Exclusive interview with "Deathly Hallows" e-book pirates

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Liviu_5

The more general question about uploading/downloading books is very tricky in my opinion

What is "tricky" about it? It is WRONG (and illegal) to download or upload material that you have no legal right to. It's a completely clear-cut issue, IMHO. It's no better than stealing.

[Liviu_5]

Originally Posted by HarryT

What is "tricky" about it? It is WRONG (and illegal) to download or upload material that you have no legal right to. It's a completely clear-cut issue, IMHO. It's no better than stealing.

That's not true; stealing a physical object deprives the owner of the use of an object; so you steal a book for Borders, no one can buy it; downloading a copy deprives the author/house of a POTENTIAL sale to the downloader ONLY; you download a copy, you may or may not buy the book, but you do not affect the action of others. Also let us not forget that as a downloader you may or may not have bought the book, or that in many cases you even own a copy anyway.

It's more of a clear cut issue that you need to pay state taxes on your online tax free purchases (like the Sony Reader), and how many do that? And here you talk about real money that your state can use on feeding the poor and so on

Not that 2 wrongs do a right, but I use this example just to show that to me and most likely to tens of millions of others things are not as clear cut at least in the downloading case. Personally I think that a balance is needed, where at an individual level you buy as much as you can afford and find the rest for free whether from libraries, downloading..., while at a business level you find a business model that accommodates the inevitable unauthorized downloading.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Liviu_5

It's more of a clear cut issue that you need to pay state taxes on your online tax free purchases (like the Sony Reader), and how many do that? And here you talk about real money that your state can use on feeding the poor and so on

Sorry, I don't understand. Why isn't the tax simply charged "at source", the way it works with VAT here in Europe? Obviously, if you leave it up to the individual to decide whether or not to pay it, many are going to choose not to - that seems like a very strange system!

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Liviu_5

That's not true; stealing a physical object deprives the owner of the use of an object; so you steal a book for Borders, no one can buy it; downloading a copy deprives the author/house of a POTENTIAL sale to the downloader ONLY; you download a copy, you may or may not buy the book, but you do not affect the action of others. Also let us not forget that as a downloader you may or may not have bought the book, or that in many cases you even own a copy anyway.

But don't forget, a book isn't just about the paper, it's an intellectual property... that's what you're paying for (plus extra for printing costs). If you steal a book, it's not considered illegal because you've deprived an honest citizen of buying it... it's illegal because you took it without paying for it. And downloading a property that you did not pay for, and which you are legally expected to pay for, is just as illegal as stealing a book off the shelf.

That's why transcribing, or downloading for free (in some cases) is considered legal only if you already own the work, IOW, paid for it legally. "Potential buyer" doesn't enter into it.

[yvanleterrible]

@Alex and all the editors.

If I may make a suggestion. When we publish a thread or news, not in line with MR philosophy, we should add a formally designed automatic disclaimer band before and after the text that clearly states our official views. This way our readership would clearly be styled to what we stand for and the useless dissensions we have seen would not take place.

And it could befriend authors to our cause if this band was frontpage.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by yvanleterrible

@Alex and all the editors.

If I may make a suggestion. When we publish a thread or news, not in line with MR philosophy, we should add a formally designed automatic disclaimer band before and after the text that clearly states our official views. This way our readership would clearly be styled to what we stand for and the useless dissensions we have seen would not take place.

And it could befriend authors to our cause if this band was frontpage.

With respect, Yvan, speaking both as an individual and as an MR editor, I don't think that what's been discussed in this thread are "useless dissensions". These are important topics which need to be openly debated and discussed.

[yvanleterrible]

You are right, no discussion is useless. What I meant by useless dissention is a little bit described by Steve's startled reaction on post #16. I admit my first reaction to Alex's idea of threading this interview startled me too. What is useless is that Alex had to prove his point although we know where he stands.
This subject has been discussed over and over again and nothing new has been said for a long time. We should now stand clear and make it known officially. And when we get to a controversial subject, we should advertize our views clearly ahead of subject and right before an answer.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

But don't forget, a book isn't just about the paper, it's an intellectual property... that's what you're paying for (plus extra for printing costs). If you steal a book, it's not considered illegal because you've deprived an honest citizen of buying it... it's illegal because you took it without paying for it. And downloading a property that you did not pay for, and which you are legally expected to pay for, is just as illegal as stealing a book off the shelf.

