked or anything, only that the Navy town I lived in had one hidden away at a community college. It wasn't readily apparent unless you really knew where to look.

I think the copyright laws really need to catch up with the present. They're too rooted in the idea of ONLY printed copies being available. There is no real accounting for online copies, but I would love to see online "Libraries". Maybe it is a paid membership on an individuals part, but then you are given electronic access to the same new books coming out in stores and the authors can be paid per the download.

[ktm5124]

Ah, I am reading Portrait of a Lady and I just found some lines that quite pertain to this discussion =)

Ralph Touchett says to Isabel: "Take things more easily. Don't ask yourself so much whether this or that is good for you. Don't question your conscience so much - it will get out of tune like a strummed piano. Keep it for great occasions."

Keep it for great occasions. I love that!

By the way - if there is any irony to this statement, please don't spoil the novel. This is my first time reading it.

[Virgil]

Put the question another way, if you were a writer, and your writing was your only source of income, how would you feel about it? A theoretical question I know as most writers don't ever earn enough money to make writing their full time career. Or what if you were a bookseller and you lost 5-10% of your income each year from shoplifting. How would you feel about that?

Agreed.

Writers and the writing industry and book stores do not make that much money as it is. It's not right. A person that does this is stealing.

[Gladys]

Ah, I am reading Portrait of a Lady...

Having recently read several later novels, I'm now reading "The Wings of the Dove", all from the local library. The nuanced morality of Henry James is eye-opening. What is lying, what is cheating, what is stealing?

During the 20th century, conventional copyright reigned supreme. Like it or not, times are changing and standing like Xerxes whipping the incoming tide is at best cathartic. No amount of righteous rhetoric will prevent digital inroads on copyright, and most authors - like musicians, film-makers and journalists before them - will need to find other ways of making a profit. Legislators will need to modernise our laws to retain credibility, and ethicists need to evolve a morality in tune with the times in which we live. Obviously, this process will be more gradual and painful in nations with a greater financial stake in copyright protection.

While I would never wish to read a novel on computer, digital copies are a useful way of locating again the odd interesting passage, and quoting from it.

[Nikhar]

I have no issues with the legally free methods of distributing literature, like libraries and sharing and so on. And I have no issue with books being freely available once they're outside copyright either. Even the secondhand market is legal (it's know as the first sale doctrine and it applies to movies and music and software too, see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine). Any author entering the writing market will be aware of these legal routes to access their literature, so it doesn't infringe their rights in any way. The law protects the author's right to first sale - this is no different to any commodity bought or sold, if you buy a used car you don't send the money back to Toyota so it's really no different. But the fact that there are legal routes to access literature freely or cheaply doesn't give people the right to illegally reproduce those works or absolve them of the consequences of breaking the law, in the same way that being able to buy a secondhand car doesn't give you the right to steal one from a dealer's forecourt. Now the law may be different where you live Nihar so maybe you ought to research that. But in UK it is a criminal offence to copy a book without the author's express permission. Under UK law copyright theft is treated as theft in the same way as if you had walked into the book shop and taken whatever you wanted without paying and, depending on the severity of the crime, can carry a 10 year prison sentence and/or an unlimited fine. So if you pirated in UK you would certainly be committing a crime. If you bought a secondhand book or borrowed a book from your friend or the library you would not be. It's a fairly reasonable distinction.

Firstly a very sincere thanks to TheFifthElement and Meg, for enlightening me with the legal aspects of author's rights. :) I definitely added quite a lot to my general knowledge today. ;)

Now, as I said to Meg, I think you took my meaning too legally. (though glad you did it as I learned something new :) ) Yes, legally the distinction is apparent. But I'll quote what I said to Meg,


The law does not permit piracy but permits sharing. The author, earns just one supper, however, in either of the cases.



So is the person who buys a cheap computer or jewellery from a guy they met down the pub without asking any questions where it came from. And so what if they stole it from the old guy down the street? At least someone got paid for it.

I'll quote what I exactly said and try to make what I meant clearer.


By sharing books with my friends, am I not doing the same? By paying the price of just one book, we all are benefiting, are we not? So, in the sense, borrowing books is no better than buying pirated copies.
In fact, I am at least paying someone by buying pirated copies.

When I said 'I am paying someone at least', I was comparing the situation of 'borrowing' and 'pirating' and NOT 'legal selling' and 'pirating'. When I borrow, no one gets any money and we all benefit.

In the example you gave, you are comparing 'legal selling' and 'stealing'.


I'm horribly literal. I certainly don't fault you for finding books online, merely argue the legality of it (please be careful as they are cracking down on piracy more and more at the moment. I know it is primarily focused on videos, but I wouldn't like to see you get in any trouble). I really can't imagine not being allowed to purchase novels or not having a library handy. It sounds like you're in a military town, are you sure there isn't one tucked away? I don't mean that you haven't looked or anything, only that the Navy town I lived in had one hidden away at a community college. It wasn't readily apparent unless you really knew where to look.

