Piracy vs Bookstores

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by igorsk

Anyone who uses the phrase "easy as taking candy from a baby" has never tried taking candy from a baby.
-- Robin Hood

(I'm pretty sure I've actually first read that in Heinlein but can't find a confirmation)

It could be from "The Notebooks of Lazarus Long". But it also sounds like it's from the Myth series by Robert Asprin.

[Krystian Galaj]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

It could be from "The Notebooks of Lazarus Long". But it also sounds like it's from the Myth series by Robert Asprin.

http://www.lib.ru/ASPRIN/epigraphs.txt

It was certainly used in there.

[Patricia]

Originally Posted by cmbs

Gotta love these "I'm an honorable thief" or "it's the publisher's fault I have to break the law" threads.

Far as I'm concerned, if mobile read is so upright, they shouldn't allow talk of illegal activities on their website. Surely there are forums just for honorable and unwilling-but-forced thieves where they can discuss this stuff.

Discussion can be useful. It can help people clarify what the moral and legal issues are and, perhaps, lead the less experienced member to realise that there are ethical issues involved when downloading items from the darknet. Whatever they go on to do is their own responsibility. But they will (hopefully) be making an informed choice.

And, consider the alternative. Suppose that we were to censor every mention of the possibility of illegal downloading. This would be treating forum members like small children who are not competent to think things through for themselves.

However, posting links to the darknet site is another matter and that's where we draw the line.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by llasram

Ok, but which is the wrong: the acquisition for free or the lack of author compensation? I really hope we can agree that the author not receiving compensation for their work is the problem.

Actually, the fact that the consumer doesn't want to pay for something they obtained from someone else's labor is the root of the problem. Solve the former, and you solve the latter.

Originally Posted by llasram

Actually, that’s the opposite of what I meant . I was suggesting that there are many cases which are currently illegal and may even strike our initial intuition as “wrong,” but are fully justifiable.

So far, the only "justifications" I've heard are: It's practically nothing; Everybody else does it; and I won't get caught doing it. Your own mother wouldn't buy those excuses.

Originally Posted by llasram

At least in the US, copyright is explicitly a utilitarian, practical system we constructed to compensate content-creators...

Granted, U.S. Copyright Law is antiquated, and has not kept up with the digital era. That's a reason to update and revise it... not to throw it out. Copyright law serves the purpose of guaranteeing proper compensation to a producer of works, and that need is still there.

Originally Posted by llasram

Why would someone want both the hardback and the paperback? Not being facetious here. People find value in having both the p-book and e-book editions of a work or e-book editions in multiple formats, while I can’t think of a single reason I’d want to own both the hardback and the paperback of a book. This suggests to me that these situations are fundamentally different and the analogy is flawed.

Not at all. Think about it: A hardback book tends to be large, heavy, printed on high-quality paper stock with well-crafted covers. Nice for display, but not something you want to damage through handling. A paperback is small, light, cheap. There's no big loss if it is ruined through handling, adverse weather conditions, accidents, or theft... it is considered disposable, whereas a hardback is not. It is easy to see why someone might value a hardback version of a book, yet prefer to have a paperback to take on a beach vacation or on a commuter train.

The same logic is applied to e-books: I have the printed book, but the e-book is more convenient, so I want that, too.

Originally Posted by llasram

Ignoring the analogy, you seem to be assuming the case where the recieved–e-book is an edition assembled by the publisher. I was assuming a pirated edition produced at no additional cost to the publisher whatsoever. In that case the impacts on the author’s bottom-line of just buying the p-book vs. buying the p-book and receiving the e-book are identical.

Not actually... because, just as if you had bought a hardback and got a paperback for free, which would remove the cost of the paperback from the author's profits... you bought a printed book and got an e-book for free. That e-book could have been purchased (if it was a legal product), which would enrich the author. If it was not a legal product, you just supported an illegal venture, which is preventing the author from being paid for his product.

Ease of reproduction makes it easy to pirate, but that does not mean the pirate has the right to duplicate the work, nor that the author doesn't deserve to be compensated for his work. When you receive a pirated copy of even an e-book, you are denying that author due compensation for that e-book.

