Harry Potter 6 e-book already being pirated!

[rationalbiker]

Fair enough NatCh.

Heck, I would buy the Potter books in ebook format even though I haven't read them or owned them in the paper format. But given the lack of the format, I still don't feel compelled to go take what I don't have a right or permission to own.

In contrast to Colin's idea of the best way to address piracy, my opinion on the best way to address piracy is for society in general not to be so apathetic about the people who are actually doing the wrong. I've read on here people blaming the publishers and the authors (absolutely ludicrous in my mind) but very few people actually blaming the thieves. I'll never understand this kind of "blame the victim instead of the culprit" kind of thinking. I have no way of understanding what the concept 'justice' even means to these people or if the even value that concept at all.

[HarryT]

RB,

I am in complete agreement with you, but our viewpoint does, sadly, appear to be in the minority .

[JSWolf]

Given how long it took for a decent copies to show up I do think a lot of people would have paid for a legal copy. The first copies that came out on the day the book was released were chock full of errors all over the place.

[GeoffC]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

The first copies that came out on the day the book was released were chock full of errors all over the place.

You knew ?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by GeoffC

You knew ?

The news was all over the place.

[TallMomof2]

Personally, I wouldn't download the HP books because of a healthy fear of the law and most of the copies were junk.

Now, I would scan a legally purchased pbook for personal use.

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by rationalbiker

In contrast to Colin's idea of the best way to address piracy, my opinion on the best way to address piracy is for society in general not to be so apathetic about the people who are actually doing the wrong. I've read on here people blaming the publishers and the authors (absolutely ludicrous in my mind) but very few people actually blaming the thieves. I'll never understand this kind of "blame the victim instead of the culprit" kind of thinking. I have no way of understanding what the concept 'justice' even means to these people or if the even value that concept at all.

I don't disagree with that either.

I wasn't really trying to comment on that point, only to clarify what had gone before.

That being said, while I do see some extremely narrow limits where I don't feel I'm doing an author harm with ... unofficial e-versions (like when I own the paper book and there is no official e-version), I also see that that is an extreme minority circumstance.

From the perspective of someone who wants legal e-versions, the obvious answer is for the publishers/authors to release such so that I can buy them and everybody wins.

I don't really consider making the observation that there would be less "piracy "if there were more legit e-versions to be blaming the victim, per se, but I do see that it would look that way from some perspectives.


I also agree that there would be less "piracy" if there were more societal disapproval. But the only way to really stamp it out completely from that direction would be do convince 100% of the populace that it's wrong and shouldn't be done. As long as one person doesn't share that view, that approach won't fully work. Again, that's just an observation, not an attempt at justification.

I'm afraid that there will always be some level of this behavior. Yes it's wrong, but so is murder, and that still goes on despite a really widely held view of it as wrong. People do wrong stuff.

I've reached the conclusion that the most effective way to address "piracy" is by removing the incentives of it. It's actually a pain in the sitter-downer to scan a book (which is why so many folks will download one that they already own, rather than scanning it themselves), very few people will take the trouble to "pirate" a book if they don't see any gain to it.


I do try to keep my "conclusions" open to review, however: I find that it keeps me in the habit of thinking, which is a good thing, and it reduces the amount of time I end up looking like a donkey for inflexibly holding a bad position, which is also a good thing.

[rationalbiker]

Originally Posted by NatCh

I also agree that there would be less "piracy" if there were more societal disapproval. But the only way to really stamp it out completely from that direction would be do convince 100% of the populace that it's wrong and shouldn't be done.

I concur that expecting 100% good behavior is not realistic. I'd just like to move closer in that direction.

Yes it's wrong, but so is murder, and that still goes on despite a really widely held view of it as wrong. People do wrong stuff.

I hope nothing I've said would lead you to believe that I disagree with that statement. I'm in law enforcement. By reference to that observation, I know I have job security. While it would be a noble idea for people to put me out of business, I really don't see that happenig. For the sake of clarification, my level of law enforcement doesn't deal so much with piracy and such.

I do try to keep my "conclusions" open to review, however: I find that it keeps me in the habit of thinking, which is a good thing, and it reduces the amount of time I end up looking like a donkey for inflexibly holding a bad position, which is also a good thing.

Again, I agree. It does me no good to hold on to ideas that no longer conform to reality. But that's what this whole controversy is about, a battle of ideas, a conflict of good and bad philosophy.

