I have found numerous pirated ebooks for free online. Please tell me the benefits of

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

All I have done is ask a specific question, I have made no other posts in this thread that might confuse my intentions. It seems that you are unwilling to nominate whether the "thief" has become "benefactor" or not. I think you have said "So what?" as you answer?

It seems to me that requires just a "Yes" or "No" answer not a lengthy lesson about Robin Hood, and priests and parishioners, etc., nor pointing out that publishing is a business, etc., nor winding up with references to mad hostility towards authors. I have not said anything that should raise assumptions about what my stance on copyright in general is but you seem awfully defensive about my asking a simple question.

I don't think that the pirate "benefits" the author with his theoretical 6 friends, no. Do you think that the guy who steals the bank's money, which is used to buy the van, that brings new depositors to the bank, is the bank's benefactor?

Hitch

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Using the government to set the rules so that you make money is called rent seeking in economic terms. A whole lot of people do this, but it doesn't exactly make them noble. To a great extent, you are using the red herring argument. The issue isn't letting authors make money for their works, no one here has advocated abolishing copyright. The issue at hand is the extremely long copyright period that rich authors (Victor Hugo, who sired the Berne Convention was very wealthy) and corporations (i.e Disney) have pushed. Copyright is a bargain between society and artists, not a one way street. There has to be balance.

Actually, the thread is about piracy--not the duration of copyright. The duration of copyright is a side-argument--a red herring, if you will, as well, as if the duration of the copyright somehow negates the rights that attorn to the author and publisher via copyright.

The discussion question about pirated works raised says nothing whatsoever, I believe, about those books being copyrighted 70 or 65 or however many years ago. Thus, the discussion about whether or not authors and publishers have rights, and should be paid for their work, is directly relevant. The argument about whether or not copyright in the USA lasts too long is a different argument--unless we're going to conflate the two, to argue that somehow, an opinion that copyright lasts too long confers upon the person so opining some right to not pay authors and publishers? At what point does that "right" kick in? 5 years post-publishing? At what point does the author and publisher no longer deserve their money?

Hitch

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Hitch

Actually, the thread is about piracy--not the duration of copyright. The duration of copyright is a side-argument--a red herring, if you will, as well, as if the duration of the copyright somehow negates the rights that attorn to the author and publisher via copyright.

The discussion question about pirated works raised says nothing whatsoever, I believe, about those books being copyrighted 70 or 65 or however many years ago. Thus, the discussion about whether or not authors and publishers have rights, and should be paid for their work, is directly relevant. The argument about whether or not copyright in the USA lasts too long is a different argument--unless we're going to conflate the two, to argue that somehow, an opinion that copyright lasts too long confers upon the person so opining some right to not pay authors and publishers? At what point does that "right" kick in? 5 years post-publishing? At what point does the author and publisher no longer deserve their money?

Hitch

When the copyright expires. And any extension of the terms of copyright, that were in place at the time the copyrighted item was initially sold, is as much piracy, as those not paying for the copyright in the first place.

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by Hitch

I don't think that the pirate "benefits" the author with his theoretical 6 friends, no. Do you think that the guy who steals the bank's money, which is used to buy the van, that brings new depositors to the bank, is the bank's benefactor?

Hitch

Personally I do think that the illicit downloader whose action results in 6 of their friends buying the book is benefiting the author. Also, what I would further say is that if the illicit downloader had not obtained the book for free then it may have been that none of the extra sales would have eventuated. But there again I come from a commercial world which is not protected - so in that world a seller who finds that the stock leakage of 1 item of a product typically generates 6 sales would regard the stock leakage as being a productive thing.

I think you may see that your stealing the van money comparison is nothing to do with the case, as I take from the tone of your question you are not proposing that the guy stealing the van brings new depositors as a result of his act. My case is actually where the person undertaking the illicit act brings further customers. Furthermore, stealing the money is a criminal act, in most places illicit copying of copyrighted books for non commercial purposes only exposes the copier to the possibility of civil action.

But, if the situation was to be (and we know it isn't in your example) that the "stealing" of the money, lets say $10,000, and the handling of any action was to be totally in the hands of the bank (so not criminal, just a civil action possible) then if that "stealing" resulted through some mechanism to deliver to the bank six times the amount (so $60,000), then Yes I would contend that the "stealing" of the money benefited the bank and the "stealer" can be regarded as a benefactor of the bank.

