Could the Kindle spark book piracy?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by tompe

Well, you said previously that it was morally OK if you scanned the book yourself. But here you seem to contradict that or? What I do not get is the difference between doing the scan yourself or just copying your friends scan.

The laws i am referring to are the same laws that makes it legal to copy a music CD and give it to friends and family. And you cannot say that you have thousands of friends and use that law.

Not really contradicting myself here. I realize that the actual act of creating an e-book, or obtaining the copy of an e-book that someone else made, has little inherent difference. The difference is in the fact that, when the person who made the e-book gave it to you, they violated the understanding of "fair use" (as we apply it in the U.S., that is). By the same token, if you made an e-book, you should not give it to anyone else, or you are violating "fair use."

Even in the U.S., "fair use" dictates that I am not to make a copy of a CD and give it to a single friend or family member. In practice, the law turns a blind eye if I do this, because in most cases I will not give away enough of their revenue in CDs to be worth the cost of their chasing down. Make no mistake, though, even if they don't choose to come after me, I'm still guilty.

But when I start distributing hundreds or thousands of a CD, they take notice, and take action, because I am costing them a significant amount of money, and it's worth their while at that point to prosecute me.

For me, yes, I could make a copy of a CD for my brother, if I knew he liked it. But I would rather buy him the CD, or tell him where to buy it. I consider that fair to the creators of the work.

[jackdavid]

Interesting argument. thought I'd weigh in my side.

I guess you could call me an ebook "pirate"; I relentlessly download ebooks and read them on a PDA. I am very excited about the e-INK technology because, while I enjoy reading books on PDA's, I find the screen hurts the eyes after a while and the battery life is not good.

I have no regrets at all that I download ebooks. Yes, I occasionally buy books, but not so much anymore since, with my connections, I can pretty much get any single book within a few days of it's release in the book stores (of course there are some exceptions, but that usually the case).

Because I read books for free, I have become a fan of many author's that I would have never read. I have bought books from those authors because of this.

To me, I equivocate ebook piracy the same as a library. I would just read the book eventually from a library; downloading the book just allows me to bypass the process.

I am delighted with the sudden resurgence in ebook popularity. We ebook fanatics have been waiting for this moment for a long time. The kindle should finally push ebooks into the mainstream, which, I believe, will cause publishers to release books in both digital (ebook) format and traditional paper. This will drastically increase the selection (ebook lovers have always complained about the lack of variety). Pirating ebooks has allowed me, for the most part, to read many many books that have never been published digitally, but for the people who only read legal ebooks, this is a godsend.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

You can keep arguing for free stuff and anarchy all you want, but the fact is that the rest of society has already voted you down. Get used to paying for stuff.

But lots of people are also hitting the 'download' button. Get used to piracy.

Morality is just a fancy name for self-interest; people will just continue to debate the side of the argument that suits their own requirements.
The result is that people talk past each other, without really engaging; and they'll leave the debate with the same opinions they arrived with.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by jackdavid

Interesting argument. thought I'd weigh in my side.

I guess you could call me an ebook "pirate"; I relentlessly download ebooks and read them on a PDA. I am very excited about the e-INK technology because, while I enjoy reading books on PDA's, I find the screen hurts the eyes after a while and the battery life is not good.

I have no regrets at all that I download ebooks. Yes, I occasionally buy books, but not so much anymore since, with my connections, I can pretty much get any single book within a few days of it's release in the book stores (of course there are some exceptions, but that usually the case).

Why don't you buy books? What I mean is, what makes you believe that it is "right" to obtain books without paying for them? Do you not believe that authors should be paid for their work?

How do you make your living, by the way?

[cjschmidt]

All of the "pirated" books I have on my reader have paper copies sitting on a shelf. They were a pain to find and a pain to format. If they were available to buy, I would have bought them. Not saying any of this makes it "right", but publishers can easily nip this in the bud by getting their collections available quickly.

I know that a lot of people here don't think "format shifting" is legitimate, but I think you'll have a hard time convincing the general public of that. The government has clearly stated that putting CDs on you iPod is fair use. Many people rip DVDs to put them on mobile devices - though they are technically breaking the DMCA. Steve Jobs is currently working to include a mobile-ready version of the movie on HDDVD and Bluray. If we all had one of those Google OCR book scanners I don't think there would even be a question here.

