Book publisher files mass BitTorrent lawsuit

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

It does if you convert them yourself (depending on what country you're in).

True, but if you place any value upon your time it would probably be cheaper to buy the ebook .

[Ken Maltby]

Hmm... as I understand it the stated purpose of the copyright and patent laws are to
incentivise and provide some protection in the marketplace for authors and inventors.
It becomes something of a stretch to say that authors would not be inclined to write
if they couldn't get a deal from a publisher that included factoring in the potential
profits for 70yrs after the author's death.

Now, with the internet, and e-books, the demise of the traditional publishing industry
and even all the brick&mortar bookstores, would not prevent an author from being able
to sell his stories. What would be lost would be the system that provides "advance
payments", although a market for some sort of speculative financing might likely take
its place.

I don't understand what market incentives there may be for not offering ebooks of all
the "out of print" works of authors, but there are still many stories that can't be found
being offered in digital format. When it comes to dead authors, who lets face it can't
be induced to write anymore books, and won't personally profit from the book sales, I
would think that the wider dissemination of their works might honor their efforts more.

I have no problem paying for the efforts to bring a book to market, but if the actual
author of the story is dead, I don't see why a publisher/distributor should be collecting
for the work of the author, they aren't paying him. Now I know it will be said that "We
already paid him and we paid his estate for the last book", but how long does this make
any sense, 70 years?

Most authors works fall into obscurity, not so much as a reflection of the value of the
books to the readers, but to the publisher and the market place. That need not be the
case any longer. Or, at least even the most overlooked book can continue to live on
internet, there is no reason the author or his heirs couldn't still profit from such books
at whatever price the ebooks will sell for. (But Copyright was and is intended to be
for a limited time and not to be "renewed" as a corporate asset, despite the
modifications added by the best politicians money can buy.)

Luck;
Ken

[ApK]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Generally, folks who pirate aren't likely to purchase the product to begin with. They either pirate or do without.

Not to excuse piracy; but really, just what did this company lose?

Sorry, I don't agree with that generalization. It smacks of passive aggressive rationalization. Certainly it's true for some, but it's also true that people steal stuff they want more than they steal stuff that they don't care about, and the only 'evidence' that seems to make people say it's a general truth is that piracy apologists repeat it so frequently.

[Jhary]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I strongly disagree with you. Downloading copyrighted material without the permission of the copyright holder is against the law, and ignorance of the law is not an excuse. Certainly the uploader is committing the greater offence, but the downloader is certainly also at fault and should be held to account. Of course, when it comes to torrent users, downloaders are generally also uploaders.

In Short the Complett Torrent Stuff is ilegal. That is what they say here.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Jhary

In Short the Complett Torrent Stuff is ilegal. That is what they say here.

BT is not itself illegal, but I would tend to agree that much of what it's used for probably is.

[6charlong]

Originally Posted by Ken Maltby

Hmm... as I understand it the stated purpose of the copyright and patent laws are to
incentivise and provide some protection in the marketplace for authors and inventors.
It becomes something of a stretch to say that authors would not be inclined to write
if they couldn't get a deal from a publisher that included factoring in the potential
profits for 70yrs after the author's death.

Now, with the internet, and e-books, the demise of the traditional publishing industry
and even all the brick&mortar bookstores, would not prevent an author from being able
to sell his stories. What would be lost would be the system that provides "advance
payments", although a market for some sort of speculative financing might likely take
its place.

I don't understand what market incentives there may be for not offering ebooks of all
the "out of print" works of authors, but there are still many stories that can't be found
being offered in digital format. When it comes to dead authors, who lets face it can't
be induced to write anymore books, and won't personally profit from the book sales, I
would think that the wider dissemination of their works might honor their efforts more.

I have no problem paying for the efforts to bring a book to market, but if the actual
author of the story is dead, I don't see why a publisher/distributor should be collecting
for the work of the author, they aren't paying him. Now I know it will be said that "We
already paid him and we paid his estate for the last book", but how long does this make
any sense, 70 years?

Most authors works fall into obscurity, not so much as a reflection of the value of the
books to the readers, but to the publisher and the market place. That need not be the
case any longer. Or, at least even the most overlooked book can continue to live on
internet, there is no reason the author or his heirs couldn't still profit from such books
at whatever price the ebooks will sell for. (But Copyright was and is intended to be
for a limited time and not to be "renewed" as a corporate asset, despite the
modifications added by the best politicians money can buy.)

Luck;
Ken

First, thank you for your well reasoned post. I think the original purpose in extending the copyright past the author's life was to incentivize publishers to make the investment needed to keep important titles in print. Exactly what that maps to in the age of eBooks is a mystery since there is no additional cost to offer old eBooks for sale.

If publishing houses do go out of business much of our most important cultural treasure might be lost.

