E-book piracy

[Razeus]

Discuss.

[lichtrausch]

I don't pirate anything. But sometimes I copy or share electronic files.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

E-book piracy is, in my mind, the single largest problem that's going to come from the rise in popularity of e-books. You can't pirate a real book, but you can find free e-books quite easily, and this has the potential to really do damage to the profits of publishing companies which will hurt the profits of authors, who, in many cases, don't get paid that well in the first place.

[mortalterror]

Those poor multi-national publishing companies. If someone pirates the new Stephen King book, it might only sell 20 million copies, and the CEO of Random House will have to wait another two weeks to get that gold rimmed shark aquarium he's had his eye on.

[JBI]

Those poor multi-national publishing companies. If someone pirates the new Stephen King book, it might only sell 20 million copies, and the CEO of Random House will have to wait another two weeks to get that gold rimmed shark aquarium he's had his eye on.

Agreed. Real novels, that is, novels worth reading, and books worth reading by extension, to encompass all genres, are generally not commercially successful, and run limited runs anyway. Poetry books essentially do not make any money. Who suffer are those who make huge money, namely people who exploit the scale they publish on to print mass runs in somewhere like China, and make a huge profit limiting a) royalties for authors, and b) costs of production and quality.

Ebooks essentially bypass Canadian sales regulations on books, and thereby screw up the NAFTA agreement that protects Canadian book markets. I say steal them.

The whole point of the IPOD originally was to steal music - the e-readers are an extension of the game, though reading off of them is dreadful, well, in English anyway, they work better in Chinese (because Chinese has a lot "thicker" pages). Even so, it's hard to stare at a screen like one would a book.

As for the real authors who I care about, well, they are destroyed by the powers who have the most to lose from pirated books in the first place, namely those who go to literary (usually university) presses, or small local authors in local presses. The remedy is simple; keep the funding on the presses as is already done. Lets face it, the only one to suffer in the book piracy game is China, and they are the biggest internet pirates in the world (books included, as they read countless books in electronic format, and are far more ahead in terms of e-publishing than anywhere else from what I can gather).


University presses have been the backbone of good scholarly and readable texts for a while, small presses for literary works. Nobody, for instance, would read a Penguin if any other edition exists that actually is well edited. The Hamilton Spenser is just light years ahead of the Penguin, and even that is ahead of the cheap hardback edition whose name I am forgetting. Simply put, the books that matter won't be particularly fazed.

And those that get small exposure in the first place will probably benefit from exposure, especially those who are great authors, but are not aligned with the marketing sphere of the mass press. Chances are, his/her profit will be higher because of the piracy.

So in the end, it is the popular mediocre books that suffer. How tragic.

[keilj]

Man, the OP put so much time and thought into the opening post, that I don't know where to begin



One other interesting side-effect of electronic media is the younger generations' skewed sense of stealing now. I had conversations with college students when I was teaching, and they refuse to even believe that getting a free copy of Microsoft Visual Studio online is stealing. Same with stealing music

As for the evils of capitalist companies - of course they are vampires. But does turning yourself into a thief help that??

[billl]

As for the evils of capitalist companies - of course they are vampires. But does turning yourself into a thief help that??

Yeah, go after the corporations. Undo some of the ridiculous alterations to copyright laws (done by Disney, etc., in the U.S. for example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Bono_Copyright_Term_Extension_Act)). But let's keep the idea that original ideas can be worth something, even if they can be digitally (or otherwise) reproduced. The world is becoming more and more digital (you can already buy 3-D printers, and much more elaborate machines are in research facilities) so it seems like a bad precedent to devalue human contributions once they become reproducible digitally. That path just empowers aggregators, internet providers, and computer hardware manufacturers. But new content will always be a major reason why those kindles, ipods, flash drives, and internet connections are worth money, and so let's remember it has value, and that its creation should be rewarded and encouraged.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Those poor multi-national publishing companies. If someone pirates the new Stephen King book, it might only sell 20 million copies, and the CEO of Random House will have to wait another two weeks to get that gold rimmed shark aquarium he's had his eye on.

Yeah, and who's the CEO going to make pay for his loss in profits? Those below him, authors included.


Agreed. Real novels, that is, novels worth reading, and books worth reading by extension, to encompass all genres, are generally not commercially successful, and run limited runs anyway. Poetry books essentially do not make any money. Who suffer are those who make huge money, namely people who exploit the scale they publish on to print mass runs in somewhere like China, and make a huge profit limiting a) royalties for authors, and b) costs of production and quality.

Ebooks essentially bypass Canadian sales regulations on books, and thereby screw up the NAFTA agreement that protects Canadian book markets. I say steal them.