[Taylor514ce]

I don't think that's what the DRM debate is about. I'm anti-DRM and I'm anti-piracy. DRM doesn't attempt to punish pirates. It pre-supposes that I am a pirate, and must therefor have my books shackled to a particular device or otherwise constrained. I resent the implication and will not participate in a business relationship with a vendor who assumes all of its customers are thieves.

As many have already pointed out, DRM only punishes the innocent. So many of these DRM vs. Piracy threads miss the point entirely. I'm not anti-DRM because I'm a book pirate. I'm anti-DRM because I'm not a pirate and refuse to be treated like one.

[bwaldron]

Originally Posted by Taylor514ce

I don't think that's what the DRM debate is about. I'm anti-DRM and I'm anti-piracy. DRM doesn't attempt to punish pirates. It pre-supposes that I am a pirate, and must therefor have my books shackled to a particular device or otherwise constrained. I resent the implication and will not participate in a business relationship with a vendor who assumes all of its customers are thieves.

As many have already pointed out, DRM only punishes the innocent. So many of these DRM vs. Piracy threads miss the point entirely. I'm not anti-DRM because I'm a book pirate. I'm anti-DRM because I'm not a pirate and refuse to be treated like one.

Hear, hear!

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by Taylor514ce

As many have already pointed out, DRM only punishes the innocent. So many of these DRM vs. Piracy threads miss the point entirely. I'm not anti-DRM because I'm a book pirate. I'm anti-DRM because I'm not a pirate and refuse to be treated like one.

Laws are for the lawbreaker, DRM is for everyone!

[rationalbiker]

Originally Posted by Taylor514ce

As many have already pointed out, DRM only punishes the innocent.

DRM doesn't punish anyone. Additionally, it doesn't presuppose that any particular person is a thief, it recognizes that there are thieves in the world and that the company has no way whatsoever of distinguishing who is and who is not. You take personally something that is not directed by the company personally.

DRM defines one of the limitations a product has such that a consumer can decide whether or not to VOLUNTARILY contract with the seller under such conditions. If you are anti-DRM, I expect the right and proper thing to do is not purchase products with DRM limitations attached. My hat is off to you for standing up for your principles. However, when someone crosses the line from merely not supporting the product to actually stealing the product because they don't like DRM, that says something different about the person.

I have no problem with people who oppose DRM by simply not purchasing DRM material.

[yvanleterrible]

Originally Posted by NatCh

I see what you're saying, rationalbiker, and I agree with the principal.

Principal? That would be Dumbledore would it?

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by rationalbiker

DRM doesn't punish anyone. Additionally, it doesn't presuppose that any particular person is a thief, it recognizes that there are thieves in the world and that the company has no way whatsoever of distinguishing who is and who is not. You take personally something that is not directed by the company personally.

The average person won't know how to remove the DRM from an eBook. Chances re the thief will. DRM was created to prevent people from taking a digital file and being able to give copies away. What DRM can do is cause problems for people who legally purchased the content. lets say I had a Gen3 and it broke and I then purchased a V3 and wanted to use FBreader to read my Mobipocket content. As an average user who has no idea how to remove the DRM, I then end up with all of these eBooks that I can no longer read on my portable device. The pirates on the other hand, have no problem at all. Yes, DRM punished the honest people by assuming that they will be giving away free copies of their purchased eBooks.

DRM defines one of the limitations a product has such that a consumer can decide whether or not to VOLUNTARILY contract with the seller under such conditions. If you are anti-DRM, I expect the right and proper thing to do is not purchase products with DRM limitations attached. My hat is off to you for standing up for your principles. However, when someone crosses the line from merely not supporting the product to actually stealing the product because they don't like DRM, that says something different about the person.

Sure, we can avoid eBooks with DRM, but that then limits us to not being able to purchase the eBooks we want which was the reason for getting the reader in the first place. One thing I have said is that if you get a CD with copy protection on it and you manage to make a copy protection free copy, give it away to anyone who wants it. Now a CD that came without copy protection, is another story. As for eBooks, I'm not advocating buying with DRM, removing the DRM and then giving it away. Not at all. I do however advocate removing the DRM ASAP if you can and then you have a DRM free copy to do with for personal use as you see fit.

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

Principal? That would be Dumbledore would it?

The really ironic thing here is that I recently had a ... spirited discussion at work about which of those words was which, I had to convince my manager that the main person heading up a line of research was the principal investigator, not the principle investigator.

Fortunately, I have good friends who catch my misspellings even when the spell-checker fails me.