[cfrizz]

Then perhaps they should get on the ball, embrace the changes that have occurred, start offering old out of print ebooks at REASONALBLE prices since they are old rather than trying to sell them at today's brand new books prices and they might stay in business.

If they do go out of business, they will have no one to blame but themselves.

I have nothing against companies making a profit, but I have a lot against out & out greed.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by HarryT

True, but if you place any value upon your time it would probably be cheaper to buy the ebook .

HarryT, you forget that you can't put a value on somebody's time because everything should be free and we should all get everything we want when we want it... doesn't matter about making things, mining things, growing things or anything else, we're all entitled to everything now...

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by cfrizz

Then perhaps they should get on the ball, embrace the changes that have occurred, start offering old out of print ebooks at REASONALBLE prices since they are old rather than trying to sell them at today's brand new books prices and they might stay in business.

If they do go out of business, they will have no one to blame but themselves.

I have nothing against companies making a profit, but I have a lot against out & out greed.

Yep!

Originally Posted by Ken Maltby

as I understand it the stated purpose of the copyright and patent laws are to incentivise and provide some protection in the marketplace for authors and inventors. (snip) When it comes to dead authors, who lets face it can't be induced to write anymore books

Well said, and for a lot more than the stuff I highlighted.

But here's the problem: there are a lot of different perspectives on copyright, but the whole debate has been hijacked to create an artificial artist vs. pirate dichotomy.

Personally, I believe that "economic incentive" is the main purpose of copyright (though I believe that it is an American perspective and it may not reflect the purpose of copyright law in all countries). I also believe in the "social good" argument, and want to find some balance between those two perspectives. Alas, what we have at the moment is not a balance. Retroactive copyright extensions diminishes the idea of economic incentives. Something which did not exist at the time is not an incentive to create, and long term copyrights actually create a disincentive to create new material. (Actually, I find it quite disgusting that people can live off the proceeds of a few months work for their entire life from a combination of luck and good marketing.)

Alas, when I look at things like BitTorrent I see stuff that has been produced in the recent past and sometimes hasn't even been released to the public by the publisher. So going after people who use BitTorrent for piracy is entirely legitimate from my perspective.

On second thought, it should be completely legitimate even if the work is fifty years old. After all, we should fight to change bad laws rather than simply violate them. And if you choose to violate them in an act of civil disobedience, you should be prepared to face the consequences and use the judicial process as a stage to argue your points.

[crossi]

I don't care if the current publishers go out of business. If they do the book rights would eventually revert to the authors and new better publishing companies will take their place. Businesses come and go. If the current publishers die off and leave a void other businesses will expand to fill it.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by elcreative

HarryT, you forget that you can't put a value on somebody's time because everything should be free and we should all get everything we want when we want it... doesn't matter about making things, mining things, growing things or anything else, we're all entitled to everything now...

Uh, Harry was talking about people digitizing their own books, not downloading free copies. Unless you're thinking that people aren't entitled to digitize their books for personal use...

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by rkomar

Uh, Harry was talking about people digitizing their own books, not downloading free copies. Unless you're thinking that people aren't entitled to digitize their books for personal use...

As Shaggy said, that varies from place to place. Eg it's not legal to scan a book in the UK, even if you've bought it and the scanned copy is purely for your own use. Of course, you wouldn't get prosecuted for it but, strictly speaking, it is against the law to do so.

[Ken Maltby]

Originally Posted by BWinmill

Personally, I believe that "economic incentive" is the main purpose of copyright (though I believe that it is an American perspective and it may not reflect the purpose of copyright law in all countries). I also believe in the "social good" argument, and want to find some balance between those two perspectives. Alas, what we have at the moment is not a balance. Retroactive copyright extensions diminishes the idea of economic incentives. Something which did not exist at the time is not an incentive to create, and long term copyrights actually create a disincentive to create new material. (Actually, I find it quite disgusting that people can live off the proceeds of a few months work for their entire life from a combination of luck and good marketing.)

.

I think that it would be great if it were as easy and profitable as that. It
would mean that what the author produces in the "few months work", had
value to a whole lot of people, who are willing to part with their hard earned
money, to obtain a copy. [You must really hate Hollywood.]

(We can't get into a discussion about "Social Good", as there are some of
the moderators who seem to take notice of such comments and will shut
down the thread, as soon as the conservative side of the issue gets raised.)

Luck;
Ken

[Anjohl]

Originally Posted by HarryT

How else would you suggest that they be prosecuted? You're not suggesting that piracy is acceptable, and that people who break the law SHOULDN'T be prosecuted, are you?



I don't believe anyone's mentioned DRM in this discussion. What is its relevance to this case?

The relevance is that if you buy a DRM'd copy of a piece of media, and I pirate a DRM free version, *I* have the definitive version. DRM punishes people for NOT stealing, which in turn encourages stealing.