E-reads and Curtis Agency Declare War on Piracy

[starrigger]

Originally Posted by molman

People say "stealing credit"?

It is a commonly used phrase. Ask around Hollywood.

Stealing has a strong relation to property, and the concept thereof, but to present the notion of physical property and intellectual property as the same is unconstructive to an honest discussion. These are not the same thing. The law recognises that they are not the same thing... and let’s be honest most people see a distinction between the two also. I think by presenting it as stealing you are in fact being dishonest (disingenuous) by being reductionist via the use of less than appropriate terminology.

I disagree with pretty much everything in the above paragraph. There's such a thing as using semantic distinctions to obscure plain language truth, and that's what I see this argument as being. It's something at which some lawyers excel.

Anyway, I have no desire to drag this particular topic around the block one more time. We can agree to disagree, or I'll be in the next room having a beer while the rest of you argue about it. Meanwhile, I'll still be curious to see how the original topic turns out.

[rogue_librarian]

I assume you're coyly referring to the fact that the original owner still has a copy. See if you can figure out why that's irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant at all, I am afraid. If I make a copy of your work for my own private use this only affects your bottom line if I would have bought a licensed one otherwise. Is it moral? It depends. Several Copyright Acts have provisions for private copying (including the right to give away such copies to friends and family). Does it affect your ability to sell original copies to other people? No. Is it theft? Not in my book.

You're probably going to disagree. That's fine, which is why I suggest we keep it there.

[CommonReader]

I don't know about the US but in Germany the industry seems to have failed completely to establish the sense of copyright infringement = stealing in the population at large. It rather seems to be something like a parking violation. You don't announce to the public that you are parking illegally but it doesn't particularly affect your social standing if people know that you are doing so. People who would never accept to be given a DVD that was stolen from a shop won't mind to be given the movie on that DVD as a data file. Given that you can put a lifetime's worth of reading on a single SD card I don't see how the industry has any realistic chance to get this under control.

[molman]

Originally Posted by starrigger

It is a commonly used phrase. Ask around Hollywood.

Why would asking around Hollywood be any indication as to if a phrase is common or not? what an odd statement.

Originally Posted by starrigger

I disagree with pretty much everything in the above paragraph. There's such a thing as using semantic distinctions to obscure plain language truth, and that's what I see this argument as being. It's something at which some lawyers excel.

Anyway, I have no desire to drag this particular topic around the block one more time. We can agree to disagree, or I'll be in the next room having a beer while the rest of you argue about it. Meanwhile, I'll still be curious to see how the original topic turns out.

It is a disappointment that you would be so dismissive (nor do I understand the relevance of the comment about lawyers?). I obviously contend differently - that the parties who promote such messages are in fact the ones obscuring things. Considering that the whole concept of intellectual property rights (which haven't existed forever) are based on the law and clarity of language I find this position a little funny, if not ironic. More so the presentation of a notion that an entity’s claim of ownership with regards to non-physical objects is some time old universal truth, morally and ethically infused, as opposed to a rather modern construct of law and social contract (and let’s be honest the export of western (and of late predominately US) values).

It's also a shame that you did not clarify your "irrelevant" statement with regards to rogue_librarian's proposition of the difference between physical and digital objects.

Anyway, yes we have gone on a tangent (and I can agree to disagree which should be obvious). As to the original post, I don't think we will gain any real clarity of the success. It will really depend by what metric E-read chooses to see/define such.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by starrigger

But I do contest, as an ethical matter, the sense of entitlement I sometimes witness that says, "I have a right to any ebook I want, whether it's been authorized by the author or not." Because no, you don't.*

It isn't about rights or entitlement, it's about availability. If the writer/publisher doesn't want to sell it, people will look for alternative sources. For realbooks they will look on Amazon/Ebay/etc for a second hand copy. That source doesn't exist for ebooks, but neither do most of the excuses for not making them legally available forever.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by CommonReader

I don't know about the US but in Germany the industry seems to have failed completely to establish the sense of copyright infringement = stealing in the population at large. It rather seems to be something like a parking violation. You don't announce to the public that you are parking illegally but it doesn't particularly affect your social standing if people know that you are doing so. People who would never accept to be given a DVD that was stolen from a shop won't mind to be given the movie on that DVD as a data file. Given that you can put a lifetime's worth of reading on a single SD card I don't see how the industry has any realistic chance to get this under control.

