Do you pirate books and why?

[crossi]

You are very right spindlegirl. On Amazon there are over 20,000 new books released each month in fiction alone. Unless you are well known enough that people actively search for you books by name the chances of selling enough to be supported by your writing is almost nil. Piracy has nothing to do with it.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by crossi

You are very right spindlegirl. On Amazon there are over 20,000 new books released each month in fiction alone. Unless you are well known enough that people actively search for you books by name the chances of selling enough to be supported by your writing is almost nil. Piracy has nothing to do with it.

This is obviously correct. But why do you make it sound as if that means piracy is ok? One person's delusions don't justify other people taking what doesn't belong to them. So even though these unknown authors are not actually being hurt by piracy they still have every right to speak out against it.

[Prestidigitweeze]

This argument is flawed:

Because (1) some people have always found it hard to make a living from their writing and (2) others did not buy many physical books before switching to ebooks, (3) most writers haven't lost any income from piracy.

This is inductive reasoning at its worst. It's fine to talk about your own habits in the context of anecdotal experience, but it's lunacy to try to deduce the impact of piracy on scores of professional writers from your personal history as a reader and armchair writer.

I know a lot of guys who used to make a decent living writing novels in the heyday of paper. The ones who weren't wildly successful seem to be having a lot of trouble these days. I find that unfortunate. You can factor in the distraction of other kinds of media (particularly gadgets and non-passive media, in my opinion), but others' lack of interest doesn't invalidate the massive commitment of time and energy those writers have devoted to their craft.

Also, you can't talk about writers being undeserving without noticing which writers we're actually talking about: the kind who are committed and consistent enough to write for a living. In the Victorian period, you'd have been insisting that Dickens, George Eliot and George Meredith didn't deserve compensation because your nephew, the aspiring novelist, did fine without any, and laws to that effect might have prevented a number of great books from being written.

We might now have other books from the Victorian period instead, which were written by people who could manage during their off hours, but would they be of the same quality if their talent wasn't nurtured by enough money to allow them more time to perfect their work, and maintain a flow that didn't suffer from the stress of an unrealistic production schedule?

[CWatkinsNash]

Originally Posted by WritePR

They are stealing income from the people who created that book, game, movie, album, or software they downloaded ILLEGALLY...(snip)

Tell an actor, musician, or software developer you refuse to pay for their hard work and are going to download it off a torrent somewhere and they'll tell you the same thing.

Your disrespect for people who create books, music, games and other forms of entertainment is disgusting. I bet you wouldn't want to work for free!

Originally Posted by maxiart

You do know not all actors, software developers, musicians and writers agree with you, right?

Count me as an actor, writer and musician who does not agree.

To clarify: I am NOT advocating piracy. Not at all.

But I see it as something very different than "stealing income".

I also kind of feel bad for torrents. Torrenting is a very useful technology that's getting a bad rap, especially since some of the larger selections of unauthorized ebook files are found not on torrents, but on subscription newsgroup servers.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

I know a lot of guys who used to make a decent living writing novels in the heyday of paper. The ones who weren't wildly successful seem to be having a lot of trouble these days. I find that unfortunate. You can factor in the distraction of other kinds of media (particularly gadgets and non-passive media, in my opinion), but others' lack of interest doesn't invalidate the massive commitment of time and energy those writers have devoted to their craft.

How much time and energy a writer devotes to writing is completely irrelevant; all that matters is the product at the end of the process. I don't care how long the author took to write the book or how difficult or easy it was to write.

Also, you can't talk about writers being undeserving without noticing which writers we're actually talking about: the kind who are committed and consistent enough to write for a living. In the Victorian period, you'd have been insisting that Dickens, George Eliot and George Meredith didn't deserve compensation because your nephew, the aspiring novelist, did fine without any, and laws to that effect might have prevented a number of great books from being written.

We might now have other books from the Victorian period instead, which were written by people who could manage during their off hours, but would they be of the same quality if their talent wasn't nurtured by enough money to allow them more time to perfect their work, and maintain a flow that didn't suffer from the stress of an unrealistic production schedule?

What is your point here? Let's subsidize anyone who self-identifies as a writer so he or she can write full-time, and the end result will be great literature? Sorry, I don't buy it.

[maxiart]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

So even though these unknown authors are not actually being hurt by piracy they still have every right to speak out against it.

If they are not being hurt (as we have agreed in this hypothetical case) then I don't see what business they have complaining. Sure, they can. But to what end? Moreover, those kind of small authors rarely even make it to torents or such.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by WritePR

No, distributing something that isn't yours, or copying someone else's work is copyright infringement.

Ever told a joke at a party that someone else had told you? Did you find out who created the original joke and ask them for permission to distribute their copyrighted material?

