ebook piracy

[sircastor]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

The first thing you have to look at is... is downloading actually illegal? Copyright is about the right to distribute, not receive. Lots of people (with varying agendas) will try and tell you that it is illegal, but that's not really what most laws say (depending on what countries laws apply to you). That's a whole different topic though.

In the US, copyright infringement has been extended to mean the unauthorized exchange of material, rather than just the distribution of it.

I think the lack of speed in eBooks has much less to do with piracy and much more to do with the industry itself. People don't read as much as they listen to music. Part of the appeal of Music and Film piracy is that it's instant gratification. If you want the song, BAM! You've got it and you can listen to it. I think with Books, this is a much less common occurrence. For myself, I finish a book and usually relax. I often "sprint to the end" and am a little worn out at picking up something else immediately. I rarely have the sense of wanting to read a book "right now".

I think this kind of arguement misses the point of *why* piracy started happening in the first place. Free was kind of important to people, but it was a lot more about getting it now. If anything, legit media distribution has proven that people are happy to pay for their content.

</repeat of everything everyone's said already>

[Hellmark]

Part of the reason I don't buy ebooks (and thank god for so many good public domain, creative commons, etc ebooks), is that the majority are really just insanely done. Shitty DRM, high prices (often higher than what I can get the book for in print for on the ones I like). They're trying to force something new to fit in with something old. I don't redistribute the books I get, but I hate how I am limited to what I can do with what is legal. I'm a linux user, so that leaves me out of the running to use sony's ebook store, as well as a few others. I also cannot view any DRMed books on my computers.

However, being a linux user, I'm used to being put off upon, and drudging on. My Windows and Apple friends, are used to things being easy. Those are the majority, and at the same time, they're the ones who do not want an ebook reader. MP3 players took off because there were so many freely available pieces, and it was only after they were popular that things were made for profit. They're still called MP3 players, and not AAC or WMA players for a reason.

Again, I go back to price. Most people are used to all things digital being cheaper. Fewer production costs, because you just have to get it into digital form once, and make unlimited copies, with no shipping expenses. Once we see more 99 cent, or 2 dollar or what ever, cheap books, we'll see more ebook users. Why pay as much, or more, for something where you don't get anything tangible and you're severely restricted on what you do with it? Cheaper it is, more people are to going to be willing to accept DRM. You pay $20, and you'll want to loan it to friends, but pay 99 cents, and you'll be like "go and get your own copy, cheapskate".

I'm not saying that ebooks should be a dollar, just using it as an example of a price point that people tend to love.

[Patricia]

Originally Posted by jament

Shaggy's right. And the only morally valid reason to illegally download books is as a form of protest and civil disobedience against the publishing industry.

If you object to the availability, pricing, DRM and restrictions of e-books not only do you have a responsibility, as Rawls argues, to communicate your objection by illegally downloading as many books as you can find, you also have a responsibility to publicize it and make sure that the public and government know what you're doing and why.

I'm not sure that this is a justifiable reading of Rawls.

Rawls (in chapter 6 of A Theory of Justice) argues that civil disobedience is only justifiable in a democracy; it can be seen as an address to a common background sense of justice. Even in a democracy mistakes will occur and civil disobedience is an appeal to this in an attempt to rectify obvious and clear cases of injustice.

It is clear that this is a very limited use of the term. You need to demonstate that this is a case of blatant injustice and that one can invoke "a shared conception of justice."

Moreover, contary to your assetion that he would have approved mass piracy, Rawls also makes it clear that civil disobedience "does not require that the civilly disobedient act breach the same law that is being protested."
(A Theory of Justice, Chapter 6, p. 364.)

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by sircastor

In the US, copyright infringement has been extended to mean the unauthorized exchange of material, rather than just the distribution of it.

In law, or in the opinion of media companies? Can you point to a specific amendment to copyright law which redefines copyright protection as applying to "exchange" rather than "distribution"? It doesn't appear in the copy of US Title 17 that I have.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by jament

Shaggy's right. And the only morally valid reason to illegally download books is as a form of protest and civil disobedience against the publishing industry.

