E-reads and Curtis Agency Declare War on Piracy

[Dylrob]

I believe most pirates would never actually buy the content they've pirated. And I strongly suspect more money is being spent trying to stop piracy than is actually gained as a result.

[starrigger]

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.

Originally Posted by molman

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.

(Sigh.) I promised myself I'd step out of the thread, too. But I suppose I should respond to this, and to the question.

Neither example is quite accurate, though I think Andrew's is closer. In this particular case, I feel more kindly toward the person who took my car than I might otherwise, because this person cared for the car, liked it enough to treat it properly, and also left it parked where someone would find it and return it to me. It's not exact, because in the real case, I wasn't deprived of the use of my property. But as Andrew said, I have no obligation to undo the work that was done on the car by the car-napper. And despite some mixed feelings, I can even offer a nod of thanks for the care he took with my car. It doesn't make what he did legal or ethical. But I can't be too angry, because it turns out all he wanted to do was show his thousand closest friends what a nice car it is.

I would restate the second example this way: you have taken a photo of my painting, which I have planned to release myself as photo prints, or perhaps as a poster--and you are giving prints away from a website on which you make a profit through subscriptions or advertising. Or conceivably even a site you run for no profit. Eventually some kind soul sends me a copy of the high-res jpg you're giving away, saying, here, I thought you might like a copy of your own work of art, which the other person is giving away. After fuming a bit, because it was the first I'd heard of it, I examine the jpg, see that it's a faithful rendering created by the same photo service I was going to use, and is pretty much indistinguishable from the photo I was going to pay the service to take. So I use that jpg as the starting point before applying my own digital enhancements for my own release. As for the guy and his offshore website, I think a little and decide life's too short to worry about it.

That's not exact, either. In the real case, what was handed to me (not by the "torrent specialist" who scanned and uploaded my book, but by a kindly fan) was a digital compilation of my own words, in the exact order in which I put them down. It was a surprisingly careful compilation. This person took the time to do it right. Why wouldn't I use that instead of paying someone to scan the book again in order to create the exact same digital compilation? I'm not exactly thrilled that this guy's giving away my book, but I shrug, give him a nod of thanks for his careful proofing (it would have been a lot nicer if he'd asked me), and move on.

If the original question was, what do I feel about book pirates (I think that was the word used), the answer is, I have mixed feelings. Some of them are clearly people who love books, and--legally or not--want to make them available to the masses. I don't condone the illegality, but I can't hate them, either, especially when they're trying to make long-out-of-print books available.

But as a general breed, I think the illegal uploaders are behaving like parasites feeding on the creative work of others, whether for profit or egoboo. I don't think they're all evil, but what they're doing is wrong. When I put my book Sunborn out for free for a time (with the help of folk here on MR), it carried notices asking people to respect the hard work and not post it on other websites, because it was a limited-time giveaway. Do you think that worked? Pffft.

Still, I'm probably not harmed, and I might even be helped, but I can't make that statement on behalf of other authors. Most writers I know tend to think of piracy as not a scourge so much as a new version of pilferage in a store. For the most part, you factor in the cost, and you shrug and move on to more important things.

[DiapDealer]

An analogy's relevance is usually inversely proportional to its length/complexity. And they're only ever 100% apropos to their authors.

I try to stay away from them myself.

[mr ploppy]

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.

Like other attempts to equate one specific type of crime with another completely different one, this doesn't really work. The ebook didn't exist until the fan made it, and unless the fan rewrote any clumsy descriptions or fixed any plot holes, they didn't improve it either.

It's more like someone recording a band live (or to be more exact, digitising a vinyl album) and then making it available for free so that other fans don't need to pay inflated prices from commercial bootleggers (or collector vinyl shops).

[Greg Anos]

Personally, I think that Gollancz is doing more to stamp out piracy with their SF gateway forthcoming e-book releases (assuming they are well proofed) than the Curtis Agency will ever accomplish.

When the e-book is available, you can buy it. You can't buy one that isn't available...

(over 300 are listed as forthcoming on Amazon already.)

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by starrigger

Neither example is quite accurate, though I think Andrew's is closer.

No, it's not. In order to come at least close, the example would have to have you as the manufacturer of the car.

Originally Posted by starrigger

I would restate the second example this way: you have taken a photo of my painting, which I have planned to release myself as photo prints, or perhaps as a poster--and you are giving prints away from a website on which you make a profit through subscriptions or advertising. Or conceivably even a site you run for no profit.

