ebook survey

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Well, by hardliners I mostly mean members of the content industry. I think for the most part, people who get things jumbled on here are just victims of the confusion.

For example, given the outright lies spread by the RIAA and MPAA, I have a very hard time believing that their actions are innocent.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by ahi

Oh, OK. We are of one mind on the issue then.

Yeah, didn't mean to include people on here (well, not most anyway) in that. Sorry.

[ekaser]

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

i think it's important to keep in mind that sharing books and culture is a fundamental part of the human experience ; not only do i think it's not *practical* to think that should change completely, i also think we would *all* be significantly poorer (on a cultural level) if it did. there have been many books i wasn't sure i would like (or even was pretty sure i *wouldn't* like), and even on the recommendation of a friend i wouldn't have bought them (even for 2-3$).

there's also the case of people who simply can't spare even 2-3$ (especially since it's not just 2-3$, it's 2-3$ x n number of books ; nobody ever reads just *one* book) ; when i was a student there were plenty of things i couldn't afford to buy, including lots of books (i had to buy too many already for my classes) and thank god for the library and for friends, or i don't know what i would have done. however i discovered a lot of authors at that time that i still love today and now that i have the means to buy their books, i do.

Just because you can't AFFORD to pay for something doesn't mean that you should get it for free. I don't disagree with you that reading one book by an author for free can lead to many further sales. Baen Books has shown just that fact through their Free Library. BUT... it is the AUTHOR'S right to give you that option, it is not YOUR right to take that option. One is wise marketing on the author's part, the other is theft. The "shared culture" theme is why copyright was originally for a relatively short period (12 or 14 years, plus one renewal of the same duration, in the U.S.). That period has been shamefully extended, at the behest of large corporations, to a ridiculously long period. But that means the laws should be changed, not that everyone should become thieves.

I don't know if you've ever created something that you've then sold copies of (book, program, etc), but when you DO make your living in that way, the talk of "sharing with friends" leaves a very different taste in your mouth.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by ekaser

Just because you can't AFFORD to pay for something doesn't mean that you should get it for free. I don't disagree with you that reading one book by an author for free can lead to many further sales. Baen Books has shown just that fact through their Free Library. BUT... it is the AUTHOR'S right to give you that option, it is not YOUR right to take that option. One is wise marketing on the author's part, the other is theft. The "shared culture" theme is why copyright was originally for a relatively short period (12 or 14 years, plus one renewal of the same duration, in the U.S.). That period has been shamefully extended, at the behest of large corporations, to a ridiculously long period. But that means the laws should be changed, not that everyone should become thieves.

I don't know if you've ever created something that you've then sold copies of (book, program, etc), but when you DO make your living in that way, the talk of "sharing with friends" leaves a very different taste in your mouth.

It is not 'theft' nor will it be 'theft' just because you say it is so or it 'feels' that way to you. At worst it is copyright infringement. Theft deprives the original owner of property, copying a file does not.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by ekaser

Just because you can't AFFORD to pay for something doesn't mean that you should get it for free.

If the person's getting it for free disadvantages and disenfranchises nobody, then HELL YES, IT DOES MEAN THAT. The fleeting happiness of a random stranger you've never met and will never meet is a tragedy neither to your nor to the world.

The fact that so many people feel otherwise is a rather damning moral judgement on humanity.

- Ahi

[ahi]

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

also, i think it's important to keep in mind that sharing books and culture is a fundamental part of the human experience

You forget, Zelda, that since the advent of digital media sharing is an evil criminal offense--just like they teach in kindergarten. (The ones, anyways, where the RIAA is active.)

- Ahi

[ekaser]

Originally Posted by LDBoblo

I still have problems seeing ebooks as tangible goods. With libraries, information itself was essentially free for the taking, and when I bought a book, I was paying for the book itself, not the information inside it. With digital books, I'm not getting anything physical, and I'm still paying tangible book prices for it. What a joke. A lot of companies seem to be afraid of this thinking too.

What to do? I'm no expert, so don't look at me. Paying book prices for licenses to view books though without any physical copy...a pretty rubbish concept.

I agree, ebook copies of books should be MUCH cheaper (only enough over the standard author royalty to cover editorial and server/distribution costs plus a small profit). BUT, you comment:

Originally Posted by LDBoblo

when I bought a book, I was paying for the book itself, not the information inside it.

shows a big loop-hole (I want to say bullshit, but I'm trying to be polite) in your logic. People who want (recent) books for free have obviously never put three months to a year of their life into creating something. Then they would perhaps feel differently about "free culture." Our "common culture" doesn't just "spring into being" by itself. It's created by hard-working people, people who work just as much and just as hard as brick-layers and hardware engineers and any other occupations that you feel are worthy enough to get paid for their services. Yes, current copyright laws are ridiculous and current prices for ebooks are WAY too high, but that doesn't mean that authors shouldn't be paid by the people enjoying the fruits of their labors.

