eBook piracy, how common is it?

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

You’re right, we were, in essence, stealing. However, the addition of the internet into this equation is a game changer, cause, unless you had millions of friends, the scale and consequences of “free” filesharing have increased exponentially. I’m sure most bands, artists, and writers are fine with the original purchaser sharing their work with friends, but when “friends” means millions of people, well, I think they might feel differently, infringed upon.

And what if my 9-5 job is with a record label that has had to downsize as direct result of filesharing.

You may choose to believe filesharing is just the wonderful and free distribution of art, but to create that art, the artist has to make sacrifices, many of them monetary in nature.

So then, why do you feel entitled to take so freely from what they have created?

Firstly I don't feel entitled, I buy most of my stuff, in fact, I can't think of anything I've downloaded that I don't already own in one format or another. So you're barking up the wrong tree there. That I did download but didn't already own, I make a donation or buy the product afterwards. And if your 9-5 job is with a downsized label, then I'm sorry for your lost job, but no more sorry than I would be for someone who lost their job shoeing horses when the car was invented. Things change, jobs aren't forever, sometimes they dont' even last a year. Life is tough, sorry, that's just the way it is. Trying to make sure everything remains the same is a sure fire way to be disappointed.

And it is by necessity that any artist, or creator, makes some sacrifices. That is the nature of all creation, some part is lost or given to create something new. This would be no more or less true if file-sharing did not exist. Creators create because they have to. They would if there was only ever one member in their audience, and it happened to be themselves.

[amgoforth]

Originally Posted by HarryT

With the greatest respect, you asked "how does borrowing from a library differ" and I answered you. The payment under the "Public Lending Right" scheme is, to be specific, 5.98p every time a book is borrowed, up to a maximum of £6,600 a year. An author receives the payment if their payment is £1 or more - ie corresponding to a minimum of 17 check-outs across the entire UK library system in a year; this payment forms an extremely important element of income for many authors, because it goes directly to them, not to their publisher or agents. I repeat the question: you claim that "there is no difference" between illegally downloading a book and borrowing it from a library. How does the author get their 5.98p if you illegally download a book?

I am amazed to hear that. It is great that the authors get the money directly. Does anyone know if us libraries do the same thing?

[Lanik42]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

That's insane! I didn't know that at all. I was labouring under the impression that the lion's share went to the publishers. So that then means that if a writer, say a Stephen King who has more money than he could ever possibly spend, set up an online imprint of his own, he could offer ebooks at a substantially lower price than other online retailers and make even more money? I wonder why none of the big writers has done this yet?

My guess would be contracts - in order to get your book published and distributed through a particular company, you probably have to agree not to sell the same product outside of their channels.

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

But rather than purchase an entire CD, you can and have the ability to download individual tracks - for quite some time now.

I’m not going to defend the music industry, but I’m willing to forgive them for not having a working web-based business model in place given the near overnight (in business terms and time) explosion of filesharing websites and services.

Human nature is such that, if given a choice between paying for something, or getting it for free, especially when the negative consequences of doing so are hidden, the majority of times, we prefer free. But that, of course, does not make it right.

Sure, we have that option now. When P2P was first becoming popular, there was no such thing, at least not to any large degree. No, it wouldn't have stopped P2P completely, but I think that P2P would not have become every-day to your average person, which is why it continues and grows.

I'm not at all saying that their actions make the reaction right or acceptable. I'm saying that the industry that proclaims the evils of P2P had a large, if indirect, part in creating it.

And of course we haven't at all discussed legal use of P2P, which are various. Just because it's P2P, that doesn't inherently make it wrong, or even illegal.

[Stringer]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

And if your 9-5 job is with a downsized label, then I'm sorry for your lost job, but no more sorry than I would be for someone who lost their job shoeing horses when the car was invented.

But the question from the consumer view is, would there be enough motivation to continue producing such quality after it is not an living? When car was invented, consumers had a better means to go from point A to point B. However, if professional writers go away, I seriously doubt we would have as much good reading as we now have.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Lanik42

My guess would be contracts - in order to get your book published and distributed through a particular company, you probably have to agree not to sell the same product outside of their channels.




Sure, we have that option now. When P2P was first becoming popular, there was no such thing, at least not to any large degree. No, it wouldn't have stopped P2P completely, but I think that P2P would not have become every-day to your average person, which is why it continues and grows.

