Is ebook piracy on the rise?

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by 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.

Somebody proposed a system in which the author was paid proportionally to votes given by users.
The content was simply available, like it is now in the darknets, but if you like what you use, you give it a high rating. The author is paid with money coming from taxes, connection fees, or similar (don't remember exactly).
I'd agree to give a percentage of one's income for unlimited access to everything.
That way authors are paid, and everybody, rich or poor, can read watch or listen everything.



But in the real word you cannot say to a millionaire "from now on jyou will have just $999.999,99"....

[axel77]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Sell sponsoring... an ad on the website where the book is bought, and inside the front or back cover of the book. For you, product placement is out. Instead, see if the sponsor wants to sell plastic toy spears and shields with your book's name on it, in their local toy stores.

First the ad on the website does what 0.02 cents per click?

And about merchandising, you don't get it, if I'm not Rowling or King, but this is my first book I hope to get some readers for... Nobody is going to make toys for this book, even if its free.

I mean the production of this toys already only starts to make sense if you have hugh quantities.

It doesn't work for 99% of the books out there.

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Yes, the production and per-unit cost equations have changed forever, thanks to digital media. But this does not address the essential fact that people who produce those creative works, whatever the per-unit cost, deserve to be compensated for their work, just like any other worker. Discussion about production differences and unit costs merely obscures the real point of this discussion.

Do you believe that creative people have no right to make money from their work? Do you believe that you, as a consumer, have no responsibility to compensate an artist, not even a dime, for a work you obtain? Do you, as a consumer, believe that you and you alone should have the final say on what someone else deserves to make from their work?

And if you do believe these things... how do you expect artists to make a living, and thereby afford the time it takes to create the works you crave? And knowing they cannot profit from their efforts, why should an artist even bother to create works someone else will simply steal?

These are the issues concerning piracy... not per-unit costs, copyright details, or DRM. Being fair to the creators must be addressed, not obscured by cost debates and endless semantics.

And, again: where's the limit?
How much is "fair" and how much is "too much", thus unfair?

[Nate the great]

I wasn't going to post this. I don't want to provide justification for pirates, but Steve's last post frankly pisses me off.


I realized something while reading this thread. I achieved insight into the ethics of piracy. Here it is:

It is no more right nor wrong to use the darknet than it is to use the public library.

Most everyone has agreed that there is nothing wrong in using a library.But it occurred to me that most have never really considered the ethics of it; they accept it because that was what they were taught at a young age.

Let's consider the library and the darknet. According to the accepted wisdom, the following is true:

Bob buys a book, and puts it in the library. A hundred people read it. This is good.

Bob buys a book, and puts it on the darknet. A hundred people read it. This is bad.

I would argue that the two situations are functionally the same. Let's dissect the ways they might not be.

Number (of copies) You have to prove the following if you want to argue that this aspect makes the darknet wrong: If I have 10 copies of an ebook on my hard disk but only paid for one, should I pay for the other nine?

Quantity (of users) It is accepted that potentially an infinite number of people could check the book out of the library. True, this would not happen because the paper copy would die first, even though the digital copy would not. But that is not a difference between the library and darknet. It is actually a difference between the analog and digital copies of the book. Since it is an aspect of the digital book, it is not relevant to the ethics of the darknet.


P.S. Steve, this is all your fault.

[pilotbob]

Ah no... the difference is not the number or quality of books read.

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Bob buys a book, and puts it in the library. A hundred people read it. This is good.

There is no copyright violation here. A legal copy is purchased and no one has violated the copyright.

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Bob buys a book, and puts it on the darknet. A hundred people read it. This is bad.

Ok, even if we accept your premis that the person that puts the ebook on the darknet buys it, there are still 100 copyright violations here.

Originally Posted by Nate the great

I would argue that the two situations are functionally the same. Let's dissect the ways they might not be.

Not the same. With the library example, only 1 person is able to read the book at a time. With the "dark net" 1 legal copy of the the book becomes 100 not-legal(legit whatever) copyies of the book. In the library, if 100 people want to read it the wait list becomes long... this generally indicates to the library they maybe should buy some more copies. They certainly wouldn't Xerox the book so they could lend more out at a time. Would everyone agree this is wrong?

Now I will say your premise is wrong. Generally the person putting the book on the darknet scanned a book he got from a library. How is this ok if Xeroxing the books is not? So, Bob has violated copywright by doing this. Then every person that downloads it is violating the copywright.

The very edge case of the same result of one book being bought and read by 100 people is true. I'll certainly give you that.

But, turns out lets say 100 libraries buy 1 copy of the book, and 1 copy is put on the darknet and 500,000 people read it. The author sold 101 copies and won't be writing another book because he is at Burger King trying to earn money to feed his family.

BOb

[nekokami]

Nate, your argument doesn't take into account the more expensive library bindings or lending payments to authors (in those countries that have them). I also think the difference between the number of times a book will be checked out of a library and the number of times the same book will be downloaded from the darknet-- even by people who will actually read the book-- is off by several orders of magnitude. It is not so much that a book could be loaned a near-infinite number of times from a local library (even assuming physical degradation does not apply), but the number of times the book is usually loaned from any given library that is at issue. This number is already factored into the cost of books, along with private loans. If the assumption is that only one person will ever buy a copy of a book and will share it freely with everyone else, the cost of that one copy is likely to go up.

[nekokami]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

Generally the person putting the book on the darknet scanned a book he got from a library.

Really? Is there some reference for this claim? I find it rather surprising.

