DRM poll: How do you deal with it.

[Alisa]

It's pretty easy to find pirated books without really looking. All it takes is one title you're looking for not being available in your preferred store. If you google for that title + 'ebook', you'll typically find plenty of illegal options.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Alisa

It's pretty easy to find pirated books without really looking. All it takes is one title you're looking for not being available in your preferred store. If you google for that title + 'ebook', you'll typically find plenty of illegal options.

It's pretty easy to steal from your local grocery store, too. Most people, however, would not do so on the grounds that it's wrong, not because it's hard to do.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's pretty easy to steal from your local grocery store, too. Most people, however, would not do so on the grounds that it's wrong, not because it's hard to do.

Yep, but what we have to remember is that for the vast majority of people, most of what they want at a grocery store is easily found and purchased at reasonable prices. It gets fuzzier when the price gets higher or the availability declines. There is a reason that most jewelry stores keep their stock in locked cases.

As e-books start taking off, and more and more and more people buy readers, many of them are going to want to read all of their books on them. Now if the publishing industry acts like the recording industry did, they will drag their feet with respect to converting all of their books, particularly their back list to e-book format. Certainly some authors have tried very hard to keep their books in paper format. Ultimately though, if the titles are popular, its simply going to encourage people to do it themselves. Look at how long and hard it took the recording industry to train people to get back into the habit of actually paying for their music (if they have even done it yet). The Publishing industry doesn't have that problem yet, but if they continue to drag their heels on selling e-books, the same problem will develop.

--
Bill

[Alisa]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's pretty easy to steal from your local grocery store, too. Most people, however, would not do so on the grounds that it's wrong, not because it's hard to do.

You're preaching to the choir, Harry. Sadly I think many people just don't get the ethical implications of downloading stuff without paying. It doesn't feel like stealing to them. If you ask them about it and actually make them think about it, they usually come up with a list of rationalizations. I've only met a couple of people who have actually said they realized they were stealing in a way but they weren't going to pay for something if they could get it for free without getting caught.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's pretty easy to steal from your local grocery store, too. Most people, however, would not do so on the grounds that it's wrong, not because it's hard to do.

And a lot of people feel that copyright infringement is not morally wrong but that stealing is morally wrong. And a lot of people feel that current copyright laws are morally wrong.

Also if people just google and download they will not realize that they have done something that probably is copyright infringement.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Alisa

You're preaching to the choir, Harry. Sadly I think many people just don't get the ethical implications of downloading stuff without paying. It doesn't feel like stealing to them. If you ask them about it and actually make them think about it, they usually come up with a list of rationalizations. I've only met a couple of people who have actually said they realized they were stealing in a way but they weren't going to pay for something if they could get it for free without getting caught.

I think the basic problem is that "intellectual property" is not really property at all. Most of us, by instinct, equate property with a physical presence. Since music and stories do not have a physical existence (only the media they are stored on does), it is harder for us to see it as property. This is reinforced by the fact that philosophically, copyright does not treat "intellectual property" as real property. Rather it is more a legal license to have exclusive use of a creative work for a limited period of time. It ultimately treats the natural state of "intellectual property" as being in the public domain. The point of the license is to encourage the creation of new work that will ultimately enter the public domain.

Now, before I go on, I want it clear that I believe that copyright's basic approach is the right one and that currently it has extended its terms far beyond anything that reasonably serves the actual purpose of the general public (who ultimately are suppose to be the real beneficiaries of copyright, not the artists).

All that being said, an intellectual leap is required to understand that illegal download or duplication of copyrighted works is in fact stealing from the author. It is not so much that you are stealing their property as you are stealing the means of their livelihood. However, assuming this leap is made, there are reasons beyond the merely ethical ones for not violating copyright. Ultimately of course we need to look back to the reason for copyright in the first place; if an author's work is stolen liberally, ultimately they loose the motivation to produce works. Essentially the more we pirate, the less there is to pirate or to sell. By stealing the work of an author we like, we may in fact deny ourselves of future works that the author now lacks motivation to write.

--
Bill

[tompe]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

All that being said, an intellectual leap is required to understand that illegal download or duplication of copyrighted works is in fact stealing from the author. It is not so much that you are stealing their property as you are stealing the means of their livelihood.

That is not true. That is like saying that not buying a book is stealing a livelihood. Since most of the downloading is done of thing that was not going to be bought in the first case you cannot equate one download with a lost sale.

[pilotbob]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

...reasonably serves the actual purpose of the general public (who ultimately are suppose to be the real beneficiaries of copyright, not the artists).

I would disagree with that. Copyright is designed to be a win-win.

1. The creators of the works get exclusive rights to their work for a certain amount of time so that they can benefit from the sale of copies of their work.

2. The public gets new works added to the public domain.

So, since authors get a benefit from their work, they are willing to create more. If there was no protection at all, less authors would create or publish works which means less would eventually make it to public domain.

So, copyright is designed to benefit both the individual creator and the public. As you say, this has been warped toward the side of the individuals to the detriment of the public.

