eBook piracy, how common is it?

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

It's called the public domain. What temporarily keeps works out of it is copyright law.

True – after death plus 50 (if I recall correctly). I think we can all agree that corpses have very little use for cash on hand. But while we’re still living and breathing, most of us do – and artists deserve to be rewarded for their work – if they so choose.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Daithi

Personally, I'd like to see very short copyrights and patents; let's say 10 years and allow them to be renewed every 10 years. The first 10 years is free (or a nominal fee) and then each 10 year period the renewal fee would go up exponentially (or polynomially). That way Disney can maintain their Mickey Mouse copyright but it might cost them a million dollars for the privilege. However, this would allow ideas and art to pass more quickly into the public domain where they can be copied.

Oooh, I like that one!

• Copyright a work: free, happens automatically on placing it in a fixed format (like a printout).
• 10 years later: register it for $10. Do this for anything that might remotely be publishable, including the fanzine you printed six copies of; your high school homework assignments fall into the public domain.
• 20 years later: Re-register for $100. Currently in-production stuff, and anything you have a good reason to believe will be commercially viable. This is the "hedge your bets" stage--if you guess wrong, you're not out much.
• 30 years later: Re-register for $1000. Only do this for books, movies, music currently in production and selling well. Out-of-print stuff only if you've got a buyer already lined up.
• 40 years later: Re-register for $10,000. Only major publishing houses and movie distributors bother with this level. (Will Harry Potter be a viable commercial property in 2037?)
• 50 years later: Disney registers Mickey for $100,000. Microsoft does the same with Windows OS. Everything else drops into the public domain.

The extra money (beyond what it takes to process the copyrights, including a public-access registry) can go into an "arts and sciences progress" fund.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

Really? If you can (legitimately) violate my "exclusive right" any time you feel like it, that makes it not so very exclusive... doesn't it? (Let's ignore fair-use for the moment, to make the discussion simpler.) When you copy my work without my permission, you've certainly de-valued the exclusivity.

But this is another argument. My point was that you was not deprived of the right so therefore it is wrong calling it theft. The copyright laws does not specify any value that has to be satisfied to consider you to have the right. Influencing possible but not ceratin income is usually not called theft.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

True – after death plus 50 (if I recall correctly). I think we can all agree that corpses have very little use for cash on hand. But while we’re still living and breathing, most of us do – and artists deserve to be rewarded for their work – if they so choose.

Plus 70, at the moment. And likely to be increased again when next Mickey Mouse nears public domain.

The original reason for "death plus N" was to allow for a copyright to support widows and orphans -- not an unreasonable goal, I suppose. But death + 70???

Xenophon

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by tompe

But this is another argument. My point was that you was not deprived of the right so therefore it is wrong calling it theft. The copyright laws does not specify any value that has to be satisfied to consider you to have the right. Influencing possible but not ceratin income is usually not called theft.

I certainly haven't been arguing about whether or not it's "theft." Rather, I've been arguing about whether or not you should engage in such copying, no matter what you call it.

I also laid out some circumstances under which it might not be unreasonable to treat copyright violation much like non-violent theft -- while noting that those circumstances aren't what we have today.


Also, you ignored my next paragraph (beginning with "More importantly..."). The idea of a trade-off of temporary monopoly to encourage arts and science (by harnessing the power of greed... errr... desire for fair compensation [cough]) seems like a powerful one. The current implementation seems wedged, but could be fixed.

Xenophon

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

... the point remains -- the choice of terms for availability of the work rests with the copyright holder, not with you.

...

Absolutely correct. But it is a business decision, just like the asking price.

In other words, the copyright holder also has to face the realities of the marketplace.

If there is demand, but no legal (or reasonably priced) supply, you'll end up with "illegal" (or "pirated") supply.

So, the copyright holder can either participate in the marketplace, or try to skew it, by suing 12-year olds for reading PDFs of Harry Potter.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by Lanik42

And alternate view might be that P2P is a natural (if not wholly legal) reaction to artificial and profit driven barriers to acquiring music that people like.

This.

Someone asked before what gave the gatekeepers the right and expertise to decide what to allow through the gate and what not. The answer is that, traditionally, they are a profit-drive business. So gatekeepers have a vested interest in letting in the gate only what sells; therefor, they only let in what is popular or which is likely to be popular. But they do take risks, and invest millions in printing and marketing and promotion which are vital for the top end of commercial writers to actually make a living at it.

However, the advent of mass marketing, communications, and consumer psychology have allowed things to become skewed (and this is true of virtually all businesses). Often instead of investing the money to allow new writers to become discovered and thus become popular. it becomes more profitable for the publishers to spend that money on marketing to get more people to buy existing writers. Or writers that fit within pre-defined buckets of what sells.

Take a look at the modern bookshelf. How many of those books are parts of series or franchises? You seem the same thing happening in Hollywood. Rather than produce new stuff, it becomes economically rational to produce more and more of the same stuff. It's the innovator's dilemma all over again.

