eBook piracy, how common is it?

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

The standard is still set. The customer has the right not to provide payment if he finds the service not up to par, or for a number of reasons, even after the completion of a meal. It happened all the time in a restaurant I used to work at. We had one chap who wouldn't pay because the wine he had with his meal was unsatisfactory. Another because he said the waiter was 'discourteous'. This was a Hotel, quite a swanky one, not Pizza Hut or anything like that.

Are you in the States?

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

Are you in the States?

Nope, I'm English. Whatever gave you the idea I was from the former colonies?

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Nope, I'm English. Whatever gave you the idea I was from the former colonies?

Well, I'm not sure how it works in the UK, but in the States, there is no law requiring restauranteers to refund customers after they've already eaten a meal - that is left to the owners discretion.

But anyways, most media avialable in digital format can either be sampled or previewed prior to sale. Entire CD's are often streamed on a band or labels website. Movies can be rented prior to purchase, and books checked out of the library. The suggestion that consumers do not have access to materials prior to a purchase simply does not wash with me.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

Well, I'm not sure how it works in the UK, but in the States, there is no law requiring restauranteers to refund customers after they've already eaten a meal - that is left to the owners discretion.

But anyways, most media avialable in digital format can either be sampled or previewed prior to sale. Entire CD's are often streamed on a band or labels website. Movies can be rented prior to purchase, and books checked out of the library. The suggestion that consumers do not have access to materials prior to a purchase simply does not wash with me.

I'm not sure there is a law, although if there isn't there should be. Restaurants are a service industry, if that service, for any reason is not up to par customers often refuse payment, even after the completion of a meal. The place I worked at had an unwritten policy that if a customer was dissatisfied with their meal and refused to pay they would actually offer them a free meal at some other time of their choosing. The good-will generated by the giving of a free meal far outweighed the actual cost to the restaurant. Send away a customer after forcing them to pay a bill, bad word of mouth spreads, send them away with free meal and a courteous apology, you get repeat custom.

Just makes sense to me, like that old saying - The Customer is Always Right. Maybe it's an English thing, or maybe it was that Hotel I worked in and the management there. Couldn't say for sure. But please, for the love of God, will you stop making physical analogies to digital objects for just one post. It's not the same and it just confuses the discussion.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

<snip>and books checked out of the library. The suggestion that consumers do not have access to materials prior to a purchase simply does not wash with me.

You assume everybody has access to a library that has a lot of book stocked. I stopped going to the library when I moved to a smaller town. Their selection of English books was horrible (and I generally only read English books, don't like many of the translations). And now I'm living in en even smaller town, I doubt they have the selection I'd like to have. So, that statement isn't true.

Renting of movies: the same problem. Most of the movies I'd like to see aren't available (anymove) as they only have the popular ones (the rest are only bagage and only take space). There is a rent-and-download test going on, but when I checked what they had to offer it was either some very obscure movies or very recent ones. The only place where you can "preview" the content is the music industry.

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I'm not sure there is a law, although if there isn't there should be. Restaurants are a service industry, if that service, for any reason is not up to par customers often refuse payment, even after the completion of a meal. The place I worked at had an unwritten policy that if a customer was dissatisfied with their meal and refused to pay they would actually offer them a free meal at some other time of their choosing. The good-will generated by the giving of a free meal far outweighed the actual cost to the restaurant. Send away a customer after forcing them to pay a bill, bad word of mouth spreads, send them away with free meal and a courteous apology, you get repeat custom.

Just makes sense to me, like that old saying - The Customer is Always Right. Maybe it's an English thing, or maybe it was that Hotel I worked in and the management there. Couldn't say for sure. But please, for the love of God, will you stop making physical analogies to digital objects for just one post. It's not the same and it just confuses the discussion.

Cleaning one’s plate, to me, suggests the meal went down quite well. Folks who refuse to pay often do so because they’re assholes - plain and simple. You don’t like what you’re eating, tell the waiter, and in most cases, they’ll offer you something else at no charge. Eat the entire meal, sopping up the gravy with your last slice of bread, and then claim that the meal was not to your liking - tough shit.

