eBook piracy, how common is it?

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

I propose the following definition of 'professional' writer: Someone who makes enough money from their writing that they need not pursue an additional source of income.

Note that this definition certainly does not depend on gatekeepers! Nor does it assume that the writer necessarily makes their entire living by writing -- only that they don't need to do something else to keep a roof over their head. Taking the SFWA (Science fiction and Fantasy Writers of America) as an example, my definition would say that only 5-10% of the members are 'professional.'

Xenophon

Don't tell t he SFWA you think that, they might sue you

[Xenophon]

@Good Old Neon: You wrote

True, but they are also legally entitled to [**] make a living off that art, while being protected from others who would simply take it, or, in some cases, profit from it at their expense.

I think that we should insert at the [**] the phrase "attempt to"... I'm not aware of any fundamental human right to make a living off of any particular activity.

Xenophon

[Stringer]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

There are lots of other dictionary definitions of "theft" which make it clear that it does not apply to IP. Just because Sequence Publishing says it does, does not make it so. Not to mention the legal definition clearly says they are different.

Where did you get your definition then?

Cambridge says this:

dishonestly taking something which belongs to someone else and keeping it

Collins says this:

1. the act or an instance of stealing
2. the crime of stealing

and for stealing:

1. to take (something) from someone without permission or unlawfully,
2. to use (someone else’s ideas or work) without acknowledgment

And Oxford says:

the action or crime of stealing

and for stealing:

take (something) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it

Unfortunately I don't have access to any lawyer only dictionaries.

[Xenophon]

Somone above was complaining about "the gatekeepers" and their taste in what to publish.

The great thing about "the gatekeepers" (a.k.a. publishers in the case of books and eBooks) is that there are so many of them, with so many different editorial policies and foci. You certainly expect a different product from a Harlequin "Sillhouette" romance (likely to verge on soft porn) than you do from Baen (probably either mil-SF/ mil-Fantasy, or hard-SF, or re-release "good old stuff"-SF/Fantasy), than from Tor (a broader slice of SF and Fantasy. And yet something else from a small NY publisher that does modern lit-ra-choor. And still something else from O'Rielly. And so on and so forth, ad nauseum.

If the stuff you like isn't available from a publisher that you are aware of, either look harder or start your own! You may have spotted an unserved or under-served market.

Xenophon

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Stringer

But the question from the consumer view is, would there be enough motivation to continue producing such quality after it is not an living? When car was invented, consumers had a better means to go from point A to point B. However, if professional writers go away, I seriously doubt we would have as much good reading as we now have.

I think you missed the point. It's not the professional writers who will go away now that the "car is invented", it's the professional middlemen who are charging an arm and a leg for "horse and buggy whips" and are trying to use laws to prop up their outdated business model.

I don't think anybody is arguing that the authors/musicians/etc should not get paid for their work. That's a straw man that some people use because it generates a lot more sympathy than arguing that the RIAA or Publishing executive needs more money. Authors, musicians, and consumers are all suffering due to the greed of the middlemen.

[Moejoe]

@Stringer
The most important of those definitions involve a 'something' being deprived from some other entity. Impossible to apply any of those definitions to the infinitely reproducible. You may as well accuse someone of stealing your oxygen if they breathe too closely to you.

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

You make another real-world analogy that doesn't fit in with the digital age. The problem is little Timmy wouldn't have bought the work anyway, so nothing is lost. If he's like a lot of casual downloaders then he might grab the odd song here and there, not really bothering with albums or any kind of collection. All those songs he could have easily copied down to tape during the 80's from the Top 40 Charts also. And if the horse-shoes were infinite then taking them wouldn't matter. And the model of file-sharing isn't an evolution of business, it's a revolution of people fed up with the status-quo, annoyed by the silly restrictions and the sheer clunkiness of ancient and unworkable copyright models. What I do agree with is that anybody who sells on copyrighted work is to be despised. That's just wrong. Sharing, I believe, only helps creators, palming off someone else's work to make some quick cash helps nobody.

Possibly, but it’s just as likely that before he could simply hop online and download enough free music to fill the Grand Canyon, he would have purchased at least a portion, the way we all once did before most media became freely available.

How and why is compensating a musician or a writer or an artist a “silly restriction”? You speak as though, just because you don’t like the way publishers and labels behave (how dare they ask that you actually pay for what they provide?), the next logical step is to simply take it.

And where does the “sharing” come in – you cannot truly “share” something you do not own? You may own the physical CD or the paper the book is published on, you do not, however, own the contents. Shouldn’t the decision to share be left up to the originator of the art?

You can defend file sharing in all its forms, and that’s fine, but don’t for a minute think that you’re not hurting the artist. As I mentioned, say we do cut out the middleman entirely, the next time someone uploads files purchased directly from an artist – who is being hurt?

[Stringer]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

@Stringer
The most important of those definitions involve a 'something' being deprived from some other entity. Impossible to apply any of those definitions to the infinitely reproducible. You may as well accuse someone of stealing your oxygen if they breathe too closely to you.