The whole point of the IPOD originally was to steal music - the e-readers are an extension of the game, though reading off of them is dreadful, well, in English anyway, they work better in Chinese (because Chinese has a lot "thicker" pages). Even so, it's hard to stare at a screen like one would a book.

As for the real authors who I care about, well, they are destroyed by the powers who have the most to lose from pirated books in the first place, namely those who go to literary (usually university) presses, or small local authors in local presses. The remedy is simple; keep the funding on the presses as is already done. Lets face it, the only one to suffer in the book piracy game is China, and they are the biggest internet pirates in the world (books included, as they read countless books in electronic format, and are far more ahead in terms of e-publishing than anywhere else from what I can gather).


University presses have been the backbone of good scholarly and readable texts for a while, small presses for literary works. Nobody, for instance, would read a Penguin if any other edition exists that actually is well edited. The Hamilton Spenser is just light years ahead of the Penguin, and even that is ahead of the cheap hardback edition whose name I am forgetting. Simply put, the books that matter won't be particularly fazed.

And those that get small exposure in the first place will probably benefit from exposure, especially those who are great authors, but are not aligned with the marketing sphere of the mass press. Chances are, his/her profit will be higher because of the piracy.

So in the end, it is the popular mediocre books that suffer. How tragic.

You really think non-popular books won't be pirated? What, are those who read the "good" books above such behavior?--that is, of course, assuming there are good authors outside of what you consider to be good. Please.

[JBI]

No, I think good authors will benefit from the exposure, as, as it is they do not make much money, and most of them rely on day jobs. This way their sales will probably increase, the same way the "independent" musicians seem to like to give their work away for free, for the simple reason their exposure will grow.

A good example is the online fantasy author Scott Lynch, who became a published author with some exposure for publishing all his work for free online. As it is, an author's electronic presence has become more and more important.

[mortalterror]

Yeah, and who's the CEO going to make pay for his loss in profits? Those below him, authors included.

Your hypothesis is based upon two rather debatable assumptions. 1)That the bargaining position between authors and publishing houses is already equitable, and that an increase or decrease in profits will be felt up and down the line. 2)That piracy inevitably results in a loss of said profits to the publisher.

I have to agree with JBI here. To the extent that I even read books published in the last 100 years, which would be effected by copyright law, I do tend to read mostly from the small university presses. I can't imagine anybody going out of their way to pirate those. I don't think I'll ever live to see The Poems of Martial, or a 6 volume Commentary on the Iliad downloadable on bittorent. If there's a free edition of Twilight: New Moon, I could care less.

[k1ngk0ngwl]

Pirating is a problem, there is no doubt about it. Unfortunately, the nature of the corporate beast is such that they are the biggest leech upon artists. Pirates aren't stealing nearly as much as the corporations. Britney Spears was getting 3 cents per album sale. How much do you think a young, talented writer gets for each copy of their book?

The answer is, of course, very simple. If someone produces something noteworthy, then people will buy it. Music artists that produce albums that are good the entire way through, and throw in some interesting packaging reap far more rewards than those who put one good single on a record and get the one cent per iTunes download. Writers that produce great books or find creative ways to present their work will be similarly rewarded. The Mongoliad is one such project that is trying a new approach. Not only do the writers get a far greater percentage, the readers pay less.

Of course, writers still have one advantage in the sense that most people still prefer holding a book and reading it. Readers, too, have a greater sense of responsibility towards the authors they like, but consider this...

Dostoevsky is dead. Steinbeck is dead. Shakespeare is dead. Why should we have any scruples about downloading, for free, the works of dead men? We aren't costing them anything. I can find the collected works of nearly any author on Mediafire. Not only do I save money, I save all kinds of time.

I don't know if pirates are causing writers to go broke. Certainly, the pirating of movies and music have not made actors and musicians poor. If someone is making a living with their work, and not getting rich, I don't feel all that bad. Hungry artists make the best art, anyways, and I am not going to feel bad that someone else must forgo a second home or luxury car because of people who are ahead of the technological curve.

[cyberbob]

Pirating is a problem, there is no doubt about it. Unfortunately, the nature of the corporate beast is such that they are the biggest leech upon artists. Pirates aren't stealing nearly as much as the corporations. Britney Spears was getting 3 cents per album sale. How much do you think a young, talented writer gets for each copy of their book?

The answer is, of course, very simple. If someone produces something noteworthy, then people will buy it. Music artists that produce albums that are good the entire way through, and throw in some interesting packaging reap far more rewards than those who put one good single on a record and get the one cent per iTunes download. Writers that produce great books or find creative ways to present their work will be similarly rewarded. The Mongoliad is one such project that is trying a new approach. Not only do the writers get a far greater percentage, the readers pay less.

Of course, writers still have one advantage in the sense that most people still prefer holding a book and reading it. Readers, too, have a greater sense of responsibility towards the authors they like, but consider this...

