Quote:
Originally Posted by Pardoz
Except for the part where you can't prove any economic loss to the author (and, in this particular example, JK Rowling has made a deliberate and conscious choice not to be compensated for electronic editions of her work. Which is entirely her right, of course, however silly it may seem to me.)
When John Doe begins selling copies of (in-copyright) books, whether electronic or paper (and yes, paper book piracy is big business in some places) without compensating the author, that's piracy. The Great Amazon 1984 Fiasco? That was all about piracy. When publishers decide that a contract written before the issue of electronic rights permits them to sell ebooks without notifying the author or paying royalties, that's piracy.
The demonization of file-sharers? That's just a smokescreen to try to distract people from the real pirates.
|
For an individual instance you probably can't prove economic loss-that's why it's my opinion that the pirates are those distributing the illegal copies. Because you can prove it 'en masse'. (Although it depends on your standard of proof. Did you know that, by the strictest standards, there's no proof that advertising increases sales? But it can be proven that, on average, those companies that advertise have higher sales than those that don't. That's statistical proof-and it can be similarly proven, statistically, that pirates who distribute a large number of copyrighted books inevitably also distribute some to people who would have bought the books had the pirated version not been available-and that's economic loss.)
And you're right about the publishers decision to not pay the author royalties being piracy-but not necessarily about the earlier contract, which didn't mention ebook rights, not including those rights. Depends on how specific the contract was-and about how a judge will decide once a case finally makes it to court. (Or has it-can't remember offhand.)