Do you pirate books and why?

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Larken

I have often thought that a better idea would be to go to a book signing of someone like Jim Butcher with $150 or so, and hand it to him and say "Here... this is for all the books I've read that you've written, but I haven't purchased" I figure it might put more money in their pocket than if I bought them off the shelf. Of course, I might just get punched too...

A number of authors would prefer that you bought they books--they like their editors & publishers, and want them to get paid for their work as well.

Considering how authors are prone to flip out when someone says, "your ebook isn't available in my region so I downloaded it," I'm surprised more authors don't get upset when readers tell them they've only read secondhand copies of their books.

It seems like they keep shifting the goalposts--is the real issue, "you should be paying for your entertainment" (in which case, what's wrong with paying your friend for an ebook, especially if he deletes it from his drive when he gives you a copy), or is it "you should pay THE AUTHOR for your books," in which case, why don't they scream about the evils of secondhand copies?

[WT Sharpe]

A number of members have stated that they would only pirate a book if the book is, for whatever reason, unavailable legally. So far I've never heard of book publishers going after end users, but as the practice of imposing stiff fines against those who pirate music and making an example of end users is common in the music business, I would be remiss if I didn't remind folks that book publishers may adopt a similar model any day.

[QuantumIguana]

Having the book available in one region but not in another is right out of the stone age. It works with physical objects, where people are unable to obtain the item if it is not offered for sale in their region. With digital things, it is available everywhere, whether you want it to be available or not.

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

A number of members have stated that they would only pirate a book if the book is, for whatever reason, unavailable legally. So far I've never heard of book publishers going after end users, but as the practice of imposing stiff fines against those who pirate music and making an example of end users is common in the music business, I would be remiss if I didn't remind folks that book publishers may adopt a similar model any day.

This could indeed happen. But see... Amazon does not want to "sell" me the free, $0 version of Dickens' Great Expectations (which I may want to read, despite the very mixed reviews) because of copyright reasons. Also, other stores don't sell it, because for some reason, it can/may not be sold to Dutch people.

Within 5 seconds I can find hundreds of free downloadable versions, all stating that it's a public domain book.

Officially, I'm pirating a free book, if there's such a thing; but it doesn't feel like it.

I do the same with movies. Sometimes I want to see a movie, but it is not out on DVD yet, in The Netherlands, and I can't buy it in another country because it's often dubbed, subtitles are missing, or it's region encoded. Then you can rest assured that I *will* download the movie, watch it, and buy it at the moment it does come available.

[WT Sharpe]

Originally Posted by Katsunami

This could indeed happen. But see... Amazon does not want to "sell" me the free, $0 version of Dickens' Great Expectations because of copyright reasons. Also, other stores don't sell it, because for some reason, it can/may not be sold to Dutch people.

Within 5 seconds I can find hundreds of free downloadable versions, all stating that it's a public domain book.

Officially, I'm pirating a free book, if there's such a thing; but it doesn't feel like it.

I do the same with movies. Sometimes I want to see a movie, but it is not out on DVD yet, in The Netherlands, and I can't buy it in another country because it's often dubbed, subtitles are missing, or it's region encoded. Then you can rest assured that I *will* download the movie, watch it, and buy it at the moment it does come available.

While I'm against piracy of works that are otherwise available in commercial outlets, I can understand why people pirate material that isn't available legally. If the powers-that-be don't provide a legal means of obtaining works people want to read, I can't feel too sorry for them when people pirate their works. All I'm saying in such cases is be careful, and be aware of the possible consequences.

[Katsunami]

There can't be any consequences in some cases. Let's say that I know that a book is free to read 50 years after the author dies. So, I want to read a Dickens book, and type into Google:

Free Great Expectations Dickens.

Then I find an online version, that I can read in my browser; in a forum post, possibly. How should I know that I'm not allowed to read that, only because I'm a Dutchman? No-one is going to sue me for reading on the internet. It's just impossible to enforce.

I can understand that there could be problems if this same thing is done with stuff that is still in copyright, but it has happened only very occasionally that books I want to read (or movies I want to see) are not available. Edit: even then, it's a problem of the uploader. If someone posts The Lord of the Rings, in plain text, on Mobileread, then it's not my fault that I can read it for free. It cannot be expected of one to check each site for copyrighted stuff and then to decide to read it or not.

Also, in the Netherlands, downloading music, movies and other entertainment is fully legal at this moment. I'm not saying that one is entitled to download everything they'd ever wish to have; hardly so, but the law over here protects individual people, precisely because of the point made in the previous paragraph. Still, some people in our current government are trying very hard to get that to change though.... pressured by the entertainment industries. Some even suspect that some people in the government are receiving boons from the industries to get laws against downloading passed.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by WT Sharpe

A number of members have stated that they would only pirate a book if the book is, for whatever reason, unavailable legally. So far I've never heard of book publishers going after end users, but as the practice of imposing stiff fines against those who pirate music and making an example of end users is common in the music business, I would be remiss if I didn't remind folks that book publishers may adopt a similar model any day.

