interesting NYT article on "copyright morality"

[JSWolf]

Picture this....

You want an ebook of a specific book. You go to the LEGAL ebook shops on the net searching for this on a format you can convert or read as is. You cannot find such because it's not available. So you go to the darknet and find a copy, download it, convert it, and read it.

Now take that same person and the same ebook and make a legally available copy in a format that can be dealt with. This person BUYS the ebook and does not go looking in the darknet for a copy. Everyone is happy, the publisher, author, and shop all get paid and it's all legal.

The publishers need to release MORE ebooks. One thing I find really annoying.... New books that are part of s series being available as ebooks yet the rest of the series is not. So you go to the darknet to find the past books and as long as you are there, might as well ge the new one also.

See, publishers have their heads so far up their asses that they cannot see what harm they are doing when they could be doing good. You don't release part of a series, you rlease THE ENTIRE SERIES!

Come on publishers... WAKE UP! You are losing money by doing this in a really asinine way.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by sanders

If people are hoping that this thread is persuading publishers to bring out un-DRM-ed ebook versions of their books, think again.

I'm hoping this thread might get them to actually bring out more ebooks.

[Trenien]

Originally Posted by HarryT

With respect, Trenien, you're confusing "scarcity" with "having value". The fact that you can make 10,000 copies of an e-Book trivially does not mean that the e-Book has no value to the reader or to the author, and that the author is not entitled to fair recompense for his or her work. Whether the book is distributed digitally or on paper does not alter that basic principle.

By your own admission, you don't consider neither second hand shop nor getting a book from a friend (not a gift, mind, just one he read and hands to you for a while).

Considering that although there are exceptions people read most books only once:

Exactly what makes these two very mundane occurences (where the author doesn't see a dime) morally superior to that of downloading a book from said author (who, again, isn't compensated for the labour from which you benefited)?

If you think hard about it, you'll realize there are no differences.

What makes you think it's different is that you know that at some point in time there's been money exchanged for the book in the first two cases, whereas it feels like the ebook has fallen from the sky in the latest one. But it didn't. Somebody, somewhere, did buy the book - usually a pbook. That person, for reasons of her own decided to devote a significant amount of time to scan and convert it back to a text file. Afterward, the same or other have spent time to improve the formatting and correct the mistakes that came from the scanning process.

All these people have decided to make the result of their work (although the material is copyrighted, it is work) available - probably for the same reason the guy who'd cracked mrkai's software did: it'd seem a waste not to do it.

At the end, there are people who read the book who could have bought it at a second hand shop, or got it from a friend. Slight difference though. Maybe one or two in that chain of events found the book to their liking and went and bought it brand new.

[hogleg]

Originally Posted by Mambo

You get 0.45 for a book and you say that downloaders hurt you? Man, do you know what are you talking about? How long it takes to recognize your actual enemy?

At least you should get 50% in a healthy world order. A downloader may have taken 0.45 from you but your publisher steals 3.3 per copy. (If there is book for 7.5 that is 6%, which I doubt if you can get a good book for that much.)

Let me know your book's name, I check if I accidentally downloaded and I am glad to pay 0.45 per book, but I would not have purchased it for the price of a paper book or a hardback anyway.

I don't think downloaders steal author's money. If a book was downloaded wrongfully 1,000,000 times it still does not mean that you could have sold more than 10,000 without free downloaders.

ONCE AGAIN, I CAN'T COMPREHEND (MY WIFE NEITHER) YOU GET 0.5 PER COPY and it's the fault of downloaders that you don't have money?

I will never in a million years tell you pirates what I've done. It wouldn't matter to you anyway, you're justifying Piracy. All I can say is I'm glad I use a different name. "...A million people download it...it doesn't impact you." Horse shit if I've ever heard it. What do you think people write for? Candy? And the quotes you used were from me talking about print media. genius. Copyright doesn't just refer to the interweb and you leet hax0rz.

As a side note, I started off this conversation being a pro reader author. I specifically went with a publisher with an eBook sales model. I have notice how a few bad apples have spoiled this barrel. I quit reading this long ago, and Im only posting this because this was the newest thread in news.