Amazon needs to include a Kindle download with their print books. If the record industry had iTunes a few years earlier, Napster would not have done the damage that it did.

[cjschmidt]

Another problem we face is that (though it may be debated on here at length), you will NEVER convince the general public that transferring a <1mb text file (that the owner can never resell or pass on) can compare to the cost of printing, binding, shipping, etc.

People don't see any technical reason why every book written in the last 20 years shouldn't be available and cost $4.99. This public feeling is what leads to casual piracy of media.

Hopefully, the publishing industry is smarter than the music industry and will be able to move with the times.

[astra]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Again, my opinion is that an e-book is just as substantial as a printed book. It is an instance of a concept, as a paperback is an instance, a hardback is an instance, a stone tablet is an instance, and a movie is an instance. You should pay for each instance.

I almost agree with you.

There is only one but.

an e-book is just as substantial as a printed book. if that's the case, then I should be able to have as much fun with e-book as I have with a printed book. Such as, read it as many times as I would like to, be able to read it on a whim lets say in 25 years time, just as I can do with £15 hardbacks I have on my shelves. Also (not about me, I don't do it but..) I should have a right to sell ebooks in future if I don't want to have them.

Then and only then, I would agree to pay for ebook a certain price regardless whether I have a printed book at home or not.

To have a right to sell ebook later equates its price to hardback edition (each one of them has its own merrits). Remove this right and the price drops below or equal to paper back edition. Remove an ability to read ebook in 25 years time on any given device, reduces the price to $1-2 at most.

I, personally, am happy to pay $10 for *.lit book (mind you, I still don't have a right to sell it, so $10 is a bit more than paper back price and I have to spend my prive time for editing ebook in addition to the time I spent to earn the money, but I agree nonetheless) because I can convert it for whatever format my current reader supports, along with saving a special file for any future adjustments that will be required for my brand new reader in 10 years time.

[astra]

Originally Posted by astra_lestat

(mind you, I still don't have a right to sell it, so $10 is a bit more than paper back price and I have to spend my prive time for editing ebook in addition to the time I spent to earn the money, but I agree nonetheless)

I wonder, would it be publishers' goal? To show us how difficult they might make our life, then make a few minor improvments and we, by default, should be over the moon? (Because accordingly to my theory, I am not supposed to be happy with $10 price, it should be below $6, but I cave in..)

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by cjschmidt

I know that a lot of people here don't think "format shifting" is legitimate, but I think you'll have a hard time convincing the general public of that. The government has clearly stated that putting CDs on you iPod is fair use. Many people rip DVDs to put them on mobile devices - though they are technically breaking the DMCA. Steve Jobs is currently working to include a mobile-ready version of the movie on HDDVD and Bluray. If we all had one of those Google OCR book scanners I don't think there would even be a question here.

Not too many people around here are debating or denigrating "Fair use," whether it involves burning your own CDs to MP3, or scanning and converting your copy of a book into an e-book format. If you are doing it for your own use, most people here consider it okay.

What some of us object to is the idea of downloading a book in such a way that it denies the author a legitimate sale, and a way to earn a living, as Sparrow and jackdavid seem to favor.

[nekokami]

For those of you who feel that owning a paper book doesn't "entitle" a reader to an e-book, I have a question: if you have legally purchased an ebook in a non-DRM format, should you be allowed to read it on more than one device, e.g. a laptop and a PDA? Or is that entirely governed by the license attached by the publisher?

I'm not going to try to "prove an argument" with your answer, I'm just interested in understanding where the ethical boundaries lie for different people, since there are obviously so many different positions on this matter.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by astra_lestat

an e-book is just as substantial as a printed book. if that's the case, then I should be able to have as much fun with e-book as I have with a printed book. Such as, read it as many times as I would like to, be able to read it on a whim lets say in 25 years time, just as I can do with £15 hardbacks I have on my shelves. Also (not about me, I don't do it but..) I should have a right to sell ebooks in future if I don't want to have them.

Then and only then, I would agree to pay for ebook a certain price regardless whether I have a printed book at home or not.

