Kindle e-Book piracy accelerates - from CNET

[Namekuseijin]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

It doesn't. And the point that's overlooked again and again: of those who download King's entire oeuvre, how many would have bought the same at retail prices? Those who download "2500 Kindle ebooks", how many would have legally bought them if they hadn't been able to down them? Exactly.

How many kind enough souls would pay for them after stealing them?

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

How many kind enough souls would pay for them after stealing them?

What kind of bizarre argument is that? The point I'm trying to make is that not every download is a lost sale. Few are, in fact. Oh, and it's "copyright violation", not theft, thank you very much.

[MovieBird]

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

That's nice. That also, as far as I know, puts you in a decided minority.

After all, there are reasons why FLAC did not become the standard. One is that most people don't mind lossy compressed music. In fact, the average listener apparently can't distinguish between a 64 kbps and a 256 kbps MP3.

As I noted in my previous post, did you just gloss over the destructive bit? As far as FLAC, you do realize the only reason you have ever heard of it is because of pirates adopting it as a high quality transfer medium? They popularized the format. Businesses still treat it as a red-headed step-child; you can't get commercial hardware that plays a free and open codec unless you spend a few thousand dollars. That's why it hasn't taken off, despite significant interest from enthusiasts.

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

Err? Most downloaded albums tend to be around $10 (and no sales tax or shipping costs), whereas CD's were $15-$18 until a few months ago.

And, of course, you can make as many backups as you like of your downloaded music.

CDs haven't been $18 for many years now. I know I've been buying $8.99 and $9.99 discs off of Amazon for five years, at least. And there's always the brisk used CD trade.

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

But to me it's fairly clear that a good chunk of pirates are people who simply do not want to pay for digital content. There are numerous rationalizations for this -- "it's not like shoplifting" or "it's got DRM" or "the artist doesn't get paid anyway," but ultimately much of the time it comes down to "I don't wanna pay."

How about an actual academic study, or really any peer reviewed proof, of your claim here?

Originally Posted by Kali Yuga

As to the enthusiasts: Pirated music is all over the map in terms of quality and bitrates and naming conventions, and is often accompanied by all those lovely ads for "Russian Laides Looking For Friendship." Again FLAC did not take off, and CD sales are sinking faster than the Titanic, so there goes the "higher quality" theory.

Once again, you obviously have not studied that which you speak of. Yes, you can find shitty versions of music on the Pirate Bay. Try looking at a music specific tracker. They often reward high quality rips, and have stringent rules for including things like Exact Audio Copy logs; to ensure a high quality product.

The pirates, or at least a sizable portion of them, care more about quality than the people selling the product. Witness the lovingly crafted eBooks versus the drek that the Publishers STILL crank out.

[Namekuseijin]

Originally Posted by rogue_librarian

What kind of bizarre argument is that?

One about as bizarre as one suggesting people will be willing to pay for something they've got for free.

The point I'm trying to make is that not every download is a lost sale. Few are, in fact.

Indeed, specially as people take free downloads for granted, part of God's plans for the good and happiness of mankind.

Not every download is a lost sale because people would not buy it otherwise. But if they would not buy it, why the frakk are they reading it?! If there were no free downloads, are you sure they would not be reading a legally bought copy?

Oh, and it's "copyright violation", not theft, thank you very much.

It's actually "depriving an author from income" but that would be much too anal...

In any case, think what would happen if you enter a store, take a few items and head for the exit. Someone with a gun would stop you, right? So, that's why you don't usually steal things, not because of law nor morals, but because there's a gentle gun reminding you that you should be a good citizen and pay others for what they provide you.

Guess what? Digital guns don't fright enough! It's you, all shelves full of goodies and your morals alone. Heck, what morals?

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

It's actually "depriving an author from income" but that would be much too anal...

Quite so.

In any case, think what would happen if you enter a store, take a few items and head for the exit. Someone with a gun would stop you, right?

Apart from the "gun" part, yes, in all probability. And rightly so.

So, that's why you don't usually steal things, not because of law nor morals

I don't think this is the right place to discuss penal theory and voluntary compliance in detail. That said, yes, that's theft and, yes, there are laws against it.