It is obvious to me that in spite of all the good discussion I've seen, rational people tend not to steal anyway, and so what's left? Will I try to convince a bunch of thieves they're wrong? Think they'll change their minds? Not when they get some else's work for free.

[deviant]

Originally Posted by nekokami

With all the discussion we've had on this forum about where the costs of publishing are, there's really no excuse for this. The book stores are taking nearly half the profit (but they're also paying facilities and staff costs). Printing also takes a chunk. The "greedy publisher taking advantage of the poor defenseless writer" is a myth we can lose. Maybe the contracts should be more in the writers' favor, but the imbalance isn't much in favor of publishers, either.

And I personally would much prefer to read fiction that's been attended to by a professional editor.

So when I'm paying for a book what exactly am I paying for? Manual labor? Useless intermediaries that provide value half the time?

Sure, the publisher might have expenses he needs to cover. However, if I'm going to pay for a piece of creative work, I want to compensate the author, not compensate a system of manual labor and obsolete intermediaries.

If the expenses are high, it's time to adopt new technologies and reduce costs,
rather than trying to maintain the status quo.

Originally Posted by hogleg

It is obvious to me that in spite of all the good discussion I've seen, rational people tend not to steal anyway, and so what's left? Will I try to convince a bunch of thieves they're wrong? Think they'll change their minds? Not when they get some else's work for free.

If you feel that only the irrational steal then you should be very afraid of where the world is going, at least according to the article. After all, what will you do when all of your customers are irrational thieves?

I believe that at least some (from both sides) have joined this thread in the hope of explaining their views and persuading the other side. However, the majority are here to convince themselves that their beliefs are right or simply to rant.

Also, it's not so much about being free - it's also about being competitive. Pirated copies can be obtained everywhere for free while legal ones can be obtained only through limited retail and have high prices attached. Piracy was created because needs on the market were left unfulfilled.

Arguing about the morality of those who download is fruitless when publishers fail to be competitive.

[nairbv]

by trenians logic, it's also "work" (and pays the artist once) if I go to the CD shop, buy a CD for $10 (I have no idea what CD's cost, I'm just guessing), buy CD manufacturing equipment, print up thousands of copies, and sell them across the country outside CD shops for 3$ each. Do you really think this won't cost the artist any money? (maybe we have to change the time setting to like 10 years ago since people don't actually go to CD stores nowadays anyways do they?)

In terms of legality, It's obviously and blatantly illegal, there's no question about that. The only difference is it's easier to enforce, and so isn't an issue.

Sure there's the difference of me making a profit, but by your analogy why does that matter? I still paid the artist once, .. and I still did work, right? :-)

It really doesn't matter if it's right or wrong. The money has to come from somewhere. If a thousand people want a book, and get it from one pirated copy, the author gets paid once. If everyone who wants the book pays, then the author gets paid a thousand times. If authors gets paid once instead of a thousand times, their's going to be less inclined to invest time and energy writing books. This isn't rocket science. It DOES make a difference to the author. Maybe not so much today since most people aren't willing to read off an LCD (thus the free-advertising affect some people mention), but the issue will grow as e-ink becomes more popular. I'd rather live in a world where there was financial motivation for people to produce intellectual works. I'm not going to volunteer the money out of the kindness of my heart any more than you are, so the systems in place need to be reevaluated. I think everyone agrees we need a new system. Instead of calling each other irrational thieves and scumbags, maybe we can think about how we can build a system that gets money to authors?

People currently paying for digital media are doing it out of the kindness of their hearts, or, rarely, for convenience. Much of the time the convenience is lost because they are getting screwed by DRM. I'm not as foolish, but I'd like it if there was a reasonable way to force me (and everyone else) to pay the artists.

In terms of where the money goes, .. if most of the money goes to a book store or a publisher or the author wipes his @ss with it, it's none of your damn business. The author made a deal with the publisher/book store using a share of the revenue to pay for what he valued, so all of you wining about it have no ground to stand on there. grocery store markup isn't a viable excuse to steal food is it? I know some lazy hippies who would use it as an excuse, but they're just lazy hippies. They don't *really* care about the 2% grocery store markup, they just want to justify their actions. Maybe if I was sleeping in golden gate park, the risk/reward benefit would be good enough for me too, but I wouldn't try to pretend it was some moral prerogative.

