Could the Kindle spark book piracy?

[wgrimm]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

If your government says it is okay... and a government generally bases its laws on the public's view of morality... then obviously it's morally okay for people in Sweden (or wherever the situation applies) to download e-books and give them to friends.

Hmmm....So morality and ethics are all relative? I don't think I could ever base my sense of ethics on "If my government says it's okay." If that is truly the case, Nazis were ethical in their gassing of jews and gypsies- because their government said it was okay!

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by wgrimm

Hmmm....So morality and ethics are all relative? I don't think I could ever base my sense of ethics on "If my government says it's okay." If that is truly the case, Nazis were ethical in their gassing of jews and gypsies- because their government said it was okay!

I'd call that a serious stretch... although you could probably say that it was morally right to the Nazis.

Morals really do change from group to group... my morals aren't exactly yours in every way. If law is based on morals, and different countries have different laws, it follows that different countries have different morals. For instance, "an eye for an eye" punishment is a recognized moral stance in some places, where in others the stripping of rights or freedoms is acceptable, and others use both based on degree or transgression.

That doesn't necessarily mean every culture with different morals than yours is automatically evil... just different. (The extreme cases... like Nazis... usually get weeded out over time.)

In reference to Sweden vs the U.S., we're talking about "fair use" being the difference between sharing copies with a friend (Sweden) vs making copies just for yourself (U.S.). The fact that one culture sees that issue differently than another isn't enough reason to lambast or condemn the other culture. It's also not an extreme difference in viewpoint, so in general, both countries can coexist without fighting over that point. (Just arguing in web forums.)

As I've indicated before, if I don't agree with a country's morals, I should not go to or do business with that country. If I like another country's morals more than my country's morals, it's a reason to think about moving.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

But to be serious for a moment, I do think there possibly can be an upside to ebook downloads. If I am interested in trying out an author but do now want to spend the money and I find an electronic copy of one of the author's books online and download it, convert, read it and decide I like it, I could then end up paying for other books from this same author where I would not have before.

Just as iTunes lets you hear a piece of a song, websites can (and many do) offer downloads of part of an e-book, say 1-2 chapters... hopefully enough for a visitor to decide they like it, and buy it. This method alone helps to curb illegal downloading of e-books, because it gives customers something to try out before they buy, and it's a method that I support (and use).

[eppythacher]

Originally Posted by Penforhire

Eppy, the morality of sharing is not moot now. Since the genie is out of the bag morality is the entire point remaining. Your choice, what you or I do, is defined not by DRM but solely by our ethics (assuming competence in darknet matters). So the right or wrong of the situation is the most valuable debate we can have concerning DRM.

I think it's moot because of my alcohol argument. Alcohol was illegal in the US in the 30's and it was a waste of lives and money, then it became legal, moral or not. Sharing is "illegal" but the moral point is pretty moot because you can't stop it, like alcohol. I don't think people argue the morality of selling alcohol, and I can prove that that kills people. Why argue about the morality of sharing? Because peoples' hard work isn't being fairly compensated? My whole point is that legally and morally we can sell and consume alcohol, and that kills people. What is sharing compared to that? Nothing. Of course, if I had a magic box that could create Smirnoff Vodka and gave the vodka away for free that would be illegal, not the fact that alcohol kills people and the alcohol company's could care less. By the way, I'm for alcohol, it shouldn't be illegal, because that doesn't stop drinking and it creates a whole host of other problems. Just like i'm for sharing, it shouldn't be illegal, because that doesn't stop sharing and it creates a whole host of other problems for legitimate consumers.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by eppythacher

I think it's moot because of my alcohol argument... My whole point is that legally and morally we can sell and consume alcohol, and that kills people. What is sharing compared to that? Nothing... Just like i'm for sharing, it shouldn't be illegal, because that doesn't stop sharing and it creates a whole host of other problems for legitimate consumers.

This is another rationalization that has nothing to do with this issue.

The fact that enforcing a law is hard doesn't mean it's not worth enforcing. It is in fact good to regulate alcohol sales and production... if we did not, the number of lives lost would be even higher. Same thing goes for speeding: Speeding kills, but most people speed, under the assumption that if they're wary they won't get caught. That doesn't change the fact that they still kill, and society should continue to try to catch as many speeders as it can, because it saves lives.

However... that's not our issue here. The issue here is whether or not the actions of a consumer are ripping off the producer of that content by not paying for it. Stop trying to confuse the issue with non-sequitors.