I am the first to admit that it takes a certain ability of abstraction, if you will, to see why the situation is almost completely different for intangible objects. Most importantly, you can't steal them. Be that as it may, I'm not going to have this discussion again. I'm sure there are other dead horses in dire need of a good flogging.

[Namekuseijin]

Yeah, it's not "theft" because the author is not deprived from his work, since infringers only make a copy. But that single copy provides countless other copies, which in turn deprives the author from income, since that same work which cost him quite a few months or years in the making was made available for free in about 1 minute upload by some burger-flipper.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by MovieBird

As far as FLAC, you do realize the only reason you have ever heard of it is because of pirates adopting it as a high quality transfer medium?

As was mp3. In fact if it wasn't for piracy I doubt there would have ever been any hardware mp3 players produced. The music industry actually tried to suppress the sale of them. And without hardware mp3 players there would be no ipod and therefore no itunes.

Originally Posted by MovieBird

The pirates, or at least a sizable portion of them, care more about quality than the people selling the product. Witness the lovingly crafted eBooks versus the drek that the Publishers STILL crank out.

Something that is fan made will always be higher quality than something made by someone who is paid by the hour to produce it. The reasons for that should be obvious to anyone.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

How many kind enough souls would pay for them after stealing them?

Stealing what? Paperbacks? Retail outlets build the cost of shoplifting into their prices. That's one of the reasons paperbacks are cheaper online.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

Not every download is a lost sale because people would not buy it otherwise. But if they would not buy it, why the frakk are they reading it?! If there were no free downloads, are you sure they would not be reading a legally bought copy?

I'm assuming you mean people who read some of the ebooks that they download, rather than the file collectors? They would probably buy a second hand paperback or get it from the library. Do you really expect those people to start paying new retail hardback prices? Doesn't seem very likely to me.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

Yeah, it's not "theft" because the author is not deprived from his work, since infringers only make a copy. But that single copy provides countless other copies, which in turn deprives the author from income, since that same work which cost him quite a few months or years in the making was made available for free in about 1 minute upload by some burger-flipper.

How does it deprive the author of income?

[queentess]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

About the MP3's. Too little, too late. People had found the illegal circuit. People had gotten used to the illegal circuit. And, personally, I still haven't found a location where I can buy my MP3's. Most shops, I'm not allowed (not US-based) and I refuse to use Itunes.

I'm with you there; I hate iTunes. Can you purchase mp3s from Amazon? It has to install a slightly irritating software to download the mp3s, but they're DRM free (though iTunes is now too) and I usually shop the "$5 album" page.

[rogue_librarian]

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

Yeah, it's not "theft" because the author is not deprived from his work, since infringers only make a copy.

That's the gist of it, yes. It's not theft because you can't steal intangible objects since the owner still has the original. It's a violation of copyright, and the effects may be just as serious, but it still pays (ahem) to get it right.

[Namekuseijin]

Mr. Ploppy, I'm not talking about paperbacks here. This is mobileread after all.

About the income: how are authors supposed to get some when their books are available for free? No digital guns forcing people into being good citizens, remember?

[Farhad]

Piracy? Why use such corpo-speak?

“Piracy”

Publishers often refer to copying they don't approve of as “piracy.” In this way, they imply that it is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnapping and murdering the people on them. Based on such propaganda, they have procured laws in most of the world to forbid copying in most (or sometimes all) circumstances. (They are still pressuring to make these prohibitions more complete.)

If you don't believe that copying not approved by the publisher is just like kidnapping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word “piracy” to describe it. Neutral terms such as “unauthorized copying” (or “prohibited copying” for the situation where it is illegal) are available for use instead. Some of us might even prefer to use a positive term such as “sharing information with your neighbor.”

Source: gnu.org

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by Namekuseijin

Mr. Ploppy, I'm not talking about paperbacks here. This is mobileread after all.

About the income: how are authors supposed to get some when their books are available for free? No digital guns forcing people into being good citizens, remember?

Where that falls down is the fact that authors are still getting income even though we have had ebook piracy for over 10 years. It also flies against the evidence from independent research, amd also anecdotal evidence from authors themselves.