Is ebook piracy on the rise?

[Jellby]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Now, to me the "theft" of a single person violating the copyright, for example, Joe Blow downloads a copy of a Harry Potter book the theft is the $20 that they did not pay for a legitamate copy of the book.

I would say that, if it's theft, it's not $20, but maybe $3-6, whatever amount would be the profit for the publisher and bookseller plus the royalties for the author, etc., i.e., you shouldn't count the part of the $20 that's actually used to pay for the paper, printing, binding, storage, distribution, etc., since those are in fact items that are saved due to the "theft".

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by stxopher

Why give up something that takes absolutely no effort or cost to keep? The rights to publish something would be considered an asset and no corporation would willingly give up assets just because they have no current use. This is especially true if there's no downside for them to hold on to them. If nothing else, something could happen in the future that makes those properties valuable again (new book by author, death, governmental banning).

Save that rights revert if the title goes out of print (though the author or author's rep must formally request reversion) and eventually, the title becomes public domain.

Corporations keep assets that have value. Assets depreciate. Granted that they will be happy to keep something that requires no effort. But whether they will expend effort to keep it depends on whether they think it still has value.
______
Dennis

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by Jellby

I would say that, if it's theft, it's not $20, but maybe $3-6, whatever amount would be the profit for the publisher and bookseller plus the royalties for the author, etc., i.e., you shouldn't count the part of the $20 that's actually used to pay for the paper, printing, binding, storage, distribution, etc., since those are in fact items that are saved due to the "theft".

No, they're "sunk costs". They've already been spent. Downloading an illicit electronic copy instead of buying a paper copy is a loss of revenue for the publisher. But as discussed at length elsewhere, there is no way to measure the loss. It's just not possible tell how many illicit electronic copies are downloaded, and more important, it's not possible to tell how many copies are downloaded and read instead of buying a legitimate copy.

The latter is the critical number. If you're an author, a simple download of an illicit copy of one of your books is meaningless. A download that is read instead of paying you for a copy is actual lost revenue, and that you're concerned about. But as mentioned, there is no way to actually measure the losses.
______
Dennis

[LazyScot]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Save that rights revert if the title goes out of print (though the author or author's rep must formally request reversion) and eventually, the title becomes public domain.

Note that with the rise of Print on Demand the concept of a title going out of print has become somewhat redundant.

(I'm sure there will be some interesting debates on what the copyright date on a print-on-demand book is; for instance some places claim a copyright date based on when a webpage is served, and not when it was written.)

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by LazyScot

Note that with the rise of Print on Demand the concept of a title going out of print has become somewhat redundant.

(I'm sure there will be some interesting debates on what the copyright date on a print-on-demand book is; for instance some places claim a copyright date based on when a webpage is served, and not when it was written.)

No, it hasn't. Current publishing contracts tend to specify minimum sales levels for ebook and POD editions for a title to be considered "in print". Just because it is technically available, doesn't mean the publisher is making any active efforts to sell it.

Sales below the specified level are considered evidence that the publisher is no longer actively trying to sell the title, and the rights should revert.
______
Dennis

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Isn't that called 'taking a shower'?

Publishers seem more worried about taking a bath.

Most of the arguments above seem to suggest that the availability and distribution of e-books should be considered in terms of "fairness," not simply "cost," as clearly the economics of e-books do not fit current physical product and distribution models well, and they do not benefit all parties equally.

Further, they bolster my opinion that the legal status of e-books must be considered in terms of being a broadcast product, like a TV show, as opposed to a physical product like a book. This allows the questions to be seen in a different light, a light already studied and established by broadcast producers, the FCC (and similar foreign regulators) and local governments.

This, for instance, allows a producer to distribute/broadcast (or, in this case, "tightcast") their product to a paid customer, and that customer is free to make their own copies for private use... but they do not have the right to redistribute or "tightcast" the product to others, especially for profit. It also means that the owner of one version of the product (say, a book) is not necessarily allowed to have another version (an e-book) for free, unless a specific prior arrangement has been made.

The iTunes model essentially follows this concept, with some slight variations, and I think as a whole, it works well. The iTunes system basically uses their SW on your PC as a cable TV station uses a "cable box" to regulate what you can and cannot see, prevent re-distribution, and track usage and cost. Amazon's Kindle system does this, with the Kindle itself acting as the "cable box" and the viewer. Both systems can also provide local control (they are capable of restricting access to content, depending on location determined by IP or cellular location data).

We're already on the way to working out a system that will be fair to all (or, at least, most) and therefore effective overall. An effective system will curtail piracy bit by bit, until it won't be a concern to anyone.

[slayda]

It seems to me that the main purpose of laws and punishment for violation of laws is to make the "breaking of the law" such that it is more desirous to "not break the law". E.g. the bulk of a society thinks it is dangerous to residents for a car to go faster than 35 MPH in their neighborhood so they pass a law to fine anyone caught doing it $100. This would stop some people from speeding but very wealthy people might think that paying such a small amount is worth the time they save.