Originally Posted by llasram

You seem to have missed that I agreed (4) and (5) were wrong and felt (3) was borderline. I think the important thing is not whether or not the recipient pays for the book, but whether or not the author receives compensations. The extremity of your position seems to suggest that borrowing a book from a library of from a friend is wrong as well.

And again, the root of the problem here is your justifications and rationalizations for not paying for someone else's works. It is your refusal to pay that essentially prevents the author being compensated... the problems may trickle through middlemen, et al, but it starts with you. Every e-book consumer needs to understand that.

A library pays a royalty to compensate for the loaning of their books... the author still gets compensated for that. Loaning a personal copy of a printed book is accepted, because the one book was paid for, and it remains one book as often as it is loaned out. The moment someone copies the book and gives away the copies, however, they are violating copyright law.

Originally Posted by llasram

This seems like a pretty shaky assumption. Many publishers have demonstrated awareness that their books are being pirated without noticing their sales dwindle to nothing. I have a hard time imagining that a publisher upon seeing a book being actively pirated would conclude that no market for that book existed.

I didn't say that the publisher thinks there was no market... only that they cannot see how they can adequately profit from that market, because of the existence of pirated copies. If a publisher does not believe a book will profit them (either by cash or reputation), they won't print it. Therefore, every pirated book that a publisher does not believe they can profit from will be a book they won't release, until the pirated editions are considered a non-issue to their bottom line.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by sanders

This is a tricky issue. Would you say the ISP had to track the actual data they pass through ("This is HTML - okay, no problem... This is an MP3 - add the copyright tax"). There are MP3s available for free, so they would have to have some kind of (huge) database to check for the legal status of each piece of data.

A different implementation would say "We'll add 10 cents of 'copyright tax' for every G you download" - much like the cassette tape tax. However, would that imply a "license" to freely download copyrighted works? Or would that still be illegal and this would be some kind of "statistical fine"?

I am heavily opposed to the latter. I think the cassette tax was like that. "It's illegal to copy music, but we know you'll do it anyway so we've added a precautionary fine."

Well, considering that paying that "tax" on cassettes, VCR tapes, blank CDs, etc, is exactly what we have been doing for years, and that no one who is aware of it has been particularly troubled or inconvenienced by the practice... I don't see any reason why the practice cannot continue with MP3s and other downloaded works. It remains about as invisible a method of compensation that there is, and it is a proven success. Granted, it's a lot easier getting that compensation to a handful of corporations, as opposed to individual artists, but that could be worked out (somehow)...

Originally Posted by sanders

Imagine you would have to pay a few hunderd bucks extra when you buy a car "just in case you break the speed limit and there's no cop around to notice"?

Bad analogy. In fact, you pay a fee for the car's licence, which permits it to be used on city streets, and for your driver's license, which gives you permission to drive it (properly) on those streets. Then you pay taxes that cover, among other things, maintaining your police service. See? The tax is already there, and so unobtrusive that it doesn't even register as such.

If you get caught speeding, you pay an additional fine, just as an illegal music distributor would if they were caught.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The "TV Licence Fee" in the UK funds the BBC. It currently costs £135.50 (about US$270) per year, and every household which own a TV set has to have one. Not having a valid TV licence is a criminal (not civil) offence, the penalty for which is a statutory £1000 fine. It's free for people aged 75 or over.

If this is the case, then...

Originally Posted by moz

Context dependent. If you said "in the USA taking a physical good that is for sale without paying is stealing" you would be correct. But watching a television in the UK when the license fee has not been paid is not stealing. Both are "taking" as you're trying to define it.

...no, you are not technically "stealing"... but you are clearly violating the law by denying the payment that provides due compensation to the producer (the BBC). Receiving something you were supposed to pay for, which you didn't pay for. Call that whatever you like.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by cmbs

Far as I'm concerned, if mobile read is so upright, they shouldn't allow talk of illegal activities on their website. Surely there are forums just for honorable and unwilling-but-forced thieves where they can discuss this stuff.