If you object to the availability, pricing, DRM and restrictions of e-books not only do you have a responsibility, as Rawls argues, to communicate your objection by illegally downloading as many books as you can find, you also have a responsibility to publicize it and make sure that the public and government know what you're doing and why.

Illegally downloading from the darknet does not, in fact, demonstrate a dislike in e-book prices. It does demonstrate your willingness to take illegal steps to get what you want, which is a different thing altogether.

You can achieve the same effect without the civil disobedience, in this case. Simply inform the publisher or author that you refused to buy the e-book, and why, and it gets the point across. Illegal downloading only makes you look like a criminal to a publisher or author, and a criminal is no one they want to do business with.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Illegally downloading from the darknet does not, in fact, demonstrate a dislike in e-book prices. It does demonstrate your willingness to take illegal steps to get what you want, which is a different thing altogether.

You can achieve the same effect without the civil disobedience, in this case. Simply inform the publisher or author that you refused to buy the e-book, and why, and it gets the point across. Illegal downloading only makes you look like a criminal to a publisher or author, and a criminal is no one they want to do business with.

It might make you look like a criminal to the publisher and some authors, but there's plenty of authors who gain audiences by sharing their books. I'll cite the two biggest as they're the ones everyone probably already knows - Cory Doctorow and Paulo Coehlo. Both are advocates of sharing, both are fully aware their texts are distributed through file sharing (darknet is a ridiculous word and I refuse to use it any longer. It conjures up images of paedophile rings) networks and sometimes through the sneakernet. Study after study has shown that filesharers buy more products and that being exposed on the file sharing networks gains you audience and sales.

[Who are you?]

An author deciding to share his own work isn't doing something illegal, it's just a method of distribution and advertisement. It's up to the author/publisher to decide whether or not they want to use that method. If your local supermarket isn't handing out free samples of say coca cola, that does not give you the right (and certainly not the moral duty) to break into a warehouse, steal a truckload of coca cola and give it away to all your friends.


Civil disobedience is only necessary (and thus legitimate) when you cannot get around a government not acting in the best interest of its citizens. Reading is a fully optional activity. If you don't like how some publishers/authors do business, then you should not do business with them. You can either not read at all, or you can buy your books somewhere else, or you can start your own company that you think provides better value for its customers by doing business in another way.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Who are you?

An author deciding to share his own work isn't doing something illegal, it's just a method of distribution and advertisement. It's up to the author/publisher to decide whether or not they want to use that method. If your local supermarket isn't handing out free samples of say coca cola, that does not give you the right (and certainly not the moral duty) to break into a warehouse, steal a truckload of coca cola and give it away to all your friends.


Civil disobedience is only necessary (and thus legitimate) when you cannot get around a government not acting in the best interest of its citizens. Reading is a fully optional activity. If you don't like how some publishers/authors do business, then you should not do business with them. You can either not read at all, or you can buy your books somewhere else, or you can start your own company that you think provides better value for its customers by doing business in another way.

This really isn't about rights and wrongs, or stealing from a supermarket, it's about whether you want to embrace reality or fight against it. The reality is your material will be shared if its popular enough and in a digital form. The reality is you can do very little about it, bar firing up the waaambulance. The reality is that if you embrace sharing you gain sales (Coehlo, Doctorow, many others). The reality is that DRM doesn't work. The reality is that people will buy books if they're cheap enough and won't bother to pirate.

Embrace the digital, or GTFO the internet (not you personally, I mean the companies and such )

[Elsi]

I edited two posts in this thread to remove links to a site posted in Russian, but hosted in Ecuador, which advocated the uploading and sharing of books, regardless of the copyright status. Sorry that it took a while for the moderating team to respond, but we needed to get a translation to determine what was hosted at that link.

[dmikov]

Originally Posted by mtravellerh

No chance of that happening soon! ePub with the Adobe flower is quickly becoming the de facto standard the whole world over (except for Northern America, of course)

By whole world you mean western europe I assume?

Because Ukraine, Russia and I suspect China is not big on it. And who knows whats happening in Japan and India.

