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

[ZodWallop]

Originally Posted by Blas

It is really hard to pay $18 in an epub when the physical book is $19...

In the U.S. at least, ereaderiq.com helps with that. You just list the books you want and when they go on sale, it emails you.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by barryem

I don't think it's an issue of entitlement.

Barry

We think way differently. The past has taught us that.

I do find it rather telling, though, that someone who is so loathe to call illegal downloading "theft," would immediately turn to an allegory about theft to "justify" it in this case. Thanks for that.

[theinfamousj]

I have met some people who have pirated books because the book is banned by their government and they were not able to, at that time, afford international travel so as to smuggle in a physical copy. Some even for scholarly purposes. Obviously, I met these individuals once they were able to travel, at times with a minder, or after they had managed to come to my country as a refugee seeking asylum.

Naturally, this isn't a case where Amazon had a copy and they elected not to purchase. But it is a use case of piracy. And thanks to a certain internet toolkit which obfuscates one's internet traffic is one that is used in countries which decide that for political reasons certain penned ideas need to be prevented from reaching their populace.

Naturally, I live in the United States, so I cannot imagine the inability to access ideas, but I have read quite a lot of dystopian fiction so can empathize with a character who wishes so strongly to feel that their government-rejected ideas aren't abhorrent or anomalous.

(Cough Burma, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea, cough.)

When governments make restrictions on markets, much less markets of ideas, it is no longer capitalism and the pithy and priveledged admonition to just save up no longer applies. I will once again reiterate how happy I am to have had the luck to be born somewhere that ideas are available, even if for a price.

[DiapDealer]

I have no problem with people getting around government censorship any way they have to. But it's neither here nor there when talking about terminologies or legalities (which I've been assured by several people now, is what the thread has been about lately).

[theinfamousj]

What?

It is still piracy. It is exactly as illegal if they do it as if anyone else does it. Extra illegal, actually, because now they possess banned items.

In all cases the author and the publishing house aren't being compensated. And some individual or bot or whatever is serving the file to be found.

I understand that it presents a sympathetic use of piracy, but make no mistake, to take a book that isn't free without paying for it/having permission is still piracy no matter the why of it.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G890A using Tapatalk

[AnotherCat]

Originally Posted by 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...

You are taking the liberty of rewriting what I said in order to exaggerate and be emotive. The case was not that "stealing books helps sell books" but that illicit downloading of books can result in sales of books (and that sales are a benefit to the author). Your "helps" turns what I actually said into sounding as if I condone illicit downloading, that misrepresentation seemingly done in order to meet some agenda you have.

I also did not anywhere say anything along the lines of your But it's "beneficial" so it's ok so if you were referring to me I suggest you take your crude attempt to insult by misrepresentation back.

You may wish to contend that illicit downloading does not result in the sales of books. In which case, for example, you would seem to believe that if one browses social media looking at reviews and recommendations of books, in order to make their purchasing decisions (as I do), such as the Reading Recommendations here or the likes of Goodreads, that none of the recommendations or reviews come from people who illicitly downloaded the book. Or, alternatively you believe that, in fact, recommendations or reviews are made by people who illicitly downloaded the books but people ignore those reviews (how do they know?) when deciding whether to buy the book or not. In either case I think you are mistaken.

[Hitch]

Originally Posted by AnotherCat

You are taking the liberty of rewriting what I said in order to exaggerate and be emotive. The case was not that "stealing books helps sell books" but that illicit downloading of books can result in sales of books (and that sales are a benefit to the author). Your "helps" turns what I actually said into sounding as if I condone illicit downloading, that misrepresentation seemingly done in order to meet some agenda you have.

I also did not anywhere say anything along the lines of your But it's "beneficial" so it's ok so if you were referring to me I suggest you take your crude attempt to insult by misrepresentation back.

You may wish to contend that illicit downloading does not result in the sales of books. In which case, for example, you would seem to believe that if one browses social media looking at reviews and recommendations of books, in order to make their purchasing decisions (as I do), such as the Reading Recommendations here or the likes of Goodreads, that none of the recommendations or reviews come from people who illicitly downloaded the book. Or, alternatively you believe that, in fact, recommendations or reviews are made by people who illicitly downloaded the books but people ignore those reviews (how do they know?) when deciding whether to buy the book or not. In either case I think you are mistaken.

