Is digital copyright incompatible with technology and / or democracy?

[spindlegirl]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Paraphasing? How about actual examples of authors who have significant library sales being foolish enough to say this?

Going the other way, I live in a rather affluent community (not my block so much!) with a fair number of writers. It's surprisingly common for me to take a book out the public library and find the author has signed it.

With eBooks, where the library pays a lot more for a copy than does an individual, the author would be particularly foolish to resent library readers.

It took me a while to find this one I had read.... (like I said, not many, but some), but she used the fact that "it stings when someone tells me they read it from the library", as a prelude to her rant against actual piracy....

The quote is from This Blog Post

I love it when someone tells me they've read one of my books, and enjoyed it.

But let me tell you: I wince inside when they add: "My sister [daughter, girlfriend, whatever] lent it to me."

Admittedly, it also hurts a little when they tell me as much they took it out of a library.

I do remember nearly a decade ago, a thread I read where authors felt the same defeat when BookCrossing was popular and people swapped and circulated print books around either randomly or in dedicated groups. No copyright infringement, just people sharin' the love.

Like I said, I understand authors being upset at actual piracy, but when their work is being accessed in ways that are legal and above reproach, I don't get it.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by spindlegirl

The quote is from This Blog Post

That link is nuanced:

Admittedly, it also hurts a little when they tell me as much they took it out of a library. But because I too love libraries ( besides being a big user, I also support my library during their fundraising efforts, and by donating books I no longer use) I figure, "Okay, well then maybe they'll buy the next one...and the next one..."

It sounds to me like mixed feelings. Or an admission that the feelings aren't justified.

If authors seriously resent public library borrowing, we should see them switching from Random House or HarperCollins, which sell or lease their eBooks to libraries via Overdrive, to refusniks like Macmillan and Simon & Schuster. If you can show me an author quoted as saying he or she switched for that reason, then, at least for that author, I would have to buy it.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by spindlegirl

There are so many legal ways to enjoy content (I speak of books here) for free - they're called libraries. I've read blog posts by some authors who are indignant of even THAT.

Paraphrasing here, "I am the author of Name of Book. I receive fan mail sometimes from people praising my work up and down, only to get to the end of the email and find out that they've read it at the library!"

Indignance at piracy I can understand, but authors quickly lose me when I've done the right thing and "waited in line" for my hold to come in and given the book back after I was done, only to find it to be marginally better than piracy in the eyes of the author.

Is shelling out money I don't have the only "real way" to honor an author?

The way to a writer's heart is to buy their book on the day it is released (or at least within a week of release). That's when they have the best chance of getting onto bestseller lists that will attract other readers.

[mr ploppy]

Originally Posted by wizwor

Libraries are not free. I think you meant to say that there are so many ways to get other people to pay for content you enjoy.

We really need to appreciate that other people are paying for the 'free' things we enjoy. Sometimes they are donating their time, other times they are donating their money, most of the time, they are paying their taxes.

That would apply just as equally to the pirate sites. But the most logical endgame for piracy is we all get charged a levy on internet access to cover the "loss". And we all know none of that money will go anywhere near even midlist writers, never mind new/upcoming ones.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

That would apply just as equally to the pirate sites. ....

and the interwebz and web forums and blogs and highways and courts and police and .... it's called government a formalized implementation of society.

[Rob Lister]

Originally Posted by spindlegirl

It took me a while to find this one I had read.... (like I said, not many, but some), but she used the fact that "it stings when someone tells me they read it from the library", as a prelude to her rant against actual piracy....

The quote is from This Blog Post



I do remember nearly a decade ago, a thread I read where authors felt the same defeat when BookCrossing was popular and people swapped and circulated print books around either randomly or in dedicated groups. No copyright infringement, just people sharin' the love.

Like I said, I understand authors being upset at actual piracy, but when their work is being accessed in ways that are legal and above reproach, I don't get it.

In his introduction to the book Ford County, John Grisham wrote that he would drive city to city, county to county, with a trunk-load of the first book he got published, trying to unload copies to the local libraries.

Exposure is everything.

I guess you haven't made it until someone has pirated it.