We could then go further and make the law so that on a third offense the car was confiscated and a driver's license was revoked.

There is always a battle between those who either think they can "get away with it" or that if caught, the penalty is insignificant and those who are seeking "protection of the law". There are many things that we, as individuals, are "restricted" from doing that governments do regularly, e.g. stealing, killing & destroying property - aka war, imprisoning to name a few. Even there there is a society of nations that make & try to enforce laws for the "common good".

Our "individual good" is often subsumed by this "common good" to the point where we feel deprived of our "rights" and/or punished improperly. In those cases, we attempt to change the laws more in our favor. In a democracy, this sometimes works. In a dictatorship it is more rare but regardless it is attempted in all societies. A "criminal" is more often doing this by "taking the law into his own hands" and that may even be a definition of a criminal.

So continue the "good fight" in your own individual ways.

[slayda]

It seems to me that the main purpose of laws and punishment for violation of laws is to make the "breaking of the law" such that it is more desirous to "not break the law". E.g. the bulk of a society thinks it is dangerous to residents for a car to go faster than 35 MPH in their neighborhood so they pass a law to fine anyone caught doing it $100. This would stop some people from speeding but very wealthy people might think that paying such a small amount is worth the time they save.

We could then go further and make the law so that on a third offense the car was confiscated and a driver's license was revoked.

There is always a battle between those who either think they can "get away with it" or that if caught, the penalty is insignificant and those who are seeking "protection of the law". There are many things that we, as individuals, are "restricted" from doing that governments do regularly, e.g. stealing, killing & destroying property - aka war, imprisoning to name a few. Even there there is a society of nations that make & try to enforce laws for the "common good".

Our "individual good" is often subsumed by this "common good" to the point where we feel deprived of our "rights" and/or punished improperly. In those cases, we attempt to change the laws more in our favor. In a democracy, this sometimes works. In a dictatorship it is more rare but regardless it is attempted in all societies. A "criminal" is more often doing this by "taking the law into his own hands" and that may even be a definition of a criminal.

So continue the "good fight" in your own individual ways.

[kacir]

Originally Posted by Jellby

but people who don't have English as mother tongue may be prone to some misunderstanding. In this case I might think that "criminal" is a much stronger word than it is.

Ab-so-lu-te-ly Excellent observation.

In my mother language the word Criminal is a very strong and very loaded word. Criminals are pirates, for example. You might have heard of pirates - very nasty people that board a ship on an open sea and commit an armed robbery, often killing all the crew and passengers.

Copyright infringers are not taken to the CRIMINAL court, they are not prosecuted by a dully appointed government authority. They are taken to the CIVIL court by RIAA.

Let us consider following situation.
Kacir and Harry sign a contract. Kacir is supposed to do some service for Harry. Due to some circumstances unforeseen during the contract signing Harry feels he did not get what he paid for, but Kacir says that he provided the requested service. They fail to resolve their dispute, so Harry takes Kacir to the small claims court in Britain. Does that mean Kacir is a bloody CRIMINAL? I do not think so.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

If you already own the CD. The argument is that most P2P MP3 sharers don't own the CDs, and are using P2P to get bootleg copies of stuff they want but aren't willing to buy.

True. But specifically in this case, the discussion I was responding to was about owning the content in one format and having the right to put it into another format. IE, format shifting.

Yes, that's a very different thing than downloading content you don't already own.

[stepanok]

I don't realy see the point in all this, the fact being that if "illegal" downloads weren't available the number of computers being sold would be close to zero. It would suprise me a bit if computer companies supported P2P sites....

[stepanok]

make that......."wouldn't"

[bwaldron]

Originally Posted by stepanok

I don't realy see the point in all this, the fact being that if "illegal" downloads weren't available the number of computers being sold would be close to zero.

There were many, many computers sold in the pre-internet age.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by stepanok

I don't realy see the point in all this, the fact being that if "illegal" downloads weren't available the number of computers being sold would be close to zero. It would suprise me a bit if computer companies supported P2P sites....

Seems to me that computer games might just possibly be accounting for some of those computer sales....

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by nekokami

Seems to me that computer games might just possibly be accounting for some of those computer sales....

It certainly accounts for some component sales. The devil take the hindmost race between nVidia and AMD/ATI in the graphics card market is driven by gamers, and it's possible to build a PC where the graphics card has a faster processor and more RAM than the PC it's installed in. Intel just threw down the gauntlet with an announcement of a new line of graphics controllers that will compete directly with nVidia and ATI in the high end market, using a 45NM process. Intel won't be shipping for 18 months, but while they've integrated graphics controllers with their motherboards for some time, they've never been anything that would interest a gamer, and were intended for low end systems. this is the first time they've aimed directly at the market nVidia and ATI compete for. Things will get interesting there.
______
Dennis