Could the Kindle spark book piracy?

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by 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.

If you're referring to my post above about reading files on multiple devices, that's why I specified content without DRM.

By its nature, DRM adds to the cost of producing a book (licensing fees, processing effort, customer support, etc.). I don't know if this cost is offset by the reduced costs to produce copies of and distribute the book, though I would hope so. Regardless, a DRM'd book actually costs more to produce and support than a non-DRM'd book, whereas the value to the consumer is likely to be less. This presents a bit of a conflict for publishers. They'll need to decide if the "protection" offered by DRM is offset by the lower profit margin if they price a DRM book per its lower value to the consumer (and consumers, of course, may or may not react toward DRM the way many of us here do).

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by nekokami

This presents a bit of a conflict for publishers. They'll need to decide if the "protection" offered by DRM is offset by the lower profit margin if they price a DRM book per its lower value to the consumer (and consumers, of course, may or may not react toward DRM the way many of us here do).

I think this may be their biggest mistake: Publishers are more worried about how the negative aspect impacts their profit margin, when they ought to be thinking about how to sell the positive aspects and maximize their profit.

This is, I think, why iTunes does as well as it does, despite DRM'd music in iPod-proprietary formats. Apple has maximized the iTunes experience, to the extent that iTunes users don't gripe about DRM, they don't whine about formats, they don't kvetch about prices. They just pay for a song with less than a buck, and go. And incidentally, they don't complain about their iPods, either.

Publishers need to think about a new marketing strategy for the digital age, instead of sitting around wringing their hands because e-books can't be sold ye old-fashioned way.

[jackdavid]

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?

"Right?" I don't feel it's necessarily right or wrong. Most of the time, I would NEVER have bought that book in the first place (I generally only read hardback books that interest me). The author loses no money when I read an ebook, but, in the case of an author I've never read, gains a new fan IF the book is good and the possibility that I will buy one of his or her other books. I can't tell you how many times I have recommended a great book to other people who go out and BUY that book, thus giving the author money. So my "piracy" has in fact helped that author. And don't forget, there are some people who could have never bought the book in the first place because they don't have the money.

I believe there are two sets of people in this world: those who "pirate" stuff and those who do not. Anyone who downloads pirated software or music, will invariably pirate ebooks. It's the natural extension of this. You either buy it all or pirate it all. It's a sticky subject for sure, but I'm willing to bet that a very high portion of people listen to pirated music or use pirated software of some sort. It's a combination of human nature (the desire to get something for free) and technology to painlessly accomplish this. There is a strong push right now to make all digital media (software, ebooks, music, games, etc) free and copyright less. We can see this with the prevalence of Linux, pirated music which has toppled the record industry and has now inflicted a change on the music model to be DRM-free (apple itunes). I strongly feel that the next wave will be free digital media that users "pay" what they feel it's worth. This is certainly an option. Instead of trying to protect digital media (which is akin to squeezing sand with your fingers), give it away and trust the consumer will donate something. I'm sure people will be perfectly happy to pay the author something.

I've been a fan of traditional books for a long time, but given the choice between an ebook version and a paper version, I always go with the ebook version. And since I can acquire almost any book within a few minutes and read it for free on a portable device (and now the new cybook which has a display on par with a physical book), I love reading even more than before the advent of ebooks.

The bottom line: I am simple replacing the local library with a far quicker and more streamlined process. Now, I'm not egg headed enough to advocate this strategy to everyone, as authors need to earn a living too. Fortunately, the vast majority of people will continue to buy the author's books from the bookstore. But for the few who don't see anything morally wrong with this, ebooks, the internet, and ebook readers are a gift from heaven.

How do I make my living? I'm currently a lawyer, ironically.

[NatCh]

Or maybe it's not ironic at all.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

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."

But now you seem to be arguing that because it violates the law it is morally wrong since I thought "fair use" was a legal term. Fair use or related concepts are different in different countries so if is is fair use or legal in a country I do not understand why you still think it is morally wrong.

[bingle]

I just think it's sad that there's so many people working so very hard to remove the benefits of one of the most amazing, futuristic inventions the human race has ever seen.

We've ended scarcity, and all people seem intent on doing is getting it back as fast as possible, just so nothing has to change in society.

"Look everyone, I've ended disease!"
"You criminal, think of all the poor doctors and insurance company executives you're making poorer! Quick, come up with some way of getting us back to the way things were!"

It's sad to think that we've got an opportunity for all of human knowledge to be shared with everyone for very low cost. This could be the opposite of the dark ages - the Light Ages.

But instead we have to worry about maintaining the status quo.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by jackdavid

I strongly feel that the next wave will be free digital media that users "pay" what they feel it's worth. This is certainly an option. Instead of trying to protect digital media (which is akin to squeezing sand with your fingers), give it away and trust the consumer will donate something. I'm sure people will be perfectly happy to pay the author something.

Since the problem has to be solved and there is no going back I am hoping for this also. You will also probably pay to "publisher"-like entities that does the selection process that publishers do now. And I feel that a system where you pay afterward if you like the book and want the author to write more books is a system that will work better than what we have today. What I have not yet decided is if you are morally required to pirate things to stimulate this change...

The bottom line: I am simple replacing the local library with a far quicker and more streamlined process.

From your point of view. But authors and translators get money that depends on how many people have borrowed there books (at least in some countries) so it is not equivalent.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by jackdavid

So my "piracy" has in fact helped that author.

Actually, the people who bought the books helped the author. All you did was steal a book.