[ekaser]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

It is not 'theft' nor will it be 'theft' just because you say it is so or it 'feels' that way to you. At worst it is copyright infringement. Theft deprives the original owner of property, copying a file does not.

And you're just playing games with semantics to fit your own purposes. Whether you call 'theft' or 'copyright infringement', the end is the same: you're using someone else's PROPERTY without their consent.

Following your philosophy, sneaking in the back door of a concert hall and listening to a concert without paying for it is harming no one and is not a crime.

Following your philosophy, using lock-picks to unlock a vacation rental, staying there for a few days, and then leaving without paying is harming no one and is not a crime.

Following your philosophy, sneaking into a rival's research and development lab and taking photographs of their recent invention developments is not a crime (you haven't stolen anything, after all!)

Rationalize all you want. Copying an author's work without paying the author for it is a crime (moral, whether legal or not). NOTE: I don't work for a Large Evil Greedy Corporation. I'm an individual who works for a living, CREATING items that I'm willing to share with other people FOR A PRICE. If you were to ever get off your butt and do something similar, you might find yourself feeling a little differently about "information wants to be free."

And you're welcome to have the last word, as I won't be contributing any more to this thread (at least, not in the near future), as I have work to be doing and don't have enough spare time to want to spend it arguing with people who have already rationalized immoral behavior.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by ekaser

I'm an individual who works for a living, CREATING items that I'm willing to share with other people FOR A PRICE. If you were to ever get off your butt and do something similar, you might find yourself feeling a little differently about "information wants to be free."

You sure are full of yourself. Not to mention morally confused.

Oh... and Moejoe is a modestly celebrated writer here on Mobileread. Which should make you feel even more foolish.

- Ahi

[LDBoblo]

Originally Posted by ekaser

I agree, ebook copies of books should be MUCH cheaper (only enough over the standard author royalty to cover editorial and server/distribution costs plus a small profit). BUT, you comment:

shows a big loop-hole (I want to say bullshit, but I'm trying to be polite) in your logic. People who want (recent) books for free have obviously never put three months to a year of their life into creating something. Then they would perhaps feel differently about "free culture." Our "common culture" doesn't just "spring into being" by itself. It's created by hard-working people, people who work just as much and just as hard as brick-layers and hardware engineers and any other occupations that you feel are worthy enough to get paid for their services. Yes, current copyright laws are ridiculous and current prices for ebooks are WAY too high, but that doesn't mean that authors shouldn't be paid by the people enjoying the fruits of their labors.

Your claim that people with differing opinions have obviously never invested time in creation, and that anyone who has would agree with you is misguided. I disagree with you, and I used to be a craftsman and independent artist, and have had a few projects that took months to complete. I even made money doing it from time to time. Feel free to disagree, but trying to dismiss any opinion on the fallacious logic that anyone who disagrees must not have experience...that's hogwash. Perhaps I'm an inferior businessman, or perhaps I have an overinflated sense of generosity and fairness that borders on socialism (living too close to China I guess, even though I'm in the renegade province), but my opinion is what it is.

I only started buying books for the opportunity to read since I moved to Taiwan, since the library system is sparse in terms of English materials, and the only places to get books are online or via a couple big bookstores. Before that, it was predominantly library access. I'd buy the books I wanted to own.

But I didn't say I want all books to be free, or that authors shouldn't benefit from their cash cows. I don't have the college activist idealism that believes writers are selfless and altruistic (cynically speaking, only unsuccessful ones are, successful ones are too pragmatic for that nonsense). I was merely commenting on how the system of relatively free access to current literature is not really transferable to the digital domain...and that there's very little reason to buy inferior books in digital formats save for space conservation and showing off electronic toys to shallow friends who purchase AC adapters and other accessories from the Apple store.

It's that pesky library's fault...we should ban those things because they are making people believe you can read books (yes, even a lot of new ones and not just Penguin popular classics) without paying for them. The information was free when available. For the latest and not-so-greatest, when not available at a library within a few weeks or a month of release, I could read at a bookstore over the course of a few days or weeks, or I could talk to someone who read it and have it loaned to me. Were I still in the USA where English materials are so easily accessed, I would no doubt still be doing this until someone discovered me in a bookstore reading something I hadn't purchased, promptly contacting the authorities to have me dragged away. Living in another country gives me some appreciation for just how freely available information was. Yet for some reason, people still bought books when they wanted to.