There are plenty of examples where businesses voluntarily accept increased leakage of stock through illicit taking if the business's own actions increases the visibility of their products and so increased sales. For example, a retail store may design a store layout which increases sales by more attractive presentation to customers but which increases stock leakage through theft (lets say for each extra stock unit lost through theft six extra of that product are sold due to better in store presentation). Or the case of the old honesty boxes for newspapers (we didn't have coin operated ones here), the intention was that one dropped the money in the box and took a newspaper - a lot of stock leakage but the presentation, one assumes, resulted in compensating sales.

Those examples are similar to, but not exactly the same as my original question's case in that the choice is with the business but if it were to be that non commercial illicit downloading did increase the visibility of books and increased sales then publishers too, for example, would have the opportunity of taking constrained, or no action against them or the source sites in order to preserve that visibility.

Now I am not claiming, as I think you reacted as if I were, that illicit downloading can increase sales through increased visibility, I was just posing a "what if" question - but I know that some analysts with no irons in the fire believe it is possibly so, however I know of no formal research that has been done. What we do know is that, in general, protected industries perform poorly (and book publishing, just like newspaper publishing is having marketing and customer delivery difficulties fitting into the modern age) and that those in protected industries generally react badly to any suggestion of change. It is also known that copyright presents a cost to the overall economy so private and public investment suffers, as does public expenditure (e.g. on health, to use an emotive example ) - this is the case in my own country, it has been analyzed by Government and its choice has been to remain at the cheapest convention choice of Life+50.

Anyway, all that (and much more) adds up to me that it is justifiable that copyright protection of the industry should be questioned and the place of illicit downloading be considered with that. I think some others here have made valid suggestions - one which would seem to have much economic sense to me is imposing an initial cost and a frequent periodic renewal cost upon the rights holder. Protection of the industry is not then a complete gift to it with no responsibilities attached and thus encouraging of a sense of self entitlement among rights holders as now, but rather a protection which the rights holders have some responsibility to contribute to and maintain.

{EDIT: meant to say, that is enuff from me, I have other less controversial things to get involved with rather than solving the world's problems as it is summer and the annual main holiday period here.}

[leebase]

OMG - the "stealing books helps sell books" argument. The fact that someone makes this argument shows that people understand it's stealing. But it's "beneficial" so it's ok.

That's utter BS. If an Author wants to give away free books to spur sales...they can. It's the AUTHOR'S decision (or rather, they copywright holder). Not yours.

Look, I'm not suggesting that some song, movie or ebook hasn't "fallen off a truck" from the interwebs and landed on one of my devices over the years. Or library cd/dvd ripped, saved and then returned. Allegedly...or perhaps I only dreamed this. Yes, I'm recounting a dream of nefarious acts I did....not in real life, but a dream.

I'm no angel...in my dreams...but I'm honest enough to know that I was dreaming about stealing someone else's work. Taking something offered only for sale....with out purchasing. When I die in my dream world, I may have to take a lap or too around purgatory from my dream-crimes.

But really....enough of the justification as if what you did for selfish reasons was somehow actually virtuous.

[darryl]

I agree that the beneficial argument is garbage and in no way justifies piracy. Where it should be relevant is in evaluating the effects of piracy, informing public policy and future legislation and informing decisions by content providers. I will also say that I tend to doubt the efficacy of this argument in any event. Whilst it may well be true in some cases I really doubt that the number of such cases are significant.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by darryl

I agree that the beneficial argument is garbage and in no way justifies piracy. Where it should be relevant is in evaluating the effects of piracy, informing public policy and future legislation and informing decisions by content providers. I will also say that I tend to doubt the efficacy of this argument in any event. Whilst it may well be true in some cases I really doubt that the number of such cases are significant.

I would think that when trying to judge the effects of "piracy", then you need a little finer distinction. Some guy or group selling the latest best sellers from some site in Russia is one level of piracy. This is what most think of when people talk about piracy and what law enforcement tends to focus on. I would also lump those who post books they don't own on Amazon or iTunes in this group, basically it's anyone trying to make a buck on someone else's copyright.

A group of individual posting ebooks for free via various onlne services is a different level of piracy and has different effects.

A group of friends and family trading ebooks is a different level of piracy and has different effects and is something that I suspect most don't really consider piracy.

The first, I suspect, has the most economic effect. The second is probably has negligible effect and is where one sees scanned books for things like orphaned works, and the third is what people are use to doing with paper books and what DRM is designed to prevent.

My personal guess is that piracy has not much effect within the US (I don't really have a good feel for what is going on in various other nations, but I suspect places like Great Britain and it's former colonies are fairly similar). Note, I'm purely talking about ebooks. Pirated movies likely has a much bigger effect.