Ebooks change the rules of the game just like the Internet did for other forms of mass media. Publishers will adapt. But meanwhile there is plenty of opportunity for new gatekeepers, and for direct sale between author and consumer. Piracy is mostly a symptom that the consumer needs in the market are not being served. I used to have to bittorrent episodes of programs I missed; now I can catch them on my Tivo, or if I didn't record it, on demand from my cable company, or, far more likely, on Hulu.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

– and artists deserve to be rewarded for their work – if they so choose.

Worth remembering that tax payers (at least in the UK) are frequently required to foot the bill for art they don't want.

The tax payer has no choice, and a lot of artists do quite well out of that.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

... Take a look at the modern bookshelf. How many of those books are parts of series or franchises?...

You mean, like the Dumas, or Victor Hugo, or Arthur Conan Doyle, or Agatha Christie....?

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Sonist

You mean, like the Dumas, or Victor Hugo, or Arthur Conan Doyle, or Agatha Christie....?

Sellouts

[Stringer]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I have a job, which I've stated several times before, I do not have a mortgage on the other hand, so that doesn't concern me.

Well the mortgage is just something that seems to be turning as a synonym for all the bills that normal adult human being needs to pay to survive. You have another job for that, but how many of those who now make the living from writing would be willing to do same if the donations couldn't pay the bills?

I have gone the route of traditional publishing, agent, ready to go to print and all the rest of that and it fell apart. And nowhere did I state that I expected payment, and certainly not enough to pay rent or even eat at McDonalds.

Little bit off-topic don't you think, but why did it fell apart then?

You seem to have an expectation, as unrealistic as my utopia, that writers now can pay their mortgages on what they earn in traditional publishing.

True. I don't have even slightest idea how much they get paid. Or how many if that matters. I'm fairly sure however, that it would be a lot less with the donation system.

So why would any writer want to join in that struggle, when they can get a steady job, write how they want, when they want, enjoy their writing, and maybe gain some readers along the way?

By the steady job you mean the second job that might have nothing to do with writing? I don't know what they think, I'm just happy they do so. I just know I don't have so much free time nor energy after my day job, that I would be doing much more than eating and sleeping.

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Nor does it make it wrong.

Artists are not "entitled" to be paid for their works (they have to convince someone their works are valuable); they are especially not "entitled" to be paid for the same work for a hundred years. They are given a limited-time, partial monopoly of certain uses of their works--with the purpose of promoting progress in the arts & sciences. When their monopoly stops promoting progress and creativity in others, it should end.

Want to stop downloading of current music? Put copyrights back where they used to be: 28 years maximum. Throw everything created before 1980 into the public domain, and watch the creative explosions as new movies, songs, books and other derivatives flood the marketplace. Watch education grow as children have easy access to e-versions of the important texts of the 50s, 60s and 70s.

So, if we give people access to 80’s music, this will, quite miraculously, cut down on the sharing of newer music? I don’t know how to tell you this, but with few exceptions, 80’s music really kinda sorta sucked.

How did you come to the conclusion that a child’s education is in some way stifled as a result of their inability to access eVersions of books that are, in all likelihood, freely available at their local library? The dismal state of education has very little to do with access to information, which, in case you haven’t noticed, is at an all time high, and more to do with the systems inability to teach children HOW to think and process that information.

And again, by law, unless they give it away, artists are entitled to be paid for their work. If a work of art is only available commercially, at cost, obtaining it freely is against the law. You can argue otherwise, but you’re doing so outside of current copyright laws.

The foundation of our culture is being held for ransom by publishing houses, movie production companies and the RIAA.

I’m sorry, but this is just ridiculous.

[sirbruce]

It's the percentage, man; the percentage!

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

So, if we give people access to 80’s music, this will, quite miraculously, cut down on the sharing of newer music? I don’t know how to tell you this, but with few exceptions, 80’s music really kinda sorta sucked.

Crazy talk. 80s music remains superior to all other eras of music to date.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Stringer

Well the mortgage is just something that seems to be turning as a synonym for all the bills that normal adult human being needs to pay to survive. You have another job for that, but how many of those who now make the living from writing would be willing to do same if the donations couldn't pay the bills?



Little bit off-topic don't you think, but why did it fell apart then?



True. I don't have even slightest idea how much they get paid. Or how many if that matters. I'm fairly sure however, that it would be a lot less with the donation system.



By the steady job you mean the second job that might have nothing to do with writing? I don't know what they think, I'm just happy they do so. I just know I don't have so much free time nor energy after my day job, that I would be doing much more than eating and sleeping.

It fell apart cause I didn't like what they were doing, or what they wanted me to do. Let's chalk it up to my anti-authoritarian nature and leave it at that And I don't think donations would pay the bills, I think I've already stated that. What I do think is that there will be a lot of writers in the future and musicians, and whatever who will create because that is the end product for them. The payment option won't even figure into their minds. My job is pretty flexible, and I have lots of time at home so writing to me is as much relaxation as it is anything else. It's a hobby that I love to do, that I get energy from, rather than need energy to perform. I find it troublesome that the word 'work' comes up so often in relation to writing, as though it was some terribly difficult occupation that wrenches the very last drop of energy from your soul. I think what I'm getting at is that there should be no expectation of payment when it comes to writing; that's just icing on a cake that's already quite delicious to being with.