I explicitly stated "book prices" because I am not completely averse to paying for ebooks. I currently do so to save space and to read what I expect will be somewhat inferior books that I would not want taking up physical space on a bookshelf. I'm willing to because I think once the technology develops into something more closely approximating a tangible entity, digital books will have a stronger, more justifiable value. That value will remain less than a tangible copy, but it would get closer as the medium improves. Consider my "information free" statement to be a form of hyperbole when it applies to the digital realm.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by ekaser

And you're just playing games with semantics to fit your own purposes. Whether you call 'theft' or 'copyright infringement', the end is the same: you're using someone else's PROPERTY without their consent.

It's not property (not the way you're thinking about it). That's where the difference is and why the semantics are important. Theft and copyright infringement are two completely different things with completely different effects. We've had this conversation about a billion times before on here though, probably not much use in having it again.

Following your philosophy, sneaking in the back door of a concert hall and listening to a concert without paying for it is harming no one and is not a crime.

Following your philosophy, using lock-picks to unlock a vacation rental, staying there for a few days, and then leaving without paying is harming no one and is not a crime.

Following your philosophy, sneaking into a rival's research and development lab and taking photographs of their recent invention developments is not a crime (you haven't stolen anything, after all!)

All three examples illustrate exactly why you are confused about theft vs copyright infringement. All 3 are breaking laws, but not the ones you're thinking of. In each example above, the person would be charged with physical breaking and entering, and probably tresspassing. That has nothing to do with whether or not they harmed anyone or had access to IP without paying for it.

Intellectual property and physical property are completely different things. You can not draw an analogy between them. Trying to do so is just confusing you.

[krischik]

Originally Posted by anappo

Q: Out of last 50 (non public domain) e-books you've read, how many did you actually buy?

How about "Q: Considering non public domain e-books you've read, how many % did you actually buy?

Originally Posted by djgreedo

7. Which of the following reasons do you feel are justify breaching copyright by downloading digital media?

The "Material cannot be obtained in my territory" was missing. As a German who likes to read original English edition that would be my "Yes" vote. Yes there was a catch all - but I think it is important (result to question 10 show it).

Originally Posted by ekaser

I agree, ebook copies of books should be MUCH cheaper (only enough over the standard author royalty to cover editorial and server/distribution costs plus a small profit).

Why? Only 10% are for paper and ink. I had an endless discussion on /. about this. I might be wrong - but as far as I see it eBooks have almost the same cost as normal books. Read:

http://ireaderreview.com/2009/05/03/...ook-publishing

Martin

[Amalthia]

Originally Posted by ekaser

The "shared culture" theme is why copyright was originally for a relatively short period (12 or 14 years, plus one renewal of the same duration, in the U.S.). That period has been shamefully extended, at the behest of large corporations, to a ridiculously long period. But that means the laws should be changed, not that everyone should become thieves.

I think it's very hard for a law to change when the regular people don't have the same amount of money as the corporations.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by krischik

Why? Only 10% are for paper and ink.

That's just for the printing. Distributor and retailer costs should also be lower for eBooks.

Printing, distribution and retail together account for 60% (according to your link). All 3 of those should have significant savings with regards to eBooks. That's a pretty big chunk.

[LDBoblo]

Originally Posted by krischik

Why? Only 10% are for paper and ink. I had an endless discussion on /. about this. I might be wrong - but as far as I see it eBooks have almost the same cost as normal books. Read:

http://ireaderreview.com/2009/05/03/...ook-publishing

Martin

A Moleskine notebook is very cheap to produce, and the company moved manufacturing to China to save additional expenses. The only content is their BS Hemingway/Picasso marketing thing. It's made slightly better than the average perfect-bound Paperback and they charge $10-15 or more per notebook. Cost of production is very low, margins are very high, and people buy the things all the time, even though the quality is ho-hum and it doesn't come pre-filled.

When I buy a paper book, I'm buying a book. I'm buying a physical object. I care relatively little about where the money finally ends up. As a consumer, I'm paying for the book itself. If I just want to read it, I can do that for free in a library or at a bookstore or from a friend lending me the book.

One of the first major appealing factors of ebooks to me was that I could find books that are only available in ungainly sizes or with wretched formatting and cover art that I could print into quality pocket books for my own personal use. Of course, the cost of making a decent little book for myself is quite high, and the time consumption is a factor, and then I have to hope the book doesn't have restrictive licensing on that kind of thing.

That was part of the motivation to go to digital readers, but that being wholly inferior to paper in my opinion leaves me with an expensive paperweight that people come by and touch, thinking it's a cool pda, and then walking away laughing at how much I paid for such a ridiculously crippled piece of technology.

Luckily we have choices, and I can still just buy paper books (when I can find them locally, or I can spend 2-3x the cost of the books on international shipping).