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by axel77

People go to the cinema altough they know they can watch the movie for free in 3 years on TV.

TV and cinema are slightly different.
I was talking about exactly the same thing. Physically.

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

I wasn't going to post this. I don't want to provide justification for pirates, but Steve's last post frankly pisses me off.


I realized something while reading this thread. I achieved insight into the ethics of piracy. Here it is:

It is no more right nor wrong to use the darknet than it is to use the public library.

Most everyone has agreed that there is nothing wrong in using a library.But it occurred to me that most have never really considered the ethics of it; they accept it because that was what they were taught at a young age.

Let's consider the library and the darknet. According to the accepted wisdom, the following is true:

Bob buys a book, and puts it in the library. A hundred people read it. This is good.

Bob buys a book, and puts it on the darknet. A hundred people read it. This is bad.

I would argue that the two situations are functionally the same. Let's dissect the ways they might not be.

Number (of copies) You have to prove the following if you want to argue that this aspect makes the darknet wrong: If I have 10 copies of an ebook on my hard disk but only paid for one, should I pay for the other nine?

Quantity (of users) It is accepted that potentially an infinite number of people could check the book out of the library. True, this would not happen because the paper copy would die first, even though the digital copy would not. But that is not a difference between the library and darknet. It is actually a difference between the analog and digital copies of the book. Since it is an aspect of the digital book, it is not relevant to the ethics of the darknet.


P.S. Steve, this is all your fault.

Just asked my collegaues where the nearest library is.
6 people, 1 answer.

I also asked how to download illegal MP3s. 5 answers.

Here, in libraries you can borrow CDs and DVDs, also.
And everything is completely free. Also the card.



Just a little statistics. I suppose in the US things are different...

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

How about this clarification:

- I want your money for my product that you took, and I morally/legally deserve it.
- I want to keep my money for your product that I took, and I morally/legally deserve it.

Now what do you have?

A specification.
You can change the word "product" with "service" and rewrite all these 30 pages in a lawyer's forum: the core is always the same...

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by nekokami

Really? Is there some reference for this claim? I find it rather surprising.

Just anecdotal. Or, do you think people uploading books to the darknet are going to the book store and buying copies.

BOb

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Format C:

In your opinion is there a threshold or a limit above which is just plain wrong to demand more money?
How much is it?

Do you mean should books have a maximum price? No, I don't think one can say that they should - it's down to the customer to decide whether the price being asked is reasonable and to buy if it is, not buy if it isn't. A lack of sales may well prompt the author or publisher to lower the price.

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by charlieperry

Has anyone else noticed a rise in the availability of pirate books recently?

I don't know why, but if I try to answer at the opening question after page 30, I feel I'm off topic....



I talk about Italy, and the answer is yes, definitely.
Here the publishers don't publish ebooks at all. They don't want to, and they also prevent the authors to do it themselves.

So there aren't legal copirighted ebook in italian.

But I have seen a list of tens of thousands of books, scanned, OCRed, proofed, and neatly formatted.
I tried the first Stieg Larsson title (don't know the english nor the original title), and I downloaded a zip file with a RTF, a MS word, a pdf, a lit and a txt version of the text. There were also a HTML with comments and critics about the book, the authors biography, and jpgs with covers and inside illustrations.

Far more than I got with the printed version.
And even more than I get from legal libraries.

So we are in a market where the legal items are completely absent, and the illegal ones (made by teenagers crews, as far as I understand) are not only present in huge numbers, but also of great quality and with a good added value (that's the point: added value).
How can the publisher compete with that?
Will he distribute a better product with more added value trying to give more appeal to the legal items or sue the boys and girls trying to cut them off the market?

Crews are growing, in size and in number.
And in time more and more series of books are being "published".
But I wonder how many of them are actually being read.



BTW: I downloaded the Stieg Larsson book, but I didn't read it (I read the p-book I got for my birthday instead). Am I a thief?
That's another thing: what about those pepole who download tons of files and don't use them? Are they criminals or just crazy? I know dozen of them...

[Nate the great]

Originally Posted by nekokami

Nate, your argument doesn't take into account the more expensive library bindings or lending payments to authors (in those countries that have them). I also think the difference between the number of times a book will be checked out of a library and the number of times the same book will be downloaded from the darknet-- even by people who will actually read the book-- is off by several orders of magnitude. It is not so much that a book could be loaned a near-infinite number of times from a local library (even assuming physical degradation does not apply), but the number of times the book is usually loaned from any given library that is at issue. This number is already factored into the cost of books, along with private loans. If the assumption is that only one person will ever buy a copy of a book and will share it freely with everyone else, the cost of that one copy is likely to go up.

The cost of the book is irrelevant to the ethical discussion.

The payment to authors does change the matter in countries that do it, but it doesn't matter to me in the USA. (I like that system, actually. I think authors should be paid.)

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Do you mean should books have a maximum price? No, I don't think one can say that they should - it's down to the customer to decide whether the price being asked is reasonable and to buy if it is, not buy if it isn't. A lack of sales may well prompt the author or publisher to lower the price.

Sorry, I didn't put my question clearly...

You are saying that the author has to be paid for his work. And I totally agree with that.

What I ask you is: how much is the maximum amount the author should earn for one book (not the sale price of a single copy, the total income from every use of the content of the book)?

Where's the upper limit of "fair"?
When the income is simply enough and it become "plain wrong" to ask more money?



Of course I am asking it to you, but the question is open for everybody...