The $15 Boycott: Will you be participating?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Harmon

That's not his argument. What he is saying is that what we have in the current state of the law is not an agreement, but the result of the application of illegitimate power.

The other side has not "committed a wrong." They have altered the terms of the agreement in a fashion that renders the original agreement totally irrelevant, even though it appears to be still on the books.

The "social contract" works when all parties agree that each of them have legitimate interests that should be protected as much as possible. It stops working when one side disregards the interests of the other.

And that's what's happened in copyright law in the digital world. One side has managed to extend copyright to the point where the other side's interests are meaningless because for all practical purposes they have been abolished.

When that happens, there is no longer a moral argument that can be made to support the side that has seized all power.

Things get a little confusing because the people who have seized power are not, in fact, the people that copyright was supposed to protect - i.e. the creators and the consumers. The middlemen have seized all the power from both.

If you say that the answer to this is to not buy books, and to not pirate books, you are missing the point. The point is that the copyright system was intended to create a system in which books could be sold, by protecting the economic and cultural interests of everyone.

It's a little easier to see the situation by looking at Disney. The point of copyright was to secure an economic incentive for someone to create Mickey Mouse, so that after a reasonably period of time, someone who never had anything to do with creating Mickey Mouse could nevertheless use Mickey Mouse in a new cartoon.

The man who created Mickey Mouse is dead. Yet a corporate entity continues to control the cultural uses of Mickey Mouse to the point where no one who is alive today can ever make a Mickey Mouse cartoon.

That wasn't the agreement.

Well Said Harmon.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Ben Thornton

Whether something is stealing or not is not value dependant. How bad that stealing is, is value dependant. I was only saying that stealing an apple is not such a bad thing in my book. And I say that as an apple-owner

My point is to distinguish stealing from copying, your example of stealing an apple was a poor one - we are both agreed that this is stealing. We may differ in how morally repugnant we find that example of stealing, but such it is.

A better example, if you want to persuade people that copying is bad, would be an example of copying that harms people. I can't think of a very plausible one off-hand.

What harm is there for taking an apple, more will grow. Yet you admit it is stealing, just a matter of degree, right?

What if you just took the seeds, or maybe just the pollen. Maybe the neighbor's pollen drifts into your yard and pollinates your tree? Have you done anything wrong?

What if you intentionally take the pollen from the neighbor's tree because he has very good apples and pollinate your tree with his pollen. Have you done anything wrong?

Just a matter of degree, right?

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by kennyc

What harm is there for taking an apple, more will grow. Yet you admit it is stealing, just a matter of degree, right?

What if you just took the seeds, or maybe just the pollen. Maybe the neighbor's pollen drifts into your yard and pollinates your tree? Have you done anything wrong?

What if you intentionally take the pollen from the neighbor's tree because he has very good apples and pollinate your tree with his pollen. Have you done anything wrong?

Just a matter of degree, right?

Stealing is taking something from someone so that they don't have it any more. Copying it for personal use is a different thing. Copying it and selling it is another different thing. How morally bad any particular example of any of these different things is, depends on how it strikes us.

Stealing seeds or pollen seems pretty trivial, but I guess it's stealing if you go and take it (and with the decline in bees, perhaps people will be protecting their pollen at some future point!) If pollen blows into your garden that's not stealing, because you haven't taken anything. If you tresspass to steal pollen, it's probably the trespass that will annoy people.

But these are all degrees of stealing - there's no "degree" of copying that becomes stealing or vice versa. So the argument that copying is not stealing is not a matter of degree, but a matter of kind.

[dmikov]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmikov View Post
I hope you are sarcastic. Cause the guy is an utter idiot. He has no clue what the law is or what he is writing about. Reading the comments was very entertaining though. The guy tried to reply and was putting his feet more and more in his big stupid mouth.

No I'm not kidding. Piracy is theft. If you take something of mine without my permission you are a thief. It's a matter of principles and morals and doing what is right. Just because you can (copy a file) doesn't mean you should. No I'm not kidding. Piracy is theft. If you take something of mine without my permission you are a thief. It's a matter of principles and morals and doing what is right. Just because you can (copy a file) doesn't mean you should.

Well if you insist on calling names I'll politely take gloves off.
The politest way I can call your position is "intentionally dense", the less polite way was expressed by one of the readers of the article you recommend. Look it up.
The defenders of the word "thief" come across in one way and one way only.
First they whine and cry - "how the author will put the bread on the table", then they become patriotic (or at least capitalistic) - "writer has a right to get paid for his work" and then they become apocalyptic - "you won't have anything new to read, since the world of creativity end if you copy the file or give somebody your copy to read". All of those statements while emotional are not backed by those posters with any numbers, logic or even common sense from what I can see - or at least their relevance is still in question. But that's not the worst.
When replied with numbers and examples from common peoples lives and research (and in this case with the the passages from law books), they simply reply - "all this is rationalizing by the thieves which you are".
Somebody correctly said, it's useless to feed the trolls or reply to fundamentalists. So I have to concur.
It's the capacity to understand the difference between taking something that precludes you from having or using it, and making a copy of something - that's lacking, not the fault of people who try to explain it to you.

