Do you pirate books and why?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by WritePR

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

Downloaders don't "take" anything, it has nothing to do with stealing.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by CWatkinsNash

Torrenting is a very useful technology that's getting a bad rap

Torrenting is a very useful distribution technology that is getting a bad rap due to all the negative information being spread by companies who's business model comes from having a distribution monopoly. I wonder if that's a coincidence.

[Quexos]

That's not being a responsible citizen, that's being a snitch.

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?

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by Catlady

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.

The point is that the kind of writing that survives momentary interest -- or even the interest of a few decades -- is often the kind that took a lifetime of constant work. Whitman was a postal worker for most of his life and wrote a great book, but if you think about it, he was only able to write that one.

You're giving your own opinion an incredible amount of weight. You seem ready to say that [insert name of revered and influential writer from two centuries ago] isn't as good as [insert name of author you'd prefer to read] simply because you think so. I happen to hate Dickens, but I also understand he's necessary.

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.

I can't fathom why you'd infer that from what I said. No offense, but if that's how carefully you read, then I can understand why it doesn't matter to you how carefully people write.

Here's the point: Ensuring that writers who publish and expect to be paid for being widely read are actually paid when they're widely read allows them to devote more time to their craft and their oeuvre, which, if they're good, is reflected in the quality, consistency, and breadth of the work itself. This isn't about the first novel as much as it is the second and the tenth.

Here's an analogy: A director busts his ass and spends tons of money to make a blockbuster flick. It's scheduled to appear in a single theater in L.A. But on the night of the premiere, a theater down the street, which has obtained a bootleg copy, shows the exact same film for free and continues to do so from that point on. And the theater owner's friends, who run theaters in every other town, receive copies of the copy and do the same.

One could argue that no one has stolen anything because people have only copied, not physically stolen, the original film. But if the filmmaker garners praise and popularity and still loses everything because no one is actually buying the experience of seeing the film, then how likely is it that that director will be able to make a second movie at all, let alone, with the same budget and level of care?

Forget the moral issue for a moment. Virginia Woolf wrote A Room of One's Own not only as a feminist but also as a writer who required an isolated room and a vast amount of time. Not everyone can afford either thing. If she'd had to work a day job and not been paid for her writing, posterity would have lost.

Forget the question of whose taste is valid. I'm not a fan of Spielberg's, but many people are. Would Spielberg fans have wanted him to be forced to stop with his first film, or to have to make low-budget indies instead of "Schindler's List" because everyone was downloading torrents instead of going to the movies? Well, if you wouldn't deny those fans, then don't be an anti-intellectual snob and deny the rest of us Samuel Beckett. Insisting it didn't matter if he got paid would have reduced or possibly even killed his output and we might not have had Endgame or "All Strange Away."

[Belfaborac]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Downloaders don't "take" anything, it has nothing to do with stealing.

Of course downloaders take something, they just don't take that something away.

Basically it's an action which current laws are not equipped to handle. However, just because the action does not fit the old fashioned definition of stealing does not mean it's not dishonest.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by Belfaborac

Of course downloaders take something, they just don't take that something away.

Basically it's an action which current laws are not equipped to handle. However, just because the action does not fit the old fashioned definition of stealing does not mean it's not dishonest.

What they're stealing is an experience. If you go to a bar with a cover charge and sneak past the bouncer, you might not steal the one drink included with the price of admission -- you might not drink at all -- but what you're taking is an experience that cost time and money to create and was offered at a price.

Is the person who sneaks into a club hurting anyone literally? If s/he's the only one, then possibly not. But by not honoring the agreement to pay for the experience, they invalidate the agreement itself. By deciding they won't pay, they create a precedent -- why should anyone pay? -- and, if a crucial number of people concur, then the bar they enjoyed goes out of business.

The people who are hurt: The owners, the workers, the performers and, eventually, the legitimate customers who liked going there regularly.

If people don't think virtual books carry the same financial weight as real books, then fine. They can use virtual money to pay and see whether the dip in their bank accounts matters to them. If it does, then that same dip probably matters to the author.

If said author is wealthy or has been dead for several decades, then it perhaps it doesn't matter as much. But most of the professional writers I've ever met were alive and either poor or as temporarily rich as their last advance allowed.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

The point is that the kind of writing that survives momentary interest -- or even the interest of a few decades -- is often the kind that took a lifetime of constant work.

Really? I cannot think of any example. All books I have read that survived a long time did not take so long time to write.

[MCSmarties]

There is no such thing as "pirating" or "stealing" intellectual property.

