eBook piracy, how common is it?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

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."

That is strange. You are not depriving anybody of the right just because the government does not succeed in all cases to enforce your wishes. The "exclusive right" is legal right and it is still there even if somebody copy your work without permission.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

With all due respect, that’s a load of shite – despite what you may choose to believe, the digital utopia you might prefer to live in, artists certainly should and do retain the rights to their creations – and could not survive otherwise.

It's called the public domain. What temporarily keeps works out of it is copyright law.

[phenomshel]

I have no pangs of conscience about getting creative with my methods for obtaining copies of material I have already purchased once, if they are not available by traditional means.
I also have no pangs of conscience about circumventing those traditional means to obtain things I'd like to have if I cannot obtain them any other way.
An example:
If a book I want is available on Amazon only, and I don't own a Kindle - I have no issue with breaking Amazon's terms of service and finding a like minded friend that I can pay for the cost of the book, who will obtain that file for me. Unless it's Topaz and can't be stripped, anyway. But the author got paid, Amazon got paid, and the friend didn't keep a copy cause my taste isn't his. I see NO wrong in this whatsoever.
If I have purchased an author's entire oeuvre (which I have) in paper books, I STILL fail to understand why, if I wish to have those in digital format, that I should repurchase the whole set of 53 books.
Especially if I no longer have the physical books....

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

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.

Nor does it make it wrong.

Artists are not "entitled" to be paid for their works (they have to convince someone their works are valuable); they are especially not "entitled" to be paid for the same work for a hundred years. They are given a limited-time, partial monopoly of certain uses of their works--with the purpose of promoting progress in the arts & sciences. When their monopoly stops promoting progress and creativity in others, it should end.

Want to stop downloading of current music? Put copyrights back where they used to be: 28 years maximum. Throw everything created before 1980 into the public domain, and watch the creative explosions as new movies, songs, books and other derivatives flood the marketplace. Watch education grow as children have easy access to e-versions of the important texts of the 50s, 60s and 70s.

The foundation of our culture is being held for ransom by publishing houses, movie production companies and the RIAA.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

Why stop there, wouldn’t it be grand if my mechanic, rather than receive payment for his services, accepted a big ole hug? Or say, how about a nice thumbs up for the fella who just reshingled my roof. Or, at the end of the week, rather than collect a steady paycheck. wouldn’t it be great if your boss based your pay on what he/or she felt like doling out – or, even better, just gave you an enthusiastic pat on the back and exclaimed “job well done”?

Ok, and so but back here in the reality based community…

In all of those cases you're comparing payment for services versus payment for IP. They're entirely different things. I don't necessarily agree with the point Moejoe is making here, but your analogy is way off. Just about anytime you try to make an analogy between physical property, employment contracts, or service work, compared to copyright, it's going to be flawed. They are fundamentally different things, which is why so many people struggle to understand them. You can't think of them in the same terms, trying to do so just confuses the issue.

It might be a little closer to compare the money a mechanic earns to the money that a publisher fronts an author while they are writing, but even then it's not really the same thing.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by phenomshel

ETA: would that be Registered Trademark instead of copyright?

Probably.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Nor does it make it wrong.

Artists are not "entitled" to be paid for their works (they have to convince someone their works are valuable); they are especially not "entitled" to be paid for the same work for a hundred years. They are given a limited-time, partial monopoly of certain uses of their works--with the purpose of promoting progress in the arts & sciences. When their monopoly stops promoting progress and creativity in others, it should end.

Want to stop downloading of current music? Put copyrights back where they used to be: 28 years maximum. Throw everything created before 1980 into the public domain, and watch the creative explosions as new movies, songs, books and other derivatives flood the marketplace. Watch education grow as children have easy access to e-versions of the important texts of the 50s, 60s and 70s.

The foundation of our culture is being held for ransom by publishing houses, movie production companies and the RIAA.

Wow, wouldn't that be fantastic. I'd love to live in that world where copyright only existed 28 years, we'd be so much better off culturally.

[Sonist]

Just to insert: This is NOT a zero sum game.

Think of it as a Bell Curve: You'll always have some who will "pirate" regardless of price, and some who will always purchase, regardless of price.

But, if you price your product right, you can capture a large portion of your potential readers as paying customers.

In other words, if you charge $10000 for an electronic copy of the Harry Potter collection, you'll likely end up with very few paying customers. If you charge $0.01 for the same, you'll likely end up with very few "pirates." So, the main goal should be, to find the price point where your profits are maximized. It's really as simple as that!

DRM is much, much less important than price, because while it may deter some from "pirating," it will also deter some from buying.

So, the moral is: IT'S THE PRICE, STUPID!!! (and the desirability of the product, of course

[Daithi]

I have mixed feelings on the issue. On one hand, I want the creative individuals that produce works of art compensated for their time and trouble. I even want to see the "gatekeepers" compensated for sifting through all the crap and finding and promoting the best artists and their works.

On the other hand I DO NOT think intellectual property is the same thing as physical property. Thomas Jefferson said something to the effect that "I don't harm you by using the flame from your torch to light my own." Since the time of Galileo, Newton, and the Age of Enlightenment the sciences have advocated making scientific discoveries freely available. It seems as if only within the last decade or so that scientists have been trying to patent every idea they have even when the ideas are not even physical inventions. I really don't see this as a good thing, and with copyrights it is even worse because they last much longer than a patent.

Some can, and do, argue that part of being human is learning from others, and sometimes that involves copying. It is how we have traditionally spread our culture. Furthermore, they argue that morally they don't see why the original artist should have the right to prevent them from copying. They see laws that prevent copying and the free flow of information as an infringement on their rights, even if they were not the original artist. I personally don't subscribe completely to this view, but it is just as valid a viewpoint as "Nobody can copy anything I create or imagine -- even after I die."

