DRM poll: How do you deal with it.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by tompe

In my argument was included that a download does not mean that the book will be read. That is probably the biggest factor since I think poeple download big collections and maybe read a couple of books from them (say 2 books i 1000 downloaded books). Among those two books you have to check if they had been bought if they had not been downloaded to make an argument about lost livelihood.

I don't see how this argument is relevant. Lots of people buy books they never read. So you can't argue that just because a downloaded work is never read, it does not constitute a lost sale.

--
Bill

[Alisa]

Originally Posted by tompe

But that is only a correlation. The important factor is when you read a book that you have downloaded illegally instead of reading a bought copy. So morally it is very hard to motivate that the actual downloading is a problem by trying to refer to lost income.

And if you try to oversimplify the arguments people will find them strange and not respect them.

I don't see how tying it to reading as a more accurate measure negates the idea it's lost income. It's a valid argument against many of the industry folks who try to tie EVERY download to lost income but it still boils down to some lost income. It's just less than one side likes to pretend it is.

Personally, I think there should be a little nag-ware element to ebooks, as often talked about here. A little reminder in there that if you read it and liked it that you should kick down. If you like the author, don't stiff them. It would be great if there was an anonymous way to do micropayments. If it were just something like a PayPal link, no one would do it because they'd be afraid of getting hauled into court but if they could safely pay, I think many people would.

[Alisa]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

I don't see how this argument is relevant. Lots of people buy books they never read. So you can't argue that just because a downloaded work is never read, it does not constitute a lost sale.

--
Bill

Well, a lot of downloading is done with torrents that contain lots of titles. So you may be looking for one book but you end up with a hundred you don't want. I don't think you can really make a one-to-one correlation to sales that way.

[Alisa]

Originally Posted by tompe

Maybe, in my case maybe 0.1% or less. And if it is this small it seems irrelevant to download one more book.

I think that's one of the major hurdles. Your one book seems insignificant to you but 1000 people downloading one insignificant book becomes significant.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by tompe

Maybe, in my case maybe 0.1% or less. And if it is this small it seems irrelevant to download one more book.

Man A steals a million dollars.

Man B steals 1 dollar.

Which man is guilty of theft?

If you can somehow justify Man B because the quantity stolen is small, then maybe, your argument bears some water. But ultimately it is impossible, both are theft. If you read even 1 book out of a thousand illegally downloaded that you would have bought or otherwise read a legally purchased copy had you not downloaded it, you are guilty of theft.

--
Bill

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Alisa

Well, a lot of downloading is done with torrents that contain lots of titles. So you may be looking for one book but you end up with a hundred you don't want. I don't think you can really make a one-to-one correlation to sales that way.

Alisa, I am not making a one to one argument. I just was pointing out that the counter argument is not true either (i.e. that not read automatically means never would have purchased).

--
Bill

[tompe]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

I don't see how this argument is relevant. Lots of people buy books they never read. So you can't argue that just because a downloaded work is never read, it does not constitute a lost sale.

Yes, I can since it works differently for downloaded books (you download big collections) and it works differently for ebooks compared to pbooks. For pbooks you buy a book and do not read it because you want the physical item or you want to read it later and do not want to risk it being out of print. For ebook the risk for it being out of print should in a perfect world be minimal so there is no reason to accumulate ebooks before you want to read them.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Alisa

I think that's one of the major hurdles. Your one book seems insignificant to you but 1000 people downloading one insignificant book becomes significant.

The point was that the downloading is irrelevant. What is relevant morally is the actual lost sale when somebody is reading a book they have not paid for.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

Man A steals a million dollars.

Man B steals 1 dollar.

Which man is guilty of theft?

If you can somehow justify Man B because the quantity stolen is small, then maybe, your argument bears some water. But ultimately it is impossible, both are theft. If you read even 1 book out of a thousand illegally downloaded that you would have bought or otherwise read a legally purchased copy had you not downloaded it, you are guilty of theft.

Why are you talking about theft? Illegally downloading something is not theft and comparing it to theft just confuses the arguments. You are totally wrong above when you say that I am guilty of theft.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by tompe

Yes, I can since it works differently for downloaded books (you download big collections) and it works differently for ebooks compared to pbooks. For pbooks you buy a book and do not read it because you want the physical item or you want to read it later and do not want to risk it being out of print. For ebook the risk for it being out of print should in a perfect world be minimal so there is no reason to accumulate ebooks before you want to read them.

You mean there is no rational reason to accumulate them. I downloaded about a dozen books last night (all legal copies) and I bet lots of people here have downloaded lots of books they have not gotten around to.

In any case, the downloading of thousands of illegal books so you can read one illegal book does not justify either the first or the second activity. The book you read illegally deprives the author of said book from some income, even if it is only a fraction of a cent that a library book costs per reader. The thousand other books you download may end up being read in the future, or at the very least might encourage the uploader to continue to upload works thus depriving other authors of income.

--
Bill

[Alisa]

Originally Posted by tompe

The point was that the downloading is irrelevant. What is relevant morally is the actual lost sale when somebody is reading a book they have not paid for.

A point on which I already agreed with you.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by tompe

Why are you talking about theft? Illegally downloading something is not theft and comparing it to theft just confuses the arguments. You are totally wrong above when you say that I am guilty of theft.

Blah blah blah... copyright violation. Close enough... stealing a pbook would be theft but not a copyright violation. Downloading an ebook that you don't have permission to copy is a copyright violation. The result is the same, you took something that didn't belong to you without paying for it. "Theft" in general is close enough. Why must people split these hairs. Does it make you feel better to not call it theft?

BOb

[Alisa]

Originally Posted by tompe

Why are you talking about theft? Illegally downloading something is not theft and comparing it to theft just confuses the arguments. You are totally wrong above when you say that I am guilty of theft.

It isn't but saying "copyright infringement" over and over gets tiring. I think ethically they're equivalent even if they're not the same crime by statute. It seems to me people just use it as a shortcut. It's not "pirating" either, but I think most people understand what folks mean without getting mired in strict semantics.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Blah blah blah... copyright violation. Close enough... stealing a pbook would be theft but not a copyright violation. Downloading an ebook that you don't have permission to copy is a copyright violation. The result is the same, you took something that didn't belong to you without paying for it. "Theft" in general is close enough. Why must people split these hairs. Does it make you feel better to not call it theft?

BOb

No, there's a big difference between the two. Stealing a pbook means that the original owner no longer has it. Theft of physical property and copying of intellectual property are completely different things. There's a certain stigma with the word "theft" that people who misuse it are often intentionally trying to insert into the conversation. Theft and copyright violation have nothing to do with each other.

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

No, there's a big difference between the two. Stealing a pbook means that the original owner no longer has it. Theft of physical property and copying of intellectual property are completely different things. There's a certain stigma with the word "theft" that people who misuse it are often intentionally trying to insert into the conversation. Theft and copyright violation have nothing to do with each other.

Well perhaps they are technically different but in the common vernacular the use is not as clear. For example some might say you stole my design or somebody stole my patent. Well we don't have good verbs for copyright infringement. It is hard to say you copyright infringed my design. And even the government uses such terms as identify theft and stealing as it relates to designs and other intangibles. Yesterday I saw a news report where they raided a flea market where several were selling knock off purses. Technically I suppose they didn't steal the name and the design but the police looked at it differently.

They did interview one person that represents the general view of some around here. She bought one for a gift even though she knew it was a knock-off and didn't see anything wrong with that. After all she couldn't afford or didn't want to spend the money for a real one.

Dale