Is ebook piracy on the rise?

[acidzebra]

Originally Posted by HarryT

There's a bit of a difference between doing that and saying that you've NEVER bought a legal eBook, don't you think? As people who (supposedly) want to support eBooks, what sort of a signal does it send to publishers and authors if we don't show our support to them by buying the material that is legally available?

Hopefully it sends two signals:

a) piracy exists and there is a proven demand for your content
b) you haven't found the proper way to capitalize on your content

Piracy won't go away, period. That is understood, right? Whether or not publishers create electronic versions of their books, they will get scanned or otherwise digitized, and they will be distributed. So publishers will have to find a price point and distribution method that compares favorably. (hint: suing the crap out of random people like the RIAA does won't help - music piracy is alive and well, even in the USA).

The question is "WHY doesn't Jake buy his books". He has already indicated that economic means have something to do with it, although that can't be the entire reason. I'm willing to bet that availability is also tied into it. Jake?

[HarryT]

I suspect it's simply down to greed and an "I want to have everything right NOW" attitude that's unfortunately so prevalent in today's children. When I was a student (more years ago than I care to remember!) we accepted that we would have to wait until we got jobs and started earning money before we could have the nicer things in life.

The fact that you can't afford to buy something does NOT give you a "right" to go out and take it without paying for it.

[jakewastaken]

Originally Posted by acidzebra

Hopefully it sends two signals:

a) piracy exists and there is a proven demand for your content
b) you haven't found the proper way to capitalize on your content

Piracy won't go away, period. That is understood, right? Whether or not publishers create electronic versions of their books, they will get scanned or otherwise digitized, and they will be distributed. So publishers will have to find a price point and distribution method that compares favorably. (hint: suing the crap out of random people like the RIAA does won't help - music piracy is alive and well, even in the USA).

The question is "WHY doesn't Jake buy his books". He has already indicated that economic means have something to do with it, although that can't be the entire reason. I'm willing to bet that availability is also tied into it. Jake?

Quite true. I'm jealous of the Kindle's selection (Amazon's library makes me salivate) but I don't need the whisepernet and the unit is terribly ugly to me. The Sony reader was sexy, cheaper and easier to deal with regarding pirated material. Many of the books I want are not directly sold in the lrf format. He has a point about never ever buying ebooks. When I find something I really want to read and it's already in the format I want at a reasonable pricepoint, (hopefully under $10), it'd be easier for me to download that file and pay for it. I have to fire up Calibre a lot but, it does a great job of converting most of the books out there in other formats. Shopping on a website is much more convenient than pirating and converting. I don't go out of my way to pirate, but other people have made the books I usually like available to me and right now it's just that much more convenient. I'll buy some ebooks when I find one I want, although I don't really feel the the need to be a crusader among digital formats. E-readers are never going to completely go away. I have every confidence in the fact that I will always be able to get a new one. I don't care if other people stick to books till the end of the next century. Books rock in every format available.

Oh yeah. "Hey you damn kids, get off my lawn!"

[acidzebra]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I suspect it's simply down to greed and an "I want to have everything right NOW" attitude that's unfortunately so prevalent in today's children. When I was a student (more years ago than I care to remember!) we accepted that we would have to wait until we got jobs and started earning money before we could have the nicer things in life.

Well, aside from conjuring up an entertaining mental image of an old dalek shaking his plunger and yelling "kids these days", that is not a very constructive argument, nor do I think it is accurate (as if only people under 40 consume pirated content!). The current generation of these supposedly greedy and amoral kids was raised by your generation. And somehow I do not think homo sapiens has changed that much in a mere generation - it is the content distribution method that has changed.

I think you and I will never see eye to eye on this topic, so I will respectfully bow out.