Personally, I'd like to see very short copyrights and patents; let's say 10 years and allow them to be renewed every 10 years. The first 10 years is free (or a nominal fee) and then each 10 year period the renewal fee would go up exponentially (or polynomially). That way Disney can maintain their Mickey Mouse copyright but it might cost them a million dollars for the privilege. However, this would allow ideas and art to pass more quickly into the public domain where they can be copied.

[EowynCarter]

I think the e-books suffers piracy less than music or movies, Mainly because the people interested in it are fewer.
Among the people i know, the only one interested in e-book is my sister, as she is the only one having something to read them.

[Stringer]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

If I was in this to make money, I'd be going the same boring old route of agent and publisher and waiting 18 months to see anything in print, and then being under contracts and all the rest of that palaver.

Sounds like you don't believe even yourself to that ideologia. I certainly don't before proven otherwise. Oh it sounds nice and some of it even starts making sense (to all: run before it gets you too), but the part of paying mortages with donations is something that I won't be agreeing any time soon. That still leads to the assumption, that most of those who now make their living out of the writing, wouldn't be doing so in the utopia. Which would lead probably to the decrase in the overall quality.

Writing should be fun, not some bloody business decision.

Should and probably sometimes is, even on the traditional money making segment. But work cannot always be walking with flowers.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Stringer

Sounds like you don't believe even yourself to that ideologia. I certainly don't before proven otherwise. Oh it sounds nice and some of it even starts making sense (to all: run before it gets you too), but the part of paying mortages with donations is something that I won't be agreeing any time soon. That still leads to the assumption, that most of those who now make their living out of the writing, wouldn't be doing so in the utopia. Which would lead probably to the decrase in the overall quality.



Should and probably sometimes is, even on the traditional money making segment. But work cannot always be walking with flowers.

I have a job, which I've stated several times before, I do not have a mortgage on the other hand, so that doesn't concern me. I have gone the route of traditional publishing, agent, ready to go to print and all the rest of that and it fell apart. And nowhere did I state that I expected payment, and certainly not enough to pay rent or even eat at McDonalds. You know what, I like walking with flowers, it's fun, it's not work.. if my writing was work, I would expect payment, I would punch a clock, I would say 'yes sir, no sir, three bags full sir' (well I might, I'd be more likely to throw a punch at anyone who tried to force me to say that to them). You seem to have an expectation, as unrealistic as my utopia, that writers now can pay their mortgages on what they earn in traditional publishing. Very few do, most live under the national minimum wage, earning paltry sums for their efforts. It's the anointed few who make the mega bucks, not the first timers or the midlisters.

So why would any writer want to join in that struggle, when they can get a steady job, write how they want, when they want, enjoy their writing, and maybe gain some readers along the way?

[Alisa]

Originally Posted by EowynCarter

I think the e-books suffers piracy less than music or movies, Mainly because the people interested in it are fewer.
Among the people i know, the only one interested in e-book is my sister, as she is the only one having something to read them.

I think this will be changing in the not-too-distant future. As screens get better and cheaper, more people will be reading on devices. Eventually they'll be good enough to get more of the textbook and periodical markets. It may never be as big as music piracy, but it will be much larger than it is now.

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

In all of those cases you're comparing payment for services versus payment for IP. They're entirely different things. I don't necessarily agree with the point Moejoe is making here, but your analogy is way off. Just about anytime you try to make an analogy between physical property, employment contracts, or service work, compared to copyright, it's going to be flawed. They are fundamentally different things, which is why so many people struggle to understand them. You can't think of them in the same terms, trying to do so just confuses the issue.

It might be a little closer to compare the money a mechanic earns to the money that a publisher fronts an author while they are writing, but even then it's not really the same thing.

My (admittedly snarky) point was, wouldn’t it be great if we all lived in a world in which we all shared our skills freely, with little or no need for personal monetary reward.

Unfortunately, reality tells us otherwise – and to a large extent, artists, like the rest of us, need and appreciate being paid for their services.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by tompe

That is strange. You are not depriving anybody of the right just because the government does not succeed in all cases to enforce your wishes. The "exclusive right" is legal right and it is still there even if somebody copy your work without permission.

Really? If you can (legitimately) violate my "exclusive right" any time you feel like it, that makes it not so very exclusive... doesn't it? (Let's ignore fair-use for the moment, to make the discussion simpler.) When you copy my work without my permission, you've certainly de-valued the exclusivity. That very control is the "thing" you are taking away. It's up to the copyright owner to decide whether they use the control to make money, to give the work to the world, or to deny all access to all people. And they get to make that decision right up until the copyright expires, but not thereafter.

Please note: whether or not you can "get away with" the copying (in the sense of not getting caught) is not the question here. Similarly, many copyright holders may choose (as a matter of good business practice) to give away copies of their work under circumstances of their choice. There's a strong argument to be made that it's a good idea (business-wise) to do so. See Eric Flint's copyright musings over at Jim Baen's Universe or Cory Doctorow's experience with giving away eCopies of his books for just a couple of examples.

Nevertheless, the point remains -- the choice of terms for availability of the work rests with the copyright holder, not with you.

Remember that there are lots of examples of intangibles that you may not freely deprive others of. Your loud party is not allowed to impinge on my quiet enjoyment of my property (during certain hours set by local statute). I'm not allowed to publicly lie about your actions and character -- that's either slander or libel depending on the details. The intangibility of the exclusive right is no different from the intangibles I just mentioned.

Xenophon