No, this goes further away from the real case. A closer version would be: you are selling printed copies of a painting that you made; one buyer makes a high resolution scan of it and posts it somewhere; someone finds it, and because you are clearly marked as the author, tells you that there is a digital version of your work online; you decide not to spend the time on making a scan yourself, and use it.

Originally Posted by starrigger

That's not exact, either. In the real case, what was handed to me (not by the "torrent specialist" who scanned and uploaded my book, but by a kindly fan) was a digital compilation of my own words, in the exact order in which I put them down. It was a surprisingly careful compilation. This person took the time to do it right. Why wouldn't I use that instead of paying someone to scan the book again in order to create the exact same digital compilation?

You're not getting my point: it's not a question of why not use it, but since you directly profited off the pirate's work, my question is: why complain about pirates, who don't profit off your work?

Originally Posted by starrigger

But as a general breed, I think the illegal uploaders are behaving like parasites feeding on the creative work of others, whether for profit or egoboo.

This describes the publishing houses. The illegal uploaders are the ones who don't do it to make a profit.

[starrigger]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

why complain about pirates, who don't profit off your work?

You think the pirate sites don't profit? Hoo, boy...

In any case, I didn't complain about the pirates, particularly, until you asked me what I thought. I said they were stealing, which I believe is true. It is also true that I don't think about them very much, and worry about them less.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

You're not getting my point: it's not a question of why not use it, but since you directly profited off the pirate's work, my question is: why complain about pirates, who don't profit off your work?

The pirate has no protection for their work, as they had no right to produce it.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by starrigger

You think the pirate sites don't profit? Hoo, boy...

I don't think most of the individuals who scan and post books profit, no.
Tracker sites might profit from advertising.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

I don't think most of the individuals who scan and post books profit, no.
Tracker sites might profit from advertising.

There's a lot of people who sell downloaded ebooks on Ebay, as well as lots of other types of downloaded content. Those are the sort of people that these war on piracy types should go after.

[afa]

Originally Posted by starrigger

I would restate the second example this way: you have taken a photo of my painting, which I have planned to release myself as photo prints, or perhaps as a poster--and you are giving prints away from a website on which you make a profit through subscriptions or advertising. Or conceivably even a site you run for no profit.

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

No, this goes further away from the real case. A closer version would be: you are selling printed copies of a painting that you made; one buyer makes a high resolution scan of it and posts it somewhere; someone finds it, and because you are clearly marked as the author, tells you that there is a digital version of your work online; you decide not to spend the time on making a scan yourself, and use it.

You're both wrong.

A closer example would be if an author used a pirated edition of his own first novel as a source file for his own legitimate ebook release (through E-reads, no less).

That's the only scenario which is fully comparable.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by starrigger

In any case, I didn't complain about the pirates, particularly, until you asked me what I thought. I said they were stealing, which I believe is true. It is also true that I don't think about them very much, and worry about them less.

You didn't complain about the pirates, particularly, until I asked you what you thought? I wonder where I got the idea that you were talking about the people and not the sites (in bold):
First post:

Originally Posted by starrigger

For readers of the E-reads blog, there's never been any doubt how agent and E-reads founder Richard Curtis feels about ebook pirates. He doesn't like them.

Your second post:

Originally Posted by starrigger

(I don't believe for a minute that the torrent pirates give a flying *** about the writers, but the side effect of their actions may help some writers.)

Your fourth post:

Originally Posted by starrigger

For one thing it would require people to be honest about their habits, among a group who acknowledge a willingness to ignore copyright law.

Your fifth post:

Originally Posted by starrigger

Every time an individual wakes up to, or is educated to, the fact that supporting piracy is tantamount to stealing, that's a success story.
[...]
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).

Communication would be easier if you wouldn't refer to the torrent sites as pirates, people and individuals.

Also, I didn't ask your opinion on pirates, but your moral view on the fact that you used somebody's work to make a profit.

[Greg Anos]

I guess I'll step in here a bit. As a contributor to the Public Domain (both content and labor), I see no problem with using someone elses's pro bono publico contribution. They granted that right when they made the P.D. contribution.

We can quibble over the legality of the scanning and proofing Starrigger used, (legality of the scanner, not Starrigger, who owned the copyright) but the scanner made it available pro bono, and knew that when he did it.

No moral problem for Starrigger, he just used labor freely given.....

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I guess I'll step in here a bit. As a contributor to the Public Domain (both content and labor), I see no problem with using someone elses's pro bono publico contribution. They granted that right when they made the P.D. contribution.

But it was not a public domain contribution.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by tompe

But it was not a public domain contribution.

Well the scanner doesn't have copyright over it, and if anyone does, it would be the original author, who is the one who used it.