Let's tackle this from a realistic standpoint. You brought up the possible additional sales, created by a possible pirate, with his/her possible friends. You're now saying that you didn't do that, to say it was beneficial; you were...what? Saying that if that ever occurs, the additional sales, which would only have existed through the illicit downloading of the pirate, might be a benefit to the author? If your point isn't that illicit downloading caused some benefit, then I don't see the point of the comment in the first place. However, moving along:

We can argue that pirates cost authors $X in presumed non-sales. We can argue that they cost publishers other amounts, as well, in our hypothetical scenarios, or that proposed piracy somehow benefits the publisher, under Scenario Zed. But what do we KNOW?

We know only that when someone pirates a book, they get it for nothing. Neither the author nor the publisher earns their due. Period. All the other hypotheses are nothing more than that. The lady with the sewing circle--we have ZERO data on how often something like that might occur, if ever. We don't know how much sharing--and thus, incremental damage--the pirate does, either. We don't know if the pirate's buddies buy the book, or pirate it as well, or if the pirate puts it on Pirate Bay, making it even more accessible to those who want to own the book sans payment. All those discussions are merely hypothetical.

So, what we know is, when a pirate downloads the book, they get the benefit of the book, without paying for it. That's it. That's every fact at our disposal. All else is surmise and fantasy.

Even the facts that you mentioned, in your prior post, about how your government argues that somehow, copyright costs society money and investment--those are all hypotheses, with pretty much zero factual backup. (Those whitepaper arguments are usually trying to conflate--on purpose--copyrights, patents, and monopolies. After all, how many investment funding opportunities are you aware of, dealing with copyrights, really? And what would those copyrights be "stifling," if you were an investor????)

So, we can all sit here and discuss "what if..." from now until hell freezes over. But the bottom line is, piracy is taking someone else's work, and not paying for it. You can call it infringement, you can call it "damaging" someone, and some call it theft. But the nuts and bolts are the same. Factually, the ONE thing we know is that the author and publisher are damaged. The pirate gets something for nothing.

There's zero evidence that any author or publisher has ever benefitted from piracy. There's zero evidence that any pirate's buddies ran out and bought a book. (And honestly, it seems highly far-fetched, given taht anyone who will help themselves to a book also seem likely to make copies for their friends, as well, wouldn't you think?) We don't know if some pirate posted a review, or not. I do know that when I ask people, casually, about how they weigh reviews, verified purchase reviews on Amazon seem to count more than those that aren't.

So, when we push blather and hypotheses with no factual basis aside, we're still left with simple stuff. Jane pirates Book X. That means she gets the benefit of Book x--the reading of it, or the research that went into it, etc.--for nothing. The people who did the work to bring Book X to fruition get nothing.

That's the one set of facts that's reliable and knowable, around this. Everything else is either "what if-isms" and rationalization, as there's no research, no factual basis for any of them. I can no more argue that Pirate X puts his copy on Pirate Bay's successor-in-interest, thus costing Author Y $Z, than someone else can claim that honest buyers are being brought to purchase the book by Pirate X's cooking circle. Neither is knowable and neither is provable. We should, then, stick to what IS provable and knowable, which is pretty simple.

Hitch

[SteveEisenberg]

I have a question.

What is the effect on authors and publishers of physical book shoplifting?

I earlier suggested that physical shoplifting often results in one less book being pulped, thus helping the book industry as a whole. But I suppose that the effect is different on the bookseller, the publisher, the author who has earned out the advance, and the author who hasn't earned out the advance.

There also are times when paper book shoplifting results in an additional copy being stocked by the bookstore. Who is helped and hurt then?

I realize that sometimes "the bookseller" is an individual/family/partnership, where other times it is the holders of stocks and bonds.

Of course, my thinking on the issue is that the morality has nothing to do with who is helped and hurt. Book piracy is always wrong except when done to circumvent government censorship, and book shoplifting is always wrong, period. But, still, I'm wondering about how the system works.

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

I have a question.

What is the effect on authors and publishers of physical book shoplifting?

Since the bookstore is unable to return the cover from the shoplifted book, they end up paying for it. You know, the bookstores—in the USA at least—that are mostly one step ahead of bankruptcy? For the publishers and authors, the effect is negligible.

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

There also are times when paper book shoplifting results in an additional copy being stocked by the bookstore. Who is helped and hurt then?

Again the bookstore pays for the stolen copy. How many copies do they need to sell to break even? Assuming a 35% gross margin on a book that costs $20 retail, the bookseller would need to sell 2 books to recover the cost of the stolen book. Please note this leaves nothing for paying staff, rent, etc.

