Is ebook piracy on the rise?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by acidzebra

(did you seriously use the term "flogging pirates" in another thread?)

Who... me?

Well... uh, yes. Yes, I said it. A bit. But only because I know that's what you're all thinking I do anyway! So... um... there.

Anyway...

Originally Posted by acidzebra

the copying goes on unimpeded. While the RIAA and MPAA come down with strong-arm and rather questionable tactics, the copying goes on unimpeded. Taking down Kazaa and Napster only led to more advanced protocols like bittorrent. I'm not condoning or condemning it, merely stating a fact.

Yes, but you also seem to be using this fact as a reason in itself to justify the actions of those who take creators' works. You're suggesting that "things are bad, they're only getting worse, and there's nothing to be done about it." I'd disagree.

Originally Posted by acidzebra

And yet with all that rampant copying, I don't exactly see movie/music execs and stars living a life of squalor

Holy cash cow! Who's worried about Christian Bale's living? That "rampant copying" is more than compensated for by the revenues they make through theatre sales, DVD and TV distribution, product placement, etc. Those guys already have their money system down... and in fact, can make "pirating" work for them!

No, let's talk about the Indies who don't have a multimedia machine promoting them and bringing in millions of eyeballs... the ones who hope they can sell 100 CDs in a year.

Originally Posted by acidzebra

Artists like Doctorow and Stross (I'm sure there are non-SF examples, but I am a SF junkie) gave some of their work away, which resulted in more attention (a valuable commodity in today's world), and ultimately, more sales.

Artists like Doctorrow and Stross have the advantage of already being on the inside, with publishers printing their works, and therefore can afford to use e-books as free advertisements if they wish, while still making money off of printed matter. That method's fine for them, but it doesn't help people without print publishing contracts. And some of us do not necessarily have an interest in having our works printed, and thereby contributing to global resource consumption and waste.


BTW, I've read The Pirates' Dilemma. The only dilemma pirates have is how to justify caving to the market and becoming the very things they opposed, once they realize it's the only way they'll make any money...

[pdurrant]

I agree that copyright length is far too long. If we could reduce it to (50 years or life of author, whichever is longer) I'd be happy, and that certainly wouldn't affect the production of literaru and other works.

Even limiting copyright to a fixed term of (say) 25 years would be OK by me, and probably wouldn't affect the creation of literary and other copyright works.

But I feel copyright length is a separate issue to unauthorised copying of copyright material.

Paul

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Let me rephrase my quibble. There is a small class of people who are able to use copyright to their advantage. They are busy telling the rest of us (who can't) that the entire creative world will come to an end if they don't get to keep all their special privileges (and their heirs and assigns). I'm sorry, I don't buy it. In some sections of I.P. yes, others no. If you cut it back to what patent has, I doubt if you'd lose much at all. Remember, copyright is a balancing act between the needs of the public for free access to creative products and the encouragement of new I.P. creation. It's not a social welfare program for a creative class, unto the n'th generation...

[acidzebra]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Who... me?Yes, but you also seem to be using this fact as a reason in itself to justify the actions of those who take creators' works. You're suggesting that "things are bad, they're only getting worse, and there's nothing to be done about it." I'd disagree.

I disagree that things are bad. In fact, things are looking up. But given that you apparently think they are bad, what do you propose to do about it? Because I can tell you that whatever is "being done about it" - it is not working very well.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

No, let's talk about the Indies who don't have a multimedia machine promoting them and bringing in millions of eyeballs... the ones who hope they can sell 100 CDs in a year.

Okay, let's talk about them. In which way are they being helped by the music industry? Any expose is good for these guys, pirated or not - and they are most likely not getting it from the music industry. In fact, whatever helps people come to their gigs. Do you know how many bands I have found through www.last.fm? (a perfectly legal site btw) Do you know to how many concert visits it led? How many mp3s bought?

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

That method's fine for them, but it doesn't help people without print publishing contracts. And some of us do not necessarily have an interest in having our works printed, and thereby contributing to global resource consumption and waste.