I'm not at all saying that their actions make the reaction right or acceptable. I'm saying that the industry that proclaims the evils of P2P had a large, if indirect, part in creating it.

And of course we haven't at all discussed legal use of P2P, which are various. Just because it's P2P, that doesn't inherently make it wrong, or even illegal.

My favourite example is Nine Inch Nails who actively give their music away on P2P. Their latest, a tour sampler including them, Jane's Addiction and Street Sweeper is up on their site right now. Download in mp3, flac and other formats through direct download or on Bittorrent. All free, all great

[Xenophon]

On the UK Public lending right, amgoforth wrote:

Originally Posted by amgoforth

I am amazed to hear that. It is great that the authors get the money directly. Does anyone know if us libraries do the same thing?

Nope. No such thing in the US. In fact, the libraries are legally barred from reporting your borrowing record to anyone but you (in the absence of a court order, that is). Whether that restriction extends to aggregate borrowing or not is a different question. My impression is that U.S. libraries are generally extremely sensitive about the privacy of their patrons.

Xenophon

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Stringer

But the question from the consumer view is, would there be enough motivation to continue producing such quality after it is not an living? When car was invented, consumers had a better means to go from point A to point B. However, if professional writers go away, I seriously doubt we would have as much good reading as we now have.

The definition of 'professional' is only meaningful in a system where that label is attached by an outside entity, by the gatekeepers. Once the public becomes the gatekeeper, they'll sort what is 'professional' from what isn't professional. A true democracy of choice, not a limited and sanctioned choice of what 'they' give us. I stand by my earlier statements of creators creating just because they 'have to'.

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Firstly I don't feel entitled, I buy most of my stuff, in fact, I can't think of anything I've downloaded that I don't already own in one format or another. So you're barking up the wrong tree there. That I did download but didn't already own, I make a donation or buy the product afterwards.

That’s great, really and truly – but I would guess folks such as yourself represent a tiny minority of those who download illegally. Wilco (the band) set up a site website (justafan.org) for folks who came by their CD by way of filesharing – the intent being, rather than purchase a copy, fans would make a donation to Doctors Without Borders. From what I understand, they raised a substantial amount of clams. If more bands and/or labels were to sanction such actions, I’d take a kinder view of file sharers.

And if your 9-5 job is with a downsized label, then I'm sorry for your lost job, but no more sorry than I would be for someone who lost their job shoeing horses when the car was invented. Things change, jobs aren't forever, sometimes they dont' even last a year. Life is tough, sorry, that's just the way it is. Trying to make sure everything remains the same is a sure fire way to be disappointed.

The comparison doesn’t quite hold for me. There’s a difference between the natural evolution of a business or business model, and having your livelihood taken away because little Timmy doesn’t feel as though he is obligated to pay folks for their work. Using your example, it would be more like the horse, er, shoer(?) losing his or her job because rather than pay for the shoes, folks just started taking them.

And it is by necessity that any artist, or creator, makes some sacrifices. That is the nature of all creation, some part is lost or given to create something new. This would be no more or less true if file-sharing did not exist. Creators create because they have to. They would if there was only ever one member in their audience, and it happened to be themselves.

True, but they are also legally entitled to make a living off that art, while being protected from others who would simply take it, or, in some cases, profit from it at their expense.

[Stringer]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

The definition of 'professional' is only meaningful in a system where that label is attached by an outside entity, by the gatekeepers. Once the public becomes the gatekeeper, they'll sort what is 'professional' from what isn't professional. A true democracy of choice, not a limited and sanctioned choice of what 'they' give us. I stand by my earlier statements of creators creating just because they 'have to'.

With the fan-fiction, you were lucky if you could find a place with reviews to sort the good ones to not so good ones. Quite a lot pure crap was also classified as good ones. That still wasn't the problem, but the fact that quality was replaced by quantity. A lot 1-20 pages long stories that wouldn't pass even lower grades teacher's examination.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Stringer

You did understand that the name was for a dictionary's publisher, not a definition used in a EULA or something? I think it is a great free dictionary...

There are lots of other dictionary definitions of "theft" which make it clear that it does not apply to IP. Just because Sequence Publishing says it does, does not make it so. Not to mention the legal definition clearly says they are different.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by tompe

And gcc is still here. If you had had another business model and contributed your superior stuff to gcc then the world would have been a better place...

We considered that. But we were unable to find a business model that would allow such a contribution while still paying us to do the work. Perhaps a smarter group of people has invented or will invent such a model; we didn't find one.