[Kirtai]

Originally Posted by Rob Lister

In his introduction to the book Ford County, John Grisham wrote that he would drive city to city, county to county, with a trunk-load of the first book he got published, trying to unload copies to the local libraries.

Exposure is everything.

I guess you haven't made it until someone has pirated it.

I believe it was Eric Flint who said that a creators biggest enemy was obscurity, not piracy.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

It is totally monitorable if you only want to monitor a (comparatively) few torrents. If you want to monitor a meaningful proportion of the total number of torrents, then no, not so much. And that's only torrents - other P2P networks and technologies are not included in the calculation.

But ok, it's not impossible to do - you just have to devote a budget the size of a small nation's GNP to the task.

You don't seem to know what you're talking about. The above work can be achieved with a bot.

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

Really? First you would have to ensure conformity of copyright and other relevant law...everywhere. If you can do that, then the above paragraph comes into play. And then you have to ensure that no-one on the piracy side has any new ideas or comes up with any solutions to the problems posed for them, as in those new technologies that you're so sure aren't in the works even though you don't actually know at all.

The above can be achieved with a firewall. See China. see the UK blocking of thepiratebay.

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

Basically you're being wildly optimistic and naive, while seeming to have little grasp of the enormity of the task you're proposing.

Using terms like naive is emotive and insulting. In addition, you seem to have little to no grasp of the technical issues.

[Rizla]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

I assume you're joking?

Do you read the news? Did you read my initial post?

[Belfaborac]

Originally Posted by Rizla

You don't seem to know what you're talking about. The above work can be achieved with a bot.

The above can be achieved with a firewall. See China. see the UK blocking of thepiratebay.

Using terms like naive is emotive and insulting. In addition, you seem to have little to no grasp of the technical issues.

I guess it's all simple then and will be accomplished in no time at all, although why internet piracy hasn't been entirely eradicated long, long ago is somewhat of a mystery if what you claim is correct. Be that as it may, it really is no skin off my nose what you believe.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by mr ploppy

That would apply just as equally to the pirate sites. But the most logical endgame for piracy is we all get charged a levy on internet access to cover the "loss". And we all know none of that money will go anywhere near even midlist writers, never mind new/upcoming ones.

That is exactly the point. The easiest way to make piracy pointless a heavy surcharge on everybody's internet connection. Let us say US 30 to 50 a month. Sort of like the surcharges they pay in the EU on blank media. And everybody is allowed to download everything to they want.Then a new bureaucracy will be created and the politicians will distribute the money to those they favor most. We won't be able to support the writers we like unless we shell out additional money for donations.

So to those that would welcome a brave new world like that I say 'keep on pirating'.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Astrakan

The point is that if someone hasn't paid for something I have created, I don't want them enjoying the fruits of my labour. Period.

So, you believe that used books are immoral? That people who borrow a book from a friend should be paying royalties to the author?

As long as the creator (or owner) isn't giving what they created away for free, nobody should be enjoying that product for free. I've never heard a reason, motivation or excuse that have even come close to altering my views on this.

So you believe children shouldn't read or listen to music until they can pay for it themselves?

I really don't get this. ALL OF HUMAN CULTURE has included the premise that much entertainment and education is available to people who don't pay for it. As technology has developed, the amount of materials distributed for free has skyrocketed.

The idea that "if the rightsholder isn't giving it away, NOBODY SHOULD HAVE FREE ACCESS" is ridiculous. By that logic, people shouldn't receive books for their birthdays--after all, the recipient didn't pay for it.

Do you really believe books should never be given away or loaned? That friends shouldn't watch movies together unless they all paid for the disc?

[darryl]

Some of the suggested solutions here go to the very heart of the thread topic. Even if technically feasible, which they are not, the solutions proposed are draconian and incompatible with democracy. None of the technical measures suggested are close to perfect. They differ only in the number of people they do prevent. For example, the so-called Great Firewall of China is a success in the sense that it seems to work in censoring the net for the vast majority of its citizens. However, as is the history with such technology, it is in a continual war with those wishing to circumvent it. Anyone with a reasonable grasp of the technology can still circumvent it relatively easily. And projects like Tor, Freenet, etc. in working to protect privacy and freedom of speech, incidentailly make circumvention and protection of piracy easier for more and more people. See, for instance, https://tails.boum.org/. The UK decision blocking the Pirate Bay is laughable. After a major effort the Court was persuaded to make orders which are totally ineffective, as they are defeated by something as simple as a proxy. Likewise the Australian Government's ridiculous proposed blacklist, which hopefully will never be implemented.

