E-Book Piracy: The Publishing Industry's Next Epic Saga?

[Happ]

Let me add my two cents to this discussion. Piracy defenders do a poor job of defending what they should be defending, and that is one reason why there is scarcely any good sense in these debates (I do not mean this particular forum). When those who are partially right get the arguments wrong those who are partially wrong never get the chance to correct what is wrong about their views.

First, the issue is purely economical.
Second, there is no second issue.

What is at stake is how are we going to pay creative people. Yes, I mean those who write books and songs and play the piano —authors. This is the issue. Pirates want the money just for themselves, either because they do not want to pay authors and want that money to buy hardware or because they want donations to keep their servers going — they are evil. Distributers and publishers want some money for themselves but also want to pay authors because they know that is where their business is coming from. So they are less evil.

Dreamy free-for-all piracy defenders argue that people are very nice and pay voluntarily if given the chance; publishers know this is bullshit, economists know that also. That is why we have security in supermarkets and bookstores. Sure, not all people will steal. But if stealing is easy and a few people do it without consequences, most people will feel cheated for paying and will stop paying and start stealing. Only a few morons like me will keep on paying.

Solutions? Google; open TV. Fake that you give everything for free to people, when in fact you are just using whatever medium (TV, the internet) to sell ads. This solution sucks. But it is the only one that works. See how Firefox finances itself.

Soon, videos, music and books will be full of ads — and free. You do not like that? Neither do I. But there is no other solution I can think of. DRM is doomed to fail. Taking people to court gives authors and publishers bad publicity. Does anyone really have an alternative? Remember: there is only one issue, and that is how to pay the authors. All else is beside the point. For instance: why is it that it is legal to sell second-hand physical books, but not e-books? Well, because second-hand bookshops dent the authors and publishers a little, but do not put them at risk.

However, notice how expensive USA textbooks are. That is because authors and publishers have to make money before used textbooks get into the second-hand market; once there, publishers and authors stop making money. Also, notice how every USA textbook needs second, third, fourth editions. This is to force students into not buying a second-hand artificially outdated edition.

So, remember: this is just economics. Find a way to pay authors and publishers, without DRM and without Google-style ad bullshit, and I am with you. Otherwise, you are singing the wrong tune.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Happ

Soon, videos, music and books will be full of ads — and free.

Sorry, but I very seriously doubt that anybody is going to invest $200m in a "blockbuster" film and give it away free with adverts in it. The economics just don't make sense. It may work for a pop video.

[kennyc]

DVD's already have ads on them...

and product placements inside movies....

[msundman]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Copyright limits natural (an odd word, that) property rights--just like laws against gun usage in city limits, or laws against dumping toxic chemicals, or laws about noise levels. All of those limit how you can use your legally-owned property.

Exactly. So, just as laws against dumping toxic chemicals are very different from natural property rights, so is copyright. People seldom think laws against dumping toxic chemicals are pro property rights, but for some reason lots of people think copyright is.
(Note that I didn't say whether I think copyright is good or bad, just that it's an incursion into traditional property rights instead of supporting such rights.)

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Well-said, Happ. Yes, this is an economics issue... economics is the exact reason copyright was invented... and any changes or revisions to copyright law will always be intended to maximize its economic potential, not to weaken it. After all, we are talking about things that people do not have to buy or use to survive, they are life-optional products. There is no logical reason to deny their creators the opportunity to profit, as long as the public has the choice to simply not buy.

Originally Posted by HarryT

Sorry, but I very seriously doubt that anybody is going to invest $200m in a "blockbuster" film and give it away free with adverts in it. The economics just don't make sense. It may work for a pop video.

True: Movie-makers spend millions on a movie, expecting it to make it back in box-office sales; the bigger the budget, the bigger the effort to get you to the theatre to see it. But as more people enjoy movies at home and stop going to the theatres, we can expect that movies will begin to drop in price as they cannot have their costs recouped in theatre sales... or that DVD prices will increase to make up the difference. The DVD ads will make up for the rest of the cost.

I agree, ad-subsidization is the future of mass-market e-book sales, either directly attached to the e-book, or displayed in the sales portals. Concerns about said ads being "obtrusive" are, I think, justified, but people have already demonstrated that they will put up with a lot for cheap and free content.

Think of the last DVD you bought that forced you to watch at least 1 preview or ad before allowing you to go to the main content... how many people take those DVDs back to the store, or publicly malign the sellers, because of it? And how many just watch the previews?

No, ads are rarely popular. Neither are flu shots. But they provide a service with very small down-sides, so they will always be with us.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

True: Movie-makers spend millions on a movie, expecting it to make it back in box-office sales; the bigger the budget, the bigger the effort to get you to the theatre to see it. But as more people enjoy movies at home and stop going to the theatres, we can expect that movies will begin to drop in price as they cannot have their costs recouped in theatre sales...

In the UK, at least, cinema attendance has been steadily increasing for the last few years. I think that people realise that they offer an "experience" that can't be replicated watching a DVD at home, and are willing to pay for that.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by msundman

Re-read what I wrote. (I have never implied that ideas are property.)

Well, if you read a book and you have a perfect memory you can then type out the book and sell it. Copyright prohibit that but you have only used your own memory when creating the book so to me it seems that copyright say what you can do with your thoughts (memory, ideas).

Buying the book you are allowed to read it and remember it.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Well-said, Happ. Yes, this is an economics issue... economics is the exact reason copyright was invented... and any changes or revisions to copyright law will always be intended to maximize its economic potential, not to weaken it. After all, we are talking about things that people do not have to buy or use to survive, they are life-optional products. There is no logical reason to deny their creators the opportunity to profit, as long as the public has the choice to simply not buy.