[jakewastaken]

People like me may not make the ebooks popular, but I can tell you everyone who knows me now wants to get a dedicated reader device sometime soon. Proliferation of either format or hardware equals a win for book enthusiasts. Call me greedy all you want, I know we'll never see eye to eye either, as acidzebra has wisely pointed out. Either scanning will become more popular and more accurate or more publishers will create legit downloads. I'm happy no matter what, and I think other people will be as well. It's the people who drag their asses in this digital age who get truly screwed. Either you embrace new market trends and formats or you get eaten alive. The movie and music industries have no choice but to adapt or die, and publishers will face that same turning point at an even later date. People are willing to spend money; piracy has never completely taken over, nor will it. Let's hope they're smart about this, even though we know other industries are only barely taking the hint (I'm looking at YOU RIAA,MPAA).

I'm clearly not on morally superior ground here and I don't really want to defend myself to someone who looks down on me. I just wanted to shed some light into the true piracy situation for people who have actually embraced it. I think I'm bowing out too. I'm not advocating piracy, but let's not pretend it doesn't exist and is of such sub-standard quality that it's not even an option. It clearly is for some people, even if what they're doing isn't "right."

[axel77]

@HarryT I see this as an interesting discussion and I don't think we gain much by running around with an leveraged indexfinger. Things are complicated and I like to view several sides of a story. And yes lets not fall into a general "the next generaion is so bad" mentality, which is often secretly paired with a jealousy for them still being young, for having it easier in some aspects and not even to be sorry about it.

@jakewastaken Well the college student who wants to read a lot, but cannot aford to pay all that books is a interesting view at first. However I must say, in the past structures of society they did cater for people like you, it is the library where you could go, lend a ton of books an give 'em back 2 weeks later to exchange them for new. In my town and in my youth we hadn't to pay anything for this service, and not being U.K. the authors did not see a cent for my reading. But my parents and all of my society surrunding me was very happy for me to be reading at all.

Lets think about the "library of the future", how would it look like? Id imagine it must somehow embrace the electronic world, and as society we should not easily give up our right to just lend out books and read them. So in that future library you should be able to "lend out" a file, read it on your eReader, and give it back. But there is of course the problem I could just copy it, and yes DRMs just don't cut it. They just don't work.

Its an interesting problem we as society have to face. I'd go with Karl Marx who described how the invention of the steam machine altered all social structures, or they had to alter to cater rightly for the steam machine which required very different organisations than to harvesting a field with scythes.

Yes of course I want authors to be paid well for their work. Personally I'd like the power of the publishers reduced though. It will be interesting how we can work things out. But rambling with the index finger IMHO just doesn't cut it.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by axel77

However I must say, in the past structures of society they did cater for people like you, it is the library where you could go, lend a ton of books an give 'em back 2 weeks later to exchange them for new. In my town and in my youth we hadn't to pay anything for this service, and not being U.K. the authors did not see a cent for my reading.

They did, in that the library bought a copy of the book. For many authors, library sales form a very significant source of revenue.

Many people compare piracy to libraries, but this is a very misleading analogy. If 1000 libraries buy a copy of a book, that's 1000 sales for the author. Very often too, publishers produce special "library editions" of books which cost more than the normal book. If 1000 people download an illegally scanned copy of a book, that's zero sales for the author (well, perhaps 1 sale if you count the original book).

[jakewastaken]

Originally Posted by HarryT

They did, in that the library bought a copy of the book. For many authors, library sales form a very significant source of revenue.

Many people compare piracy to libraries, but this is a very misleading analogy. If 1000 libraries buy a copy of a book, that's 1000 sales for the author. Very often too, publishers produce special "library editions" of books which cost more than the normal book. If 1000 people download an illegally scanned copy of a book, that's zero sales for the author (well, perhaps 1 sale if you count the original book).

On the other hand, how many more people are now exposed to how many more books that they would never seek out in their local library, much less purchase from the store. If the authors care more about money then they are indeed getting screwed. If they care about recognition and exposure then things are looking up.

