Massive wave of ebook piracy?

[Bsibbo]

Hi all, I think that the "Massive wave of eBook piracy" is due to a correspondingly massive increase in ebook reading over the past year or two.
Personally, and I believe I am probably typical, I definitely prefer to purchase my ebooks. I have accounts with Amazon, Borders, B&N and buy from them regularly. However, when you see paperback mass market books selling for the same or even less than an e copy, what are we to think? that pBooks cost nothing to print distribute and stock? Or maybe we are being ripped off?
I am not trying to excuse piracy (I am sometimes guilty of it too), but it seems to me that a fair price reflecting the true cost of the ebook paid directly to the producer of the work would stop a great many people from stealing it.

[roebeet]

eBooks should be no more than $5 US, imo. When I can buy a paperback cheaper than an eBook, then you know something is screwed up with the pricing structure. It's just plain common sense.

(Btw, I noticed that recently Amazon has dropped eBook to on or close to paperback prices, so that's a good sign. Hope that continues.)

[FF2]

I think the two posters before me have kind of nailed the feelings of quite a number of people. Let's see: cut down tree, mill and turn to pulp, press to paper, cut to size, print and ink costs, bind it, cover it with heavier stock, ship across country/world, inventory it, stock it on shelves, sell at register and sell for equal or less than the cost of the ebook version. Seems perfectly priced. Hmmm.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by FF2

I think the two posters before me have kind of nailed the feelings of quite a number of people. Let's see: cut down tree, mill and turn to pulp, press to paper, cut to size, print and ink costs, bind it, cover it with heavier stock, ship across country/world, inventory it, stock it on shelves, sell at register and sell for equal or less than the cost of the ebook version. Seems perfectly priced. Hmmm.

I agree, it's a total crock. Add DRM and it really gets absurd. That's why I don't buy them.

[thrawn_aj]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

No it was not a rhetorical trick. I'm not the one who uses "rhetorical tricks", legal semantics, etc. to make their points here.

If you say so.

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

You have lost me here. First, what is debatable here? There is only one exemption to DMCA that allows breaking DRM on an e-book: that is to allow the read-aloud function of a reader work but only if there is a copy already available that would permit that. It's a very narrow exemption.

Read the wording of those exemptions (#6 here). A lawyer would have a field day with it. Since we are not discussing moral quandaries (morally, I'm perfectly in the clear - it's the legal niceties that you demand be followed to the letter), the fact that the exemptions are vague enough to leave room for interpretation validate my point that (and I quote myself) "this is FAR from being the binary issue you make it out to be". That you refuse to even consider this debatable shows that I'm probably wasting my time (but that's alright - it's Saturday and I'm enjoying this too much ).

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

Your point 1-4 are coming at me from out of left field and don't mean a thing to me.

Yes, isn't it irritating when someone responds to points without quoting them? Then one has to go back and match things up. I agree that it is difficult to understand point-wise rebuttals in that case. Allow me to illustrate a better way:

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

1. What the heck is Rhur (besides someplace in Germany)?

"Ruhr?" (not Rhur) is a personal ejaculation of dismay (not found in dictionaries) at having to explain the relevance of that point. My apologies. I should have said "WTF?" or at least added a smiley. Still, I'll go ahead and explain it anyway. You wrote "so what?", implying the matter is irrelevant. I maintain that it's not (when considered in conjunction with other matters, which leads us to point #2).

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

2. What isn't? What about why we have DMCA is making what clear?

*sigh* Again, I shouldn't have adopted your method of point-wise replies. Here's the conversation in sequence:
Me: "2. I've not distributed the book to anyone else."
You: "2. Immaterial."
Me: "2. No it isn't. The reason why we have a DMCA in the first place should make it clear why. "

If this feels like a non-sequitur to you, I give up.

The DMCA was a response to (the perceived) massive distribution of pirated materials for profit. It is FAR from immaterial that I do not distribute DRM-stripped books. This fact alone changes the (alleged) violation from a criminal matter to a civil matter. In conjunction with #1, it establishes a lack of violation of the spirit of the DMCA. Of course, these are all legal niceties and I grow confused at the rapid shifts between legal-only and moral-only concerns in such conversations. Which one am I being accused at this point in time?

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

3. What advice are you referring to?

Uh, the advice under #3 of your list that I was replying to. "Do so at your own risk." Why was that confusing?

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

4. Legal semantic abuse such as this is why I use the term lawbreaking, not crime, etc.

*sigh* Breaking the law is a crime (or misdemeanor, or infraction or ...). The DMCA says that without distribution, the matter is merely a contractual disagreement between buyer and seller and there are only civil remedies in that case. The only criminal offense is described in this section. Either way, as I explained previously, the idea that breaking DRM of a purchased book without distribution is a violation of the DMCA has by no means been legally proved, especially in light of the current exemptions.

Until then, either term: crime (which is flatly wrong) and lawbreaking (which is merely "alleged" at the moment as I've explained in great detail by now) is unworthy of "exoneration" (your word).