You know that that is not the reason copyright was created. It was created as something unwanted but maybe necessary that should stimulate creating creation in a way that all the bad effects was as small as possible. If some other method can be found to stimulate creatin than that could be used instead.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Happ

Let me add my two cents to this discussion. Piracy defenders do a poor job of defending what they should be defending, and that is one reason why there is scarcely any good sense in these debates (I do not mean this particular forum). When those who are partially right get the arguments wrong those who are partially wrong never get the chance to correct what is wrong about their views.

First, the issue is purely economical.
Second, there is no second issue.

What is at stake is how are we going to pay creative people. Yes, I mean those who write books and songs and play the piano —authors. This is the issue. Pirates want the money just for themselves, either because they do not want to pay authors and want that money to buy hardware or because they want donations to keep their servers going — they are evil. Distributers and publishers want some money for themselves but also want to pay authors because they know that is where their business is coming from. So they are less evil.

This is just propaganda and wrong.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by tompe

You know that that is not the reason copyright was created. It was created as something unwanted but maybe necessary that should stimulate creating creation in a way that all the bad effects was as small as possible. If some other method can be found to stimulate creatin than that could be used instead.

Copyright was created in order to guarantee a creator a financial benefit from his or her creation for a set period of time, in order to give them the financial incentive to create in the first place (instead of blowing it off and continuing to till their fields), and to benefit society with their creations. No more and no less.

It was necessary because most potential creators could not afford to stop working and lose income in order to create things they would not profit from... and the public wanted more invention.

It was wanted because everyone benefited from it--with the exception of those who would steal other people's ideas for their own profit, in the name of their own greed, which most other people agreed had abdicated the right to benefit.

There's a reason why copyright has lasted for as long as it has: It's been proven over time to work better than any other method for stimulating creation.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HarryT

And yet the gentleman involved was found guilty, was he not?

Yep. Because he didn't use that as a defense; he basically said "all torrenting not done for direct payment should be legal." The judge's opinion read like she was *begging* the defense to come up with *anything* that would let her justify some of the filesharing, and they failed to try anything remotely potentially reasonable.

Her opinion made it clear that she doesn't believe "all unauthorized filesharing is theft," and would take seriously both free-speech and fair-use defenses.

So it's possible that if the Harry Potter ebooks ever hit a US court, "there is no authorized version, and no intention to provide one, therefore I'm not infringing on any market rights" might work as a defense.

Might. Depends on the judge and exact circumstances of the case.

This hopeful thought doesn't quite inspire me enough to create a "free download 7 Harry Potter books + Beedle + Qudiditch + Monsters" website, though.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Copyright was created in order to guarantee a creator a financial benefit from his or her creation for a set period of time, in order to give them the financial incentive to create in the first place (instead of blowing it off and continuing to till their fields), and to benefit society with their creations. No more and no less.

It was necessary because most potential creators could not afford to stop working and lose income in order to create things they would not profit from... and the public wanted more invention.

It was wanted because everyone benefited from it--with the exception of those who would steal other people's ideas for their own profit, in the name of their own greed, which most other people agreed had abdicated the right to benefit.

There's a reason why copyright has lasted for as long as it has: It's been proven over time to work better than any other method for stimulating creation.

And it was limited to a relatively short period of time to encourage more creation. Not to provide a perpetuity to the heirs and assigns of the long dead creator.....

[LazyScot]

Some quotes (that I should point out are furnished by my Better Half's research, and not my own!):

PREFACE, p. 7:

“THE rights of Property are dear to every man. While Authors have the common feelings of men, it cannot be expected that they should be indifferent to these rights./Since an Author has the same wants with other men, why should he not have the same means of supplying them, and the same prospect of success?/MRS. MACAULAY, in her late spirited Apology for Authors, has shown that they may receive the profitable as well as honorary fruits of their labour, without any degredation of their character. It is the design of this publication to pursue the subject still farther, and show, that Authors have a natural right to these fruits, and a reasonable claim to protection from the state in the enjoyment of them./IF the principles here advanced be just, it may be expected from the wisdom and equity of the British legislature, that the temporary security which is now given to Authors, will hereafter be improved into a legal establishment of perpetual Copy-right./ESTO PERPETUA!”

*** p. 11:

“Literary property doth not consist in the exclusive possession of the books in which a composition is written or printed, but in the exclusive possession of the composition itself. This is indeed a kind of property invisible and untangible, but it is not on that account the less real.”

p. 49:

“ … authors … are seldom able to make any considerable addition to their fortunes by the sale of their works, but are often so poorly indemnified for their labour, as to be obliged to give up the execution of noble and useful designs.”

p. 51:

“The right of authors to the exclusive possession of their own works is founded in nature; and unless any sufficient cause appears for depriving them of it, ought to be secured and guarded by law.”

These are all from William Enfield, in “Observations on Literary Property”, printed in 1774. Yes, 1774. (Sadly, as far as I can find out, it's not been Gutenberg'd yet -- and we don't have our own copy.)

When first created there were debates about the duration, but the idea of the abstract form, that I guess the e-book is the currently ulimate representation, was at the heart of the debate. And there were plenty of pirates around then -- if I remember correctly, as far as London was concerned many of them where Scottish.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

And it was limited to a relatively short period of time to encourage more creation. Not to provide a perpetuity to the heirs and assigns of the long dead creator.....

Which is not a condemnation of copyright itself... only an indication that its particulars may need to be redressed.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

And it was limited to a relatively short period of time to encourage more creation. Not to provide a perpetuity to the heirs and assigns of the long dead creator.....

And therein lies the major issue with the current law I think. It should be for the creator of the work, not some corporation or endless descendants....