[axel77]

Originally Posted by HarryT

They did, in that the library bought a copy of the book. For many authors, library sales form a very significant source of revenue.

If I pirate a book, that my library next door bought, wouldn't it still be somehow comparable to lending it? Since they *did* buy that book already.

Its all so complicated...

[axel77]

Originally Posted by jakewastaken

On the other hand, how many more people are now exposed to how many more books that they would never seek out in their local library, much less purchase from the store. If the authors care more about money then they are indeed getting screwed. If they care about recognition and exposure then things are looking up.

jakewastaken, yes "globalisatoin" plays an important role with it, that I also now want much more books than just what my libary offers.

But don't forget that most authors work close to the line, not even getting close to peing payed a reasonable per hour wage for making that book. Exceptions are stars like J.K.Rowling, Stephen King and so, but for 99% its a very though job to have a life with...

[Lemurion]

My own thought is that with most paperbacks retailing for approximately U$8.00, it makes sense to consider U$6.00 a good baseline cost for an eBook.

As to darknet copies I think it's fairly clear that some downloads take away from legitimate sales, and also that others do not. If I had to guess I would think the majority of bulk downloads (torrents of 4,000 eBooks) do not take away from sales, but that some number of targeted (downloads of one specific book) do.

Now here's where it gets really tricky: what if there's no legitimate eBook available and someone buys a pbook and then downloads a darknet copy. In some cases this person buys the pbook purely to justify the eBook download. That's more a gained sale on the paper side than a lost one on the electronic.

Then there are others who download from the darknet after looking for an unavailable eBook. Those are definitely lost sales too, although these ones could be prevented by the simple process of making an eBook available.

I also believe that there are cases where someone will download a book from the darknet, and then buy another of the author's books because they liked the first. From a purely economic standpoint that's not really any different than someone who first discovers a book at the library and later goes out and buys the author's newest titles.

Then of course there are also the people who download everything a specific author has ever written from the darknet and read the lot.

The real question is always how to put numbers to each category. The first thing I would think publishers should do is make sure the book is available, and at a "reasonable" price -- which for the purpose of this discussion I'll call $9.95 based on Kindle pricing. I think it's high, but not outrageous and it's a good working figure.

Once that condition is met, the numbers should help determine the reaction. If darknet downloads are fairly small percentage of total sales, then it would likely be a better use of resources to work to increase sales rather than aggressively fight the illicit downloads. If they're a very large percentage of total sales that would likely justify a more aggressive approach.

It has been proven (see Flint et.al.) that making an eBook available for free download can lead to increased sales both for the author and that specific book. Given that information we need to first see if it does hold true for the darknet and if so whether the net gain from this factor offsets the losses from illicit downloads.

It has to be approached pragmatically, because of the nature of business. Businesses exist to make money for their stakeholders. Whichever policy is followed regarding darknet downloads should be framed with that in mind. The RIAA's crusade does not appear to have significantly affected music downloading, and appears to have accelerated any decrease in music sales. I don't consider that good business.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Lemurion

Now here's where it gets really tricky: what if there's no legitimate eBook available and someone buys a pbook and then downloads a darknet copy. In some cases this person buys the pbook purely to justify the eBook download. That's more a gained sale on the paper side than a lost one on the electronic.

I have no ethical issues with someone who downloads an eBook of something they've bought as a pBook, in the case where there's no commercial eBook available. My concerns lie with people who download eBooks and don't recompense the author (eg by buying a pBook) or even worse, download an illegal eBook where there is a "legit" one available.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Many people compare piracy to libraries, but this is a very misleading analogy. If 1000 libraries buy a copy of a book, that's 1000 sales for the author. Very often too, publishers produce special "library editions" of books which cost more than the normal book. If 1000 people download an illegally scanned copy of a book, that's zero sales for the author (well, perhaps 1 sale if you count the original book).

But it's us, the tax-payers, who provide the money for libraries to buy books, the vast majority of which we won't read.

