Do you pirate books and why?

[xg4bx]

not ebooks but digital related-

“Piracy may not be a bad thing”, shares Angry Birds Creator

"Shared during the Midem Conference in Cannes, one would think that the creator of Angry Birds would take a more hostile tone towards piracy, given that the Angry Birds brand is one of the world’s most highly pirated entities, from Angry Birds games, Angry Birds merchandise and Angry Birds apparel.

“We have some issues with piracy, not only in apps, but also in consumer products.” shared Mikael Hed – Chief Executive, Rovio. “There are tons and tons of merchandise out there, especially in Asia, which are not officially licensed products. We could learn a lot from the music industry, and the rather terrible ways it has tried to combat piracy.” he added.

Rovio, however, believes that filing lawsuits against perpetrators isn’t the most efficient way of fighting against pirates, taking lessons from how the music industry has dealt with the situation. Instead of treating customers as users, more prospects and advantages can be found in treating them as fans and solidifying fanbases.

“If we lose that fanbase, our business is done, but if we can grow that fanbase, our business will grow.”


http://professionalgaminglife.com/80...-birds-creator

for an idea of how popular angry birds is-

Angry Birds 'One of the Most Profitable Games in History'

"It was revealed this week that Rovio's hit mobile title Angry Birds cost only $140k to create and has already generated an estimated $70 million. That's 500 times more than what it cost to make."

http://www.industrygamers.com/news/a...es-in-history/


these guys are making massive profits despite having the bejeezus pirated out of their brand and yet remain relatively unconcerned with piracy. instead of implementing drm or treating customers like scum, they'd rather grow their fanbase. go figure.

[JeremyR]

Ultimately though it comes down to self-interest.

Do you want more of the books you like being produced? Do you want that author to be able to continue to write?

Then buy those books. Reward the author and have him/her write more.

I actually think we'll move to a "patronage" system, which is currently being popularized by Kickstarter - basically people say they will write something if people pledge a certain amount.

It's been used recently to great success to fund an old style point & click adventure game, but also thinks like reprints of books, role playing games, etc.

Of course, the trouble with this is that it largely cuts publishers out of the deal. So they'll lobby for more laws and more DRM, but I think in the end, it will be a losing fight.

[carld]

“Piracy may not be a bad thing”, shares Angry Birds Creator

I would guess that if Angry Birds weren't an enormous success he might say something different. It's easy to say piracy isn't a problem when you're sitting in an office chair made of hundred dollar bills.

[spindlegirl]

Sometimes I wonder if all the hoopla against piracy is sometimes (and I do mean sometimes, not to try to dismiss the valid downfalls for authors) a form of reverse psychology.

You see a front page story "PIRACY IS EBIL!"

A long long story about how some of the Best Selling books are widely pirated, oh and by the way here (stating the NAME of the website - so easy to google) is where you are NOT SUPPOSED TO GO to get these really fabulous books by these incredible authors! News stories are actually where I learned about most of the websites that get discussed here!

Sometimes I think advertising agents are probably the ones who are unhappiest.

I used to use that kind of reverse psychology on my brothers. We'd pick our chores and I remember going "Oh Man, do I have to have THIS job?" and start pouting and pretending I really hated the job in question, so they'd hand it to me and take the job I really didn't want while I'd get the best one.

[Wasgo]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

I suppose pirated movies and songs don't cut into the profits of the major movie studios and recording companies, either.

I would believe they would have less profit, but that doesn't make it theft. If I launched a campaign stating that Sony uses their profits to support Mexican drug lords, it would also cut into their profits, and still not be theft.

Having similar elements to theft doesn't make it theft, since it lacks a fundamental part of being theft: depriving the owner of it. For copyright infringement, it may result in less profit, but to have lost profit, you have to compare to a theoretical state which may not exist.

For example, I committed copyright infringement to download DJ Danger Mouse's "The Grey Album". It's not possible to download it legally because EMI, the copyright owner for the source material won't allow it to exist. I own both albums of the source material, Jay-Z's "Black Album" and the Beatle's "White Album". If they did release a legal version of it, I'd buy it. The owner hasn't lost any profit from me downloading it, and I've still committed copyright infringement.

Originally Posted by HarryT

So, by your argument, "identity theft" is not "theft", because the original owner of the identity still has it? :chin scratch:

In spite of the name, it's not really theft. It's a form of fraud. The information doesn't even have to be illegally taken to be used in identity theft, it can be committed by someone that has lawful access to your information that uses it in an unlawful way.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Wasgo

In spite of the name, it's not really theft. It's a form of fraud. The information doesn't even have to be illegally taken to be used in identity theft, it can be committed by someone that has lawful access to your information that uses it in an unlawful way.

Yes, I'm well aware of that. I was simply using it to illustrate that people do, in fact, use the term "theft" to describe situations which are not strictly theft, and everyone understands what is meant when they do.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

So, by your argument, "identity theft" is not "theft", because the original owner of the identity still has it?

This is still a bogus argument. "identy theft" is not theft. It is "identy theft". Compare to "X science" which does not imply that X is is a science. Calling "identy theft" just theft would be confusing and wrong.