Taking something that costs money and refusing to pay for it is STEALING.

Except that copyright infringement isn't "taking" anything. It's COPYING. When it's done, there are now TWO copies where there formerly was only one.

It is not "stealing" for me to mix flour, water, eggs, and salt in exactly the same proportions as a bakery, and make my own bread. I'm using my resources to make another one, just like theirs. It might be criminal for me to sell my bread--it might even be illegal for me to give it away--but the name of that crime would not be "theft."

Copyright infringement is not "theft" because the original isn't gone. That doesn't mean it's right, or acceptable, or not illegal--just that it isn't theft. And if you don't understand the basic meanings of words, you aren't likely to convince people to pay you for your writing.

Authors do deserve to get paid. We have bills to pay and need to eat just like you.

No, authors *who have found customers* deserve to get paid. Writing a book doesn't give you a write to payment--at least, not in non-socialist countries. (I don't think there are any countries that practice that kind of socialism.) You only get paid if you:
1) Convince people it's worth reading,
2) Set a price they're willing to pay,
3) Arrange a venue in which they can pay you for your work.

Fail at any of those steps, and you don't get paid. Price your new romance novel at $12,000 and, "deserve" or not, you won't make sales.

You seem to be saying "if they haven't paid for it, they shouldn't read it." But books have never only been read by people who paid for them. (And authors should fear a future in which only customers are readers... none of us became avid readers by paying for every book we read.) The torrented copy is not much different from the beat-up paperback handed around teenagers at a school; sure, the author was paid at some point (that torrented copy was paid for by someone), but most of the readers haven't fed into the author's royalty stream.

There *are* some differences. The beat-up copy bouncing around the high school is likely read by a couple-dozen students, not a couple-thousand. (Well. The torrented copy, unless it was written by Rowling or King, is likely not *read* by thousands, either. But it might be downloaded by them.) But until we have a legal, legitimate way to say, "I've finished this; it was awesome; here, you read it next," the torrents and download sites are going to continue to exist.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Copyright infringement is not "theft" because the original isn't gone. That doesn't mean it's right, or acceptable, or not illegal--just that it isn't theft. And if you don't understand the basic meanings of words, you aren't likely to convince people to pay you for your writing.

Unfortunately, the English language doesn't work the way you'd like it to. I wish you the best of luck in persuading people that "identity theft isn't theft because the original isn't gone".

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Unfortunately, the English language doesn't work the way you'd like it to. I wish you the best of luck in persuading people that "identity theft isn't theft because the original isn't gone".

I don't think it's just a matter of language. In 2009 the Corte di Cassazione (the Italian Supreme Court) ruled exactly that way: illict donwloading is definitely not a theft offense because the allegedly stolen good is is still available to the victim and the downloader was acquitted. A new trial for copyright infringment was to be initiated.

On the other hand, "identity theft" is a specific type of offense with its own rules and penalties.

Of course, US and UK laws may differ...

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Format C:

On the other hand, "identity theft" is a specific type of offense with its own rules and penalties.

Absolutely. My point was that, regardless of whether or not it's actually "theft" (which it clearly isn't - it's fraud, not theft), you can't and won't stop people from using the term "identity theft" to refer to it.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Unfortunately, the English language doesn't work the way you'd like it to. I wish you the best of luck in persuading people that "identity theft isn't theft because the original isn't gone".

"identity theft" != "theft". It is obvious that this is two different terms. Of course "identity theft" need not be "theft" in the same sense that "social science" (maybe Christian science is a better example ..) need not be "science". It can be theft or science but the term does not require it.

So I would say that the English language or any language do work in the was that "A X" does not need to be and "X".

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Absolutely. My point was that, regardless of whether or not it's actually "theft" (which it clearly isn't - it's fraud, not theft), you can't and won't stop people from using the term "identity theft" to refer to it.

The problem is that people are trying to use plain "theft" for copyright infringement.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by maxiart

If they are not being hurt (as we have agreed in this hypothetical case) then I don't see what business they have complaining. Sure, they can. But to what end? Moreover, those kind of small authors rarely even make it to torents or such.

You see someone breaking the law and you point it out -- isn't that what responsible citizens should do? Even when they themselves are not directly affected?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

You see someone breaking the law and you point it out -- isn't that what responsible citizens should do? Even when they themselves are not directly affected?

Do you call 911 every time another car passes you on the highway (assuming you're doing the speed limit).

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by WritePR

Well things are different here in the US. It's against the law.

Uploading content when you are not an authorized distributor and fair use does not apply is against the law in the US. Downloading is a lot less clear. At best, it could be considered contributory infringement (not direct infringement), but that is extremely difficult to prove. I'm not aware of anyone being sued for downloading.