Honestly, I have no qualms about "stealing" a book or anything else, and pretty much no-one else will either. The system needs to be fixed, but no amount of arguing about what is "right" is going to change anything. You can argue all day about who's a scumbag and how much money publishing companies make or who deserves what. It doesn't matter what convoluted analogies people use to justify their actions, in the end, people will take the path of least resistance. If people are to pay for books, paying has to be the path of least resistance. The "crime" of pirating on the college-kid level is not an enforceable crime. Prosecuting a few downloaders or even uploaders for obscene amounts of money will never be a sufficient deterrent to stop people from file sharing, and no-one wants to live in a society where everyone is considered a criminal.

[Trenien]

Originally Posted by nairbv

by trenien's logic, it's also "work" (and pays the artist once) if I go to the CD shop, buy a CD for $10 (I have no idea what CD's cost, I'm just guessing), buy CD manufacturing equipment, print up thousands of copies, and sell them across the country outside CD shops for 3$ each. Do you really think this won't cost the artist any money? (maybe we have to change the time setting to like 10 years ago since people don't actually go to CD stores nowadays anyways do they?)

No, it is different: however low the price you set your copies, anyone who bought one is orders of magnitudes less likely to buy one than they would if they'd only downloaded it.

That's what people against sharing don't understand. Since humanity is humanity, the sharing of ideas (in the largest sense) with one you call friend has been done as naturally as sharing a few songs around a campfire. For a brief period of time, these ideas have been assimilated with their medium - hence the belief they could be property when in fact it's the physical medium itself that was property, not what it contained.

Now, with the advent of the digital age, that era of confusion is at an end.

It really doesn't matter if it's right or wrong. The money has to come from somewhere. If a thousand people want a book, and get it from one pirated copy, the author gets paid once. If everyone who wants the book pays, then the author gets paid a thousand times.

Do we really need to go over this again? Contrary to the propaganda poured by the RIAA and the like, one download doesn't equal one lost sale, both because the person downloading whatever may not have bought it anyway, and because that download may be the reason for one sale.

I'd rather live in a world where there was financial motivation for people to produce intellectual works.

Fact: even if they get no monetary compensation, people will keep producing intellectual work, period.


If I were to take a cynical stance, I'd simply just say to let the system crumble to ruins the way it's headed now; if the various actors in it keep their foolishness, that's exactly what's going to happen.

Although it's hard, I try not to be a cynic. So I will keep arguing for a system similar to that of the Creative Commons. I honestly think this is the best way to go, and the best way for people to keep making a living producing intellectual work. Sure, with such a system your chances to become a multimillionaire the way J.K. Rowlings did are pretty much nil, but on the other hand it could support a greater number of people.

[nairbv]

Trenien:

I completely agree, one downloaded song is not a dollar taken from itunes or anyone else. 99% of the time the person would not have gone down to the CD shop otherwise to buy that particular CD, so no-one lost anything. suing someone for $40,000 because they have 40,000 songs on an ipod is stupidity. Maybe the price point is wrong for services like itunes. I think most people would spend a hundred bucks for a music collection. If it costs $40,000 they'll steal it. If it cost a hundred bucks maybe they'd at least be more inclined to pay. If it cost a hundred bucks and people didn't "steal," then the music industry would make more money. If they "stole" an ipod worth of music they probably actually cost the industry about a hundred bucks no matter how much music they got.

but... when the music/books are all available for free on the internet (and decent e-ink readers exist), the music/book stores and authors who write for profit will be out of business out of lack of incentive of customers to ever walk down to the music store and pay. When the content is only available for free, we don't have a backup plan to direct any money into the artists. In this sense, it will deprive the artists of motivating income. Sure, maybe someone buys a piece once before spreading it, but that's not going to fund heavy investment into art.

