eBook piracy, how common is it?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

It's a lot more than just semantics. There are significant differences in the effects and reasons for the level of punishment associated with the two. Theft and copyright infringement have nothing to do with each other. There's a reason that real theft is a much more serious crime than copyright infringement, and there are also reasons why certain people want you to confuse the two.

I totally agree. And I also do not get why people who have read previous discussions about this continues to use the term "theft" as it was not a problematic term.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

I agree with this to the extent that the material in question is not commercially available. However, when and if it is, and rather than purchase a legitimate copy, an individual seeks out and downloads a file from a filesharing site, well, again, it is, in essence, stealing.

The music industry was pretty much brought to its knees as a result of filesharing, to suggest that it is just some minor offense that does not equal stealing, seems, to me, disingenuous.

<Deleted by me for politeness sakes. Apologies if this offended anyone> The industry was not brought to its knees by file-sharing, it's not even had to take a bow. Sure, it made a little less profit year to year, but it still made billions in profit. That's just another myth perpetrated by those who just don't understand what P2P is actually about.

[Lanik42]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Are you high or something? The industry was not brought to its knees by file-sharing, it's not even had to take a bow. Sure, it made a little less profit year to year, but it still made billions in profit. That's just another myth perpetrated by those who just don't understand what P2P is actually about.

I would also say that the loss of profits was as much a result of refusing to embrace the digital music concept (obviously the future of music) and insist on the old methodology of CD Albums and Singles as any influence P2P had.

[HarryT]

Ladies and gentlemen, keep it polite, please. It's fine to disagree with someone's viewpoint, but personal insults are inappropriate. Please bear that in mind at all times.

Thanks,

[Moderator]

[kwjones]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

We already have a standard, it's called ePub, its just 'some' greedy corps don't want to adopt that standard. And I can't believe you'd jump on a p2p program, download a song, then not share your own. That goes against what p2p is meant for. You're leeching which is the cardinal sin of all p2p. The movement is about sharing, about social interaction with peers, recommendations and growing culture, not about getting what you can and then walking away.

And a CD is as bad an idea as anything else. I can't wait until we get rid of the nasty physical media rubbish and go fully downloadable. Who wants hundreds of coasters sitting around when they can have it all on a hard drive or 2.

Epub is a format standard, but is it a platform standard?

I'm fairly new to the whole P2P community. The stuff I have downloaded stays in the shared folder in case someone else is looking for it like I was. Nothing worse than finding that last song you need only to find out there aren't enough sources available. Freely taken and given on the honor system. I don't share the PHYSICAL media with others because I'm an anal retentive freak when it comes to my stuff. People just don't take care of things they borrow from you.

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Are you high or something? The industry was not brought to its knees by file-sharing, it's not even had to take a bow. Sure, it made a little less profit year to year, but it still made billions in profit. That's just another myth perpetrated by those who just don't understand what P2P is actually about.

Wow, just, wow.

So the fact that millions upon millions of folks no longer purchase music legally has had very little effect on the music industry?

I know what P2P is about, it’s about someone at some point purchasing say, the new Decemberists cd, and then uploading it to a filesharing (again, sharing is a simple euphemism) program so that others may download the album, illegally, at no cost to themselves. I understand proponents would like to make it appear as though they are Robin Hood like figures stealing from those big mean music labels, but at the end of the day, they’re just hurting the bands they claim to love.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

Wow, just, wow.

So the fact that millions upon millions of folks no longer purchase music legally has had very little effect on the music industry?

I know what P2P is about, it’s about someone at some point purchasing say, the new Decemberists cd, and then uploading it to a filesharing (again, sharing is a simple euphemism) program so that others may download the album, illegally, at no cost to themselves. I understand proponents would like to make it appear as though they are Robin Hood like figures stealing from those big mean music labels, but at the end of the day, they’re just hurting the bands they claim to love.

You mean the bands who see very little profit from the sale of that CD (especially if under contract from one of the big corps), and actually make the lion's share of their money from touring and merchandise? The bands who get free advertising and grow their fanbases through sharing. It's not about Robin Hood, it's about his Merry Men, all of them singing and dancing and enjoying the culture without silly barriers.

EDIT: and there were millions upon millions of people 'not' purchasing music before the internet. They copied it off the radio onto tapes, or taped it directly from vinyl.

[Lanik42]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

Wow, just, wow.

So the fact that millions upon millions of folks no longer purchase music legally has had very little effect on the music industry?

I know what P2P is about, it’s about someone at some point purchasing say, the new Decemberists cd, and then uploading it to a filesharing (again, sharing is a simple euphemism) program so that others may download the album, illegally, at no cost to themselves. I understand proponents would like to make it appear as though they are Robin Hood like figures stealing from those big mean music labels, but at the end of the day, they’re just hurting the bands they claim to love.

That is certainly one view of what P2P is about. And alternate view might be that P2P is a natural (if not wholly legal) reaction to artificial and profit driven barriers to acquiring music that people like. There are a couple factors here -
First, who wants to buy a whole CD when they only want one song? If they were able to purchase it individually, it would save them money and the industry would still get its cut. The music industry failed to adequately meet the desires of the consumer.
That leads to the second point - if the music industry had jumped on the concept of digital music sales when it was still young, people wouldn't be in the habit of downloading music via P2P, which I think is as big a driving force as laziness/greed when it comes to downloading music. Once the foundation was in place, it became self-perpetuating.