That's why transcribing, or downloading for free (in some cases) is considered legal only if you already own the work, IOW, paid for it legally. "Potential buyer" doesn't enter into it.

Don't you think, though, Steve, that this is the fundamental problem that those of us who make our living by selling "intellectual property" (I sell software, you sell books) are facing? There is a widespread perception that downloading software or books "isn't really doing anything wrong" because "nobody is losing anything". We need to educate people that taking other peoples' intellectual property is wrong, because that's the way that people such as you and I make our living!

[yvanleterrible]

I have found over internet furniture and media storage devices I had designed, that were clearly copied. Initial shock had me ranting and raving for years... uselessly. I feel what authors do violently.

Fortunately, someone invented fashion where in you create, flood the market, skim it and skip to something else. This is the beauty of creativity, you're never stuck, just move ahead of it. It hits you only if you sit on your laurels. Some authors have learned this and live only off of what they have just recently produced. I know it's angering to submit to defeat but you have to make do with your losses to piracy, bounce back and show them you can.
I believe in protection of copyright, what I decry is that it is not the author who is the worst off but the sycophants who surround him. But hey, they have to live too!

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Liviu_5

It's more of a clear cut issue that you need to pay state taxes on your online tax free purchases (like the Sony Reader), and how many do that? And here you talk about real money that your state can use on feeding the poor and so on

You only have to pay state tax if the the state has a state tax and if the online shop you are getting the item(s) from has a presence in the state you are in. Sony has SonyStyle shops here, so yes online you do have to pay state tax.

[Egghead]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Sorry, I don't understand. Why isn't the tax simply charged "at source", the way it works with VAT here in Europe? Obviously, if you leave it up to the individual to decide whether or not to pay it, many are going to choose not to - that seems like a very strange system!

We don't have a Value Added Tax here in the U.S. We've got a mishmash of different types of sales and use taxes. Sales taxes are taxes on the retail transaction itself, not on the item being sold. The problem with sales tax is that if the buyer and seller aren't physically present in the same state, then the state doesn't really have jurisdiction over the sale. So they invented "use" taxes to close that loophole. Use tax is a tax on someone "using" the item.

Use tax is generally only collected on vehicles (which have to be licensed and registered with the state) or collected by those out-of-state companies that, because they happen to have a physical presence in the state, and are thereby required to collect it from their customers. Individual persons are still legally obligated to report their general merchandise out-of-state purchases and remit use tax on them, but hardly anyone bothers to do so, and the state doesn't bother to enforce that requirement. Another example of a use tax is when a store takes an item out of their sale inventory, and uses it themselves. They've then become the end user of the item (rather than the customer who would have paid sales tax), and thus the company is liable for tax on it.

[Bob Russell]

At the risk of seeming insensitive, I have to think of this in terms of analogy to consultants. There seem to be two classes of consultants:
1) Those who have figure some things out and they will extract every bit of compensation possible. They don't answer questions unless they are getting paid. They won't let loose of some helpful scripts unless it's in the contract. They won't give you important answers that they can give in 2 minutes if they think it's valuable info that they might get paid for. And these people are generally empty of value once you get past the facade. They don't have a whole lot to offer as situations change.
2) Those who freely give away the "no cost" answers to questions with business partners. They gladly are helpful where they can be, and tend to give away snippets of code or technical quickies or even important tips on direction. They know that they can provide value to the situations where they are hired, above and beyond those quick answers. They aren't really worried about the obvious generic info, because their true value is the ongoing ability to analyze and use their expertise and knowledge on an ongoing basis to make things work right.

When I hear arguments about copyright, it remind me of that kind of situation, and it feels like we are protecting too many rights of authors with a long copyright protection period and by giving them too much control over how and when and how often the content is used. Even worse, with DRM schemes, people end up buying the same content over and over just because of the DRM or format compatibility issues. I want the law to encourage lots of Type 1 authors & publishers, not Type 2 authors & publishers. (Note that these are broad sweeping characterizations, so there are still lots of questions about how that could even be applied and what exceptions there might need to be.)