Fine, but no printed or otherwise circulated works equals no expose equals no piracy. Unless you mean pure electronic-only distribution, which would put you ahead of the curve and novelties always get attention. Especially if you have a freebie so people can check out your style and a one-click "buy now at a reasonable price" button.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by acidzebra

I disagree that things are bad. In fact, things are looking up. But given that you apparently think they are bad, what do you propose to do about it?

I've made my proposals, namely, adoption of the sponsor/patron methods common to broadcast television (commercials) and websites (ad banners). Check back in this very thread (to coin a phrase I heard somewhere) for details.

Originally Posted by acidzebra

Okay, let's talk about them. In which way are they being helped by the music industry?

Did someone say indies were being helped by the music industry? I know I didn't. What I hear are (mostly anecdotal) reports about most indies trying to break even selling T-shirts, instead of profiting on their actual music. That doesn't sound very good to me: That makes their real craft, the music, a free advertisement for silly shirts; when it ought to be the other way around. And not too many indies are apparently managing to make their sole living this way. I'd question which is the real problem there, the music industry, or the indie market.

But back to e-books, and now it's your turn: If, as you indicate, piracy is rampant, and the system is "broken," Why is this situation good?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I agree that copyright length is far too long. If we could reduce it to (50 years or life of author, whichever is longer) I'd be happy, and that certainly wouldn't affect the production of literaru and other works.

Even limiting copyright to a fixed term of (say) 25 years would be OK by me, and probably wouldn't affect the creation of literary and other copyright works.

But I feel copyright length is a separate issue to unauthorised copying of copyright material.

Paul

They are interwined. If I make a copy of say, James Branch Cabell's Figures Of Earth published in 1921, it's been legal since 1976. If I make a copy of James Branch Cabell's The High Place, published in March 1923, I'm a crook, and will be one if I do it until 2054 (US -JBC died in 1958, life + 95 + next year boundary = 2054). That's a 78 year difference for 18 month's printing difference. And there's no guarantee that it won't get extended again.

So people who might be supportive of a reasonable copyright length may (and often do) throw up their hands in frustration and "pirate" everything, new and old. You know the old saw, "you might as well be hanged for ram as for a sheep". The result is massive civil disobence.

Now, you might get better moral justification, with a much shorter copyright period. Might not, but the current system is morally bankrupt. And the masses, for once, have an effective way to fight back. And they are doing so, and it won't stop as long as the technology exists to do it with.

[acidzebra]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

I've made my proposals, namely, adoption of the sponsor/patron methods common to broadcast television (commercials) and websites (ad banners). Check back in this very thread (to coin a phrase I heard somewhere) for details.

I'd be more in favor of blanket fees or a library model, which you can also find somewhere in this meandering thread. I don't think ads will work, I think people will strip them. But I don't know - I don't think anyone does. We should try all these things, though. Who knows?

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

What I hear are (mostly anecdotal) reports about most indies trying to break even selling T-shirts, instead of profiting on their actual music. That doesn't sound very good to me: That makes their real craft, the music, a free advertisement for silly shirts

Well, I don't know about you, but I go to gigs for the music, and I might buy the shirt for the memories. But I'm weird.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

But back to e-books, and now it's your turn: If, as you indicate, piracy is rampant, and the system is "broken," Why is this situation good?

Because people have to realise a system is broken before they can move to fix it. Or if they can't, to chuck it and reinvent it. And I don't think piracy is especially rampant as ebooks are still very much a niche market, and book readers doubly so. What I do think is that the internet has made what piracy there is very visible, and to people not adjusted to global thinking, staggering. How many hundred bittorrent seeds? (on how many billions of people?)

What I fear is that potential publishers will go down the same road that has been traveled by the movie and music industry before them, and look where that has gotten them - hollow victories on a few random individuals and a lot of bad publicity, trying to lock in content (content which by its very nature defies lock-in).