The music industry has a mass management system for copyrighted materials; the RIAA licenses access to thousands (millions?) of songs, so it's worth their effort to track down users who are distributing hundreds of the titles they control.

No one publisher controls a majority of the books being shared. Filing a mass cease-and-desist notice may hit problems like the SFWA takedown notice to Scribd. A publisher could look for torrents or bundles that include only its titles, but that's more troublesome.

And, as books are (1) not as regularly copied as music, (2) sometimes not available through legit suppliers (opening a spot for a fair-use claim), (3) harder to verify as infringing (can't just listen to the first few seconds of the song; need to confirm that what's being shared is a book and not a book review)... it hasn't been worth the trouble.

While Dan Brown's or Rowling's publishers could certainly track down a number of digital copies of those works--lawsuits are expensive. Publishers don't want to file individual suits; they want to join the Hollywood bandwagon and convince Congress that ISPs should bear the cost of figuring who's actually copying what without permission.

[BearMountainBooks]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

A number of authors would prefer that you bought they books--they like their editors & publishers, and want them to get paid for their work as well.

Considering how authors are prone to flip out when someone says, "your ebook isn't available in my region so I downloaded it," I'm surprised more authors don't get upset when readers tell them they've only read secondhand copies of their books.

It seems like they keep shifting the goalposts--is the real issue, "you should be paying for your entertainment" (in which case, what's wrong with paying your friend for an ebook, especially if he deletes it from his drive when he gives you a copy), or is it "you should pay THE AUTHOR for your books," in which case, why don't they scream about the evils of secondhand copies?

Some authors and publishers do. I've seen authors post that they won't go to a book club to do a talk because the host mentioned that they obtained 4 library copies and 12 used books. I've seen authors blog that used books don't bring in much-needed income and to please buy new. Used books are entirely legal, of course, and the industry can't do anything about it. But don't think there aren't complaints about it.

I'm on a few forums where there are LOUD complaints from readers about how this and that series has been cancelled--and these are from people who NEVER buy new. They spend a lot of time comparing their local used bookstores and discussing bookswap and where to get such and such book used. Nothing wrong with that. But it is ironic that they then complain about publishers when a favorite series get cancelled.

Conclusion: It's a dog-eat-dog world. Nothing new there!

[xg4bx]

heres a crazy idea. how about instead of fiddling with things like SOPA or whatever how about adding a buck or 2 to your monthly internet bill that goes into some type of 'piracy recoupment' fund?

i know everybody doesn't pirate but i think a buck is worth keeping government/hollywood hands off the internet.

[Falcao]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

heres a crazy idea. how about instead of fiddling with things like SOPA or whatever how about adding a buck or 2 to your monthly internet bill that goes into some type of 'piracy recoupment' fund?

i know everybody doesn't pirate but i think a buck is worth keeping government/hollywood hands off the internet.

You are right, it's crazy. Today it will be a couple of bucks, tomorrow they will claim it is not enough and will want more and more. That is the way thugs behave.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

heres a crazy idea. how about instead of fiddling with things like SOPA or whatever how about adding a buck or 2 to your monthly internet bill that goes into some type of 'piracy recoupment' fund?

i know everybody doesn't pirate but i think a buck is worth keeping government/hollywood hands off the internet.

Canada did that with digital media for awhile. There was an extra surcharge on CD-Rs, cassettes and minidiscs (and possibly MP3 players, but my memory is hazy), and the extra surcharge really did nothing for artists, who the cash was supposed to (but rarely did) go to.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

heres a crazy idea. how about instead of fiddling with things like SOPA or whatever how about adding a buck or 2 to your monthly internet bill that goes into some type of 'piracy recoupment' fund?

You're suggesting that the honest majority should fund unlimited downloading by the dishonest minority?

[Latinandgreek]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You're suggesting that the honest majority should fund unlimited downloading by the dishonest minority?

I wouldn't exactly say that 'honest' people are in the majority.

[Joykins]

Originally Posted by xg4bx

heres a crazy idea. how about instead of fiddling with things like SOPA or whatever how about adding a buck or 2 to your monthly internet bill that goes into some type of 'piracy recoupment' fund?

i know everybody doesn't pirate but i think a buck is worth keeping government/hollywood hands off the internet.

This is probably worth doing; in fact I see some overhead charge that would compensate authors/musicians and another one that could pay into the journalism business, since so many people are consuming "free" news now but journalists doing quality work need to be paid.

[Joykins]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You're suggesting that the honest majority should fund unlimited downloading by the dishonest minority?

I think it would redefine honesty, to some extent.