Dostoevsky is dead. Steinbeck is dead. Shakespeare is dead. Why should we have any scruples about downloading, for free, the works of dead men? We aren't costing them anything. I can find the collected works of nearly any author on Mediafire. Not only do I save money, I save all kinds of time.

I don't know if pirates are causing writers to go broke. Certainly, the pirating of movies and music have not made actors and musicians poor. If someone is making a living with their work, and not getting rich, I don't feel all that bad. Hungry artists make the best art, anyways, and I am not going to feel bad that someone else must forgo a second home or luxury car because of people who are ahead of the technological curve.

LOL as opposed to getting 0% from pirates? How are the big, bad corporations bigger thieves if they give more than nothing like the pirates do?

And I believe all the authors you mentioned are in the public domain so in those cases there really is nothing wrong with getting them for free. People who sell e-books of their works usually just charge a few cents for the cost of converting it to an e-book form.

You're in denial, bud. You support piracy because it'll drive artists to poverty which will allow them to create better art? You're willing to let a human being starve so they can entertain you better?

Not every actor or musician or writer is a millionaire. Not every artist is forgoing a luxury car, some may be forgoing their rent or groceries. And it doesn't just affect the individual artist but all the people that work under and around him. In the case of e-book piracy it would affect companies actually licensed to distribute the books and all their employees.

[JBI]

Well, for Shakespeare anyway - a signet edition is worth nothing (as attested by its relative price) but there are fancier editions that actually have worth - editing is a great thing.

The problem is, the editor in the first place sees virtually none of the money anyway, and in general specialized editions are not profitable publications.

Basically if good books in general were pirated, it would be just having a convenient library - you do not see the editors of the Spenser Encyclopedia, for instance, complaining their work is available online - the only difference is, their audience will increase, as the major libraries that contain the books that, lets face it, are only read out of library collections anyway, will gain exposure.

As for struggling artists and the like - my government, like many, has dealt with the problem - their cash comes mostly from state sponsored endeavors and from limited sales - that won't change. If anything this just marks the next stage in education - if all this is available for free, I have the feeling that the bulk of educated people would regard it being read as a good thing. The world can do with a more literate public, and what better way.

[Kafka's Crow]

Internet is a vehicle for exposure. Ebooks expose their authors to different audiences worldwide and can and will generate different means of income for these authors. A good ebook can, for example, end up in the hands of a good screen-writer somewhere in Australia and get made into a movie. This would generate the income for this previously unknown author. Audiences not sales make good authors great, exposure is the keyword not sales. I don't think Molloy sold a million copies. Ebooks are great and they have already set budding artists free from the cluthces of the Publishing Industry (Google up 'self-publishing'). Culture Industry will go down, thanks to piracy. There will be millions of different voices asking for our attention and excellence will, finally, gain the right to exist by standing out and proclaiming itself. Oh brave new world!

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

The answer is, of course, very simple. If someone produces something noteworthy, then people will buy it. Music artists that produce albums that are good the entire way through, and throw in some interesting packaging reap far more rewards than those who put one good single on a record and get the one cent per iTunes download. Writers that produce great books or find creative ways to present their work will be similarly rewarded. The Mongoliad is one such project that is trying a new approach. Not only do the writers get a far greater percentage, the readers pay less.

Maybe this rings true for a small percentage of people out there, but not many. Packaging counts for very little. The amount of MP3s bought from iTunes is evidence of that--and these people are buying the MP3s, not pirating them. The art of the CD/album case doesn't draw much pull. Why would a book cover?

Anyways, the fact remains, a lot less books/ebooks will be sold no matter how creative the packaging.


Of course, writers still have one advantage in the sense that most people still prefer holding a book and reading it.


This is rapidly changing, and is altogether false with kids.





Your hypothesis is based upon two rather debatable assumptions. 1)That the bargaining position between authors and publishing houses is already equitable, and that an increase or decrease in profits will be felt up and down the line. 2)That piracy inevitably results in a loss of said profits to the publisher.


It isn't equitable now, but piracy won't make it any better. Do you really think pirating isn't going to have a negative effect on published writers and publishers monetarily? How so? People get books for free that they would other wise pay for, hence, loss of profits. I'm not seeing the debatable part, here.


I have to agree with JBI here. To the extent that I even read books published in the last 100 years, which would be effected by copyright law, I do tend to read mostly from the small university presses. I can't imagine anybody going out of their way to pirate those. I don't think I'll ever live to see The Poems of Martial, or a 6 volume Commentary on the Iliad downloadable on bittorent. If there's a free edition of Twilight: New Moon, I could care less.

So, only books that you and JBI enjoy and deem to have literary merit matter?