You can also fit a lifetime's reading into a second hand book shop, but that never stopped people from buying new books. It hasn't always been, but for a long time now book publishing has been about making short term profits in the first few months of publication. After that, unless it's stilll selling well it's dropped so that they can concentrate on the next big thing.

Publishers have more to fear from writers thinking they aren't necessary to bring a book to market than they have from piracy. Playing on a writer's natural fear of piracy, exagerating its detrimental effect, and then offering a service to stamp it out, would be a good additional service for a publisher to provide to writers. The promise of all those extra millions of sales would make them think it was definitely worth giving the publisher 70% or more of their income for uploading the ebook to Amazon, etc. (I know they do other things as well.)

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by starrigger

I don't get too riled up by the pirates. Hell, I used a pirated edition of my own first novel as a source file for my own legitimate ebook release (through E-reads, as it happens).

I am curious about your moral stand on the pirating issue. You say it's wrong for pirates to distribute work that isn't theirs for no profit, but you see no problem with you making a profit off their work to digitize your novel.

[starrigger]

I started typing a response to the various points and queries, and suddenly flashed on this image:

This stuff has been talked to death already here, and that's not how I want to spend my Labor Day (holiday in the U.S.) Besides, when I posted this topic, I promised myself I wouldn't get drawn into yet another pointless argument about this very topic. It causes bad temper, and I haven't seen any minds changed yet.

So if we disagree, let's just agree to disagree. Agreed?

[JoeD]

Originally Posted by starrigger

So if we disagree, let's just agree to disagree. Agreed?

Does the agree to disagree include agreeing to disagree about agreeing to disagree which means...

[CommonReader]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

You can also fit a lifetime's reading into a second hand book shop, but that never stopped people from buying new books.

Sure. It is just the same to give a friend a € 10 SD-Card filled with thousands of books or to buy him a second hand book shop, after all. Apparently it is also the same if you lug around a bag with the NYT bestsellers of 2011 or if you just pull some files on an USB drive.

[molman]

Originally Posted by starrigger

So if we disagree, let's just agree to disagree. Agreed?

Agreed.

btw. Enjoy your day off, lucky b..

[Joseph R]

Originally Posted by starrigger

I find it disingenuous to pretend that it is anything but stealing. It is the misappropriation of something that doesn't belong to you. Makes no difference whether it's digital or physical. "Stealing credit" would be another example of a nonphysical meaning.

I'm not talking about legal definitions, which may differ; I'm talking about ethics and morality. You take something that isn't yours. That's stealing.

You are defining Plagiarism when you are describing theft of intellectual property. For a current example, read on the issue raised by Calibre and Hamstersoft.
The issue is that Hamstersoft plagiarized Calibre code: used them without giving due recognition. The very definition of intellectual theft. Granted, piracy is wrong, we do not disagree on that, but piracy and plagiarism are two different things that have two different consequences.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by starrigger

So if we disagree, let's just agree to disagree. Agreed?

Actually I would like it if you could reply to my previous post.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

I am curious about your moral stand on the pirating issue. You say it's wrong for pirates to distribute work that isn't theirs for no profit, but you see no problem with you making a profit off their work to digitize your novel.

If someone steals your car while you are on vacation, and when you have recovered it you discover that they have changed the oil and filled the tank, I don't see any moral issue with driving the car with those improvements. If you don't own anything, you don't gain any rights over it (moral or otherwise) by improving it.

[molman]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

If someone steals your car while you are on vacation, and when you have recovered it you discover that they have changed the oil and filled the tank, I don't see any moral issue with driving the car with those improvements. If you don't own anything, you don't gain any rights over it (moral or otherwise) by improving it.

I know I promised myself I'd step out of this thread but that's not a very good example Andrew. Not the same thing at all and I think highlights the confusion around this topic and peoples appreciation of the concepts surrounding. If you want a physical example one would be that you paint a picture (let's say a nice female nude or something), I then go and take a photo of said painting without permission (let’s say using a film camera) which I then develop into photos and give away these copies for free. You contend that I don't have a license/permission but instead of just having me destroy my photo (and me paying for any harm the court deems to have occurred) you then take my work (said photo) and start selling it.

It's probably not perfect, but it's closer to the situation being discussed.