And I find your statement (#4 that I quoted above) deeply amusing because you're upset about legal semantics when it comes to lawbreaking. For a law as badly written as the DMCA, legal semantics are the norm rather than the exception. In fact, to belabor the point, the DMCA is the very personification of "legal semantic abuse" .

We've already established that there is nothing morally wrong about breaking DRM for personal private use. We're discussing here the legal aspects of the matter. Legal semantics are very much in play here.

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

Maybe you don't like my use of rationalizing but that's exactly what it is. Don't like me saying it? Don't do it.

I'll take the bonus choice - demonstrate its incorrectness. In fact, that appears to have been done several times in this thread by now.

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

Your analogy to DMCA and hazardous materials regulations goes beyond comparing apples and oranges. It wanders all over the place with no relevance.

Or, you just missed its relevance and its purpose (both of which were clearly, even verbosely explained within - it doesn't seem like their simple reiteration will aid in clarity). Maybe you wanted to miss it since it was meant as an antidote to your constant deification of "the seller's terms", which don't mean much when it comes to most other items in a common household.

As Ken noted:
"Generally, a seller's control over what they sell and the conditions of sale end once payment has been made and accepted."

Another example: most complex products come with a "no reverse engineering" clause. The intent and limitations of this clause are both well-understood. Unfortunately, people deliberately refuse to understand these when it comes to media (of all kinds). Bewildering.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by thrawn_aj

If you say so.



Read the wording of those exemptions (#6 here). A lawyer would have a field day with it. Since we are not discussing moral quandaries (morally, I'm perfectly in the clear - it's the legal niceties that you demand be followed to the letter), the fact that the exemptions are vague enough to leave room for interpretation validate my point that (and I quote myself) "this is FAR from being the binary issue you make it out to be". That you refuse to even consider this debatable shows that I'm probably wasting my time (but that's alright - it's Saturday and I'm enjoying this too much ).



Yes, isn't it irritating when someone responds to points without quoting them? Then one has to go back and match things up. I agree that it is difficult to understand point-wise rebuttals in that case. Allow me to illustrate a better way:



"Ruhr?" (not Rhur) is a personal ejaculation of dismay (not found in dictionaries) at having to explain the relevance of that point. My apologies. I should have said "WTF?" or at least added a smiley. Still, I'll go ahead explain it anyway. You wrote "so what?", implying the matter is irrelevant. I maintain that it's not (when considered in conjunction with other matters, which leads us to point #2).


*sigh* Again, I shouldn't have adopted your method of point-wise replies. Here's the conversation in sequence:
Me: "2. I've not distributed the book to anyone else."
You: "2. Immaterial."
Me: "2. No it isn't. The reason why we have a DMCA in the first place should make it clear why. "

If this feels like a non-sequitur to you, I give up.

The DMCA was a response to massive distribution of pirated materials for profit. It is FAR from immaterial that I do not distribute DRM-stripped books. This fact alone changes the (alleged) violation from a criminal matter to a civil matter. In conjunction with #1, it establishes a lack of violation of the spirit of the DMCA. Of course, these are all legal niceties and I grow confused at the rapid shifts between legal-only and moral-only concerns in such conversations. Which one am I being accused at this point in time?



Uh, the advice under #3 of your list that I was replying to. "Do so at your own risk." Why was that confusing?




*sigh* Breaking the law is a crime (or misdemeanor, or infraction or ...). The DMCA says that without distribution, the matter is merely a contractual disagreement between buyer and seller and there are only civil remedies in that case. The only criminal offense is described in this section. Either way, as I explained previously, the idea that breaking DRM of a purchased book without distribution is a violation of the DMCA has by no means been legally proved, especially in light of the current exemptions.

Until then, either term: crime (which is flatly wrong) and lawbreaking (which is merely "alleged" at the moment as I've explained in great detail by now) is unworthy of "exoneration" (your word).

And I find your statement (#4 that I quoted above) deeply amusing because you're upset about legal semantics when it comes to lawbreaking. For a law as badly written as the DMCA, legal semantics are the norm rather than the exception. In fact, to belabor the point, the DMCA is the very personification of "legal semantic abuse" .

We've already established that there is nothing morally wrong about breaking DRM for personal private use. We're discussing here the legal aspects of the matter. Legal semantics are very much in play here.


I'll take the bonus choice - demonstrate its incorrectness. In fact, that appears to have been done several times in this thread by now.




Or, you just missed its relevance and its purpose (both of which were clearly, even verbosely explained within - it doesn't seem like their simple reiteration will aid in clarity). Maybe you wanted to miss it since it was meant as an antidote to your constant deification of "the seller's terms", which don't mean much when it comes to most other items in a common household.

As Ken noted:
"Generally, a seller's control over what they sell and the conditions of sale end once payment has been made and accepted."

Another example: most complex products come with a "no reverse engineering" clause. The intent and limitations of this clause are both well-understood. Unfortunately, people deliberately refuse to understand these when it comes to media (of all kinds). Bewildering.

Talk about rhetorical tricks. Either that is what you are employing or you completely missed my point. Your post was so poorly constructed I had no clue what you were talking about. And apparently you also have comprehension problems since I never said anything wasn't debatable. I asked what it was you considered to not be debatable.