You can argue that people will write anyways, but that's a separate argument. You can't logically say that the author will earn just as much money when his book is free on the internet, as if that same book was for sale on a bookshelf in a bookstore. Claiming that someone buying one copy once initially, as if one copy at a $20 cover price represents the entire investment to put the book on the shelf, is not a remotely logical argument against any point, so why do you even bother saying it?

I mean, maybe you're right, ... maybe to some extent money isn't necessary. Maybe the guy who wrote his novel in 30 hours and wants to be paid for it wrote crap. I don't know what he wrote. Maybe the exceptional authors would write anyways. We don't know, but that is a valid discussion to have. discussions of the morals of whether or not someone owns that data or can sell it doesn't make any difference. I don't believe in any kind of morality, but claiming that the author was paid because someone bought one copy once is obvious fallacy.

Fewer such books will certainly appear on the shelves to copy in the first place pretty soon if they don't find a way to derive revenue from them. That doesn't mean I expect people not to copy books. I've done it myself page by page at a photocopy shop in mexico. I don't care about silly morals. What am I gonna do? hunt down the author and mail him a buck? Maybe I can claim that the author didn't lose anything, since I couldn't have bought the book otherwise. Does that make me feel better? I never felt bad about it to begin with. If everyone had done that though with every book ever produced, ... that particular book certainly never would have been written in the first place (it required some somewhat expensive research that couldn't have been paid for), and it was an important book for me.

It will be interesting, ... and I don't think you're entirely wrong about the outcome, but you don't really seem to care either. Certainly *someone* will still write *something,* and no I don't really care that much if random kids book authors make millions of dollars... Even harry potter books though have huge societal value in motivating a younger generation to actually read something, and I'm still a little nervous about where we'll end up without such stuff. I've taught kids, and I know how much better off they were for the existence of harry potter novels.

This will at a bare minimum certainly change the type of writing that people do. I read that there was a time when publishers paid authors by the page. They certainly wrote more long-winded books in that day. Think about how people can derive profit from their writing (since profit will always be a motivator). Think about which directions the new motivations will steer them. Do we like these directions? I don't know. What are they? blogs with ads? books by the chapter (with ads)? books with references to products like when the teenage mutant ninja turtles order dominoes pizza? books only coming from tenured professors and grad students on grants? will such books take away from time that would otherwise be spent on other research? how will that impact society as a whole? childrens books written by teachers who need material... books that they can't convince the kids to read because no movie was made about it? maybe text book development will have to be paid for by government agencies or else schools will lack algebra books? Maybe only rich people will be able to afford to write novels?

And then we should discuss what affects new motivations (or lack thereof) will have on the quality, volume, and style of authorship that becomes available to us. It could be a change for the better, and if so this could radically boost our advancement as a civilization. If it's a change for the worse though, .... we could be approaching a long period of stagnation... or even just dumb books about how great brand x pizza or coca cola is. (little do you know I'm being paid to make those references! mmm... I think I'm gonna go drink a ..... :-P)

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by nairbv

I completely agree, one downloaded song is not a dollar taken from itunes or anyone else.

Be careful when comparing to music sales.

With few exceptions, musicians don't make much (if anything) off record sales. Their primary income is off concerts, t-shirts and the like. For the most part, illegal downloading is actually helping musicians and some are adjusting their business (finally) to treat their recordings as a promotion tool as opposed to a product to sell.

I don't believe that business model will help authors, though.

Originally Posted by nairbv

but... when the music/books are all available for free on the internet (and decent e-ink readers exist), the music/book stores and authors who write for profit will be out of business out of lack of incentive of customers to ever walk down to the music store and pay.

You know, I keep hearing this. On the surface, this seems true. But if it was true, then how are places like Podiobooks surviving? How do authors like Cory Doctorow (who gives his works away), Darrel Bain (who releases his works without DRM), Scott Siegler (who went from obscure author to big-time internet author by giving his works away for free) and even J.K. Rowling (who arguably had the most pirated books in history so far) survive?

Personally, I believe that people will still pay. People who read books know that authors don't work for free. If we don't pay, the authors stop writing and we don't get new stuff to read.