There's no logical reason why you can't keep an e-book for 25 years, or re-read it as often as you'd like. (Obviously, DRM and transient formats makes this harder, but if we ever get our universal format, that problem will go away.)

In the meantime, e-books are still worth something. Maybe not as much as a hardback or paperback, but something. If you pay less for the lesser quality (and theoretical shorter lifespan) of a paperback, why not pay less than a paperback for an electronic copy (which most people apparently consider as less transient than paper)? So, $15 hardback = $5 paperback = $2 e-book. You can get the e-book for less, and the author gets to earn a living. Is that really so odious a system?

As far as re-selling e-books goes: Theoretically, sure, it can be done. I don't know that I'd call it a "right," but I don't see any reason why it should not be done. The only issue is, how do you control it? It's not the same as a used book, really, since a reseller can generate multiple copies, and because an e-book doesn't degrade with time, which has an impact on a used book's price. If you can't guarantee that 1 e-book will stay 1 e-book, I'm not sure a "used e-book" market is viable at all.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by nekokami

For those of you who feel that owning a paper book doesn't "entitle" a reader to an e-book, I have a question: if you have legally purchased an ebook in a non-DRM format, should you be allowed to read it on more than one device, e.g. a laptop and a PDA? Or is that entirely governed by the license attached by the publisher?

A publisher that applies DRM is free to dictate how their book is read. (And you, in turn, are free to not buy it.)

A publisher that publishes without DRM is by definition letting you read it however you want, including on multiple machines. They are also counting on your sense of honesty and ethics and leaving it up to you to possibly share it with some, but not to disseminate it widely throughout the web and potentially deny them a significant income.

And before you ask: Yes, this is what I believe in, too.

[Penforhire]

Nekokami, I fall squarely in the fair use camp. But... in your hypothetical situation you may (hah, not likely) have paid a discounted price because of the DRM limitation. If so then you ARE cheating by stripping the DRM and reading it on another device.

I haven't read the Kindle user agreement but I'll bet if you mess with Kindle-formatted files that would be a violation of the terms of your contract. Seems like every EULA these days includes boilerplate about not reverse engineering, decompiling, etcetera.

[astra]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

There's no logical reason why you can't keep an e-book for 25 years, or re-read it as often as you'd like. (Obviously, DRM and transient formats makes this harder, but if we ever get our universal format, that problem will go away.)

In the meantime, e-books are still worth something. Maybe not as much as a hardback or paperback, but something. If you pay less for the lesser quality (and theoretical shorter lifespan) of a paperback, why not pay less than a paperback for an electronic copy (which most people apparently consider as less transient than paper)? So, $15 hardback = $5 paperback = $2 e-book. You can get the e-book for less, and the author gets to earn a living. Is that really so odious a system?

As far as re-selling e-books goes: Theoretically, sure, it can be done. I don't know that I'd call it a "right," but I don't see any reason why it should not be done. The only issue is, how do you control it? It's not the same as a used book, really, since a reseller can generate multiple copies, and because an e-book doesn't degrade with time, which has an impact on a used book's price. If you can't guarantee that 1 e-book will stay 1 e-book, I'm not sure a "used e-book" market is viable at all.

I agree with everything you just said.

$2 for freaking DRMed ebooks - agree.

re-selling ebooks - impossible to control - fine, reduce the price of ebook in comparison to hardback edition down to paperback edition.

The only people who might loose money are publishers. No real writers. As far as I know writers gets peanuts for paper back editions. This is outrages. IMHO it is a rip-off. But then again, I am sure publishers will not loose money. First of all no one got to pay for all expenditure related to printed books. Second, people who don't pay for ebooks today because of unrealistic prices/DRM, will pay the money. Moreover, they should stop being greedy and appreciate writers more and understand that they are just middle men with no real talent, they are supposed to earn peanuts not the writers.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by astra_lestat

The only people who might loose money are publishers.

I think if the publishers know their job, they won't lose a dime. It's their job to:

• Groom the story;
• Produce the book;
• Market the book.

Thanks to e-books, they can keep production costs down significantly and lower the price of the final product. Then, if they properly market the e-book, they should be able to make even greater sales, and greater profits.