I don't see how anyone can logically argue that

[billl]

Let's not pretend that we'd be doing the artist any favors by pirating their work against their will. It might be a good business model to make something free in some circumstances, but what is made free should be left to the artist's discretion--unless you think the imperatives of the latest technological developments trump the value of the art and human creativity.

[Drkshadow03]

Internet is a vehicle for exposure. Ebooks expose their authors to different audiences worldwide and can and will generate different means of income for these authors. A good ebook can, for example, end up in the hands of a good screen-writer somewhere in Australia and get made into a movie. This would generate the income for this previously unknown author. Audiences not sales make good authors great, exposure is the keyword not sales. I don't think Molloy sold a million copies. Ebooks are great and they have already set budding artists free from the cluthces of the Publishing Industry (Google up 'self-publishing'). Culture Industry will go down, thanks to piracy. There will be millions of different voices asking for our attention and excellence will, finally, gain the right to exist by standing out and proclaiming itself. Oh brave new world!

There is a big difference between publishing Ebooks and self-publishing. Most contemporary self-published books are crap. Now before anyone quotes Theodore Sturgeon's law. Yes, mostly anything that gets published is crap. However, self-publishing has an even higher-rate precisely because there is no middle-man (an editor) performing quality control. Any jerk who wants to see themselves published can do so for a small fee.

Ebooks are a mode that are in fact being adopted more and more by big publishers too. So I don't see this as something that will kill those publishing industries. Just change their business models slightly.

[mortalterror]

It isn't equitable now, but piracy won't make it any better. Do you really think pirating isn't going to have a negative effect on published writers and publishers monetarily? How so? People get books for free that they would other wise pay for, hence, loss of profits. I'm not seeing the debatable part, here.

The people who would buy the book are still going to buy the book. Piracy mostly, I won't be foolish and say exclusively, effects people who weren't going to buy the product anyway. And in some cases, if the book is good enough, people are going to want a better quality version of it, which means buying a paper or hardback version. This may be anecdotal evidence, but I do know people who've downloaded movies and music, who later bought legitimate copies of the DVDs and CDs. They've shown the work to their friends who also bought copies for themselves. So it can work as advertising the way JBI suggests.

[keilj]

This is rapidly changing, and is altogether false with kids.






Yeah, I've never seen a kid buy a physical Harry Potter book. Oh wait

Yeah my niece doesn't have any physical Dr Seuss books. Oh wait

[JBI]

There is a big difference between publishing Ebooks and self-publishing. Most contemporary self-published books are crap. Now before anyone quotes Theodore Sturgeon's law. Yes, mostly anything that gets published is crap. However, self-publishing has an even higher-rate precisely because there is no middle-man (an editor) performing quality control. Any jerk who wants to see themselves published can do so for a small fee.

Ebooks are a mode that are in fact being adopted more and more by big publishers too. So I don't see this as something that will kill those publishing industries. Just change their business models slightly.

Here things have changed. In China many people read ebooks, and the bulk of mass fiction is published first online as pay per word. There is a giant market, and a huge readership, with 2/3 of the profit going to the author, plus potential television adaptations which generate additional income.

The idea of self publishing being a problem is not a problem here, and neither is piracy, even though it is most practiced here, as, as as been noted, one will only be pirated if it already makes money.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

The people who would buy the book are still going to buy the book. Piracy mostly, I won't be foolish and say exclusively, effects people who weren't going to buy the product anyway. And in some cases, if the book is good enough, people are going to want a better quality version of it, which means buying a paper or hardback version. This may be anecdotal evidence, but I do know people who've downloaded movies and music, who later bought legitimate copies of the DVDs and CDs. They've shown the work to their friends who also bought copies for themselves. So it can work as advertising the way JBI suggests.

Really? People who "would" buy a book still will buy it even if there is a free alternative? Come on, you know this isn't true. People do want to save money, especially today, and if they can save ten plus bucks, many will, even if it means not having an aesthetically pleasing book.

Some people may buy a book if it's good enough, but most won't.


Yeah, I've never seen a kid buy a physical Harry Potter book. Oh wait

Yeah my niece doesn't have any physical Dr Seuss books. Oh wait

I meant that kids have no scruples about using ebooks, and many prefer it, as is shown in this study (http://hotspotfrankfurt.com/mobile/study-kids-prefer-e-books-to-real-books/). Thanks for the sarcasm though--it makes proving your anecdotal points irrelevant all the more enjoyable.

[Vautrin]

What if one were to pirate an e-book about pirates?

[stlukesguild]

Hungry artists make the best art, anyways...

While I tend to agree with JBI and Mortal's position here, I find this statement to be simply absurd and lacking any connection with reality. It is rather like the old romantic assumption that the "artist must suffer".

