E-book customer sharing with anti-piracy group BREIN faces political backlash

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I don't know if these money get to the content creator somehow (if not directly, then maybe indirectly through lower taxes) but the consumers are paying something.

Separate post as I am not sure what you are saying here. Do you mean that because the content creator makes less money they will pay lower taxes. AFAIK they pay the same taxes on the money they have already received, so how is not paying taxes on money they don't have beneficial to them. If they make more money they may pay at a higher rate than on the previously earned income, but only pay the higher rate on the extra income in most places. I can't see not paying for example, an extra $40 per $100 and keeping $0 as better than paying and keeping the $60.

Helen

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

I didn't say ...

Consider the whole post quoted.

I don't see the difference between putting money aside for books and going into debt for practical items such as socks and underwear and putting money aside for practical items such as socks and underwear and going into debt for books. The bottom line is the same.

Fair compensation for reading a book is a difficult thing to express. Last year there was a thread about authors suing Harlequin over royalties, as they were getting 3-4% on ebooks when the contracts made it sound like they would be getting 50%. But the contracts signed after 2004 were clearer, so it is legal for the publisher to give such a low percentage. I googled average ebook prices for Harlequin, and found this article:

Also, the first Red Hot Read from Harlequin and Cosmopolitan magazine has hit the virtual shelves: Afterburn by Sylvia Day for $3.03.

I don't know what percentage this author gets, but keep in mind that 3-4% of $3.03 is 9-12 cents.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Separate post as I am not sure what you are saying here. Do you mean that because the content creator makes less money they will pay lower taxes. AFAIK they pay the same taxes on the money they have already received, so how is not paying taxes on money they don't have beneficial to them. If they make more money they may pay at a higher rate than on the previously earned income, but only pay the higher rate on the extra income in most places. I can't see not paying for example, an extra $40 per $100 and keeping $0 as better than paying and keeping the $60.

Helen

I was saying that if the money that money that is collected doesn't go directly to the content creators, maybe it does go to them as some kind of benefit. I don't know how much content creators pay in taxes.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Ebook piracy is pretty wide spread though and you don't need a bank loan to buy a book or two a week. Those who used to buying and now pirate ebooks would be hard put to claim financial hardship. Plus in many first world countries at least there is a very good library selection available in most locations.

Helen

You'll not find a large selection of ebooks at Dutch libraries. I believe my local library has 40. All copyright free....


I don't normally buy Dutch books (most Dutch writers write in genres I don't care about), but as long as this is not 10000% shot down, I will absolutely not buy any ebooks there, even though there were some books in my wishlist which have become available not too long ago.

For me, this contract will cost the publisher money (as they won't be able to sell their book to me).

[frahse]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I think that what frahse was saying is that if you follow what you said to a conclusion, this is what it leads to.

Exactly. Frustration with the law should not mean creative or "crazy" circumvention is ok. The example I cited was when concern and frustration has led to "lynching" in the US.

Change the law if it is inadequate.
Everyone should be accorded due process.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by frahse

Change the law if it is inadequate.
Everyone should be accorded due process.

That is precisely what I'd like to see happen.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

CD's which retail for around 15 to 30 cents and can store approximately 1000 ebook, well anyone with a lick of sense

In Sweden the tax is based on storage volume so the cheapest price is higher.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by speakingtohe

Katsunami does not as far as I know attain ebooks illegally, and in this thread and others seems to feel it is not quite right and stupid in many cases to boot. but justifying others doing it based on the fact that taxes levied on CD's which retail for around 15 to 30 cents and can store approximately 1000 ebook, well anyone with a lick of sense should know that the money to be distributed at say 10 cents a DVD would cost a whole lot more to distribute than the amount itself. Probably by a factor of 100 at least. And same goes for hard drives. Of course in Canada AFAIK the tax is only levied on CDs and not many use them anymore Perhaps it is different in Europe.

Indeed, I don't download ebooks, mainly because my reading habits don't require 300 books a year. I also don't have a TBR-pile that's a 1000 books high. I read 30-50 books or so in a year (if I stick to it, and depending on the size), and paying $2.99-$5.99 for a good ebook is much cheaper than trying to find a good, unmangeled retail version online, if I compare the money to the time I'd spend to "find" the book.

I've created an ebook once, using a scanned, illegal version I found online, of a book of which there isn't an ebook version. That cost me so much time that I probably could have read the 1000 page paper copy that is in my book case, with time to spare.