But in my mind, the masses are being deprived of great value in what should be public domain works. Why should a 10 year old novel still be protected? The author or publisher certainly makes a good portion of income in the initial years. Sure, authors and publishers want more control and want more revenues and want long copyright periods. Same with music and movies. Sure, there are margin cases that will affect some authors to the point that they might not even write a book if they don't feel the income justifies it, and their motivation is primarily commercial. But at what cost? I think society would, in general, want to trade a few books not being written in order to have free access to a wealth of content moved into the public domain. It's not a moral issue to me, it's a political and lawmaking issue (which in itself means that it won't be determined by what is fair, but by political processes and influence - why else would Disney keep getting to extend their protections?)

Now, the law is what it is, so I'm not saying we should ignore the law. There are potential consequences. There is a fairness issue of compensating the authors for their work, even if the law doesn't seem fair. And there is the moral question of whether breaking the law is justified, because most people agree that there is some extent of civil duty to be a law keeper instead of a law breaker.

Please don't misinterpret this as commendation of piracy. Nor am I trying to promote free large or small scale copying of copyrighted materials. But I am hoping to shed light on why I feel that the copyright controls may be too strong in current form, and that they are overly strong because of the balance of power is in the hands of publishers and content owners who can lobby more effectively.

Okay, that's probably enough to be a full year's worth of ruckus rousing for me, so I'll let it go! And I certainly understand that there are many legitimate viewpoints here, many of which are different than mine. That's all well and good. It's not an easy problem to solve, and I reserve the right to change my mind at any time. My thoughts on this topic are very much in flux and the more I think about it, the more complex I find it to be. I don't think there are going to be any really simple answers, and at the end of the day we are left with what we started with - opinions and laws.

[yvanleterrible]

Actually the sad thing is that it is not the authors who protect themselves in an abusive way, it is the lawyers of the publishing firms who do. They act this way for themselves more than for the author and cower behind their supposedly rights.

[Liviu_5]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

You only have to pay state tax if the the state has a state tax and if the online shop you are getting the item(s) from has a presence in the state you are in. Sony has SonyStyle shops here, so yes online you do have to pay state tax.

No, that is not true! Online merchants use the nexus thing to avoid charging tax so make their products more competitive. However you still have to pay sales tax on any product purchased online regardless. You just have to do it at tax time. That is tax law. (NY State put even a special line on their return for several years asking you to declare those sales taxes)

Since most people do not pay said tax, the states are trying to force legislation to make all online merchants charge tax indifferent of nexus.

Amazon, Ebay and others are resisting this mightily under pretexts of myriad of local taxes, but sooner or later they will lose since the pressure is too high (at the national governors meeting this year, collection of sales tax on internet purchases was a topic as high priority as illegal immigration). Also Wal Mart, B&N and many others who already charge tax due to nexus, and various trade organizations like US booksellers organization, are also pressuring Amazon, Ebay and its counterparts to "level the playing field"

In fact you have to pay sales tax on any private transaction too, so for example in used car transactions, frequently buyers arrange with sellers to understate the value of the transaction by a lot and split the difference...

[Liviu_5]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

But don't forget, a book isn't just about the paper, it's an intellectual property... that's what you're paying for (plus extra for printing costs). If you steal a book, it's not considered illegal because you've deprived an honest citizen of buying it... it's illegal because you took it without paying for it. And downloading a property that you did not pay for, and which you are legally expected to pay for, is just as illegal as stealing a book off the shelf.

That's why transcribing, or downloading for free (in some cases) is considered legal only if you already own the work, IOW, paid for it legally. "Potential buyer" doesn't enter into it.

I do not want to appear that I am all for "information wants to be free" slogan, but calling tens of millions of people who download music, books, movies, share them and so on... thieves and sitting on the moral high horse leads nowhere.
I want authors and publishers to be compensated fairly so they can keep writing, but we have to recognize that the current copyright system and the internet and more generally computers are not in sync to say the least.
Even laws are ultimately an expression of general will at least in an open society, so if tens of millions of people break those laws something has to be done.