It's properly called "copying".

Whether it is "right" or "wrong" to do so is a separate question, even offical opinion differs quite widely between European and American legislators (see the controversy about ACTA).

But at least people should be aware that the semantics in this case have been greatly distorted by the publishing industry. questioncopyright.org attemps to discuss this philosophical question in depth.

Try the following essay for some insights:
"The Surprising History of Copyright and The Promise of a Post-Copyright World".

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by tompe

Really? I cannot think of any example. All books I have read that survived a long time did not take so long time to write.

Leaves of Grass was the very first example I gave. Did you not notice?

Other obvious examples: Ulysses. Finnegan's Wake. A Rebours. Madame Bovary.

And here's the ridiculous thing: You're not even arguing against what I actually said.

And that's assuming you've actually researched the amount of time the lasting books you've read took to write (to the extent you actually could if you were talking about, say, Aeschylus).

You're leaving out at least four additional factors:

1. The luxury of time afforded the writer who's paid impacts their time-efficiency while writing.

2. You haven't factored in the amount of time and practice it took for the writer of that one book to reach the level of craft at which it could be of that quality and yet written at that speed.

3. A body of work isn't down to that one book. No one says that, because Picasso could whip off one painting in a day, he didn't need free time to paint. No one says that because P. needed the continuity afforded by constant inexhaustible effort to create a body of work that contains a fair number of great paintings. Some painters work all their lives and only produce a few.

4. Time is measured by the hour as well as the day. Virginia Woolf wrote as painstakingly as she did rapidly. She averaged ten drafts at least per book. It looks like she didn't need extra time to write until you see that she spent as much time revising as knocking it out.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

You're giving your own opinion an incredible amount of weight. You seem ready to say that [insert name of revered and influential writer from two centuries ago] isn't as good as [insert name of author you'd prefer to read] simply because you think so. I happen to hate Dickens, but I also understand he's necessary.

Huh? Where did I compare writers across eras? Or say anything at all about what I like to read or not read? I said I don't care about the author's struggles or lack thereof (except as a matter of idle curiosity). I don't care if this book took the author twelve years to finish or that book took the author twelve months--I care only about the final product.

I can't fathom why you'd infer that from what I said. No offense, but if that's how carefully you read, then I can understand why it doesn't matter to you how carefully people write.

Really? Sounds to me like you think the more time a writer can devote to writing, without the pesky distraction of a day job, the better the writer's output will be, as though time automatically equals improved quality.

Furthermore, your inference that I don't care about how carefully people write is way off base. What I don't care about is how long it takes them to write carefully and well--that will vary with the individual. The process that the writer goes through to produce the book is irrelevant. I only read and then judge the book itself.

The rest of your comment has nothing to do with what I said. Nowhere have I defended the wholesale dissemination of copyrighted material.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by MCSmarties

There is no such thing as "pirating" or "stealing" intellectual property.

It's properly called "copying".

I've already made the point that the physical act is copying rather than stealing. But as in the case of the patron who sneaks into an almost-empty bar with a cover charge, what's being stolen is the paid experience and the repercussions are in the precedent and the collective result.

Whether it is "right" or "wrong" to do so is a separate question, even offical opinion differs quite widely between European and American legislators (see the controversy about ACTA).

I'm not arguing about the mindset of the person who downloads a torrent of a book -- I'm not interested in Boolean ideas about their morality. I'm only talking about possible pragmatic repercussions -- financial and artistic -- for the person who created the work.

But at least people should be aware that the semantics in this case have been greatly distorted by the publishing industry. questioncopyright.org attemps to discuss this philosophical question in depth.

No doubt the copyright issue has been manipulated by powerful and shady individuals. No doubt some artists have benefited from the exposure afforded by free distribution (even as Metallica alienated the world by insisting no artist could).

But don't assume that anyone who makes the argument that authors should be paid is in favor of the actions of the RIAA or the excessive litigation and retaliation of huge publishers and music labels. The same companies that favor threats and stiff penalties for piracy often steal from the original artists as well. No point in framing either side as inherently pure or corrupt.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by Catlady

Huh? Where did I compare writers across eras? Or say anything at all about what I like to read or not read? I said I don't care about the author's struggles or lack thereof (except as a matter of idle curiosity). I don't care if this book took the author twelve years to finish or that book took the author twelve months--I care only about the final product.

When you respond to a specific argument, which makes those comparisons, by saying you don't care, you have implicitly stated (as you just did again) that you don't care about the thrust of the argument, including those comparisons. If that's not what you mean, then it's up to you to make the distinction clear.