Piracy at the moment is relatively mainstream. Any serious attack on Torrents, Usenet or other sources, even if effective, which I doubt, would simply drive pirates and those utilising them to either new or existing darknet technologies. If you doubt this download Tails, run it as a livecd and visit, say, the hidden wiki. There you will encounter links to hidden sites which facilitate some of the worst types of criminal activity. In fact, whilst looking at the Wiki itself is harmless, I suggest you might want to think twice before visiting some of the links. If they live up to their descriptions even accessing some such sites is illegal in some countries, not to mention sickening. Yet law enforcement has proved impotent to identify visitors and take down such sites, with the rare victories I have read of being the product of carelessness or stupidity. Look at bitcoin, an internet currency, being used now for anonymous transactions, many of which no doubt are used to fund illegal purchases or activities. These are the areas where pirates will retreat to if really hard pressed, which does not seem to be the case at the moment.

The best thing to do is to accept that there will always be some piracy. If the whole internet was to be shut down tomorrow, there would still be piracy. Be thankful that human nature is not as bad as it is painted. People are still buying books, and there is money to be made. Despite the bleating of the large Publishers, they remain profitable. Judging by this board, virtually all members are paying for their books. I am certainly still contributing regularly to the evil Amazon, though I have not bought a book subject to Agency Pricing and will not do so. If there is an agency author who releases a book I absolutely must read I can wait until prices come down, go to the library, buy used copies or borrow from friends, assuming, of course, that I resist the temptation for instant gratification. So far, the issue has simply not come up. I have been so pleasantly surprised by the quality of cheap and even free fiction available and I now have a long and growing queue of such material on my Kindle.

To the big publishers I say accept that there will always be some piracy, and the losses at the moment are far less than you make them out to be. The best way to minimise it is to respect your customers, make it convenient and easy to purchase your products, and keep prices reasonable. Also, respect your authors and pay them a decent share. If you don't, they will eventually go to Amazon, Smashwords, Lulu or any of the myriad of new entrants who will step in to fill the gaps you leave. Yes, you will have to endure much lower margins, but technology offers the potential for much higher volumes and, of course, big savings in costs. Amazon will only become the monopoly you profess to fear so much if you fail to adapt and compete.

[spindlegirl]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

The idea that "if the rightsholder isn't giving it away, NOBODY SHOULD HAVE FREE ACCESS" is ridiculous. By that logic, people shouldn't receive books for their birthdays--after all, the recipient didn't pay for it.

I give away second hand books all the time, for birthday gifts and Christmas gifts. Sometimes I have been the 3rd or 4th owner on average. I have books whereby only one person paid (whether me or someone else), yet dozens of people have read that exact copy.

That's one reason I love bookcrossing so much, (although I am not as involved as I used to be, because you can't pass around digital copies of books, which is most of what I use now) because with paper books the world can be one giant library. It's also why I will never completely abandon printed books.

I do have *some* books where I have been a fan of the book so much I've bought brand new copies, or someone has bought a brand new one for me, or I've bought brand new for someone else, etc. But it isn't often instantaneous, but eventually does happen. People just have to live within their means. But if it weren't for libraries, I couldn't POSSIBLY keep up with the latest and greatest. One income household and all the usual financial priorities, and all that....

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

The easiest way to make piracy pointless a heavy surcharge on everybody's internet connection. And everybody is allowed to download everything they want.Then a new bureaucracy will be created and the politicians will distribute the money to those they favor most. We won't be able to support the writers we like unless we shell out additional money for donations.

Well, Amazons KDP Select is experimenting with this, but they don't have a bureaucracy doling out the funds, it's an algorithm. It's a simple algorithm, only factoring in the number of downloads, but algorithms can be improved upon. Netflixs algorithm uses time spent watching as a factor for instance...