The reality is that art and money are forever intertwined. Great artists and art movements have continually thrived in the wealthiest cities/nations for the simple reason that it is far easier to create art when the artist is not worried about where his or her next meal is coming from, and has the luxury of both time and a degree of wealth at his or her command needed to finance the actual art production. For every tale of the starving artist producing masterpieces in obscurity, I can certainly site several other examples of artists producing masterful works of art in spite of the "burden" of financial success.

[Jozanny]

I published my work for free long before digital technology, and I am turning into an old unhappy woman reduced to licking my wounds online when I can get away with that kind of self-indulgence. There are basically two camps, professional writers who write for money and do that very well, and creative writers, the majority of whom stay in the academic system, and a small percentage make it.

I've had my foot in both groups, but I'm aging, and my energies aren't what they were. I waffle between the exposure for free argument and the publish for money journalists, and given my depression, anxiety about being institutionalized again as I age, I don't speculate much on my legacy at this point.

[mortalterror]

Really? People who "would" buy a book still will buy it even if there is a free alternative? Come on, you know this isn't true. People do want to save money, especially today, and if they can save ten plus bucks, many will, even if it means not having an aesthetically pleasing book.

No. I know it for a fact because I've personally seen it a number of times. You have a very dark view of human nature if you think that everyone will steal if given the opportunity.

[MystyrMystyry]

If you want to get rich being an artist you should study business, if you want to get poor being a businessman study art

The Rolling Stones spent twentyfive years (quarter of a century) being famous but living in debt, before a chance meeting with David Bowie introduced Mick Jagger to the idea of living within one's means (and this was during the great age of cassette piracy for both of them

'If I had been a cassette manufacturer I would have been a lot richer a lot sooner' - David Bowie

Some people make a fortune from the success and sales of their works - about the same amount who win a share of the lottery each year, while others don't (the 95 percenters)

In the heyday of the record industry a percentage of the royalties for successful acts were trimmed off to support the majority of talented but less successful acts. Periodically the books were purged, and the unsuccessful acts were trimmed off the accounts when it was agreed that they had no talent and never would have (which is separate from critical opinion)

The smart acts (those with business acumen) invested their money into their own record labels with their own sound engineers and recording studios, and thus could ensure that they always had a quality finished product ready for distribution through the major labels

Those without much business acumen often flounder or invest in a good manager (without Bernie Epstein we'd probably never have heard of the Beatles - but they had a good manager and their own record label)

In the case of piracy, it's on the increase through contact with other types of pirates i.e. the music pirates meet software pirates meet people who had never considered piracy until then (when the rot starts at the top it's easy for it to flow down)

If you feel like you're being ripped off, don't worry, humans have always felt like that in some or other quarter, and they tend to exact their tiny revenge by following the Winona Ryder/Lindsay Lohan example (to cite a couple of well-known ones)

You can easily get a copy of the latest Photoshop to try free for thirty days - if you don't have much time during those thirty days - either bad luck, or get the pirated version - after all if you're not using it to make money or take someone else's job away what harm? You probably still won't have thirty days in your entire life just to try it out and there's still no harm

But if you are using it to make money then the least you could do is purchase a license

In the case of ebook piracy - if I like a book I've borrowed from a library enough to decide I'd like to own a copy then I buy it. And if someone offers me a taster from the wealth of ebooks that will come I'd probably still buy it if it's one I'd rather read in actual print

If I didn't enjoy it I'd probably not read it again, the difference is that second hand bookshops will be in decline just like new bookshops are and used recordshops had been before completely disappearing

Would I want someone to pay money for something I've written that they didn't enjoy? No

So how do you re-sell something you don't want anyway that doesn't really exist in the first place?

Nah - the argument needs to be looked at differently - why people purchase the stuff in the first place: gifts is most likely the single biggest reason for cd, dvd and book sales because they are first and foremost an entertainment, not a necessity - and software because in niche circumstances owning the authorised version is a lot less hassle than the pirated version

Personally I have less qualms in downloading an illegal song I'm only going to play once or twice that I've already heard a number of times (and somewhere on the internet I can go and listen to anyway) than buying the bugger if I don't want to own it and can't readily dispose of

I mean there has to be some benefit to having an internet - free downloads, movie channels, music, games, magazines - and now books are joining the wonderful democracy

Though movie piracy is a slightly different matter because it affects the welfare of a lot of good people who'd otherwise be put on the first flght to Gilgafrincham, how many dvds do you own that you never want to see again? How do you re-sell them without an ebay account? You get an ebay account! (or give them to someone)

In conclusion - ebook piacy will become common as it becomes available, but it doesn't mean the end of royalties nor publishing (bookstores are only closing because they're no longer cost effective - I can't think of a single publisher that's shut its doors just because there's an alternate means to read a text)



[Written and authorised by MystyrMystyry (whom in no measure condones the piracy of artworks or software) entirely for the sake of argument]

[manolia]

The people who would buy the book are still going to buy the book. Piracy mostly, I won't be foolish and say exclusively, effects people who weren't going to buy the product anyway. And in some cases, if the book is good enough, people are going to want a better quality version of it, which means buying a paper or hardback version. This may be anecdotal evidence, but I do know people who've downloaded movies and music, who later bought legitimate copies of the DVDs and CDs. They've shown the work to their friends who also bought copies for themselves. So it can work as advertising the way JBI suggests.