Even now, they like to stick to methods that don't really work for them, or for the artist - namely DRM.

[pdurrant]

Bear in mind that for pbooks around 50% to 65% of the list price goes to the distributor & retailer, not the publisher.

The same is true of eBooks! Quite astonishing.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I dunno that I think those services are worth 85-93% of the list price (in fact, I'm pretty sure I think they're not), but they're worth *something.*

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

You mean the bands who see very little profit from the sale of that CD (especially if under contract from one of the big corps), and actually make the lion's share of their money from touring and merchandise? The bands who get free advertising and grow their fanbases through sharing. It's not about Robin Hood, it's about his Merry Men, all of them singing and dancing and enjoying the culture without silly barriers.

EDIT: and there were millions upon millions of people 'not' purchasing music before the internet. They copied it off the radio onto tapes, or taped it directly from vinyl.

I’m all for cutting out the middleman entirely – let’s do away with the record labels and book publishers – I’m all for it and would love to see that. However, doing so wouldn’t change the fact that in the end, it’s the artist who suffers. If I were to download the Decemberists new cd directly from their website, and then upload it to the web, who’s losing out now?

Things were a bit different when my friends and I would copy tapes for each other, however, we’re now in an environment were the uploading of a single, leaked CD can be uploaded and distributed throughout the globe in seconds.

My guess, is that those silly barriers wouldn’t appear so silly if your livelihood, your ability to put food on the table and into your child’s mouth were in any way jeopardized so that others could frolic freely as a result of your hard work.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Bear in mind that for pbooks around 50% to 65% of the list price goes to the distributor & retailer, not the publisher.

The same is true of eBooks! Quite astonishing.

That's insane! I didn't know that at all. I was labouring under the impression that the lion's share went to the publishers. So that then means that if a writer, say a Stephen King who has more money than he could ever possibly spend, set up an online imprint of his own, he could offer ebooks at a substantially lower price than other online retailers and make even more money? I wonder why none of the big writers has done this yet?

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

I’m all for cutting out the middleman entirely – let’s do away with the record labels and book publishers – I’m all for it and would love to see that. However, doing so wouldn’t change the fact that in the end, it’s the artist who suffers. If I were to download the Decemberists new cd directly from their website, and then upload it to the web, who’s losing out now?

Things were a bit different when my friends and I would copy tapes for each other, however, we’re now in an environment were the uploading of a single, leaked CD can be uploaded and distributed throughout the globe in seconds.

My guess, is that those silly barriers wouldn’t appear so silly if your livelihood, your ability to put food on the table and into your child’s mouth were in any way jeopardized so that others could frolic freely as a result of your hard work.

So what you're saying is that it was okay for you and your friends to copy music illegally, because there was less of it, but its not okay for people to share now because it's easier? And this 'food-on-the-table' argument is balderdash. If you want a steady, paying income, get a 9-5 job or at least a job that is steady enough to put that food on the table. Being an artist of any kind is not a steady job, there are no guarantees. It's not like I can apply for a 'rock-singer' job at my local Tesco's.

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by Lanik42

That is certainly one view of what P2P is about. And alternate view might be that P2P is a natural (if not wholly legal) reaction to artificial and profit driven barriers to acquiring music that people like. There are a couple factors here -
First, who wants to buy a whole CD when they only want one song? If they were able to purchase it individually, it would save them money and the industry would still get its cut. The music industry failed to adequately meet the desires of the consumer.
That leads to the second point - if the music industry had jumped on the concept of digital music sales when it was still young, people wouldn't be in the habit of downloading music via P2P, which I think is as big a driving force as laziness/greed when it comes to downloading music. Once the foundation was in place, it became self-perpetuating.

Even now, they like to stick to methods that don't really work for them, or for the artist - namely DRM.

But rather than purchase an entire CD, you can and have the ability to download individual tracks - for quite some time now.

I’m not going to defend the music industry, but I’m willing to forgive them for not having a working web-based business model in place given the near overnight (in business terms and time) explosion of filesharing websites and services.

Human nature is such that, if given a choice between paying for something, or getting it for free, especially when the negative consequences of doing so are hidden, the majority of times, we prefer free. But that, of course, does not make it right.

[amgoforth]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Why is your poll only asking about P2P? There are many other sources of illegal books - Usenet, IRC, web sites, etc.

Yes, I was wondering the same thing. I don't think P2P is even the main source anymore.

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

So what you're saying is that it was okay for you and your friends to copy music illegally, because there was less of it, but its not okay for people to share now because it's easier? And this 'food-on-the-table' argument is balderdash. If you want a steady, paying income, get a 9-5 job or at least a job that is steady enough to put that food on the table. Being an artist of any kind is not a steady job, there are no guarantees. It's not like I can apply for a 'rock-singer' job at my local Tesco's.

You’re right, we were, in essence, stealing. However, the addition of the internet into this equation is a game changer, cause, unless you had millions of friends, the scale and consequences of “free” filesharing have increased exponentially. I’m sure most bands, artists, and writers are fine with the original purchaser sharing their work with friends, but when “friends” means millions of people, well, I think they might feel differently, infringed upon.

And what if my 9-5 job is with a record label that has had to downsize as direct result of filesharing?

You may choose to believe filesharing is just the wonderful and free distribution of art, but to create that art, the artist has to make sacrifices, many of them monetary in nature.

So then, why do you feel entitled to take so freely from what they have created?