Is ebook piracy on the rise?

[HarryT]

No, because your library has BOUGHT the book that you're borrowing. So have 10,000 other libraries. Library sales are a major source of revenue for many authors. Not to mention the fact that, in many countries (including the UK), authors get paid each year according to the statistics of borrowings of their books from libraries.

[acidzebra]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, because your library has BOUGHT the book that you're borrowing. So have 10,000 other libraries. Library sales are a major source of revenue for many authors. Not to mention the fact that, in many countries (including the UK), authors get paid each year according to the statistics of borrowings of their books from libraries.

So paying for a library card (I think we additionally fund these libraries through taxes and donations and such, yes?) gives unlimited access to the world of p-books (well, the ones that are in print and so forth anyway), but somehow that does not extend to e-books?

In other words, what would you say if I checked out the paper version from my local library (thus preserving these borrowing statistics), located the e-book version somewhere on the net, and read that instead? As a bonus the condition of the paper book won't deteriorate during my lending period. And if you are with me up to that point, why bother checking out a physical copy at all? A ping to the library statistics server should suffice. That + my taxes + my library card = reading joy for all.

How do you feel about format-shifting, Harry? Ever ripped a CD? Recorded a TV show?

I would happily pay a yearly fee for the right to read as many ebooks as I like. Just tell me where to sign.

[pdurrant]

I think your logic falls down at the point where the library doesn't need to buy a copy of the book any more.

I'm not keen on the idea of a flat fee for all-you-can-read. It would only work if someone kept stats on how many people read which books, and I don't really want governments (or private organizations) to be keeping tabs on exactly what everyone is reading.

Paul

Originally Posted by acidzebra

So paying for a library card (I think we additionally fund these libraries through taxes and donations and such, yes?) gives unlimited access to the world of p-books (well, the ones that are in print and so forth anyway), but somehow that does not extend to e-books?

In other words, what would you say if I checked out the paper version from my local library (thus preserving these borrowing statistics), located the e-book version somewhere on the net, and read that instead? As a bonus the condition of the paper book won't deteriorate during my lending period. And if you are with me up to that point, why bother checking out a physical copy at all? A ping to the library statistics server should suffice. That + my taxes + my library card = reading joy for all.

[snip]

I would happily pay a yearly fee for the right to read as many ebooks as I like. Just tell me where to sign.

[acidzebra]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I think your logic falls down at the point where the library doesn't need to buy a copy of the book any more.'

No, it doesn't - that is pretty much the point of the digital information age, you don't NEED the physical copy in stock.

I "lend" book X from the library and ping the library statistics server (using my library account, formerly tied to my library pass), it records one use and they still pay out authors depending on usage. As for tracking, libraries already track your book use - no change there.

I could think of flat-fees for heavy readers, X-books per months deals, usage-based, the possibilities of the digital library as a counterpart to the old-fashioned library with flat fees are endless.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

..

I'd agree with the first statement, which is why I do not agree with the second. If a company comes up with a DRM system that people do not complain about, and it increases their profit more than a non-DRM system will, they will continue to use it, and make more money.



Yes... we've just covered all of this ground, without actually establishing a rise in e-book piracy! (Sad, isn't it?) But that doesn't mean there is no problem... piracy does exist, the e-book industry has not managed to solidify into a vibrant industry yet, and the two may indeed be related. Not the only related factors, mind you... quality of reading devices, cost of devices and e-books, availability of titles, are all part of the equation... but it's still too early to determine which is more of the problem. So we try to deal with piracy here, and discuss the other issues elsewhere.
...

DRM - Actually, what iTunes and Amazon have shown is that DRM doesn't matter, or rather that it isn't the large factor. If DRM won't get you more money, why go to that extra step? Right now, DRM is purely a safety blanket for the publishers. It lets them stick their toes in the water while feeling safe about it. With Amazon showing that DRM free music doesn't particularly harm sales, I would be shocked if Apple doesn't insist that they be allowed to drop the DRM. DRM just doesn't translate to extra dollars in the publishers pockets.

piracy - The reason I raise this flag is because I think that this is truly the only issue that shapes the debate. If piracy does not significantly effect online sales, then there is no real point to coming up with some alternate funding source. You just sale the ebooks on line via Amazon or any other existing online store and away you go. Removing DRM basically will help to get consumers who aren't sure which e-Reader to get off the fence. Look how the sales of Blu-Ray DVD's have soared since it became apparent that Blu-Ray was going to win the format wars. All those people who didn't want to risk spending a lot of money on the losing format are now buying.