Stating that e-books are "okay to take" suggests that they are essentially worthless. Well, those of us who produce ONLY e-books, in order to avoid the world of print, might disagree. E-books are not worthless by-products of printed books, they are legitimate products in themselves, and they are the only product some authors and publishers use to make money... there are no hardback sales and big publishing contracts. If you take our e-books, we don't make a dime.

So, is it morally or ethically okay for you to take my only product and not pay me for it, just because it's hard to catch you? I don't think so, and I think most people would agree with that statement.

Maybe DRM makes things "harder" for the consumer... on the other hand, if the consumers were honest about paying for things they took, DRM wouldn't be necessary. So it's pirates themselves who are responsible for DRM, which they fight against, causing the creation of stronger DRM... a vicious circle that the pirates themselves caused and that they cause to escalate.

[Penforhire]

We put age limits on the purchase of alcohol so even that is not moot. It is only a legal choice for adults. I would argue that tobacco is the world's greatest legal evil, causing the most cost and suffering. You may have noticed the most effective anti-drug/anti-smoking advertising these days is appealing to morals, since the choice to imbibe there for most people.

We are on an e-reading site. Why not argue the morality of reading? Or would you prefer tech-head discussions about how to access the darknet? The collapse of the publishing industry is NOT a done deal and we are leading to charge to wherever it ends up. If you convince one or two people here, they convince a couple of people, and so on. As much as I press Steve about our different views it is still useful to hash it out here. Play it forward.

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Maybe DRM makes things "harder" for the consumer... on the other hand, if the consumers were honest about paying for things they took, DRM wouldn't be necessary. So it's pirates themselves who are responsible for DRM, which they fight against, causing the creation of stronger DRM... a vicious circle that the pirates themselves caused and that they cause to escalate.

DRM is less caused by pirates themselves than by author/agent fear of pirating. To some extent it's a valid fear I guess, in that pirating would be less work for those that do it. Since most of the pirated books out there though aren't from electronic source files, but from scans of pbooks, there's really no point except to lend a false sense of security. Heck, many popular authors books hit the net within days of their release and have no official ebook version. DRM did nothing to stop them.




I don't really know the answer, but I know what I want personally. I want to be able to buy my books electronically (far to few are available now). I want to be able to have a universal format or an acceptable way to format shift any file I buy so it's usable no matter what path I take in reading devices. Give me this and I'd care very little about if the use DRM. They could use whatever they need to make them feel better. If they want to charge me paper prices (or often close to those prices) for an electronic version of the book I need more freedom in how I can use that file.

I'm a big user of Audible. They use DRM, but it doesn't feel so locked down, because I'm allowed to burn those DRM'd files into standard audio CD's any time I want to. So if all of the sudden the devices that play Audible files dry up I still have an 'out' to keep the files I paid for usable. This is what I'd like for ebooks too.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

DRM is less caused by pirates themselves than by author/agent fear of pirating. To some extent it's a valid fear I guess, in that pirating would be less work for those that do it. Since most of the pirated books out there though aren't from electronic source files, but from scans of pbooks, there's really no point except to lend a false sense of security.

As I've said before, DRM is like street lighting. There's ZERO evidence that street lighting does anything to reduce crime, but ask people if they want it and they say "yes" because it makes them "feel safer". DRM is just like that from the publisher's viewpoint. If, as a result of having it, we get eBooks that we wouldn't have otherwise had, I'm not going to complain. Trying to persuade publishers that they don't need DRM stands pretty much the same chance of success as trying to pursuade people that they don't need street lighting.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

DRM is less caused by pirates themselves than by author/agent fear of pirating.

It is certainly put in place by authors/publishers... but why? Because of three facts: The existence of P2P sites, chocked full of illegally-obtained files; their incredible popularity; and the documented experiences of the digital music market, the most similar platform there is to compare to. All of that makes for a very legitimate fear. If virtually or literally no one was using P2P sites (or the darknet, or the old newsgroups, etc) to pirate material, they wouldn't see a need for DRM, and it wouldn't be there.

So it is the activity of pirates that directly causes DRM, and their continued resistance against it that causes its escalation.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Your friend who loans you his CD also should make sure he has no other copies of it on his computer or DAP. if aid friend does, then it's not OK to loan the CD. While I have this CD in my possession, it is OK for me to rip it and put that rip on my DAP. But when I do go to give if back, that copy has to be deleted.