But like Podiobooks, it may be a donation system. Download it, try it, if you like it, send us some money.

The jist is that the old "I make a scarce work, and if you want it you have to pay me for it" business model simply falls apart in Cyberspace - where scarcity of electronic works doesn't exist.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

The jist is that the old "I make a scarce work, and if you want it you have to pay me for it" business model simply falls apart in Cyberspace - where scarcity of electronic works doesn't exist.

I'm afraid that I don't see being "scarce" has to do with the matter. That's completely unrelated to whether or not one pays an author for a copy of their book.

How do you make your living, Lauzon, may I ask? Do you get paid a fixed salary, or do you say to your customers "pay me whatever you feel my work is worth to you?"

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by deviant

So when I'm paying for a book what exactly am I paying for? Manual labor? Useless intermediaries that provide value half the time?

If you think editors are useless intermediaries, why don't you stick with fan fiction, or read the slush pile at Baen? The professional authors I know all regard editors as a critical part of the creative process. (You do realize that when I say "editor" I'm not talking about someone who corrects spelling and punctuation, right?)

Sure, there are some inefficiencies in the system as it stands right now. Yes, if you buy a pbook you're paying for manual labor, and if you buy the ebook you shouldn't have to pay for that. But do you think typesetting just happens at the magic wave of a wand? Or are you happy enough with plain txt files with line and page breaks in odd places?

Maybe I shouldn't assume. Perhaps the people who don't want to pay publishers really would be happy with work that was never handled by an editor, never proofed or professionally typeset. Perhaps the people who argue that "authors would write anyway" would be happy enough with the kind of work authors are able to turn out in their spare time between one (or sometimes two) "day jobs," authors who are never able to concentrate on polishing the craft of their writing.

I know where I stand. I'd rather read works by authors who are able to devote their full time to writing. In my experience, the writing is better. Same for professional editing, copyediting, and typesetting. Perhaps these are luxuries I can afford because I'm in my 40s with a professional job, and most people, or at least most younger people, can't spare income to contribute to such niceties. I don't know.

I started this thread thinking that the darknet was by and large harmless to book authors, because most people who actually read the books they download would care enough to compensate the author by buying a book eventually. I'd like to think the folks here who seem to argue that "ideas should be free" and "publishers are greedy thieves" are a minority. But I admit I'm starting to wonder.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'm afraid that I don't see being "scarce" has to do with the matter.

Yes, it does. Things are are not scarce have no value since everyone can get all they want. It's called "Basic Economics".

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's completely unrelated to whether or not one pays an author for a copy of their book.

Ya, so what? That's not what we were discussing. Please read before replying.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

Yes, it does. Things are are not scarce have no value since everyone can get all they want. It's called "Basic Economics".

Cheapness of product can certainly lower the cost of an item, but it doesn't mean that it has "no value". Western nations produce massive surpluses of grain, for example, but even though they are producing more than anyone wants - and indeed, are being paid NOT to produce it in some cases - nonetheless, grain is still a product which has commercial value; it's not "free".

You haven't answered my question about whether or not you expect to get paid for your work, or whether you rely on voluntary donations? You appear to be advocating the viewpoint that payment for books should be non-manadatory - do you "practice what you preach" by not charging for your work, or do you in fact expect to get paid for it?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You haven't answered my question about whether or not you expect to get paid for your work, or whether you rely on voluntary donations? You appear to be advocating the viewpoint that payment for books should be non-manadatory - do you "practice what you preach" by not charging for your work, or do you in fact expect to get paid for it?

What is your argument here? Isn't it obvious that it depend on the situation what models work? And some models cannot be made to wrok if you do not change things for most people simultaneously. So how is you question relevant to the argument?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

What is your argument here? Isn't it obvious that it depend on the situation what models work? And some models cannot be made to wrok if you do not change things for most people simultaneously. So how is you question relevant to the argument?

It is relevent in the sense that if Lauzon is proposing that payment to authors should be "voluntary", then he is being hypocritical if he is not also willing to accept voluntary donations for his own work. Or is he suggesting that it's fine not to pay authors, but HE still expects to get paid for HIS work?