The beauty of e-books is that without DRM, it's easy to convert content from one format to another. I have a couple of Sony eReaders, a 500 and a 505. Right now, it appears that the Kindle is way ahead on both sales and content available, though it pretty hard to be sure. I can take a LRF file, run it through a converter program and read it on a Kindle with no problem at all. While I might be willing to risk having to re-buy books if Sony gets out of the content business, many if not most are not. I suspect that once there is a clear winner in the format wars, you will see sales jump much like the blu-ray sales have jumped.

[pdurrant]

Your scenario only takes into account the existing usage fees some libraries currently pay. It does not take into account the capital cost of the original purchase of the books.

I didn't realise you were thinking of flat fees in terms of loans from a library - that might work. A general flat fee administrated for all reading matter doesn't work.

Paul

Originally Posted by acidzebra

No, it doesn't - that is pretty much the point of the digital information age, you don't NEED the physical copy in stock.

I "lend" book X from the library and ping the library statistics server (using my library account, formerly tied to my library pass), it records one use and they still pay out authors depending on usage. As for tracking, libraries already track your book use - no change there.

I could think of flat-fees for heavy readers, X-books per months deals, usage-based, the possibilities of the digital library as a counterpart to the old-fashioned library with flat fees are endless.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

What the publishing industry needs is a strong trade association, akin to the RIAA, which will go after criminals in the same manner that the RIAA has so admirably done in the music world. The problem is, at present, that there is nobody in the publishing world to take on these criminals.

Or an organisation to take on the criminals that sells the Cybook and therefore selling copyrighted material without permission.

Your inconsistency in what you admire is rather disturbing.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by acidzebra

So paying for a library card (I think we additionally fund these libraries through taxes and donations and such, yes?) gives unlimited access to the world of p-books (well, the ones that are in print and so forth anyway), but somehow that does not extend to e-books?

That's correct.

Some libraries these days do offer e-Book loans, but these are legally-bought e-Books where again the author gets compensated. It's not downloads per se that I have a problem with - I have no ethical problem at all with you downloading an eBook and then buying the paper version to compensate the author. Just as long as the author gets compensated.

How do you feel about format-shifting, Harry? Ever ripped a CD? Recorded a TV show?

Neither format shifting nor time shifting are depriving anyone of income. I have no problems with either.

I would happily pay a yearly fee for the right to read as many ebooks as I like. Just tell me where to sign.

How much would you be willing to pay? I spend approximately $5000 a year on books (paper and e-Books); would you be willing to pay $5000 a year? Would it be fair for me to pay less than I'm spending at present? If I did pay less, other people would be subsiding my book buying, which doesn't seem very fair to me.

[godel10]

Originally Posted by HarryT

How much would you be willing to pay? I spend approximately $5000 a year on books (paper and e-Books); would you be willing to pay $5000 a year?

In this particular case I would say that an adequate fee is to pay the amount of money you are paying right now to the authors (with e-books there is no more need for intermediaries). How much money of the $5000 do you think that is for the authors? I am pretty sure that this is less than $50/month. Take a look at http://answers.google.com/answers/th...id/726138.html

[slayda]

Just to add to the confusion, what about e-libraries that are operating legally, some with fee ($$$) and some Free for checkout? E.g.

• http://www.libwise.com $$$
  

• http://www.libwise.com/servlet/mw?t=...k&catid=1&li=6 Free?

• http://www.libwise.com/servlet/mw?t=...k&catid=1&li=4 $$$

• http://www.libwise.com/ozebooks/ Free?

• http://www.libwise.com/northridge/ $$$

[slayda]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Very respect, it's very different.

If you tap into a power line or water main you are taking away a limited physical resource. Every litre of water that you take is 1 litre less for other people.

If you build an "unauthorised" receiver for electromagnetic signals broadcast from a satellite, you aren't taking anything away from anyone else. That is a situation precisely analogous to book piracy - you're taking something without paying for it, but you're not taking it away from other people. Of course that doesn't mean that it's not "wrong", but it is different from taking water or electricity.

I disagree with you here. The "owners" of the electromagnetic signals broadcast from a satellite are bombarding me (perhaps against my wishes) with their signal. I.e. they are freely "giving" me their signal whether I want it or not. Perhaps both legally and morally I have no right to use the signal without paying but "physically" it is quite different. To "pirate" an ebook, I have to "virtually" go somewhere and make an actual effort to obtain the "signal". But with the electromagnetic signals broadcast from a satellite, I just have to utilize (or manipulate) what they "gave" to me.