I won't spend any time anymore on fixing ebooks, except for the occasional recurring spelling mistake or bad/missing covers, and putting in the tags that Calibre requires. It's even worse than trying to find a retail version with regard to cost in time.

With regard to taxes, I don't know if it's the same in The Netherlands. I don't condone downloading of media; I'm only always pointing out that, at this point in time, it is NOT illegal. Probably the taxes won't cover all the downloads, but that is not my problem. If someone is downloading ebooks of music by the terabytes, he's doing something he shouldn't be doing, in *MY* view, but it's perfectly fine in the *LAW'S* view, at least right now.

To be honest, I think the law is right. Downloading copyrighted works should not be illegal. You know why not? Because you can do that without actually knowing it. I've had instances (more than once, actually) where I was contemplating to buy a book. So, I wanted to find some reviews, maybe a sample or two.

After searching with google, the first link was a file. The file wasn't a sample; it actually was the entire book, linked *directly by Google*. I downloaded a complete, copyrighted work in PDF-format without even realising it until I opened it.

And it happened more than once.

Luckily for the publisher and author, I don't read novels in PDF-format.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Absolutely not! This is a matter for the justice system.

The issue is not really whether "BRIEN" wants the information; the issue is whether the bookseller can give BRIEN the information. That's the difference between - to use a US example - a landlord voluntarily informing a credit bureau that you have been evicted, and a credit bureau demanding that landlords give them information on all evictions.

The first situation is what it seems we have here (although I haven't looked into the matter more than what I've run across on the Internet) - booksellers are voluntarily giving this info to BRIEN. I don't really see a problem with this. Provided, of course, that there are sufficient due process protections in any subsequent civil action, etc. But the idea that a bookseller couldn't voluntarily use a third party to figure out why a torrent with a given watermark appeared on the internet without using the judicial system strikes me as backwards. (And I'm not sure how the judicial process would really help; noting that you sold a watermarked book to X and only to X, and this book is now available on a download site is more than enough to start an investigation in any legal system I'm familiar with. The idea that an investigator couldn't even talk to X just seems backwards.

Originally Posted by meeera

Well, maybe. I have concerns about it: if you are hacked, or your Dropbox (or whatever offsite backup solution you use) is hacked, bam, all your watermarked books could be released with no way for you to "prove" that it wasn't you.

If dropbox or my offsite backup provider (CrashPlan, which I recommend) were hacked, it would be easy to prove because it would be in the news.

And of course the circumstances of the upload would be relevant to your hacking claim - if all of the books you purchased in the past year appeared on torrent sites in one day, it might support your claim; if all of the books you purchased in the past year appeared on torrent sites within hours of your purchase, a hacking claim is going to be looked at with more skepticism.

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

What would you want to do to the uploader, from the viewpoint of the content creator?

Part of the problem with groups like BREIN is that nothing gets back to the content creator. It's not even clear to me what BREIN is saying that it intends to do with the information.

Yeah, I am curious what happens when BREIN gets the information too; I can imagine reasonable and unreasonable approaches, with a reasonable approach being to contact the purchaser the first time a book appears on a torrent, with no legal followup unless there appears to be a pattern.

There are too many possible unreasonable approaches to list..

[snip]

OK, not several decades, how about: 87 Months in Prison for Copyright Infringement: Fair Sentence or Utter Madness?

[/QUOTE]

I really don't have a problem with that sentence for a case of wide-scale for profit commercial piracy.

Originally Posted by arjaybe

It's not theft because the owner still has it. At best it is the "theft" of potential income, and I doubt that every unauthorized download is a lost sale.

This is the widely believed definition of theft used on the internet, and while it is a common definition of theft, it is not the only one. Several jurisdictions do not require proof of deprivation of the item, but just some part of its value, for theft.

But it's really most analogous to "Theft of Cable Services", which involves, well, stealing cable services without paying for them. This crime has been routinely prosecuted as such over the past 30 years, despite the cable company not being deprived of "The Golden Girls" by people who commit the crime, and without anyone offering the justification that they wouldn't have subscribed to cable anyway because it's too expensive.

(However, it does have its own proof problems, most notably being "I thought/assumed/believed that cable was included in the rent." This isn't a Perry Mason (or even Johnny Cochran) class defense, but in most cases it's sufficiently troublesome that cable companies will just shut it off and not try for a prosecution.

If you're actually caught in the act running a cable from the pole to your house, "I thought cable was included in the rent and they forgot to run the line" doesn't work nearly as well.)

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

You have to ask yourself this: is the IP enforcement something done for economics or a principle of morality?