[netseeker]

I'm still looking for the relation between the posts of the last eight pages and the original purpose of the thread...

Or with other words: This thread got hijacked and was turned into an YADD (Yet Another DRM Debate). Personally i think that's a pity...

Michael

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by kennyc

And what of this:

http://www.mediabistro.com/ebooknews...zon_151113.asp

"Available everywhere but Amazon."

But it is available from Amazon.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by netseeker

I'm still looking for the relation between the posts of the last eight pages and the original purpose of the thread...

Or with other words: This thread got hijacked and was turned into an YADD (Yet Another DRM Debate). Personally i think that's a pity...

Michael

Good point, it is tangentially related to the cost of books and what they are worth, but I will drop the copyright/drm stuff at this point. It will be back in a more appropriate thread I'm sure.

Thanks.

[Patricia]

Please would people remember the guidelines about avoiding personal attacks on other members.
Just click on "Guidelines" on the blue bar at the bottom of all forum pages to read them.

[Harmon]

One of the problems with "boycott" is that there are at least 4 different meanings I can see for the word in this context:

1. I will not buy ebooks but I will buy new pbooks
2. I will not buy ebooks or new pbooks
3. I will only buy ebooks at $9.99 (or some other price point)
4. I will only buy (acquire) ebooks from the darknet

And, of course, there are some permutations resulting from various combinations of the above.

Now, just to keep on topic, let's all agree not to agree on legality/morality of the darknet acquisitions.

Which of these boycotts does anyone actually think will work, since publishers seem to be perfectly happy not selling ebooks - it looks like they'd just prefer for ebooks to go away, or at least, stay marginalized.

So, alternative 1 is a no go because they WANT to sell us pbooks rather than ebooks.

Alternative 2 superficially hits them in the pocketbook, but actually validates their faulty belief that ebook sales cannibalize pbook sales - because the threat of not buying pbooks has no meaning if ebook buyers are actually new buyers who wouldn't be buying the pbook in the first place.

Alternative 3 is an attempt to drive down pricing to what many ebook buyers believe is a price point where publishes/sellers could still make money. But it's really a variant of 1 and 2, so it's subject to the objections against those two.

And alternative 4 also validates publishers' idea that the darknet steals sales from ebooks & pbooks.

Bottom line: I don't see how any of these boycotts can accomplish the purpose of changing publishers' behavior, because their behavior is rooted in a perception of economic conditions that is wrong, and price boycotting plays right into those perceptions.

Maybe price is the wrong foundation for boycotting. Maybe the better boycott is to boycott any ebook that is not either free, or free of DRM.

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

But have a look at "A" is for Alibi and you will see the eBook is $9.99 where the paperback is $6.39. So given McMillan's new pricing, why is the price not lower for he eBook?

Because Amazon hasn't put Macmillan's pricing into effect yet and is still selling at the Amazon price, as according to Macmillan the 'proper' e-book price for that title is $14.

That series in an interesting case, as it shifted publishers mid-stream. The early installments, from Macmillan, are priced at $14 (and up); once Penguin takes over as publisher, the e-book price drops to $7.99. (If you're looking at Amazon, you need to read the "Digital List Price", not the actual sale price.)

[Blue Tyson]

Enough of 2 and 4 happens and you will change their behaviour - because you will have assisted in destroying their business.

2 is not quite correct. If in the past you bought DTB but switched to e then then lose sales altogether.

For 4 there is a difference - people who get stuff who would have never paid anyway, or couldn't because of where they lived. Some countries mail order places won't even deliver to, of course. However, people who switch from paid money in the past, and are now fed up and stop is a signal that if you don't provide, others will.

[Blue Tyson]

I've never paid $15 for a single fiction ebook. There are a small number I might - but they won't sell them to me (some of them are Macmillan) - so if I keep doing what I have been doing this will be easy to do.

In fact, I've checked - have not bought a single book all year, yet. Depending if you count magazine subs as bought in the month they arrive, anyway.

There's a new Selina Rosen bundle at webscriptions, so this may change shortly.

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Maybe price is the wrong foundation for boycotting.

All good points, to which I'd add one more: You can't boycott a product that isn't for sale.

For me to boycott Macmillan-published e-books, they would first have to publish electronic copies of books I would otherwise buy, and their track record on actually publishing e-books is atrocious.

[Blue Tyson]

Yeah. That would be the good other comparison to write a program to do. What percentage of books in the last three years or some recent period have they actually released.

[BuddyBoy]

Originally Posted by guyanonymous

A few years ago, in Vancouver, a major Pro shop stopped selling <major camera manufactuer> cameras completely. They did this in response to poor and, according the them, negligent behavior from the <major camera manufactuer>'s service department in Western Canada. Did it frustrate some buyers? For sure...but it also got them more respect from the consumers who considered the reasons behind their decision. They also put a stop to having enraged customers who blamed them for <major camera manufactuer> service's actions. It's been 5+ years and they still, at least on their website, have a single mention of <major camera manufactuer>. I respect their conviction, even if it hasn't produced a required change, as they see

Please note: The <major camera manufactuer> is one of the big 2, and is readily available at other camera shops throughout town.

Ah, you shop there too, huh?