[pdurrant]

Well, that's the US situation. And I think you'll find US copyright length is more 95 years for corporate copyright, /or/ life+70, not life + 95. So All Cabell's works come into the public domain in January 2029.

But we're still in agreement. And Macauley said what you've just said in a debate in the House of Commons in 1842:

Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living.

Unfortunately, I don't see a way to get copyright returned to a sensible length.

Indeed, even as I type, there are moves afoot in the EU to increase sound recording copyright from the current 50 years to 95 years - in part to harmonise with US legislation!

Paul

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

They are interwined. If I make a copy of say, James Branch Cabell's Figures Of Earth published in 1921, it's been legal since 1976. If I make a copy of James Branch Cabell's The High Place, published in March 1923, I'm a crook, and will be one if I do it until 2054 (US -JBC died in 1958, life + 95 + next year boundary = 2054). That's a 78 year difference for 18 month's printing difference. And there's no guarantee that it won't get extended again.

So people who might be supportive of a reasonable copyright length may (and often do) throw up their hands in frustration and "pirate" everything, new and old. You know the old saw, "you might as well be hanged for ram as for a sheep". The result is massive civil disobence.

Now, you might get better moral justification, with a much shorter copyright period. Might not, but the current system is morally bankrupt. And the masses, for once, have an effective way to fight back. And they are doing so, and it won't stop as long as the technology exists to do it with.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Well, that's the US situation. And I think you'll find US copyright length is more 95 years for corporate copyright, /or/ life+70, not life + 95. So All Cabell's works come into the public domain in January 2029.

But we're still in agreement. And Macauley said what you've just said in a debate in the House of Commons in 1842:

Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living.

Unfortunately, I don't see a way to get copyright returned to a sensible length.

Indeed, even as I type, there are moves afoot in the EU to increase sound recording copyright from the current 50 years to 95 years - in part to harmonise with US legislation!

Paul

I'm not a lawyer, and has not read the specific Bono amendment law, but I believe it extended to life + 95 for existing works (in 1998) and left the new works thereafter at life + 70.

The sound recording extention was shot down by the UK parliment, in 2007, so the RIAA shifted the focus to EU, which, if passed, would force the UK to extend in order to maintain unity with the EU.

No, I don't see it being shortened either. What I see is a prolonged Prohibition Era (US 1920-1933 when alcohol drinking was prohibitied by a Federal Constitutional amendment - and the US population drank like fishes under it!), with the occasional spectacular raid, eventually ending with the abolition of copyright - in 30-40 years. At the rate that technology is going, in 10 years, a bootleg data chip will hold 10 terabyte, enough for a 1000 DVD's, in a chip the size of a SD chip.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by acidzebra

What I fear is that potential publishers will go down the same road that has been traveled by the movie and music industry before them, and look where that has gotten them - hollow victories on a few random individuals and a lot of bad publicity, trying to lock in content (content which by its very nature defies lock-in).

I don't worry about that too much, because the people being targeted and prosecuted are extremes... the Jammie Thomases are more akin to the guy mass-printing tapes in his basement and selling them on the street, not the average user who burns for himself and maybe a friend or two. Really, few people have much sympathy for someone who so blatantly and clumsily violates the system and gets caught. (Except for those who are also doing it.)

Besides, there are other lessons for the book industry to learn from music and movies, such as what those industries are doing to win the public over... for instance, the introduction of product placement that simultaneously dulls the impact of ad material, makes it harder to divorce the product from the content (think a bottle of Smirnoff in a James Bond movie), and allows a lesser cost for content to consumer.

Here's another: You may or may not remember that when VHS tapes were first introduced, block-buster movies could cost up to $100USD each. One of the first VHS tapes to introduce advertisements to the content--a Coke ad--was Batman (Keaton/Nicholson), and it retailed for an unheard-of $25. Although people railed against an ad on their tape (shown before the movie, of course), they also bought those videos like there was no tomorrow, and ushered in an era of affordable video content thanks to advertiser subsidies.