In fact, MobileRead does not allow posters to provide direct information that supports pirating efforts (such as links to DRM-breaking software, which is illegal in the U.S.). And if you read the site overall, you'll see that the site is not devoted to discussion of illegal activities... in fact, most of the moderators and participants actively discourage illegal activities (with the exception of DRM-breaking, which, when done for private use and not redistributed, is tolerated even in this country).

Primarily, this site discusses promotion and legal use of e-books. In such a context, the subject of illegal book distribution will come up... after all, the very definitions are variable from country to country, and these discussions help to make that clear to the entire community. Many of us try to provide logical arguments to dissuade others from participating in illegal activities. We also try to work out ways to satisfy all international requirements, and find a way for everybody to operate in an acceptable and legal manner... something that has not been done before, and may never be, but we keep hoping.

There is no better place, short of the U.N., to be having these discussions, than a site like MobileRead. We are in a position of being able to help find solutions to problems that are too recent for our politicians to have worked out yet, and so we might positively influence the process. Knowing what does and does not work, what people do and do not do, and where the laws work and do not work, are paramount to coming to an eventual understanding, and hopefully, a solution.

I don't want to know that people are stealing e-books... but if they are, I do want to know how and why, because that may be something I can fix. And that makes it acceptable for such discussions to be aired here.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by moz

Copyright holders commonly misstate their rights in such places, and those rights change over time.

It's not so much that those rights are mis-stated (though anyone who incorrectly states their copyrights can't blame someone who acts according to inaccurate information)... it's that copyright laws have not established an international consensus. An accurate copyright notice for an internationally-available book would probably be five pages long...

International product availability has raised some serious issues regarding distribution and compensation that have yet to be adequately addressed (one of the main reasons we keep revisiting these themes in our threads here). It's one of many international communications issues that must be worked out, or the result will be the establishment of sovereign digital "borders," much like China's, to restrict and control digital trade.

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Well, considering that paying that "tax" on cassettes, VCR tapes, blank CDs, etc, is exactly what we have been doing for years, and that no one who is aware of it has been particularly troubled or inconvenienced by the practice... I don't see any reason why the practice cannot continue with MP3s and other downloaded works. It remains about as invisible a method of compensation that there is, and it is a proven success. Granted, it's a lot easier getting that compensation to a handful of corporations, as opposed to individual artists, but that could be worked out (somehow)...

As Scooby Doo would say "Huh?"

The type of tax that you're describing is a very sore point with me. I've written to my MP to complain about it and I've never done that before. I don't pirate books or music but if I buy blank CD's and DVD's to backup data on my computer I have to pay a tax to support artists because I "might" copy pirated music to them? There is nothing fair about this in my view and it's an example of special interest lobby groups at their worst.

We had such a tax on MP3 players in Canada and Apple took it to court and won the case to have it removed. Of course I didn't get an automatic refund but at least when I bought my latest iPod I didn't have to pay it again.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by Barcey

The type of tax that you're describing is a very sore point with me. I've written to my MP to complain about it and I've never done that before. I don't pirate books or music but if I buy blank CD's and DVD's to backup data on my computer I have to pay a tax to support artists because I "might" copy pirated music to them? There is nothing fair about this in my view and it's an example of special interest lobby groups at their worst.

We had such a tax on MP3 players in Canada and Apple took it to court and won the case to have it removed. Of course I didn't get an automatic refund but at least when I bought my latest iPod I didn't have to pay it again.

So, you've actively complained about an extra few cents' cost tacked onto blank CDs and cassettes? Well, that's your prerogative. After all, no one likes taxes. However, that "tax" was the compromise reached to make content available to you, and which allowed you to buy things like VCRs and blank CDs at all (which I'm sure you'd agree is pretty convenient for you). And most people don't even know it's there.

No, it's not fair... it's just the best compromise available to deal with an established cultural phenomenon, and it does provide some small compensation for copywritten works. If you know of a better way to do it, this is the place to discuss it!

[Lemurion]

Going way back to the whole make publishers aware thing: it all comes back to buying non-DRM material.

I shop on Fictionwise-- I think I've spent $20 on DRM'd ebooks and over 20 times that amount on non-DRM ebooks. That's the kind of thing that will convince publishers.

When Tor had their brief fling of books on Baen's Webscriptions I spent $50 or so on Tor Books. I signed up for the latest Tor effort too.