The anti-piracy propaganda is focused on morality, but enforcing the law costs money. The little guy can make as little as 2-3% of an e-book, and he's the little guy because he doesn't make that many sales. So if he has a $10 book that was pirated 10 times, how much would he get back if these 10 people were caught? If they would have bought his book, he would have made $2-$3. How much is he willing to spend chasing 10 people who cheated him out of $2-$3?

I think you mean 20-30% - but with 10 sales, the number doesn't really matter.

Originally Posted by Katsunami

On the other hand, there are some taxes that are immoral, at least in my view.

If my father dies, I inherit a house. Let's say, I want to move into it, after I inherit it, leaving my current rental house. Could I do that? Probably not, because of the law.

Assume that this house has a worth of €150.000 at the moment I inherit it.

The inheritance tax for parents to children is 10%, to be paid within one year. Therefore, after my father dies, I have to find 15K somewhere, to pay as taxes. If I can't, the house needs to be sold and the taxes must be paid from that money.

Most people in the Netherlands don't have 15K lying around. €150K is a cheap house in a somewhat rural area. A "normal" house in a bigger city can cost up to €300K or more. I have okay savings, above average even, but not enough to just give away 15K and not be bothered by it, let alone 30K or more. I don't know too many people (especially singles) who can just pull that amount of money off the bank and think: "Oh well. Bummer."

What gives the government the right to grab 10% of the worth of a house, on the grounds of the fact that the owner of it is dead, and someone else now gets to be the owner by the wish of the deceased?

I say none. In my view, inheritance tax is immoral and just a money-grabbing law.

If there are no children, and the owner decides to leave his house to a brother, sister, or even other people, I don't even want to *think* about inheritance tax. It can become as high as 40%. And that's AFTER the reduction, around 10 years ago. (Other taxes were increased to compensate, however.)

Basically, it comes down to it that the house has to be sold. There are A LOT of people who can't inherit it because without selling it, the tax would be unaffordable.

IIRC (and it's been a long while since I took comparative law), Dutch inheritance law works the same as inheritance law in most places - there is an exemption amount, and only after that amount is reached does the inheritance tax kick in. It looks like the exemption amount is €600k, which means that you pay no tax on any inheritance up to that amount, and different rates on the amounts above that - it looks like 10% for the next €118k, and 20% on the rest. (There are 30 and 40% rates, but they don't apply to children).

So in your example, the children who inherited a €150k house would owe no inheritance tax. If they inherited a €750k house, they would owe €18.2k in taxes (no taxes on the first €600; 10% on the next €118k (=€11.8k); and 20% on the remaining €32k (=€6.4k). So total inheritance tax on €750k would be €18.2K, or 2.4% of the value.

But I digress.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

IIRC (and it's been a long while since I took comparative law), Dutch inheritance law works the same as inheritance law in most places - there is an exemption amount, and only after that amount is reached does the inheritance tax kick in. It looks like the exemption amount is €600k...

http://www.erfwijzer.nl/erfbelasting-2013.html

The €600K you mention (it's actually €616K) is only from partner to partner, such as married couples. The exemption amount from parent to children is €19K.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by frahse

Everyone should be accorded due process.

We are all for due process. The problem is what the process should be. The process for a parking ticket is not the same as the process for robbery.

When a security guard thinks he or she saw someone pocket a book, and then physically detains the person as they confusedly remove a book from their pocket, and the accused then sues the store, at considerable cost in legal fees with little chance of success, that's due process.

If you want draconian fines, as Harry does, the accused will commonly countersue, and there be a routinely complicated process with lots of involvement by tax-supported law enforcement. If you want mild sanctions, as I do (example: Copyright Alert System), then there still is due process, but appropriate to lesser harm done in case of injustice. If you want a full monty criminal beyond-a-reasonable-doubt process, expect full monty punishment.

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

That's the difference between - to use a US example - a landlord voluntarily informing a credit bureau that you have been evicted, and a credit bureau demanding that landlords give them information on all evictions.

Evictions go through courts in some manner, and credit bureaus get eviction information from the government. So I don't think that is relevant to the thread.

Credit bureaus provide people who issue credit with a product they consider essential (reports on your credit history). In return, the creditors have to both pay money and pony up information about debtors. I don't see how this is different from "demanding information."

You could object that the whole US legal system is unfair. But if we are going to do that, I don't think you can argue that book pirates are an especially persecuted group.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That is precisely what I'd like to see happen.

What would you like the law changed to?