I'd agree on that for moral correctness. But a fair number of experts speaking to a graduate seminar in IP issues think the scenario I gave is 'highly likely to be legal.'

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Now, is it fair use that since my DVD drive is busted, that I loan my CD to a friend who rips it for me and sends me the bits and then deletes the copy?

Also, could the same thing be done with a pbook? He has the book scanner and offers to scan my book for me, so I loan the book and get back the book and an electronic copy.

According to those same experts the answer is that both of these examples are not OK under fair use. And yes, I did ask pretty much exactly those questions. It seems that if they give you the bits in any form other than 'on the physical disk you bought it with' they've stepped beyond fair use. These answers seem counter-intuitive to me, but there it is.

All speaking of US law and definitions of fair use, of course. And, of course, I Am Not A Lawyer and This Is Not Specific Legal Advice and all the rest of that hooey.

Xenophon

[wgrimm]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Maybe DRM makes things "harder" for the consumer... on the other hand, if the consumers were honest about paying for things they took, DRM wouldn't be necessary. So it's pirates themselves who are responsible for DRM, which they fight against, causing the creation of stronger DRM... a vicious circle that the pirates themselves caused and that they cause to escalate.

Question here- is it "the consumers" who are dishonest, or "the pirates."

Here is what Merrill Chapman (author of "In Search of Stupidity" has to say about software piracy, and it probably applies to ebook piracy:

"And finally0, despite the theoretical losses software companies were
suffering from piracy, it was hard to see in reality how piracy was
hurting the companies. As the decade progressed, many software companies
did indeed stumble and fall, but in no case was it possible to pin
the blame on piracy. Also, it started to become apparent to software
firms that piracy had a definite upside, as Microsoft had discovered
years ago with the Altair. When the number of people using your software
increased, your perception as the market leader increased as well.
And pirated software functioned as a sort of marketing kudzu, tending
to choke out the competition as use of your product spread throughout
the computing populace. Once you had displaced the competition, it
was possible to convert X percent of the pirates to paid users via various
inducements and offers. ....."

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by wgrimm

Question here- is it "the consumers" who are dishonest, or "the pirates."

Here is what Merrill Chapman (author of "In Search of Stupidity" has to say about software piracy, and it probably applies to ebook piracy...

I don't think Chapman's example is applicable to e-book piracy, really. He's talking about popular software packages that are revised and improved over time, and the methods software companies take to make you pay for the next copy, even if you got that last one for free. Yes, this has been a very successful model for Microsoft and Adobe, and earned them the dubious title of having some of the most odious DRM systems around.

E-books (and music) do not fall into this category, because once you have the book (or song), you don't go back to get regular revisions. So there's no comparable way to convert a "cheating" customer to a "paying" customer on the same product.

[wgrimm]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

E-books (and music) do not fall into this category, because once you have the book (or song), you don't go back to get regular revisions. So there's no comparable way to convert a "cheating" customer to a "paying" customer on the same product.

What I am curious about is if anyone can show some believable figures concerning the effect piracy has had on publishers. Have they really lost any money due to piracy? The music industry whined that they were losing money because of Napster, but cd sales increased by 6% after Napster was established......

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

I'd agree on that for moral correctness. But a fair number of experts speaking to a graduate seminar in IP issues think the scenario I gave is 'highly likely to be legal.'...

According to those same experts the answer is that both of these examples are not OK under fair use. And yes, I did ask pretty much exactly those questions. It seems that if they give you the bits in any form other than 'on the physical disk you bought it with' they've stepped beyond fair use. These answers seem counter-intuitive to me, but there it is.

I think this is indicative of the fact that the law is not nearly as clear and specific on the subject of "fair use" as it ought to be. To me, "highly likely to be legal" is about as useful as saying "probably not loaded." And as "fair use" as pertaining to digital files is used more as a lazy-lawman's excuse than a specific set of statutes, I don't see anyone attacking Jon's example except the extremely anal.

[Penforhire]

But on DRM, it is often (almost always) broken by pirates. Look at the LIT format fiasco! The point is DRM doesn't seem to even slow down pirates so ALL it affects are legitimate users. Aside from the fear of DRM catastrophe (loss of entire library), that is the point many customers are trying to make. Why are they inconveniencing us if it does nothing to stop piracy?