Originally Posted by jackdavid

I strongly feel that the next wave will be free digital media that users "pay" what they feel it's worth. This is certainly an option. Instead of trying to protect digital media (which is akin to squeezing sand with your fingers), give it away and trust the consumer will donate something. I'm sure people will be perfectly happy to pay the author something.

Like you have?

Incidentally, if you check a few sources, you'll discover that "trusting people" to pay what something is worth largely does not work.

Originally Posted by jackdavid

Now, I'm not egg headed enough to advocate this strategy to everyone, as authors need to earn a living too. Fortunately, the vast majority of people will continue to buy the author's books from the bookstore. But for the few who don't see anything morally wrong with this, ebooks, the internet, and ebook readers are a gift from heaven.

Or in other words, other people should pay for things they want, but you're above that.

Originally Posted by jackdavid

How do I make my living? I'm currently a lawyer, ironically.

Not surprising at all.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by bingle

I just think it's sad that there's so many people working so very hard to remove the benefits of one of the most amazing, futuristic inventions the human race has ever seen.

We've ended scarcity, and all people seem intent on doing is getting it back as fast as possible, just so nothing has to change in society.

This has nothing to do with removing benefits or ending scarcity. It has everything to do with fairly compensating people for the goods you take.

[ginolee]

The bottom line here is: piracy is theft.

If you pirate digital content because you know your chances of getting caught are low, it's still theft.

There are cases where certain people have given away their digital content for free and asked for a 'pay what you feel like' response. That is their prerogative. But most authors & recording artists have not done this. So if you take their content without lawfully paying for it, that's theft.

I think the confusion here is that if you steal something from Wal-Mart, there's a pretty high probability that you'll get caught or get *really* nervous trying to walk out with the stolen goods. In contrast, when you steal digital goods, there's no one at the door to catch you, so you steal it and rationalize to yourself that you didn't steal anything.

Gino.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by jackdavid

You either buy it all or pirate it all.

I really don't believe this. It may be true for you, but there have been several studies showing that the most frequent users of file-sharing software for music are also the people who buy the most music from legitimate sources.

With regards to libraries, since libraries pay for hardbound "library edition" copies of books (more durable, more expensive) and make their future purchases based in part on what books are being checked out most frequently, i.e. authors with books that are popular at the library get purchased by the library more often, borrowing books from a library does in fact compensate the author. In the UK, where authors are additionally compensated by metrics tracking how often books are borrowed by library patrons, the compensation is even stronger.

I think the Baen model (which is the same model that Steve Jordan uses) is a good one-- offer a few books per author for free, offer the rest as reasonably priced non-DRM editions and trust that the vast majority of your readers will simply pay for the content they want, rather than trying to download it elsewhere. Even if occasionally people do upload copies to filesharing networks, if the proportion of people who download from such networks remains small because it's easier and safer to get the "real thing" for a reasonable sum, the authors and publishers will still do fine. I'm just hoping the rest of the publishing world comes to this conclusion eventually.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by tompe

But now you seem to be arguing that because it violates the law it is morally wrong since I thought "fair use" was a legal term. Fair use or related concepts are different in different countries so if is is fair use or legal in a country I do not understand why you still think it is morally wrong.

Because I do not happen to agree that the scenario you described-

1. Author writes book
2. Reader makes a copy of book
3. Reader gives you (and possibly a hundred other "friends") a copy, author gets no compensation for copies

-is a "fair" or moral scenario. "Fair use" isn't really a law... it's an official dodge used for convenience (to give the authorities the excuse to not have to chase down every petty criminal it knows about).

Let me know if I understand this scenario incorrectly. For the record, it's not right even if only one copy is given without compensation to the author.

Also, for the record, laws are generally based on morals, they are not mutually exclusive of each other. These laws in particular are generally covered by the moral guideline that says: Thou shalt not steal.

[NatCh]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Also, for the record, laws are generally based on morals, they are not mutually exclusive of each other.

It's more than that, to my mind: law is the underlying morality of the society that makes it. Or, at least it is when those entrusted with making the laws aren't running amuck making them for the wrong reasons.

In other words, things are typically made illegal because the majority of a society agrees that those things are "wrong," and a minority of the society insists on continuing to do those things: laws aren't for those who follow them they're for those who don't.

As an extreme example, murder is illegal because we almost universally agree that it's wrong. But if there weren't people who committed murder, we probably wouldn't ever have gotten around to actually making it illegal.

But have you ever asked yourself why we consider murder to be wrong? There simply isn't any non-morality based answer to that question. Even those who want to convince everyone that "morality" is pointless and empty and may be ignored with impunity, still think murder is wrong. Go figure.

[nekokami]

I agree that in general laws are created to codify the morality of a culture, but sometimes I think the process gets subverted so that the laws benefit a minority instead. I feel that way about the current copyright laws and the length of time they cover. I don't believe "life plus 70 years" represents the common morality of any of the cultures this is being imposed on, nor is it to the benefit of the author, their dependents, or the society in general. I also don't believe that protecting the copyright of a work that has been allowed to fall out of print benefits any of these groups, or represents the most common moral position.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

I think this thread needs a new poll, to determine:

• How many people who take e-books for free, actually work for a living?
• How many people who work for a living believe they deserve every penny of what they get (and then some)?
• How many people would still be doing their jobs if told they would no longer be paid? and
• How many people believe that total strangers, not connected with their work, should dictate how much they deserve to get paid?

What I'd be interested to see is how many people answer "Yes" to every question.

For the old poll, maybe we should add the category:
"You can't cause a spark when the area's already ablaze."