Vote with your wallet.

[sebastien]

Why don't they just make it simple?

A little paypal button on the author's (or publisher) website: "donate 3$"

This way we could get pirated copies while the author gets triple royalties compare to pbooks. I might event click twice if I really enjoyed the book.

But that would be too easy...

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

So, you've actively complained about an extra few cents' cost tacked onto blank CDs and cassettes? Well, that's your prerogative. After all, no one likes taxes. However, that "tax" was the compromise reached to make content available to you, and which allowed you to buy things like VCRs and blank CDs at all (which I'm sure you'd agree is pretty convenient for you). And most people don't even know it's there.

No, it's not fair... it's just the best compromise available to deal with an established cultural phenomenon, and it does provide some small compensation for copywritten works. If you know of a better way to do it, this is the place to discuss it!

It's not about the cost. The whole concept of fining people because they might do something illegal is repugnant to me. It shouldn't be the government's business to tax products and use the money to compensate special interest groups. The only reason they've got away with it is because it's only "a couple cents" a CD. I know this whole thread is a very sensitive subject for you because it directly impacts your life but when you said that nobody was bothered by this type of tax... I am. As far as a better solution goes all I can say is not implementing an unfair tax. Two wrongs don't make a right... it makes two wronged sides.

FYI, the tax I paid on my original iPod was about $34 so hardly a couple of cents and it's the natural progression of these types of taxes. I know people who took the position of "well if they're going to fine me for downloading illegal music I might as well do it". Not a position I agree with but it's kind of where this thread started. If people don't like their options they create their own options.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by sebastien

Why don't they just make it simple?
A little paypal button on the author's (or publisher) website: "donate 3$"
This way we could get pirated copies while the author gets triple royalties compare to pbooks. I might event click twice if I really enjoyed the book.

Sounds great... but except in rare cases, producers usually get only a small fraction of donations compared to what they give out, and it rarely pays off adequately.

Originally Posted by Barcey

It's not about the cost. The whole concept of fining people because they might do something illegal is repugnant to me. It shouldn't be the government's business to tax products and use the money to compensate special interest groups. The only reason they've got away with it is because it's only "a couple cents" a CD. I know this whole thread is a very sensitive subject for you because it directly impacts your life but when you said that nobody was bothered by this type of tax... I am. As far as a better solution goes all I can say is not implementing an unfair tax. Two wrongs don't make a right... it makes two wronged sides.

I understand your dislike of paying for someone else's actions. However, much of the taxes you pay for go to exactly that, services designed to help others, which you yourself will never need. If you look at it that way, it's not quite so repugnant (you're supporting poor artists being ripped off by others).

Originally Posted by Barcey

FYI, the tax I paid on my original iPod was about $34 so hardly a couple of cents and it's the natural progression of these types of taxes. I know people who took the position of "well if they're going to fine me for downloading illegal music I might as well do it". Not a position I agree with but it's kind of where this thread started. If people don't like their options they create their own options.

You know that only a small part of that $34 went to compensating producers... most of it went to your local and national government for other services. If that "tax" for copyright issues had been removed, your tax payment probably would not have dropped by a tenth of a dollar.

As far as "well if they're going to fine me for downloading illegal music I might as well do it"... more rationalizations for ripping someone off.

[llasram]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Actually, the fact that the consumer doesn't want to pay for something they obtained from someone else's labor is the root of the problem. Solve the former, and you solve the latter.

Ah, here’s perhaps our essential difference of opinion. I’m assuming a human nature which can learn a few new tricks but is ultimately static. People in aggregate will always want something for nothing, but will have an innate sense of fairness which prevents them from “stealing” as they intuitively perceive it. I see widespread digital piracy not as a failing of human nature in the face of inflexible rights, but as a failing of the system constructing those rights in the face of an inflexible human nature.

The United States’ experiment with criminalizing alcohol during the Prohibition didn’t stop people from drinking – it just made criminals of those who drank. The law ran counter to moral intuition and lost. Moreover, the distributed, victimless nature of the crime made it ultimately impossible to enforce effectively. Alcohol consumption in the US went up during the Prohibition.