And the megacorp that bought us out simply trashcanned the product line, with no willingness to contribute to gcc (or other open source projects).

Supporting a team that works consistently at the cutting edge (but not quite the bleeding edge) of compiler technology is quite expensive; a number of large corporations and some universities (via gov't and corporate research support) do so anyway. Supporting a team that keeps up with the cutting edge, while also producing tools that are reliable enough and user-friendly enough to be usable for real-world development projects is even more expensive. And it's pretty much not done anywhere any more. The folks at the cutting edge (or even the bleeding edge!) are building research artifacts. The important output for them is papers, not products -- which is exactly as it should be. The folks building usable tools track well behind the cutting edge. Again, this is normal. It's less risky and a whole lot cheaper than trying to ride the cutting edge. And gcc tracks well behind the best of the commercial folks (although not behind the worst of them by any means). There's nothing wrong with that picture, by the way. It's the usual model for deep technology development.


Xenophon

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

My favourite example is Nine Inch Nails who actively give their music away on P2P. Their latest, a tour sampler including them, Jane's Addiction and Street Sweeper is up on their site right now. Download in mp3, flac and other formats through direct download or on Bittorrent. All free, all great

Though I applaud what he is doing, Trent Reznor can afford to give his music away as a direct result of the proceeds obtained through selling it – this isn’t the case for the vast majority of musicians.

My problem comes in to play when that choice is taken away from the artist.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

That’s great, really and truly – but I would guess folks such as yourself represent a tiny minority of those who download illegally. Wilco (the band) set up a site website (justafan.org) for folks who came by their CD by way of filesharing – the intent being, rather than purchase a copy, fans would make a donation to Doctors Without Borders. From what I understand, they raised a substantial amount of clams. If more bands and/or labels were to sanction such actions, I’d take a kinder view of file sharers.



The comparison doesn’t quite hold for me. There’s a difference between the natural evolution of a business or business model, and having your livelihood taken away because little Timmy doesn’t feel as though he is obligated to pay folks for their work. Using your example, it would be more like the horse, er, shoer(?) losing his or her job because rather than pay for the shoes, folks just started taking them.



True, but they are also legally entitled to make a living off that art, while being protected from others who would simply take it, or, in some cases, profit from it at their expense.

You make another real-world analogy that doesn't fit in with the digital age. The problem is little Timmy wouldn't have bought the work anyway, so nothing is lost. If he's like a lot of casual downloaders then he might grab the odd song here and there, not really bothering with albums or any kind of collection. All those songs he could have easily copied down to tape during the 80's from the Top 40 Charts also. And if the horse-shoes were infinite then taking them wouldn't matter. And the model of file-sharing isn't an evolution of business, it's a revolution of people fed up with the status-quo, annoyed by the silly restrictions and the sheer clunkiness of ancient and unworkable copyright models. What I do agree with is that anybody who sells on copyrighted work is to be despised. That's just wrong. Sharing, I believe, only helps creators, palming off someone else's work to make some quick cash helps nobody.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

The definition of 'professional' is only meaningful in a system where that label is attached by an outside entity, by the gatekeepers. Once the public becomes the gatekeeper, they'll sort what is 'professional' from what isn't professional. A true democracy of choice, not a limited and sanctioned choice of what 'they' give us. I stand by my earlier statements of creators creating just because they 'have to'.

I propose the following definition of 'professional' writer: Someone who makes enough money from their writing that they need not pursue an additional source of income.

Note that this definition certainly does not depend on gatekeepers! Nor does it assume that the writer necessarily makes their entire living by writing -- only that they don't need to do something else to keep a roof over their head. Taking the SFWA (Science fiction and Fantasy Writers of America) as an example, my definition would say that only 5-10% of the members are 'professional.'

Xenophon

[Lanik42]

Originally Posted by Stringer

But the question from the consumer view is, would there be enough motivation to continue producing such quality after it is not an living? When car was invented, consumers had a better means to go from point A to point B. However, if professional writers go away, I seriously doubt we would have as much good reading as we now have.

"If professional writers go away" - that is a big if. The way writers are paid or compensated has changed over the centuries, but they have and will continue to exist. People will always be willing to pay good writers - it is the method and form that change. In this case, I think it's the publishing industry that will change, and writers will (or at least should!) learn to market themselves. It doesn't hurt when the publishers are willing to give books away for promotion, when future sales are likely. It's worked with me!