Secondly, if you truly care about the quality of the book (I won't call it a product -- Faust is not a brand of hairspray) then you do care how long it took to write and how much preparation was involved because, without those factors, you wouldn't be holding that book.

If the alternative is not to have that book at that level of quality, then the time involved matters to you after all and you're not engaged in a silly contest as to who can write the best in the least amount of time in order to disqualify that slow guy in the corner named Flaubert.

If that's true, then you agree with me and it's unclear where your point of contention actually lies.

Really? Sounds to me like you think the more time a writer can devote to writing, without the pesky distraction of a day job, the better the writer's output will be, as though time automatically equals improved quality.

I've known nationally published novelists since I was fourteen years old and the consensus has always been that they want to sell their books so that they can continue to have enough time to write.

Let's apply your reasoning to classical music:

"Really? Sounds like you think the more time a classical pianist has to practice, without the pesky distraction of a day job, the better their playing will get, as though time automatically equaled quality."

In fact, that's exactly what happens -- not because "time automatically equals quality" but because most classical pianists at any level require five to eight hours of practice a day to improve significantly, at least at first.

You make it sound as if I'm a snob who disparages writers with day jobs. That's not it at all. William Carlos Williams was a doctor all his life and, as a writer, he isn't alone in that respect.

But Williams is only one kind of writer. Instead of favoring only his type -- writers who choose to or must have day jobs -- I think it's better to understand and support writers of many kinds.

I'm a writer with other kinds of jobs and I expect I always will be. I doubt I'll be able to quit editing and being a studio musician until I'm old enough to retire. I'm not and never will be a popular writer -- I'm not interested and, besides, writing's the place where I don't have to compromise for anyone else.

I'm not making this argument for myself.

I might be a full-time editor/musician and part-time novelist, poet and critic, but I also have the ability to empathize with and to follow the lives of people who write for a living and have the talent and need to do so.

And I recognize that, without being paid, a lot of writers would never have gotten to do their best work. And that would have been a shame.

Support the talented writers you read and know. If they choose to publish for free and have jobs, then praise them lavishly and take them to dinner. If they're pros or suck at everything else, then pay them for their services. I can't see the harm in that.

Don't do it because the alternative is to be fined, or because some ass at a major publisher feels that all pirates are scum. Do it to be a nice person to the writer who gave you that experience.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

Leaves of Grass was the very first example I gave. Did you not notice?

Other obvious examples: Ulysses. Finnegan's Wake. A Rebours. Madame Bovary.

And here's the ridiculous thing: You're not even arguing against what I actually said.

Why am I not? With "often" I thought you meant "most book" but maybe that was not what you meant. Because I do not believe that it is true that most book that have survived took a lifetime to write.

And that's assuming you've actually researched the amount of time the lasting books you've read took to write (to the extent you actually could if you were talking about, say, Aeschylus).

No science fiction book that has survived in that way took a lifetime to write. And authors like Jane Austen, Georgett Heyer, Conan Doyle, and soo on did not spend a liftime writing one book.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by tompe

Why am I not? With "often" I thought you meant "most book" but maybe that was not what you meant. Because I do not believe that it is true that most book that have survived took a lifetime to write.

It sounds as if there's a communication issue, because that's not what I said. Look at my examples. The lifetime aspect can have to do with working up to that book, writing the books that make that one great book possible, or simply having the extra time that one doesn't factor in if one only marks the dates of initiation and completion.

No science fiction book that has survived in that way took a lifetime to write. And authors like Jane Austen, Georgette Heyer, Conan Doyle, and soo on did not spend a liftime writing one book.

Ah, but Jane Austen, like the Brontes, would have had the luxury of time intially whether her books proved successful or not.

And the series of books she wrote is effectively a single book, if you consider that the time she spent writing them all is cumulative.

Consider the number of symphonies, quartets, concertos, choral pieces and operas by Mozart. Now consider the effect that not being paid might have had on his output (Mozart the strudel packer). Would you really be willing to sacrifice any of his music to the idea he would have been just as good if he'd had a day job? Which masses and symphonies would you want to do without?

[Belfaborac]

The Mozart example doesn't really work that well. Mozart wrote his first symphony in a month at the age of eight and his last three (39,40, 41) in the space of a few weeks. Despite being "rushed", they've been "fairly enduring". On the other hand there are plenty symphonies which have taken years or decades to write and which do not even begin to approach the quality of K.16.

The same is true for writing books - decades spent writing is no guarantee of quality.