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

The first situation is what it seems we have here (although I haven't looked into the matter more than what I've run across on the Internet) - booksellers are voluntarily giving this info to BRIEN. I don't really see a problem with this. Provided, of course, that there are sufficient due process protections in any subsequent civil action, etc. But the idea that a bookseller couldn't voluntarily use a third party to figure out why a torrent with a given watermark appeared on the internet without using the judicial system strikes me as backwards. (And I'm not sure how the judicial process would really help; noting that you sold a watermarked book to X and only to X, and this book is now available on a download site is more than enough to start an investigation in any legal system I'm familiar with. The idea that an investigator couldn't even talk to X just seems backwards.

You misunderstand the situation. The booksellers don't want to give the information to a third party. They are complaining that BREIN is forcing them.

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Yeah, I am curious what happens when BREIN gets the information too; I can imagine reasonable and unreasonable approaches, with a reasonable approach being to contact the purchaser the first time a book appears on a torrent, with no legal followup unless there appears to be a pattern.

Contact the purchaser saying what?

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

I think you mean 20-30% - but with 10 sales, the number doesn't really matter.

I was thinking about the 'Authors Sue Harlequin Enterprises for eBook Royalties' thread. It wasn't 2-3%, it was 3-4%, but you posted on that thread so I don't see how you can say that the minimum that an author gets is 20-30%. And I didn't say 10 sales, I said pirated 10 times. Someone who only sells 10 books isn't successful enough to be pirated.

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

This is the widely believed definition of theft used on the internet, and while it is a common definition of theft, it is not the only one. Several jurisdictions do not require proof of deprivation of the item, but just some part of its value, for theft.

But it's really most analogous to "Theft of Cable Services", which involves, well, stealing cable services without paying for them. This crime has been routinely prosecuted as such over the past 30 years, despite the cable company not being deprived of "The Golden Girls" by people who commit the crime, and without anyone offering the justification that they wouldn't have subscribed to cable anyway because it's too expensive.

(However, it does have its own proof problems, most notably being "I thought/assumed/believed that cable was included in the rent." This isn't a Perry Mason (or even Johnny Cochran) class defense, but in most cases it's sufficiently troublesome that cable companies will just shut it off and not try for a prosecution.

If you're actually caught in the act running a cable from the pole to your house, "I thought cable was included in the rent and they forgot to run the line" doesn't work nearly as well.)

That rational doesn't change the fact that it's not theft. It's quasi-theft.

rjb

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

Consider the whole post quoted.


I don't see the difference between putting money aside for books and going into debt for practical items such as socks and underwear and putting money aside for practical items such as socks and underwear and going into debt for books. The bottom line is the same.

Fair compensation for reading a book is a difficult thing to express. Last year there was a thread about authors suing Harlequin over royalties, as they were getting 3-4% on ebooks when the contracts made it sound like they would be getting 50%. But the contracts signed after 2004 were clearer, so it is legal for the publisher to give such a low percentage. I googled average ebook prices for Harlequin, and found this article:


I don't know what percentage this author gets, but keep in mind that 3-4% of $3.03 is 9-12 cents.

There really was no difference in terms of money spent, and if times were really tough the little bit of money saved would go to practical items.

Emotionally I believe it was easier for them to put a little money aside for luxury items, which books were for us. They got most books from the library, and the books they did buy were generally illustrated children's books AFAIK,. But as I said we always had better than adequate food and a comic book or an ice cream on payday

As to fair compensation I do not have any idea, and I doubt that it could be easily derived. Too much is subjective. For some it takes one hour to read 200 pages and for others it takes 12 hours. If we equate it to movies to see 2 hours in a cinema is maybe $16 (in Canada) on TV practically nothing. Buying the DVD may cost a bit, but multiple people can watch for that price.

As far as I can determine (mainly from Hennen's American Public Library Ratings) libraries pay approximately $0.78 per circulation for ebooks and around $0.75 for paper books per circulation. This is what is paid to the publisher. Many paper books are leased and I believe the cost is a bit higher then overall. Ebooks actually cost the libraries less per circulation though as there is little overhead for staff or property cost or building construction or maintenance or property rental, unbelievably high in the case of smaller libraries. Overhead for ebooks is generally what overdrive charges. Maybe I am being totally off topic here but it seems relevant.

Your guess is as good as mine, but a tax on CD's and hard drives etc. is unlikely to yield even a penny a copy to the authors IMO.

Small bit of trivia. harlequin books were not all romances in the early 50's and retailed for 35 cents to 95 cents way back then.
http://www.romancewiki.com/Harlequin...By_The_Numbers

Helen