Experience with tougher copyright laws in France

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

And you appear to be suggesting that all these people have a monolithic opinion about how their intellectual property should be protected. Can you... please stop doing that? There are many authors who are pro-piracy and genuinely believe that it helps them financially. Piracy is a very complicated and complex issue and pretending it isn't is not conducive to discussion, I think. Nor is implicitly disappearing people and corporations who are in favor of 'piracy' of their works as forms of advertising -- these people do exist, after all.

/spoken as someone who has a book and would be very happy if people were to torrent that sucker.

I'm afraid that I find your assertion that "many authors are pro-piracy" ludicrous in the extreme. Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm afraid that I find your assertion that "many authors are pro-piracy" ludicrous in the extreme. Do you have any evidence to support this claim?

You can look on their blog posts. J.A. Konrath used to have a good one about how of course he's being pirated and it seems to do nicely for his business and he doesn't care too much either way. I'm sure you've heard of him, and I would call that, if not pro-piracy then at least not anti-piracy.

There's also "Please Pirate This Book" blog posts all over the internet, for anyone who cares to look.

http://www.40kbooks.com/?p=12879

http://www.artsjournal.com/artsjourn...paulo_co.shtml

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012...s-pirate-books

http://emergentchaos.com/archives/20...ks-please.html

http://www.deccanchronicle.com/edito...oks-please-663

http://torrentfreak.com/my-book-please-081017/

http://jonathandallen.com/2012/01/18...rds-on-piracy/

Most of those are established authors. And that was about 30 seconds of Googling. Maybe you would want to have a conversation on the precise definition of "many", but it's certainly not "ludicrous in the extreme" that some authors are very publicly pro-piracy as regards their works. I would say "many" if you can find this many on a single Google search with no search tweaks whatsoever. And these are just the authors who write about being pro-piracy.

And I've seen a dozen other famous (relatively speaking) indie authors say and do the same things. It's okay that you don't know about them, but now that you do, let's please stop talking about authors as a hive-mind of people who all feel the same way about piracy.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

You can look on their blog posts. J.A. Konrath used to have a good one about how of course he's being pirated and it seems to do nicely for his business. I'm sure you've heard of him.

I'm afraid I've never heard of him.

It's okay that you don't know about them, but now that you do, let's please stop talking about authors as a hive-mind of people who all feel the same way about piracy.

I have never said that all authors feel the same way about piracy. To say that all authors feel thae same way about anything would be a very silly thing to say.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Piracy does not only affect one industry, and nor does it only affect large corporations. Book authors, software authors, film makers, TV production companies, magazine publishers (and I'm sure there are more to add to the list) - all are affected by piracy and, as we've discussed before, it's not just the large corporations who are hurt, but individuals. You appear to be suggesting that all these people, industries, and companies, should not have the protection of the law to prevent their products from being illegally copied and distributed.

They already have the protection of the law, they have had it for hundreds of years. This is about who bears the cost for policing it. Everyone is responsible for protecting their own property, whether real or intellectual. It isn't the role of government to spend tax payer money protecting some owners at the expense of others.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Most of those are established authors. And that was about 30 seconds of Googling. Maybe you would want to have a conversation on the precise definition of "many", but it's certainly not "ludicrous in the extreme" that some authors are very publicly pro-piracy as regards their works. I would say "many" if you can find this many on a single Google search with no search tweaks whatsoever. And these are just the authors who write about being pro-piracy.

I must, with the greatest respect, disagree with you.

Piracy, by definition, is unauthorised copying. If you, as an author, say "it's perfectly OK to take a copy of my book without paying for it", as you have an absolute right to choose to do, then copying the book is no longer piracy, because you've given your permission for the copying to occur.

That's very different to an author saying "it's OK to copy ANY book you want without paying for it", and (thank goodness) I don't see any of these authors doing that. I'd be pretty disgusted if any author were to say something like that. It's one thing for you to give away your own work for free; it's quite another to tell people that it's OK for them to take away the livelyhood of other authors.

But one thing slightly puzzles me. If these authors want to give away their books for free, why don't they simply do that, rather than taking the somewhat hypocritical stance of nominally "selling" them, but then saying "but it's OK to get it without paying for it"? Isn't that rather unfair to those people who have paid for the book?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

They already have the protection of the law, they have had it for hundreds of years. This is about who bears the cost for policing it. Everyone is responsible for protecting their own property, whether real or intellectual. It isn't the role of government to spend tax payer money protecting some owners at the expense of others.

Of course it is. We pay our taxes to have a police force and a legal system which will protect our property. Are you suggesting that you'd prefer a system of anarchy, where only those who can afford to protect their own property gain the protection of the law, while those who cannot are fair game to have their property ransacked and looted?

[mr ploppy]

(J.A. Konrath)

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm afraid I've never heard of him.