Agreed.

[stlukesguild]

Really? People who "would" buy a book still will buy it even if there is a free alternative? Come on, you know this isn't true. People do want to save money, especially today, and if they can save ten plus bucks, many will, even if it means not having an aesthetically pleasing book.

There are a great many books... especially those beyond copyright... that are available in e-book format online free. That doesn't stop me or a lot of others... who do greatly prefer the aesthetic experience of an actual book to an electronic text... from purchasing the book. Hell, a great many books and CDs are available for less through the electronic format, and yet a great majority of those beyond their teens and twenties prefer to own the actual physical book and disc. I do have a good number of electronic texts... but these are only books that I have not been able to find in any other format... long out of print texts that would cost a small fortune if they could be found that I have been able to download through various library databases. The electronic media may eventually replace physical books as subsequent generations raised from the start on the electronic media come of age... but it has yet to happen. I also prefer real sex to cyber-sex... but that's another issue... or is it?:ladysman:

[FROADS]

To tell you the truth, if i was an author and knew that some of my readers were stealing my books in order to read them i know 4 a fact I wouldn't mind, if anything, i'd be delighted that they were risking their reputation for something i created.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Some people will still buy a real book even though they can have a free electronic version--I'm one of them. But if you think all people will, or enough not to effect the industry, I think that's being pretty naive. Call it a dark view of humanity if you want, but I see it as a realistic view.

And I didn't you seeing it for a fact a number of times made for proof. I guess your personal examples count for all of humanity?

[Nick91]

I think the question everyone always fails to ask is: Is piracy even stopable.

i really don't think so. Unless we want to live 1984, there really is no way of stopping it.
If people get something for free and with very little risk, they will. That's hardly worth debating. Also, the music and film industries suffer far more from online priacy than publishers.

Besides, I find it morally wrong to demand, or even pay for that matter, 20 dollars for a cd. Nowhere in my mind is it justifiable to give millions upon millions to record executives and actors and so called artists.
I don't mean that people shouldn't be able to make a reasonable profit from their work, but by reasonable i mean a normal salary. Tom Cruise doesn't need 50 million \ movie just so he can buy himself another airplane. Not while there are single parents with three kids and a waitresses salary. And that's not even considering the third world.

There are many professions more worthy of society's gratitude, nurses, emt:s, waste management and so on. The things these people provide are a thousand times more important than crappy movies about talking toy robots.

It just isn't right

[billl]

I think the question everyone always fails to ask is: Is piracy even stopable.

i really don't think so. Unless we want to live 1984, there really is no way of stopping it.


I think some people also fail to wonder if measures to curtail piracy might be worthwhile, even if they aren't made to be 100% effective. For many years before the internet, people were buying albums (and then CDs). There was also a lot of illegal taping going on--not everyone listened to tapes, but it was a good way to expand one's collection. Many libraries were another good source for free music, in addition to the music collections of our friends.

Online piracy (which can be curtailed) creates a situation in which an album can become widely available for free very quickly, in a matter of days if not hours--on occasion even before the release date. And people downloading it have no need to have a friend who has paid for the album.

It wouldn't be a nose-first dive into 1984 if the web was to some degree monitored for the illegal transmission of copyrighted material. We could, of course tighten the noose to different degrees, but even in the most heavily monitored situation we would not necessarily be forcing people to use the internet, nor would the government necessarily become a non-democratic mind-control police state.

Efforts to de-1984 the hypothetical monitoring are possible (e.g. algorithms that look only for copyrighted material; algorithms which associate examined files with temporary and anonymous "pointers" which could be matched to actual IP addresses only in cases in which piracy is detected.). Of course, we can imagine such a set-up being abused (whether it is government-run; managed by Private Investigation services; or implemented directly by Internet Access providers, etc.). It's particularly frightening, perhaps, because it is hard to understand--let alone actually get a look at--what is going on "under the hood" with this sort of software and the agencies that would be using it. But that's the case with the internet in general. It's something most people using Facebook and Google probably don't think about (although that's changing, I think).

In my opinion, as people (including our grandparents, children, and non-tech savvy friends and co-workers) move forward with increased digitization and networking in their lives, the habit of crying 1984 every time our internet traffic gets looked at by some sort of authority will have to eventually be broken. The government isn't the only thing that can hurt us (but government is the only one that we can as a society elect, vote out, hold accountable, expect to prosecute criminals, etc.).