[weateallthepies]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

This really isn't about rights and wrongs, or stealing from a supermarket, it's about whether you want to embrace reality or fight against it. The reality is your material will be shared if its popular enough and in a digital form. The reality is you can do very little about it, bar firing up the waaambulance. The reality is that if you embrace sharing you gain sales (Coehlo, Doctorow, many others). The reality is that DRM doesn't work. The reality is that people will buy books if they're cheap enough and won't bother to pirate.

Embrace the digital, or GTFO the internet (not you personally, I mean the companies and such )

Whilst this is often true, I don't think Doctorow is the best example to use though he often is. Very few people have the advantage of a platform like boingboing with which to market their work so he is in a slightly more unique position.

However on the whole I agree, the internet has changed the world for good or bad, all people can do now is jump on board and find new ways to make money because wrapping your work up in little parcels and selling it is not going to be as profitable as it once was.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by weateallthepies

Whilst this is often true, I don't think Doctorow is the best example to use though he often is. Very few people have the advantage of a platform like boingboing with which to market their work so he is in a slightly more unique position.

However on the whole I agree, the internet has changed the world for good or bad, all people can do now is jump on board and find new ways to make money because wrapping your work up in little parcels and selling it is not going to be as profitable as it once was.

I'd agree on the Doctorow front, he basically has his own marketing wing through the popularity of BoingBoing. I'm very interested to see how he'll approach selling his books when the paper trade starts tailing off. As it is he loses nothing at all from giving away his wares, because paper sales make up the bulk of his income. I wonder if he'll turn his coat once the paper sales fall away?

[alecE]

Seems to me there are several interlinked strands here, so IMHO:

1. Pricing - I object to the way ebooks seem generally to be priced the same as pbooks (or even more because of tax issues). There's still extra editorial work to do on the digital ebook, thereby costing some money, but the distribution and storage costs are eliminated. To my mind, that suggests that prices should be lower than pbooks.

2. DRM - Unpalatable though it is, publishers and authors do have a right to choose to protect their intellectual property. What I deeply object to is DRM that ties my purchase to a specific device, or that may compromise my ability to read what I have paid for at a future date in changed circumstances. There is an argument to be made that DRM is ineffective against the determined law-breaker. That is not an argument for becoming a law-breaker myself.

3. Downloading - If the owner said she/he wanted to control how often their product is downloaded, and an individual frustrates that control, then that individual has done wrong. Unequivocally.

4. Format conversion - I have a space problem and a lot of pbooks that are over 30 years old and deteriorating. Am I justified in scanning and converting them to digital? Yes, I think I am - I paid for them. Am I justified in distributing any such books? No I most certainly am not, unless copyright has expired etc.

5. DRM removal - if I do this to facilitate the management of my paid for property, and don't distribute the result to other people, am I breaking the law? I suspect (and hope) that I'm just inside the boundary, provided I don't distribute.

6. Civil disobedience falls into the category of "a good thing" for me, most of the time, provided it is aimed at a genuine injustice. So I was happily disobedient re. the poll tax in the UK, and a few other hot political potatoes. Illegal downloading disguised as civil disobedience to circumvent DRM - that doesn't feel right to me. (And yes, I recognise that what feels right to me, relatively comfortable in the UK, is not necessarrilly going to be applicable elsewhere/elsewhen).

[ahi]

Originally Posted by dmikov

By whole world you mean western europe I assume?

Because Ukraine, Russia and I suspect China is not big on it. And who knows whats happening in Japan and India.

I'm pretty sure he meant the whole world.

Those who reject the incalculable magnificence that is ePub are, by definition, but Barbarians storming the gates of the world (and are wholly outside it).

And by the way...

I

am

their

LEADAH!

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by ahi

I'm pretty sure he meant the whole world.

Those who reject the incalculable magnificence that is ePub are, by definition, but Barbarians storming the gates of the world (and are wholly outside it).

And by the way...

I

am

their

LEADAH!

We all know who'd win The Mighty ePub*

*you can tell its going to win from the size of the font