I see copyright facing a very similar situation in the face of digital reproduction and transmission.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

So far, the only "justifications" I've heard are: It's practically nothing; Everybody else does it; and I won't get caught doing it. Your own mother wouldn't buy those excuses.

What about the one I’ve repeated several times: “the author’s compensation is not impacted”? You appeared to agree with that one in the personal-use p-book–ripping case from my earlier post.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Granted, U.S. Copyright Law is antiquated, and has not kept up with the digital era. That's a reason to update and revise it... not to throw it out. Copyright law serves the purpose of guaranteeing proper compensation to a producer of works, and that need is still there.

I completely agree that we need to guarantee “proper compensation” for content-producers, and that this is purpose the institution of copyright serves. My argument is that this is only reason copyright exists, and any times copyright interferes with uses which do not relate to creator-compensation are failings of copyright. It may be illegal to violate copyright in ways which do deny creators compensation, but it is not immoral.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Not at all. Think about it: A hardback book tends to be large, heavy, printed on high-quality paper stock with well-crafted covers. Nice for display, but not something you want to damage through handling. A paperback is small, light, cheap. There's no big loss if it is ruined through handling, adverse weather conditions, accidents, or theft... it is considered disposable, whereas a hardback is not. It is easy to see why someone might value a hardback version of a book, yet prefer to have a paperback to take on a beach vacation or on a commuter train.

The same logic is applied to e-books: I have the printed book, but the e-book is more convenient, so I want that, too.

Sorry, still don’t buy it . I think most people’s intuitions are in line on the hardback-with-paperback-free analogy because the hardback and paperback are both physical things. When you have both then you have two of them, like having two wine glasses or two hotdogs. This is this context in which copyright was constructed – informational products incarnated as physical products whose value can be inflated by a state-granted production monopoly.

Even if one did want to have both the hardback and paperback for the reasons you describe (do you actually do that?) they’re still separate physical things, which you could then re-sell individually. When I and others assume that having the p-book gives one justification to have the same content in e-book form, those two representations of the same content are very much perceived as linked. Like buying the hardback, getting the paperback for free, but then only being able to re-sell them together as a unit.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Not actually... because, just as if you had bought a hardback and got a paperback for free, which would remove the cost of the paperback from the author's profits... you bought a printed book and got an e-book for free. That e-book could have been purchased (if it was a legal product), which would enrich the author. If it was not a legal product, you just supported an illegal venture, which is preventing the author from being paid for his product.

Here I think you’ll butt hard against most people’s intuitions. Even if not explicitly legal like it apparently is in Australia, I think most people feel intuitively that purchasing a music CD gives them the right to listen to that music in any form they desire. Criminalizing CD-ripping creates more criminals than it stops CDs from being ripped. My intuition applies the same principle to books – that I should only need to pay twice for the same content if I want to sell or give away one “copy” of the content.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

And again, the root of the problem here is your justifications and rationalizations for not paying for someone else's works. It is your refusal to pay that essentially prevents the author being compensated... the problems may trickle through middlemen, et al, but it starts with you. Every e-book consumer needs to understand that.

When the options are: (a) read the book without compensating the author or (b) don’t read the book without compensating the author, how is that a justification or rationalization for not paying the author? The author gets no compensation either way. The only possible difference is that the first case involves a copyright violation, but as I discussed above I feel that instances of copyright violation without content-creator harm indicate ways in which copyright is a flawed system.

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

A library pays a royalty to compensate for the loaning of their books... the author still gets compensated for that.

Libraries pay a separate royalty beyond just the cover-price of the book? I haven’t previously been aware of that. Do you have any references?

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Loaning a personal copy of a printed book is accepted, because the one book was paid for, and it remains one book as often as it is loaned out. The moment someone copies the book and gives away the copies, however, they are violating copyright law.

(I’m going to read “violating copyright law” as “denying the author compensation.”)

You agreed previously that producing for personal use an e-book edition of a p-book one purchased was acceptable. What if a friend and I both buy copies of the same p-book, but then only I go through the effort to produce an e-book edition. Is it wrong for me to give him that e-book edition even though it would be alright for him to produce exactly the same thing himself?