When people trying to lump all copyrighted material together or all types of copyright violation together under one big piracy banner, then piracy looks a lot worse than when you look at at each category on it's own.

[DuckieTigger]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Pirated movies likely has a much bigger effect.

How so? Just because movies are more popular than reading? The cost of a lost sale is similar on a movie or ebook. Possibly buying a movie might be more expensive than an ebook, but renting a movie is much cheaper and usually an option. Are you including pirated movies that are screen grabbed and distributed before they officially hit the big screen? That could have a serious impact as the cinema usually is needed to offset the insane amount of production costs (compared to a book).

[ernieh]

What is your position on books that you are perfectly willing to pay for but they won't sell to you because of where you live despite it being available in digital format in (say) the USA. Many people would feel justified in looking for free copies in that case...

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by ernieh

What is your position on books that you are perfectly willing to pay for but they won't sell to you because of where you live despite it being available in digital format in (say) the USA. Many people would feel justified in looking for free copies in that case...

Such people would seem to have a peculiar sense of entitlement. The ability to buy an ebook is not a "right", and if the publisher of the book in your country doesn't have digital rights to the book (formerly a common situation, but now becoming less so), that's just the way it is. You can always buy the paper book or borrow it from the library. You're not being prevented from reading it.

[DiapDealer]

No one is entitled to buy everything they want, when and how they want it. I recognize no difference between illegally downloading something because they don't want sell it to you, and illegally downloading something because you don't want to pay for it. If it's sold in other locations, there are still options that allow you to obtain the work while making sure the author still gets paid.

[Blas]

I think the biggest impacts of the piracy is where the original products are way more expensive. The consume of piracy is even more related to the politician and the economy of the country(in my opinion). I will try to use my country as an example(Brazil).

Here products such as perfumes, cds, books or games are really expensive...even more when they are international. According to the statistics almost the half of the population here gets minimum wage payment. This money is almost nothing to buy the house supplies so imagine how much they have for the "entertainment". That's why you see people buying cigarettes for $2 when the original one is $10 or movies for $5 when the original is $30. Now imagine how big is the impact of the half of Brazil consuming it?

Another point that I think should also be discussed is the impact for the buyer. We know a lot of people are aware of what they are buying but there is also those who are too ignorant who does not even know they are buying pirated perfumes or even medicines. For sure the health of this people are in danger due to the lack of analysis over it.

We can't forget to mention the pirate companies(mostly chineses)which gives bad working environments or treat then as slaves.

It is really hard to pay $18 in an epub when the physical book is $19 or literally pay $120 in games for your console. But still, I am against the piracy however I also understand WHY people consumes it, at least here.

I reckon piracy affects every sides

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

Some guy or group selling the latest best sellers from some site in Russia is one level of piracy. This is what most think of when people talk about piracy and what law enforcement tends to focus on. I would also lump those who post books they don't own on Amazon or iTunes in this group, basically it's anyone trying to make a buck on someone else's copyright.

A group of individual posting ebooks for free via various onlne services is a different level of piracy and has different effects.

I'd say with the advent of Napster and torrents, option 2 is now most likely what people think of when they think of online piracy. Though, yeah. Law enforcement most likely still focuses on #1.

[barryem]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

No one is entitled to buy everything they want, when and how they want it. I recognize no difference between illegally downloading something because they don't want sell it to you, and illegally downloading something because you don't want to pay for it. If it's sold in other locations, there are still options that allow you obtain the work while making sure the author still gets paid.

I don't think it's an issue of entitlement. To me it's a question of need. If I lived in Yemen and no work was available and I was hungry and I saw a chance to grab a sandwich from a soldier when he wasn't looking I wouldn't hesitate and my conscience would be trouble free. Feeding a mind is as necessary as feeding a stomach. Maybe more so.

I live in the USA and I don't normally have to deal with this. I have plenty to eat and read. But if we have another great depression and the government runs out of money for my social security and I'm unable to work, soldiers better keep their sandwiches hidden from me and publishers better keep an eye on their books.

Am I entitled to eat? To read? Who cares! I'm going to do both for as long as I can. The reason for laws is to protect us all. When laws fail to do that we're on our own.

Barry

[barryem]

Originally Posted by Blas

It is really hard to pay $18 in an epub when the physical book is $19 or literally pay $120 in games for your console.

We live in Capitalism where sometimes prices are unfair and that's okay. It's part of the price of living as well as we do. Capitalism provides legitimate ways of dealing with that, although they're sometimes slow.

It's one thing to be unable to afford a book or a game. We can solve that by saving or working or waiting for prices to change. It's another thing entirely to have that book or game unavailable to us at all.

Barry