[jakewastaken]

Originally Posted by tompe

Or an organisation to take on the criminals that sells the Cybook and therefore selling copyrighted material without permission.

Your inconsistency in what you admire is rather disturbing.

Seriously though, there is not a single thing admirable about the way the RIAA operates. Authors would get EVEN LESS money than they already do.

Associations like that are archaic and hurtful to the entire media industry.

If you sit quietly for a moment you can hear their death knell swelling and carrying with the wind.

Even if a literary equivalent emerged it would only harm end users who got caught dipping their toe into the oceanic-sized "darknet." I don't know anyone with a serious pirating habit that has been threatened or "caught" in any way by the RIAA or the MPAA. All of these poorly thought out schemes to keep their material from being copied only end up hampering and irritating their own customer base. The real criminals they want so badly to thwart are always a step ahead.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by slayda

The "owners" of the electromagnetic signals broadcast from a satellite are bombarding me (perhaps against my wishes) with their signal.

You're not telling us you're all upset because all those invisible EM waves broadcasting content from the Playboy Channel are washing all over you? (Or would it be Lifetime?) Should I be as upset because local radio stations are bombarding my airwaves with conservative Republican propaganda? Or acid rock?

Come on. Since there is no study in the world that states that such signals descending on everything without a dish in front of it affect any plant, animal or mineral in the process, there is no reason to attack the "electromagnetic shower" you're getting from it. That's just being specious.

Satellite TV services are legitimate operations, authorized by the FCC and other international authorities to use leased wavelengths for their service. In exchange for the lease, which pays to the authorities, the FCC et al has arranged with governments to require anyone wanting to access those airwaves to use only authorized equipment to do so. Legally speaking, you do not have the "right" to build your own satellite dish and decoder box to obtain their signal for free. Your government says so.

You may not like such an arrangement, but as it benefits the majority of viewers, the satellite company, and the government, the government considers it a legitimate arrangement, and violators subject to prosecution.

Piracy is a two-way street. The people who give away content without compensating the owners for it are in the wrong. The people who take the content without compensating the owners for it are in the wrong. All this stuff about "I can take stuff because it's right here" doesn't make a person any less wrong.

[jakewastaken]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Piracy is a two-way street. The people who give away content without compensating the owners for it are in the wrong. The people who take the content without compensating the owners for it are in the wrong. All this stuff about "I can take stuff because it's right here" doesn't make a person any less wrong.

I don't think anyone is claiming piracy isn't wrong. Can we stop harping on the words right and wrong. They are meaningless in this discussion. Life isn't fair. People break rules; they break the law. You're never going to get them to feel bad about it.

The people reading illicit material are not waiting for your acceptance. There is no sense of entitlement. It's much more likely that people have problems with authority or just don't give a rats ass about legality. They don't feel they have the right to break the law, they just DO it.

"Is piracy moral?" and "Is piracy on the rise?" are two distinctly different questions.

[slayda]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

You're not telling us you're all upset because all those invisible EM waves broadcasting content from the Playboy Channel are washing all over you? (Or would it be Lifetime?) Should I be as upset because local radio stations are bombarding my airwaves with conservative Republican propaganda? Or acid rock?

Come on. Since there is no study in the world that states that such signals descending on everything without a dish in front of it affect any plant, animal or mineral in the process, there is no reason to attack the "electromagnetic shower" you're getting from it. That's just being specious.

Satellite TV services are legitimate operations, authorized by the FCC and other international authorities to use leased wavelengths for their service. In exchange for the lease, which pays to the authorities, the FCC et al has arranged with governments to require anyone wanting to access those airwaves to use only authorized equipment to do so. Legally speaking, you do not have the "right" to build your own satellite dish and decoder box to obtain their signal for free. Your government says so.

You may not like such an arrangement, but as it benefits the majority of viewers, the satellite company, and the government, the government considers it a legitimate arrangement, and violators subject to prosecution.

Piracy is a two-way street. The people who give away content without compensating the owners for it are in the wrong. The people who take the content without compensating the owners for it are in the wrong. All this stuff about "I can take stuff because it's right here" doesn't make a person any less wrong.

You totally missed my point, Steve. The point is that they give me the EM signal, then pass a law that says I must pay to use it. With ebook piracy, the owner is not giving me anything. I have to reach out to the darknet and take it. I.e. my point was that "stealing" EM signals is not physically the same as "stealing" copies of ebooks - whether or not it is the same from a legal and/or moral perspective.

And yes I know that the Government is doing what "they" think best for the majority. Unfortunately I am a member of the smallest minority in the world, the individual who is me. But that is a whole other issue.