As far as exemption #6 goes, it seems pretty clear to me. There was an entire thread on here. Look it up.

The rest of what you wrote is so full of misquoting, quoting out of context, wandering off topic, etc, I'm not even going to waste time trying to sort it out. I don't mind arguing with someone with signs of intelligence but you? I think not.

[frisp]

Originally Posted by roebeet

When I can buy a paperback cheaper than an eBook, then you know something is screwed up with the pricing structure.

Well said. When the pricing falls in line with my "perceived" costings for dead tree vs e-book, then maybe I'll buy more and stop surfing the darknet.

My dead tree library extends to some 3,500 books & still growing by the way

[lene1949]

When Fictionwise just started I bought the the ebooks from Colleen McCullough, and downloaded them to my palm Zire 72. They were only in e-reader format.

Since then I've tried to buy them again (because I really want to read them again), but now due to geo-restrictions I can't.. Colleen McCullough is from Australia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colleen_McCullough ) and currently live on Norfolk Island. None of her ebooks are available to Australians...

If I knew how to pirate, I probably would...

[darknessangel]

Originally Posted by lene1949

When Fictionwise just started I bought the the ebooks from Colleen McCullough, and downloaded them to my palm Zire 72. They were only in e-reader format.

Since then I've tried to buy them again (because I really want to read them again), but now due to geo-restrictions I can't.. Colleen McCullough is from Australia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colleen_McCullough ) and currently live on Norfolk Island. None of her ebooks are available to Australians...

If I knew how to pirate, I probably would...

Oh you be so crazy!... Just type "colleen mccullough .pdf -buy -amazon" in google and enjoy =D There's no mystery to it. There's no "hack all of the IPs!" like in the movies... it's pretty much using google. It's more like the independence day "uploading virus = win!".

[Richey79]

Interesting and relevant article: http://torrentfreak.com/book-piracy-...ndously101023/.

Pirates buy the material they like and respect, too. They aren't doing any damage to the market for published material, either, unlike the majority of publishing houses.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

Originally Posted by Richey79

Interesting and relevant article: http://torrentfreak.com/book-piracy-...ndously101023/.

Pirates buy the material they like and respect, too. They aren't doing any damage to the market for published material, either, unlike the majority of publishing houses.

That still doesn't justify lawbreaking.

[Krystian Galaj]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

Talk about rhetorical tricks. Either that is what you are employing or you completely missed my point. Your post was so poorly constructed I had no clue what you were talking about. And apparently you also have comprehension problems since I never said anything wasn't debatable. I asked what it was you considered to not be debatable.

As far as exemption #6 goes, it seems pretty clear to me. There was an entire thread on here. Look it up.

The rest of what you wrote is so full of misquoting, quoting out of context, wandering off topic, etc, I'm not even going to waste time trying to sort it out. I don't mind arguing with someone with signs of intelligence but you? I think not.

Talk about rhetorical tricks... you have the position of your discutant explained in plain, clear English - even I completely understand it - your points shown to be nonsense, and instead of refuting it with rational arguments, or concede when you find none, you choose to dismiss the whole matter as "so poorly constructed I had no clue what you were talking about".

I hope you can do better than that

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by GA Russell

Ralph, I think that most people in the civilized world think that it is just that an author be paid for his work when there are consumers willing to pay for it. Where justice is involved, that is an instance of morality.

It a contract moral? Because that, in essence, is what we're talking about. Society has made a contract with creators to provide a economic benefit to the creators, for a limited period of time, to encourage more creation.

At the time of marketing every creation, there is a set of terms and conditions made, accepted by both parties, made by the act of publishing (in the broad sense). Nobody forces a creator to either create or release his works. Remember how long some of Mark Twain's Autobiography has been held.

If there is a morality to contract, it is that both parties adhere to the terms of the contract. And every copyright extension granted dances and spits on that morality (if it exists). That doesn't mean that copyright for new works can't be extended, but it shouldn't apply retroactively to existing works. That is abrogating the original contract, stealing from the public that granted it in the first place. So, if one party is stealing, how do they have the moral high ground to complain about the other party stealing?

Until 1978, all works covered by copyright had a maximum copyright length of 56 years. So anything released before 1954 should have been in the public domain. That includes movies, music, writing, photographs, ect.

So where's my PD copy of Casablanca? Or Tex Ritter's Pistol Packin' Mama? Or the Heinlein's The Rolling Stones?

Stolen, each one, by powerful corporations, by bribing politicians to ignore the public's rights and hand them back to the corporations...

[John F]

Originally Posted by Lady Fitzgerald

There are but they do not apply to e-books.

I thought you could break DRM if it wasn't usable anymore? For example, if adobe decided to shutdown their servers, making ADE drm unusable, then you could strip the DRM on books you own?

[ficbot]

Originally Posted by lene1949

Colleen McCullough is from Australia ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colleen_McCullough ) and currently live on Norfolk Island. None of her ebooks are available to Australians...

Yup, same with Margaret Atwood. My mom used to live right down the street from her, that is how local she is. But the only ebook vendor who would sell them to me was Waterstones UK...