I think a lot of people might end up bumping up against the end of the "networked and open everything" phase in technological development. I think that encapsulated environments, and "individual"ly-oriented stuff might be the next trend (ie. devices with inspected apps like the iPads are doing, and software design--as well as legislation, perhaps--that gives us control over our level of sharing/exposure.) Because, even if the government were to keep its hands off entirely, you could still get the a lot of the horrors of 1984 in non-governmental forms. Possible forms would include sinister companies, definitely. But they can, at least, be investigated and prosecuted for breaking laws.




If people get something for free and with very little risk, they will. That's hardly worth debating. Also, the music and film industries suffer far more from online priacy than publishers.


I agree with the first sentence here. I think the third sentence is probably true, and that probably has a lot to do with the hardware. Incidentally, one thing many people don't realize is that Amazon, for example, is able to tell exactly what you are reading, and when you do it (the kindle basically has a mobile phone-type card in it, and Amazon does what it wants with it. Rather suspiciously, the company almost immediately changed everybody's downloaded copy of 1984 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kindle#Remote_content_removal). :thumbsup:)
Anyhow, E-readers are relatively new. With time, people might start pirating more non-public-domain stuff, and we'd have to see how things work it if that were to happen.




Besides, I find it morally wrong to demand, or even pay for that matter, 20 dollars for a cd. Nowhere in my mind is it justifiable to give millions upon millions to record executives and actors and so called artists.
I don't mean that people shouldn't be able to make a reasonable profit from their work, but by reasonable i mean a normal salary. Tom Cruise doesn't need 50 million \ movie just so he can buy himself another airplane. Not while there are single parents with three kids and a waitresses salary. And that's not even considering the third world.

There are many professions more worthy of society's gratitude, nurses, emt:s, waste management and so on. The things these people provide are a thousand times more important than crappy movies about talking toy robots.

It just isn't right

I agree completely with all of that. There might be limits to what we could do to change things, but there are avenues to be explored. One thing, which I mentioned earlier in this thread, is to re-examine the outrageous extensions of copyright protections (championed by companies like Disney, who want to hold onto Mickey Mouse forever.)

[Drkshadow03]

I think the question everyone always fails to ask is: Is piracy even stopable.

i really don't think so. Unless we want to live 1984, there really is no way of stopping it.
If people get something for free and with very little risk, they will. That's hardly worth debating. Also, the music and film industries suffer far more from online priacy than publishers.

Besides, I find it morally wrong to demand, or even pay for that matter, 20 dollars for a cd. Nowhere in my mind is it justifiable to give millions upon millions to record executives and actors and so called artists.
I don't mean that people shouldn't be able to make a reasonable profit from their work, but by reasonable i mean a normal salary. Tom Cruise doesn't need 50 million \ movie just so he can buy himself another airplane. Not while there are single parents with three kids and a waitresses salary. And that's not even considering the third world.

There are many professions more worthy of society's gratitude, nurses, emt:s, waste management and so on. The things these people provide are a thousand times more important than crappy movies about talking toy robots.

It just isn't right

Well, we were talking about the issue in the context of books. Unless you're Stephen King or J. K. Rowling, you're probably making far less than a nurse, emt, or even someone in waste management.

[Jozanny]

Like me :) This is not a new issue. We debated piracy in Speakeasy before ereaders and efiles became cheap enough even for the likes of me, and the are two sides to the coin. Rip off a published plodder like me and it only ups my profile if the theft is discovered and controversy ensues, but the truth is I don't have the resources to punish the thief. King might, but even there, the issue gets sticky.

Publishing, as an industry, has not figured out how to adapt copyright to the technology. Although it might prove I'm an unethical troll, I could cull all of lukes art posts, pitch to a coffee table entity, rewrite his informal lectures here just enough, and voila, I get royalties off an art teacher who loves his subject. Not much he could do to sue me over profits, as LNF posts are not published in the same way WaPo publishes content daily.

The can of worms is too big here, and it might be solved, but certainly not by Amazon controlling user content.

Adding to the worms: there was an interesting court case brought against Crichton, claiming that Jurassic Park was a plagiar of a children's author of dinosaur fantasy.

This was a plagiarism case, granted, and it never made it out of appeal, but the unknown author and the old lawyer had a great deal to gain through suing, if they had been found to have standing-- but to my point, it is about money, and who loses, who gains, whether piracy or copiers--and no, btw, I'd never steal from lukes without asking him, as he is one of maybe two of my only virtual friends. :p

To some posters here this may have a moral component, but it is actually about the economics of intellectual property, and an argument about the ownership of ideas.