He's the poster boy for self publishers, I doubt there's many of those who don't follow his blog. He doesn't actually say he's pro-piracy, he just says he's not bothered about it because it doesn't have any negative impact on his sales. "Pirate this book" was an experiment to prove this to the people who said it was nonsense, he got people to put it on pirate sites and then published his Amazon sales figures a few months later.

In my opinion it was a flawed experiment because the publicity he got from doing it would have skewed his sales anyway. He really should have put it on the pirate sites himself and only told anyone about it after he had his sales figures.

[anamardoll]

@Harry,

Because the English language is funny like that. Piracy isn't illegal in some areas, but to most people "piracy" means someone other than the author uploading the book to a torrent for file sharing.

As for why the author encourages it? I would say for many reasons. I ask people to pirate my book because:

1. Not all of my readers can access my books through the usual methods.
2. I trust my readers to use the Dark Net as a library and tip me should they so choose.
3. I consider obscurity to be a greater threat to my success as an author.

You ask if this is fair to the readers who pay to read. Why wouldn't it be? As long as the author is up-front and honest about the situation, nothing is stopping the readers from making the choice -- as with the 40kbooks link above.

Unfortunately, more indie authors *can't* be upfront with a "read for free!" link because Amazon will price match them and remove the easiest way for their readers to willingly tip them. (Paypal doesn't work for some folks.)

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Of course it is. We pay our taxes to have a police force and a legal system which will protect our property. Are you suggesting that you'd prefer a system of anarchy, where only those who can afford to protect their own property gain the protection of the law, while those who cannot are fair game to have their property ransacked and looted?

You really think Mr Ploppy's Guide to Snail Squashing will get the same protection as Harry Potter?

Where I used to live was a no-go area for police, if you got burgled they wouldn't come out and look for clues or whatever it is they are supposed to do. I found a can of Special Brew after one of them, there would almost certainly have been fingerprints on it so I took it down to the station. Never heard anything from them, so they probably just threw it away.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

You really think Mr Ploppy's Guide to Snail Squashing will get the same protection as Harry Potter?

Call me naive if you wish but yes, I do think so. The courts treat everybody equally.

[anamardoll]

I do not think that it is valuable to continue to compare intellectual property infringement (which is, iiuc, tort law in the US) with physical property infringement (which is, iiuc, criminal law in the US).

It's like saying that apples are like oranges because they are both fruits. Yes, they are both fruits. That doesn't mean that they have anything else in common, and I think that Argument By Analogy inevitably obscures the nuances of the issue at hand.

[Phogg]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

I do not think that it is valuable to continue to compare intellectual property infringement (which is, iiuc, tort law in the US) with physical property infringement (which is, iiuc, criminal law in the US).

It's like saying that apples are like oranges because they are both fruits. Yes, they are both fruits. That doesn't mean that they have anything else in common, and I think that Argument By Analogy inevitably obscures the nuances of the issue at hand.

I would say it is closer to saying oranges are like bowling balls because they are both round.

[Belfaborac]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Call me naive if you wish but yes, I do think so. The courts treat everybody equally.

I'm sorry, but that really is naive, no matter where one happens to live.

[stonetools]

Interesting thread. So after two years of a tougher copyright enforcement law, what have we learned?

1. France has some how not descended into tyranny
2. A lot more people are obeying the law at a comparatively modest cost in law enforcement.

Who woulda thunk it?

Score one for law enforcement!

everal other countries, including South Korea and New Zealand, have adopted French-style anti-piracy measures. In South Korea, where the law took effect in 2009, music sales rose 12 percent in 2010 and 6 percent in 2011, according to the music industry federation. Sales in other countries mostly continued to decline.

Lawmakers in Britain have also approved a three-strikes law, though it has yet to be implemented. But there is other evidence in Europe that tougher online copyright enforcement can lift media industry revenues, at least briefly. Music sales rose 10 percent in Sweden in 2009, for example, after the country tightened up its copyright laws, bringing previously lax standards into line with E.U. norms.

Mr. Nègre, at Universal Music, said it was probably no coincidence that Sweden and France had produced the two big European success stories in the legitimate digital music market: the streaming services Spotify and Deezer. These companies — the former was founded in Sweden, the latter in France — resemble pirate sites in that they give users access to millions of songs free, at least for their basic services.

Even opponents of Hadopi acknowledge that the law has resulted in a change in online behavior, though they dispute whether its effect on music industry sales has been beneficial.

One of the benefits of law enforcement is that it creates space for creation of LEGAL services. There would never have been an Itunes if Napster had been allowed to flourish and would have never been a Spotify if the illegal networks had been allowed to proceed unchecked in Sweden.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by Phogg

I would say it is closer to saying oranges are like bowling balls because they are both round.

And the navel oranges have a hole in them! And bowling balls have three!