BOb

[Alisa]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

All that being said, an intellectual leap is required to understand that illegal download or duplication of copyrighted works is in fact stealing from the author. It is not so much that you are stealing their property as you are stealing the means of their livelihood. However, assuming this leap is made, there are reasons beyond the merely ethical ones for not violating copyright. Ultimately of course we need to look back to the reason for copyright in the first place; if an author's work is stolen liberally, ultimately they loose the motivation to produce works. Essentially the more we pirate, the less there is to pirate or to sell. By stealing the work of an author we like, we may in fact deny ourselves of future works that the author now lacks motivation to write.

--
Bill

I think this is one of the biggest obstacles in getting people to choose not to pirate. The book industry has priced in the fact that sometimes we borrow a book from a friend or buy it used. These instances where they fail to get revenue from a reader are fairly small in the context of the market. When, as you say, the author's work is stolen liberally, you can't really price that in without pricing honest consumers out. I think when most people download an illegal copy they just think of it like they were borrowing from a friend. They don't see themselves as part of this mass theft. They just look at their little handful of downloads and don't think what they do makes any difference one way or the other. Even once you get people to see it, convincing them that they should choose to pay and cease being part of the problem when other people go on getting stuff for free is hard. Sadly, many people have a tendency to look at other folks and think, "Well if they're all doing it, why shouldn't I?" rather than holding themselves to a higher standard regardless of what other people do.

[Alisa]

Originally Posted by tompe

That is not true. That is like saying that not buying a book is stealing a livelihood. Since most of the downloading is done of thing that was not going to be bought in the first case you cannot equate one download with a lost sale.

It's not a one-to-one relationship when you try to calculate the loss by looking at how many copies of a work were downloaded. However, as an individual if you are downloading stuff, you probably have a good idea how much of that you likely would have bought. It's not one-to-one but it's not insignificant.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by tompe

That is not true. That is like saying that not buying a book is stealing a livelihood. Since most of the downloading is done of thing that was not going to be bought in the first case you cannot equate one download with a lost sale.

With respect, I have to disagree. In the case of the person simply not buying or otherwise reading a legal copy of the book, the person not doing the buying gains no benefit from the book so it is only fair that the author does not gain any profit from them. On the other hand, if someone reads a book, the author should have a chance to benefit, even if it is in a small way.

Authors gain their livelihood from the readers of a book, not the non-readers of said book. Lets, for the moment, go back 20 years before ebooks were common; Almost all books in the United States and Europe were read on copies that were legally purchased either by private individuals or public libraries. Even if many people read them from the library, more copies were sold since the library would need more copies for their patrons. Now lets get back to 2008; it is now possible for the number of readers of a book to bear no relationship to the number of legally sold copies of said book.

Now you make the argument that a download does not equate to a lost sale. In this you are almost certainly correct. A certain number of downloaders would never have purchased the product. If they could not have downloaded it for free, they would never have purchased it. That being said, some of the downloaders would in fact have purchased the book. If even one in ten would have purchased the book, if 100,000 downloaded the work, that is a loss of 10,000 sales. Thats potentially tens of thousands of dollars taken from the publisher and the author who collectively have done all the work of bringing the book to market.

--
Bill

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Alisa

It's not a one-to-one relationship when you try to calculate the loss by looking at how many copies of a work were downloaded. However, as an individual if you are downloading stuff, you probably have a good idea how much of that you likely would have bought. It's not one-to-one but it's not insignificant.

But that is only a correlation. The important factor is when you read a book that you have downloaded illegally instead of reading a bought copy. So morally it is very hard to motivate that the actual downloading is a problem by trying to refer to lost income.

And if you try to oversimplify the arguments people will find them strange and not respect them.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Alisa

However, as an individual if you are downloading stuff, you probably have a good idea how much of that you likely would have bought. It's not one-to-one but it's not insignificant.

Maybe, in my case maybe 0.1% or less. And if it is this small it seems irrelevant to download one more book.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

With respect, I have to disagree. In the case of the person simply not buying or otherwise reading a legal copy of the book, the person not doing the buying gains no benefit from the book...

In my argument was included that a download does not mean that the book will be read. That is probably the biggest factor since I think poeple download big collections and maybe read a couple of books from them (say 2 books i 1000 downloaded books). Among those two books you have to check if they had been bought if they had not been downloaded to make an argument about lost livelihood.

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by pilotbob

I would disagree with that. Copyright is designed to be a win-win.

1. The creators of the works get exclusive rights to their work for a certain amount of time so that they can benefit from the sale of copies of their work.

2. The public gets new works added to the public domain.

So, since authors get a benefit from their work, they are willing to create more. If there was no protection at all, less authors would create or publish works which means less would eventually make it to public domain.

So, copyright is designed to benefit both the individual creator and the public. As you say, this has been warped toward the side of the individuals to the detriment of the public.

BOb

Bob,
I guess we are going to have to disagree on this one. That being said, the language of the Copyright Clause in the Constitution is as follows:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

A straight reading of this clause indicates that the Progress of Science and the useful Arts is the purpose of copyright. The benefit to the authors and the inventors is simply the means. In practice I will grant that it is a win/win, but in purpose it is for the public's good not the author's.

However, I think we can both agree that regardless of whose interpretation is right, the fact of the matter is that it is crucial that the author of works benefit from their works to encourage them to continue to create and publish.

--
Bill