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

I realize that sometimes "the bookseller" is an individual/family/partnership, where other times it is the holders of stocks and bonds.

It doesn't really matter who "the bookseller" is. Theft is not going to help their bottom line.

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Of course, my thinking on the issue is that the morality has nothing to do with who is helped and hurt. Book piracy is always wrong except when done to circumvent government censorship, and book shoplifting is always wrong, period. But, still, I'm wondering about how the system works.

Pretty much the same as any other retailer. Your shrinkage rate gets too high and you are looking at laying off your IT consultants, laying off floor and stockroom staff, closing your doors, etc.

[barryem]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I do find it rather telling, though, that someone who is so loathe to call illegal downloading "theft," would immediately turn to an allegory about theft to "justify" it in this case. Thanks for that.

Good point!

Keep in mind that I never hinted that piracy is okay or that it's not wrong or even not illegal, although I'm not sure about the latter, depending on the situation. Something can be immoral and wrong without being theft. To me it's a matter of definition. I also dislike murder and I don't call it theft.

Theft to me is a zero sum kind of thing. I steal your wallet and I have it now and you don't. There's only one wallet. If we're in class and I peek over your shoulder to copy your answer I've done something wrong but I haven't taken anything from you. Unless we get caught and you get the blame.

Of course if I copy your answer and you had the wrong answer I might steal your hubcaps.

Barry

[barryem]

Originally Posted by theinfamousj

I have met some people who have pirated books because the book is banned by their government

I think in this situation piracy is a very moral and good thing to do. But that's an exceptional situation.

Barry

[barryem]

I've read a few studies that seem to indicate that some piracy actually makes the author more money. It's been a while since I read this and I don't recall any details; just the general conclusion. However, I don't think this justifies piracy. We have a copyright system in place and it sets up some rules and, while I certainly dislike many of the details it's the system we have and it deserves our support.

Barry

[Deskisamess]

Originally Posted by barryem

I think in this situation piracy is a very moral and good thing to do. But that's an exceptional situation.

Barry

The motivation, in this case, is totally different as well. Education, information, a view outside a hermit kingdom, not simply wanting something for free. These people may go to jail for their search for information, yet they persist.

Read anything by Liao Yiwu for a glimpse.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by DNSB

Since the bookstore is unable to return the cover from the shoplifted book, they end up paying for it.

Ah.

Of course, you are here looking at it from the Leonard Riggio end of things (or the end of things seen by the ma and pa who own the ma and pa bookstore, or the end of things of the assistant manager who Riggio is going to lay off because that branch is unprofitable).

From the author end, it then follows, paper book stealing has all the supposed advantages to authors, such as increased word-of-mouth, and potential for positive Amazon reviews, as does piracy. But in addition to that, paper book stealing insures that the book won't be returned, guaranteeing the author at least one sale! And then the bookstore may order a replacement copy, which may be sold, or, even better, shoplifted! Two sales for the author from one misdemeanor, and potential for three! Obviously, shoplifting is far better than piracy, and is often better for our dear authors than a purchase

[DNSB]

Originally Posted by SteveEisenberg

Ah.

Of course, you are here looking at it from the Leonard Riggio end of things (or the end of things seen by the ma and pa who own the ma and pa bookstore, or the end of things of the assistant manager who Riggio is going to lay off because that branch is unprofitable).

From the author end, it then follows, paper book stealing has all the supposed advantages to authors, such as increased word-of-mouth, and potential for positive Amazon reviews, as does piracy. But in addition to that, paper book stealing insures that the book won't be returned, guaranteeing the author at least one sale! And then the bookstore may order a replacement copy, which may be sold, or, even better, shoplifted! Two sales for the author from one misdemeanor, and potential for three! Obviously, shoplifting is far better than piracy, and is often better for our dear authors than a purchase

I think it is past time to end this discussion. Your disingenuous statements that theft can be beneficial are hard to understand as being promulgated by someone with sufficient intelligence to type a semi-comprehensible message. Do you really think that many book thieves are posting positive Amazon or other reviews? Are bragging about this great book they liberated? As for ordering a replacement copy? The book was stolen and not processed through the inventory system. Under normal circumstances, why would a order for more copies be placed because of that theft when the store would not be aware it is missing until the next inventory check cycle. Thomas Paine was right.