Is ebook piracy on the rise?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by acidzebra

What I am getting at, if we could find a way to notify the library of the books we're "virtually loaning", and they pay out the authors based on usage, and all this is covered by my library card and the taxes which pay for the library, who stands to lose?

Nobody would lose - that would be a good system and I'd like to see it happen.

[jakewastaken]

I do feel bad about piracy. I just enjoy it more than I happen to feel bad about it. And that doesn't mean I barely feel bad about it, it means that I have an extremely intense love affair with media of all forms. By your standards I'm immoral. I'm okay with that


Go ahead and weep for humanity now.

[HarryT]

No weeping from me, Jake. I disagree with your viewpoint, but the choice is yours to make. I hope that, once you're no longer a student and are earning a reasonable salary, that you'll perhaps then re-think your view and start compensating the authors whose books you're reading. As I've said, it's not the downloading that I have any issues with, but the fact that the author isn't getting anything from it. If one buy the pBook too so that the author gets his money, then I'm cool with that. That's what I'd do, but that's just my POV.

[jakewastaken]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No weeping from me, Jake. I disagree with your viewpoint, but the choice is yours to make.

That it is my good man, that it is.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by acidzebra

What I am getting at, if we could find a way to notify the library of the books we're "virtually loaning", and they pay out the authors based on usage, and all this is covered by my library card and the taxes which pay for the library, who stands to lose?

Originally Posted by HarryT

Nobody would lose - that would be a good system and I'd like to see it happen.

I don't see it that way. As described I see publishers and authors losing out considerably through loss of sales to libraries, unless the usage fees increased a lot.

I think a scheme involving libraries and eBooks is entirely possible, but I'd like to see it work much more like the scheme for pBooks:

Libraries buy eBooks. Libraries loan the eBooks out to individuals for fixed periods of time. Libraries can only loan out as many copies as they have bought.

Indeed, I believe there are libraries operating such systems now, although horribly encumbered by DRM.

What you're suggesting is more a collections agency than a library.

Paul

[acidzebra]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I don't see it that way. As described I see publishers and authors losing out considerably through loss of sales to libraries, unless the usage fees increased a lot.

More losses than when people just pirate the books? On a side note, I have always thought my library card came ridiculously cheap - which is why I always donated money during their 'we need more money to keep things running' drive. Ironically, moving to digital media and storage would reduce the need for physical space and librarians running around organising things, reducing overall cost.

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Libraries buy eBooks. Libraries loan the eBooks out to individuals for fixed periods of time. Libraries can only loan out as many copies as they have bought.

Again, I don't think you can keep up this "discrete units of culture" thought. Electronic media is endlessly reproducible at zero additional cost. Usage count is what, um, counts - not unique copies, as they won't exist any longer. Or at least not exclusively.

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Indeed, I believe there are libraries operating such systems now, although horribly encumbered by DRM. What you're suggesting is more a collections agency than a library.

Yes, DRMd (which is a fail), restricted number of formats (fail again), and not everything is available (fail 3x!). As for the collections agency comparison, maybe (although I don't see all that much difference with the way libraries operate now), but if the format in which data is kept changes (from paper to strings of 1s and 0s), it seems reasonable that the institutions that handle this data must change as well.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Sorry, but right and wrong are at the very heart of the debate. It is only by making the people who currently feel that they have some "right" to read books without paying for them realise that they are taking money away from the authors (whose work they presumably enjoy) and are doing wrong by them that one has any chance of changing their behaviour. Saying it's "illegal" is meaningless.

We've been over this time and time again, and you still don't get it.

You are correct in that "right and wrong are at the very heart of the debate." But if you think that authors have something to do with this debate, you need a good stiff dose of reality.

Why is it right for a publisher to make money from a long-dead author?
Why is it right for the descendants of an author to make money from a work they did not author?
Why is it right for an author to take from the public domain and not give back?

To throw your words back at you:
It is only by making the people who currently feel that they have some "right" to own ideas without paying for them realize that they are taking money away from the public (whose work they used to create their book, and profit from it) and are doing wrong by them that one has any chance of changing their behavior.

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'd be genuinely interested to know how you morally justify your actions.

Simple. it's not immoral to steal from thieves.

[HarryT]

This discussion, Lauzon, has been primarily about current books by living authors. Dragging up copyright term issues is obscuring the issue to no good purpose. I'm sure that even you would accept that a living author is entitled to be paid for his or her work .

[acidzebra]

Originally Posted by HarryT

This discussion, Lauzon, has been primarily about current books by living authors. Dragging up copyright term issues is obscuring the issue to no good purpose.

I would say it is directly relevant - like I said, the system which governs, controls, and disseminates content is broken. This system governs the works of the dead and the living, and of those to come.

This was posted earlier:

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Remember too that, when once it ceases to be considered as wrong and discreditable to invade literary property, no person can say where the invasion will stop. The public seldom makes nice distinctions. The wholesome copyright which now exists will share in the disgrace and danger of the new copyright which you are about to create. And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the works of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living.

And then you said:

Originally Posted by HarryT

Precisely, Paul. Words of wisdom indeed.

I did wonder at the time why you agreed with those words - as they say in a rather nice way "the new copyright system sucks and people won't take it, and as a result living authors will be hurt".

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by acidzebra

I did wonder at the time why you agreed with those words - as they say in a rather nice way "the new copyright system sucks and people won't take it, and as a result living authors will be hurt".

Why do I agree with them? Because I think that Macauley was absolutely right in saying that the "rules" about how works of dead authors can be used must ultimately be the detriment of living authors. I'm certainly no fan of enormously long copyright terms.

[rlauzon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

This discussion, Lauzon, has been primarily about current books by living authors. Dragging up copyright term issues is obscuring the issue to no good purpose. I'm sure that even you would accept that a living author is entitled to be paid for his or her work .

It's all part of the same problem.

Check out this article:

The Gridlock Economy: How Too Much Ownership Wrecks Markets, Stops Innovation, and Costs Lives

[Olympus]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I'd have no issues with that, because the author has been compensated for the book you've read, and nobody else can read that copy at the same time that you are.

Harry I disagree as other family members (any other person) can read the book too while it's only checked out from the Library by one person.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Olympus

Harry I disagree as other family members (any other person) can read the book too while it's only checked out from the Library by one person.

It's still only one person at a time reading it, though - unless you like to read books over someone else's shoulder .

[Prospect]

Originally Posted by rlauzon

It's all part of the same problem.

Check out this article:

The Gridlock Economy: How Too Much Ownership Wrecks Markets, Stops Innovation, and Costs Lives

For what it is worth: "The Gridlock Economy" is copyrighted by its author, Michael Heller

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's still only one person at a time reading it, though - unless you like to read books over someone else's shoulder .

Quite common for parents to read along with children.