You Will Never Kill Piracy, and Piracy Will Never Kill You

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by tompe

You are still confusing what is moral and what is legal.

Why is piracys illegal?

Why is it wrong?

Are people angry because it is wrong?

Or are they angry because it is illegal?

If downloading books were legal (like it is in Holland) the I assume you think that there are no reason for creators to get angry because people "take something without paying for it" or?

This.

Treating piracy like a moral issue is the reason it won't be stopped. If you assume it's morally wrong, then it's okay for the state to use whatever tools necessary to stamp it out but will ultimately fail at stamping it all out. However, if you treat it like a failure of a business model, then it leaves it to the creators rather than the state to figure it out, and it opens up the possibility of creators coming up with a business model that actually functions alongside their customers' behaviour.

Wesley Verhoeve (founder of Family Records music company) puts it this way:

This is not about morals. This is about smarts. It’s not about being right or wrong. It’s not about rebelling. It’s about a giant shift in consumer behavior and how we as an industry deal with that.

The idea that lending a book is morally okay but finishing a book and then sending your mother the epub file is evil and bad epitomizes this; copying a file doesn't transmigrate the action from good to bad, it's silly to pretend it does for the sake of an argument.

[spindlegirl]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

However, if you treat it like a failure of a business model, then it leaves it to the creators rather than the state to figure it out, and it opens up the possibility of creators coming up with a business model that actually functions alongside their customers' behaviour.

Especially if they keep counting each downloader as a "lost sale" I met someone, who, prior to his discovery about the tools, used to ONLY buy books if he knew he could get a pirated copy of it somewhere.

I often wonder how many "pirates" are precisely like him, bought the book, but just want to, uh, keep it? Basically keeping the copy as "proof" that he bought and paid for it.

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Whether you like it or not, the term "piracy" has been used for the unauthorised reproduction of copyrighted works for over 400 years, and your attempt to restrict it to those who do it for money has no merit. Giving away something that you have no right to give away is most assuredly wrong.

You are once again ignoring the long-established concept of fair use.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Catlady

You are once again ignoring the long-established concept of fair use.

"Giving a copy to 10,000 of your closest friends on the Internet" does not constitute "fair use", despite what some people might like to pretend. In fact it's extremely unfair for the author.

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by corroonb

400 years ago people believed in witches.

So..... Some people still believe in witches today. How does this apply to piracy?

Helen

[Quexos]

Wanting to control who can see what, where and at what price, trying to control a part of individual freedom like some so called copyright holders do is what is really wrong.
I don't care how the term has been used for the past centuries because the term was decided by those with an interest in it thus making them judge, jury and executioner. It's a form of oppression and whether you like it or not the advent of the internet has dented that oppression.
it is not and never will be wrong to fight for one's freedom to control one's own life.

Originally Posted by HarryT

Whether you like it or not, the term "piracy" has been used for the unauthorised reproduction of copyrighted works for over 400 years, and your attempt to restrict it to those who do it for money has no merit. Giving away something that you have no right to give away is most assuredly wrong.

[EowynCarter]

Originally Posted by spindlegirl

Especially if they keep counting each downloader as a "lost sale" I met someone, who, prior to his discovery about the tools, used to ONLY buy books if he knew he could get a pirated copy of it somewhere.

I often wonder how many "pirates" are precisely like him, bought the book, but just want to, uh, keep it? Basically keeping the copy as "proof" that he bought and paid for it.

My sister had an other rant a few day ago about not being to buy a book from one of her favorite authors, because it's geo restricted... The joy of expatriates unable to buy books from their native country...

Fight piracy starts with making sure people willing to buy can do so. And can do so easily.

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

The idea that lending a book is morally okay but finishing a book and then sending your mother the epub file is evil and bad epitomizes this; copying a file doesn't transmigrate the action from good to bad, it's silly to pretend it does for the sake of an argument.

Copyright deals with the right to reproduce a work, rather than the right to lend or resell a work. The issue is that we are now dealing with technologies that creates a copy of a work in the process of transferring it. Unfortunately, this has allowed rights holders to interpret copyright in ways that would have been considered as inexcusable in the past.