[Razeus]

It's rampant because the consumer's know they've been ripped off for years. The industries did their best in limiting options for accessing content, but the internet and the ability to digitize everything changed that. The fact remains: piracy is an issue with price. Period.

Fix the pricing and you'll fix piracy.

How long has Barnes and Noble been charging me for a book that should be free? Kindle let me realize I no longer have to pay their $10 for their store brand editions. Kindle gives them for free. So long B&N and your ilk. Other than browsing your stores, you serve no other purpose.

The masses are voting with their dollar and saying no to high prices. That's all piracy is.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Getting free books off Amazon isn't piracy, though. Those are out-of-copyright books.

[Syd A]

I had conversations with college students when I was teaching, and they refuse to even believe that getting a free copy of Microsoft Visual Studio online is stealing.

That's because they're not stealing. It is you who has the distorted view of ownership and theft. Try to explain, coherently and precisely, what is the property that is being stolen when I download a copy of Microsoft Visual Studio, and you'll realize that nothing is being stolen. Perhaps you should listen to your students - you can learn a lot from them.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

That's because they're not stealing. It is you who has the distorted view of ownership and theft. Try to explain, coherently and precisely, what is the property that is being stolen when I download a copy of Microsoft Visual Studio, and you'll realize that nothing is being stolen. Perhaps you should listen to your students - you can learn a lot from them.

:lol: What? I think it's you who needs to explain how downloading software that you should have payed for for free isn't stealing.

[billl]

In a court (in the U.S. anyhow), illegally copying (incl. downloading) software, music, movies, etc. is known as copyright infringement. People often talk about such activity as being theft, and they aren't completely off-base in any dramatic sense. In similar cases, people might say things like "that guy stole his Halloween costume idea from me!" or "I stole this guitar-playing technique from Chet Atkins,"--and it would cause a lot of eye-rolling if someone pointed out to them that, since there was no grabbing of physical property, they are speaking erroneously when they say that they have "stolen" in those instances. This usage of "theft" and "stealing" in conversation has been common for a while. In court cases involving "theft" of copyrighted material (and patents) the wording and the distinction ends up mattering, however. They don't use "theft".

What's unclear is if the students (incorrectly) believe that that sort of illegal downloading is legal. If they do understand that it is ilegal, and they are making this point about physical v. non-physical property (physical v. intellectual property), then they should've been able to make the point in a way that a professor in a university would understand, I would think.

And if they are trying to make a philosophical point, then they are taking an unfortunate position.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

If Syd A's argument is based only in semantics, then I'm sure he's correct. Arguing semantics is just so damn tedious, though.

[Syd A]

:lol: What? I think it's you who needs to explain how downloading software that you should have payed for for free isn't stealing.

I repeat: explain to me what is being stolen when I download a version of Microsoft Visual Studio. You are being illogical when you ask me to explain why what I'm doing isn't stealing. You are assuming that I am a thief unless I can prove otherwise.

[Syd A]

...then they should've been able to make the point in a way that a professor in a university would understand, I would think.


Fascinating! So if a professor doesn't understand a student, then it is by necessity the student who either doesn't make sense or doesn't explain himself clearly. It is unreasonable to assume that the professor is a nincompoop, right?

[billl]

No, good point (fascinating?). I almost added it in (in an attempt to cover every possible iteration of possible confusions), but the paragraph was getting long enough. Still, it isn't clear what the problem was, and it doesn't seem too hard to explain the semantics. You have to admit there's a good chance most people would understand, if it were explained to them. (Which you could have done yourself, a few posts ago.)

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I repeat: explain to me what is being stolen when I download a version of Microsoft Visual Studio. You are being illogical when you ask me to explain why what I'm doing isn't stealing. You are assuming that I am a thief unless I can prove otherwise.

When you make a claim (i.e., downloading Microsoft Visual Studio for free isn't stealing), the onus is on you to prove the validity of your claim, not for me to prove the opposite.

[Syd A]

When you make a claim (i.e., downloading Microsoft Visual Studio for free isn't stealing), the onus is on you to prove the validity of your claim, not for me to prove the opposite.

No, you made the claim that downloaders are thieves. I don't need to prove that I am not a thief, murderer, or rapist. I don't have to prove that something is not theft. The onus is on you. You cannot ask me to prove a negative (downloading is not theft), just as I cannot ask you to prove you are not a murderer.

Once you realize how foolish your inverse logic is, perhaps you can find time to answer the question: what is being stolen when I downlaod a copy of Microsoft Visual Basic?

Your inability to answer the question, coupled with your irrational attempt to call me a thief and then claim that I am a thief because I failed to prove I'm not, shows clearly that you have not given the issue any serious thought, or that you are incapable of such thought. So, take a break, gather your thoughts, and try again.