People are forced to pay for books they don't want.
Maybe downloading books they do want could be seen as a quid pro quo.

[Razza]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Many people compare piracy to libraries, but this is a very misleading analogy. If 1000 libraries buy a copy of a book, that's 1000 sales for the author. Very often too, publishers produce special "library editions" of books which cost more than the normal book. If 1000 people download an illegally scanned copy of a book, that's zero sales for the author (well, perhaps 1 sale if you count the original book).

Harry:

I appreciate where you are coming from in your desire to support the artists who provide us with such engaging creative content, believe me! I too wish to support them whenever I can. Unfortunately, in today's "creative content distribution model" the artist is often left out of the revenue stream altogether. Unless they become a well known name able to leverage that popularity with their publisher, most writers aren't going to become rich off of their work. The term "starving artist" is well known for a reason.

About your comments concerning library's and the thought that it is misleading to compare them to peer to peer file sharing, I must respectfully disagree. They are a very good analogy! It's quite easy to see that libraries are good for writers and the publishing industry because they offer an avenue for their product to be exposed to a wider audience than their own distribution model allows. How often have you found an author at the library that you enjoyed and then wanted to read more of? I know I have often, and I ended up checking out more of that authors books, and also went and bought copies of their works with my hard earned cash. I would never have known about, read, or cared about the author if not for my local library, and the ability to sample their work for free before purchasing it. It is a pure misconcpetion that P2P file sharing hurts publishers and the recording industry. IMHO, the opposite is the case, and there are studies which support this view. I submit this link of an article from 2000, during the height of the Napster debate for your perusal:

http://news.com.com/Study+finds+Naps..._3-241065.html

I'll quote one part in particular

As reported earlier, SoundScan division VNU Marketing tested the theory by looking specifically at sales in stores near universities, where online music has been more widely adopted than in the general public. In those stores, SoundScan data shows that record sales have actually dropped 4 percent in the past two years. In stores near the 67 colleges that have banned Napster, citing an overload on their internal networks, sales have dropped 7 percent in two years.

In other words, according to the recording industry's own study, stores located near campuses where Napster was allowed and widely used were better than those at stores near campuses that banned the use of Napster. This makes complete sense, because such sharing networks create a community of like minded people who share an enjoyment of particular creative media. Such a community would tend to increase exposure to other materials that would otherwise never have happened, much like your local library exposes you to authors you never would have otherwise known about.

Perhaps the biggest problem I have with those that vehemently opposed to P2P file sharing is the assumption that people who do so, never purchase physical copies of the material they pirate. As someone who has indulged in such activity, I can absolutely refute that assumption. I spend a great deal of my own money on books, DVD's, CD's, and video games. More than most folks I suspect because through P2P file sharing, I have expanded my tastes and selections. Are there those who only pirate and never purchase? Of course there are, but I submit they would never have been purchasers in the first place! Only in the feeble mind of Record Company Executive or Publishing House Owner are sales they never would have made in the first place considered a loss.

Here's a link to a an excellent blogger who summed up my feelings about the recording industry and their war on P2P file sharing. I hope you take a look because it is excellently written and a good overview of the history of music piracy.

http://www.demonbaby.com/blog/2007/1...-birth-of.html

[slayda]

Originally Posted by acidzebra

I thought it was refreshingly honest - and I doubt Harry or anyone else here hasn't copied a song or movie or book or otherwise obtained and enjoyed content/data that strictly speaking he/they didn't have the rights to at least once in their lives.

That, or I am a bastard in a world of angels. It certainly doesn't appear that way.

Some pirated content (I'm keeping it general) I've consumed simply wasn't available in electronic format, other content was priced beyond what I thought reasonable or came with 'features' like DRM that I didn't deem acceptable.

Interesting concept here. A person who steals, but freely admits it, is seen as "refreshingly honest". Am I missing something?