[Wasgo]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes, I'm well aware of that. I was simply using it to illustrate that people do, in fact, use the term "theft" to describe situations which are not strictly theft, and everyone understands what is meant when they do.

The problem with using theft a descriptive term for copyright infringement is that copyright infringement can be a whole class of different offences. While one person may want theft to only apply to someone downloading something illegally, another may want it applied to mash-ups or sampling, and yet others still may want it applied to the stripping of DRM.

It's not a good term precisely because everyone does not understand what is meant by it.

The only reason I know why people want to use theft as a shorthand for copyright infringement is that people already know that theft is wrong. They haven't done a great job convincing people that copyright infringement is wrong, and they're hoping that using the term theft will help.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes, I'm well aware of that. I was simply using it to illustrate that people do, in fact, use the term "theft" to describe situations which are not strictly theft, and everyone understands what is meant when they do.

So you would agree then that piracy isn't strictly theft, just that people have a tendency to be a bit loose with their meanings?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

So you would agree then that piracy isn't strictly theft, just that people have a tendency to be a bit loose with their meanings?

Certainly. Piracy is copyright infringement.

[WT Sharpe]

In the case Dowling v. United States (1985), lawyers maintained that while copyright infringement had indeed occurred, the bootleg records with which the case was concerned were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud." Then again, Congress seems to like the word "theft"; as in "The Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999" and the "No Electronic Theft Act of 1997".

Me, even though my grandfather was a lawyer and knew all the fine nuances between burglary, larceny, theft, and copyright infringement; I'm a simple fellow. In my book, a fellow who takes something what ain't his is a thief. And thieving ain't right.

[ProfCrash]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

In the case Dowling v. United States (1985), lawyers maintained that while copyright infringement had indeed occurred, the bootleg records with which the case was concerned were not "stolen, converted or taken by fraud." Then again, Congress seems to like the word "theft"; as in "The Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999" and the "No Electronic Theft Act of 1997".

Me, even though my grandfather was a lawyer and knew all the fine nuances between burglary, larceny, theft, and copyright infringement; I'm a simple fellow. In my book, a fellow who takes something what ain't his is a thief. And thieving ain't right.

Amen.

Like I said, people who want to say that piracy is not theft are doing so because they want to feel better about the activity. If you are taking something that you have not been given as a gift or purchased, you are stealing. There are nuances in the law that might allow you to legally call it something else but you are stealing.

The author has a right to be paid for his work. If you are chosing to take the work and not pay for it, you are depriving the author of his/her money. You are stealing.

Fall back on the legal definition all you want but you are trying to pretty up what you are doing.

[Wasgo]

Originally Posted by ProfCrash

Like I said, people who want to say that piracy is not theft are doing so because they want to feel better about the activity.

Or because the words are different and the differences matter. I'm not trying to feel better about anything. If you've infringed an author's copyright, and cost them money, that's wrong.

If you are taking something that you have not been given as a gift or purchased, you are stealing.

Mash-ups are copyright infringement. If I own all of the source material, what have I stolen?

There are nuances in the law that might allow you to legally call it something else but you are stealing.

It's not a nuance, they are fully separate offences under the legal system. They're not even considered related under the law.

The author has a right to be paid for his work. If you are chosing to take the work and not pay for it, you are depriving the author of his/her money.

Agreed.

You are stealing.

No agreement.

Fall back on the legal definition all you want but you are trying to pretty up what you are doing.

Either that, or you're trying to frame an argument around what's convenient for you while ignoring perfectly legitimate positions.

[CyGuy]

When an EULA or a TOS states or implies that I cannot allow my spouse, sibling, child to read an ebook that I actually purchased and own myself, they absolutely invalidate any other argument they might present that does make sense. If they ever come to the real world and understand that Rights trump cash, they may actually be able to get somewhere. The BS they having been trying to pull off is just going make people behave the same way they did during prohibition.

Stop the “it is a license” nonsense, the book was purchased.
Stop the agency pricing, allow competition and demand to control prices.
Price ebooks below the paperback version; it is the exact same story without any printing, delivery, and storage involved.
End DRM immediately. You are calling your customers thieves and you remove the versatility of a digital file.
Do not sell any ebook in a proprietary format; they should be readable on any device.
End geographic restrictions; don’t give anyone a valid reason to use alternate methods to obtain the product.
Stop cutting off libraries! They are friends not foes.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by CyGuy

Stop the “it is a license” nonsense, the book was purchased.
Stop the agency pricing, allow competition and demand to control prices.
Price ebooks below the paperback version; it is the exact same story without any printing, delivery, and storage involved.
End DRM immediately. You are calling your customers thieves and you remove the versatility of a digital file.
Do not sell any ebook in a proprietary format; they should be readable on any device.
End geographic restrictions; don’t give anyone a valid reason to use alternate methods to obtain the product.
Stop cutting off libraries! They are friends not foes.

Your set of demands seems to me to be mutually contradictory. You say that you want to end DRM, but support libraries. Can you explain how libraries can operate without DRM?