I think the copyright laws really need to catch up with the present. They're too rooted in the idea of ONLY printed copies being available. There is no real accounting for online copies, but I would love to see online "Libraries". Maybe it is a paid membership on an individuals part, but then you are given electronic access to the same new books coming out in stores and the authors can be paid per the download.

Yes, I'm from a military town. Well, maybe there must be a library available for us civilians. I'll check out once again. Thanks.

And yes, I'd love the concept of online library. But I think, it has severe shortcomings, that it would only promote piracy. Keeping books online for everyone to download would only become much simpler.

-----

Btw, thanks a lot ktm5124 for supporting me. ;)

And yeah, my name is "Nikhar" and not 'Nihar' or 'Nikar'. :D

[TurquoiseSunset]

Sure, they are not getting their $5 or $10 that they ought to get when he reads their book.

I wish books in SA only cost $5 or $10. Here, on average, books cost between £13 and £15 or $20 to $24...

[kasie]

This is perhaps diverging from the OP: in UK there is a system of paying authors whose books are borrowed from libraries. It's called something like Public Library Lending scheme and authors are paid a small sum each time their books are borrowed. I don't know quite how it is calculated but an author friend of mine receives a cheque a couple of times a year, not a vast sum, certainly but all donations are gratefully received.

Also, Sony recently canvassed all recent purchasers of their e-readers to find out how receptive they would be to a borrowing scheme. I've no idea how it would work but I voted in favour of it as e-books are expensive, being somewhat in the position of the printed book before paperbacks and discounts were the order of the day.

[Jozanny]

Although it probably is not contrary to popular belief in this forum, it does bear stating that most creative professionals have a very hard time actually earning a living from films, or music, book publishing, painting--and yes, piracy and digital technology effect the economics of already difficult disciplines. I am thinking of Asian markets, in particular, where content rights do not seem to have any conceptual respect.

I agree with William Safire of NYT that intellectual property law and copyright have swung too far toward corporate control, but I should be able to sustain a 50 cent word rate of pay for the work that I do, and cannot, precisely because no one wants to pay for the exclusiveness of content.

Gladys, James was, one, wealthy, and two, a shrewd business man. The Atlantic paid him huge sums of money that no writer, not even the late Wallace, could command today. Many writers with talent end up giving up out of sheer exhaustion, and although this will eventually sort itself out, as no one will work for no return on their labor, piracy as a hidden cost hurts everyone, movie goers, movie producers, readers and authors alike.

[TheFifthElement]

And yeah, my name is "Nikhar" and not 'Nihar' or 'Nikar'. :D

My apologies, Nikhar :)



Now, as I said to Meg, I think you took my meaning too legally. (though glad you did it as I learned something new :) ) Yes, legally the distinction is apparent.
I see. I think the difficulty is that when you're talking about 'piracy' (unless you're referring to it in the maritime sense on which subject I could also wax lyrical until you lose the will to live) to which the OP refers this, by definition, refers to illegal copying.


When I said 'I am paying someone at least', I was comparing the situation of 'borrowing' and 'pirating' and NOT 'legal selling' and 'pirating'. When I borrow, no one gets any money and we all benefit.

In the example you gave, you are comparing 'legal selling' and 'stealing'.
I understand. If you're asking whether I think borrowing books is, or should be, illegal or immoral then I would say quite firmly 'no'! I don't see why authors or musicians or artists or any other kind of purveyor of intellectual property should have greater rights that a manufacturer who produces a physical product. Neither do I think they should have less rights. It is this equilibrium that the copyright laws are attempting, however successfully or unsuccessfully, to maintain. If it's okay for my neighbour to lend me a screwdriver or their car or their lawnmower without me having to pay a fee back to Stanley, or Toyota or Hovver, then it's okay for them to lend me a book without paying a fee back to the author or the publishing house. It's a level playing field. And when you borrow something you have to give it back, the benefit is temporary (excepting those fortunate few who have photographic memories!), whereas pirating gives you a copy which you can then continue to use, so the benefit is permanent. Or it's as permanent as you want it to be, if that makes sense.

This would also be true in a legal sense because, under theft laws in UK, the definition of 'theft' includes the qualification that the intention must be 'to permanently deprive' the owner of whatever it is you're stealing. In the case of intellectual property, book or other piracy, what's actually being stolen is the owner's (author's) right to control how the property is reproduced. The same rights are conveyed on manufacturers of physical goods by means of patents.

Law is fascinating, everyone should study it :D

[Virgil]

This is perhaps diverging from the OP: in UK there is a system of paying authors whose books are borrowed from libraries. It's called something like Public Library Lending scheme and authors are paid a small sum each time their books are borrowed. I don't know quite how it is calculated but an author friend of mine receives a cheque a couple of times a year, not a vast sum, certainly but all donations are gratefully received.


Now that is a good idea, though I can see how libraries which are on a tight budget could not afford it. But it does seem fair.

[ktm5124]

I think that taxpayers should have some choice where their taxes go. I would rather my money go to the arts than to foreign nations developing bombs.