I already mentioned how TV ads pay for the content we watch. And I guarantee you music videos are a great source of product placement revenue (every time you see a luxury car in a video, for example, you know the car maker paid for that exposure, and hence brought down the cost of producing the video).

These are lessons that the publishing industry has largely not applied to itself, and I think it's high time they did (with some adjustments to cater to the differences of the media). Such methods (and possibly combined with others) can lower the cost to consumer, or even replace it with other revenue, allowing e-books to be cheap-to-free, and reducing the amount (and penalty) of pirating. In a medium and market where sellers cannot justify high costs of "electronic product" to consumers, it behooves them to investigate other ways of making that money.

[pdurrant]

I just looked it up. We're both wrong :-)

The the US, works published on or after 1923 that were still in copyright in 1998 had their term of protection extended from 75 years to 95 years, but not to life of author + 95 years.

Paul

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I'm not a lawyer, and has not read the specific Bono amendment law, but I believe it extended to life + 95 for existing works (in 1998) and left the new works thereafter at life + 70.

[axel77]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

I already mentioned how TV ads pay for the content we watch. And I guarantee you music videos are a great source of product placement revenue (every time you see a luxury car in a video, for example, you know the car maker paid for that exposure, and hence brought down the cost of producing the video).

These are lessons that the publishing industry has largely not applied to itself, and I think it's high time they did

So this is the way a story looks tomorrow?

And after greased his signature onto the divorce form he turned around and ran down the hallway. He rushed upon street, fumbled in his pockets and picked up the BMW key. Ah a BMW! He opened the door of his the BMW which has a new V4 engine, extra comfortable seats and comes off with 10% cut for readers of this book if you buy before 31st Dezember 2008. Call 555-9232 for further information. Then he took off and headed out of town the shortest way he could think of.

[Jeff Duntemann]

I'm a little late to the party on this thread, but I did want to relate an email I got a month or so ago from one of my fans, who told me that one of my works was present in a collection he had gotten on a torrent. No surprise there, and I don't mind much; my problem is not piracy but obscurity. But what did surprise me was to hear that the collection itself (called "Rosetta Stone," according to my correspondent) contains 3,500 ebooks. Some of them are PD things from Gutenberg but most are not. The collection is a DVD-ROM ISO, and once burned to a disc is just a monster collection of files.

I did not download the torrent--contributory infringement and all that--and don't know any more about it, but assuming it's true, maybe we need to worry a little more than we are right now. Ebooks are a very compact data format (unlike feature videos and some music) and the pipes are getting bigger by the day.

Not sure what to think. Big-money scorched-earth enforcement RIAA-style is a very bad idea, not only due to collateral damage to the innocently accused, but also to the danger of making the idea of copyright itself look elitist and corporate. Worst of all, if random checks on readers and laptops (at borders, for example) start to focus on ebooks, and if people are forced to prove that they did not steal a particular title, ereading as a concept will be seen as dangerous and the market will not grow as quickly as it otherwise might.

No matter what is to be done, creators must proceed cautiously, lest the grenades we're tempted to throw teach people to simply avoid us.

[nekokami]

This is exactly the kind of corrosive effect of advertising that Scott McCloud talks about in the link I posted above. I would argue that product placement has interfered with creative integrity, sometimes in extreme ways.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by Jeff Duntemann

But what did surprise me was to hear that the collection itself (called "Rosetta Stone," according to my correspondent) contains 3,500 ebooks. Some of them are PD things from Gutenberg but most are not. The collection is a DVD-ROM ISO, and once burned to a disc is just a monster collection of files.

I still wouldn't worry much. When someone downloads that many books at once, the odds are good they'll never even read all the titles, much less read all the books. No lost sale there. That's just torrent hoarding.

[jakewastaken]

I think a lot of people would gasp if they saw the average ebook file count in an underground irc channel.

3,500 is but a drop in an ocean.