The problem isn't so much copyright as how rights holders are abusing copyright to sway the old balance into their (almost exclusive) favour.

[shalym]

I don't understand. First you said:

There's nothing wrong with lending your mother your reading device with the book on it - that way, only one person has the eBook, and there's no piracy.

But then, when I suggest doing exactly that, you say that it's not permitted.

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's piracy if you do it outside the terms of the way that the content is licensed to be used, and if you read the Kindle "Terms and Conditions", you'll see that what you postulate is not permitted.

So which is it?

Can you point to the section of the Kindle "Terms and Conditions" where it says that you can not have the same book on multiple devices? Or where it explicitly says that you can not loan your Kindle to someone else?

As far as I can see, it is definitely not against the terms to have multiple people reading books on different devices tied to the same account. If it were, why would Amazon have this statement on the "Manage Your Kindle" page?

You should turn synchronization off only if:

You and someone else are reading the same book, AND
The Kindles are registered to a single account

Shari

[Catlady]

Originally Posted by HarryT

"Giving a copy to 10,000 of your closest friends on the Internet" does not constitute "fair use", despite what some people might like to pretend. In fact it's extremely unfair for the author.

You've set up a straw man--I never claimed that distribution to 10,000 people is fair use. But earlier, you said:

But you're not "loaning" it to your mother; you're creating another copy of the book and GIVING that copy to your mother. Two people have a copy of the book where only one had it before. That's the fundamental difference between an eBook and a paper book, and that's why it's piracy.

There's nothing wrong with lending your mother your reading device with the book on it - that way, only one person has the eBook, and there's no piracy.

So according to you making even a single copy is a violation of copyright. Do you believe in any exception for fair use?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by shalym

Can you point to the section of the Kindle "Terms and Conditions" where it says that you can not have the same book on multiple devices? Or where it explicitly says that you can not loan your Kindle to someone else?

Certainly. Take a look at the "Use of Kindle Content" section of the Kindle Store Terms of Use:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/custom...deId=201014950

Notice that it says that content is licensed for your personal use only. I very much doubt that this includes buying 20 Kindles and lending them to all and sundry. Do you think it covers that?

[shalym]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Certainly. Take a look at the "Use of Kindle Content" section of the Kindle Store Terms of Use:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/custom...deId=201014950

Notice that it says that content is licensed for your personal use only. I very much doubt that this includes buying 20 Kindles and lending them to all and sundry. Do you think it covers that?

So, that section seems to contradict what it says on the Manage Your Kindle page about turning off whispersync.

You should turn synchronization off only if:

You and someone else are reading the same book, AND
The Kindles are registered to a single account

Why would it say that on the page if it wasn't ok to share the content?

Shari

[Giggleton]

Originally Posted by HarryT

"Giving a copy to 10,000 of your closest friends on the Internet" does not constitute "fair use", despite what some people might like to pretend. In fact it's extremely unfair for the author.

I think you are misunderstanding the network, we don't have to give anything to anyone, we simply have to allow access to everything by everyone.

Does an open server constitute piracy? If it does I do not advocate the practice.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by shalym

So, that section seems to contradict what it says on the Manage Your Kindle page about turning off whispersync.

Why would it say that on the page if it wasn't ok to share the content?

Shari

I would guess that this is intended to cover the situation where, say, a husband and wife each have a Kindle, both registered to the same account (I know several couples who do this). In that case, they may well be reading the same book on each of the Kindles.

[shalym]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I would guess that this is intended to cover the situation where, say, a husband and wife each have a Kindle, both registered to the same account (I know several couples who do this). In that case, they may well be reading the same book on each of the Kindles.

Sorry...either I can share the content by letting someone else use a Kindle registered to my account or I can't. The example you describe of a husband and wife sharing the account and content that is tied to that account is no different from my example of having an extra Kindle to loan to my mother or anyone else that I choose.

Shari