I didn't produce the oxygen, I merely use it myself too. And I define the "something" in this case as the right to sell stuff you made, not the bits at someones computer. Those who don't pay the media products they use when they should, then that is stealing the right in my opinion.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

@Stringer
The most important of those definitions involve a 'something' being deprived from some other entity. Impossible to apply any of those definitions to the infinitely reproducible. You may as well accuse someone of stealing your oxygen if they breathe too closely to you.

That's why it's "copyright violation," not "theft." Although the moral difference between the two is not that large. At least it wouldn't be if copyright law was broadly seen as actually serving the purpose of copyright law. In the US, that purpose is

Originally Posted by US Constitution, article 1 sect. 8

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts

and the mechanism is

by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

My personal opinion is that the latest extension in copyright terms clearly exceeds any reasonable implementation of that purpose. Sadly, the US congress and the supremes don't agree with me.

What do they know, anyway! But I digress.

When you engage in a copyright violation, you are depriving the author of the "exclusive right" mentioned above. Which is taking something from them, even though it is not taking "some thing."

More importantly, when copyright law is in reasonable balance, you are subverting the public policy deal that is intended to maximize the general public welfare. Reasonable people may disagree about what changes (if any) would put copyright law "in reasonable balance." They may also disagree about what would maximize the general public welfare.

I would favor treating copyright violation as being roughly like (non-violent) theft of a similar amount of money -- if (and only if) the system preserved all fair-use rights and also actually let works go out of copyright. In the current legal setup (in the US) the DMCA interferes with fair-use and the ever-extending term of copyright threatens the second.

Write your congress-critters! Tell them to fix it -- sanely, of course.

Xenophon

[Xenophon]

-----

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

Possibly, but it’s just as likely that before he could simply hop online and download enough free music to fill the Grand Canyon, he would have purchased at least a portion, the way we all once did before most media became freely available.

How and why is compensating a musician or a writer or an artist a “silly restriction”? You speak as though, just because you don’t like the way publishers and labels behave (how dare they ask that you actually pay for what they provide?), the next logical step is to simply take it.

And where does the “sharing” come in – you cannot truly “share” something you do not own? You may own the physical CD or the paper the book is published on, you do not, however, own the contents. Shouldn’t the decision to share be left up to the originator of the art?

You can defend file sharing in all its forms, and that’s fine, but don’t for a minute think that you’re not hurting the artist. As I mentioned, say we do cut out the middleman entirely, the next time someone uploads files purchased directly from an artist – who is being hurt?

And you're working under the assumption that those who download don't purchase a 'portion' of the content. It's been proven over and over again that filesharers are actually quite good customers and on average buy a lot more than their non-filesharing counterparts. This is an audience you don't want to ignore if you're a creator. I myself will be releasing my novels on the Piratebay, Mininova and Demonoid (to name just a few), along with more traditional channels like Feedbooks and Manybooks etc.

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but art, especially in a digital format, doesn't belong to the creator after he's finished the work and set it out there in the world. It becomes a cultural artefact, shared and given meaning by those who interact. In the case of a physical object, this then could be restricted, kept back - like a sculpture or a painting, or even a book, or the contents of a book. But the digital world means that any 'art' produced in that format then becomes part of the greater culture, a series of Zeros and Ones that are infinitely copyable. The actual illusion of control by the creator is just that, an illusion. It won't be long now before we see remixes of classic works, re-edited and posted. The best I, or any creator for that matter, can ask for is that those who receive our work do not mess with it too much, and if they do, that they keep our name on it and don't try to profit from the work. Still, that's no guarantee, and I'm under no illusions that whatever I produce won't have a life beyond my creation. That is the true nature of art. A domino run of influence from one to the next, copied, changed, to make something new.

The silly restrictions I was talking about was DRM, should have been clearer. Although I would have thought silly and restrictions together would have instantly pointed toward DRM as the subject of my attack.

[Stringer]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

I don't think anybody is arguing that the authors/musicians/etc should not get paid for their work. That's a straw man that some people use because it generates a lot more sympathy than arguing that the RIAA or Publishing executive needs more money. Authors, musicians, and consumers are all suffering due to the greed of the middlemen.

I'm sorry, what was it exactly you were proposing instead? Donations?

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Stringer

I'm sorry, what was it exactly you were proposing instead? Donations?

That's my proposal, in a nutshell. You like the work, and if you can afford it, then maybe you leave a tip. If not, no skin of my nose. I got to write what I wanted, I may have even had some readers. It all works out in the end

[Lanik42]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

And where does the “sharing” come in – you cannot truly “share” something you do not own? You may own the physical CD or the paper the book is published on, you do not, however, own the contents. Shouldn’t the decision to share be left up to the originator of the art?

You don't have to own something to "share," it, you merely have to possess it.
I do agree that the creator of the art should have at least a great deal of say in the matter, though I thing there may be some common sense limits to this. I really don't hear of any artists (with the exception of metallica) complaining about filesharing - all I hear about is the publishers and distributors. Of course that doesn't mean they aren't complaining, but the complaints of middlemen matter little in the public eye if the original owner/creator does not appear to care or say anything.

[Stringer]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

That's my proposal, in a nutshell. You like the work, and if you can afford it, then maybe you leave a tip. If not, no skin of my nose. I got to write what I wanted, I may have even had some readers. It all works out in the end

And who would take care of the promoting, or do we completely trust to some big freeware portal and people reviews?