I work in customer service for a large paint manufacturer, you would not believe the bullshit people come up with to try and get something for nothing. I’ve had people tell me they want a refund because, after seven years, they no longer like the color they chose.

It happens all day, every day. The customer is not always right, but quite often, they're looking to get something for nothing.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

Eat the entire meal, sopping up the gravy with your last slice of bread, and then claim that the meal was not to your liking - tough shit.

Possibly literally, once the food poisoning has kicked in.

[Ea]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

You don't know if your want (e.g. an entertaining read) will be satisfied till after you've purchased something purporting to satisfy it.

It doesn't matter in this case. You run that risk when buying it. My point was that it is possible to assign worth to something even when you don't know everything about it. That worth assesment might change over time, when more knowledge is acquired, but part of buying something, is that you run the risk of getting disappointed (or pleasantly surprised).

Anyhow.. I do think the current business model does not work very well with regards to selling digital content, I do think that most copyright infringeing up- and downloading is a symptom of this flawed model, but I don't think customers have some inherent 'right' to that content unless they've paid for it.

[Sweetpea]

Personally, I see this illegal downloading more as a sign on the wall that people are dissatisfied with the current business model. Either the price and/or the availability of books.

Yes, people will download because it is possible, but I wonder how many of those people actually read those books they download?

I admit I have some less-than-legal books on my HD, but about 99% of those I've never read. And those that I did read, I now have a legal version of.

[deltop]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

Perhaps DRM schemes and other similar measures publishers and labels resort to wouldn’t be so damn draconian if people did not steal their copyrighted materials? The fact is, protections exist precisely because people feel as though they can simply take what they do not own, have not paid for - security measures exist as a direct result of piracy.

I place less blame on the publishers and labels, and more on the end “I’ll take whatever I damn well please” user.

I long ago stopped believing drm was all about protecting the rights of the author and stopping piracy. It's actually all about control and is there to protect access to markets and to protect outdated business models. After all it doesn't stop piracy does it? Companies aren't actually THAT stupid as to believe that copy protection schemes will last very long. They know full well that they'll be cracked, and often sooner rather than later.

People will often commit copyright infringement not because they want to but simply because they can't get access due to problems with importing. Look at the region coding on dvd's and blu-rays. Or the ridiculous situation where you can import a pbook form amazon anywhere in the world but only buy an ebook from them if you live in the states.

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

Personally, I see this illegal downloading more as a sign on the wall that people are dissatisfied with the current business model. Either the price and/or the availability of books.

Yes, people will download because it is possible, but I wonder how many of those people actually read those books they download?

I admit I have some less-than-legal books on my HD, but about 99% of those I've never read. And those that I did read, I now have a legal version of.

Bollocks, again, please find me a large sampling of teens (or anyone else for that matter) that download pirated media because they are dissatisfied with the current business model. People download pirated media because access to it is nearly universal, it’s easily accessible, free, carries very little to no consequences and the damage it causes is hidden from view.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

Bollocks, again, please find me a large sampling of teens (or anyone else for that matter) that download pirated media because they are dissatisfied with the current business model. People download pirated media because access to it is nearly universal, it’s easily accessible, free, carries very little to no consequences and the damage it causes is hidden from view.

I don't think the amount of teens downloading ebooks is very high... And if they do, how many books do you really think will get read?

[lilac_jive]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

I don't think the amount of teens downloading ebooks is very high... And if they do, how many books do you really think will get read?

Well, think about Twilight for a second. That seems to be an extremely popular P2P book. And Harry Potter.

I see what you are saying though.

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by deltop

I long ago stopped believing drm was all about protecting the rights of the author and stopping piracy. It's actually all about control and is there to protect access to markets and to protect outdated business models. After all it doesn't stop piracy does it? Companies aren't actually THAT stupid as to believe that copy protection schemes will last very long. They know full well that they'll be cracked, and often sooner rather than later.

Exactly, that’s precisely my point. The people who pirate media have initiated an arms race of sorts, and every time they crack a new type of encryption, the industry responds by ratcheting up security. DRM exists as a direct result of piracy - just as security systems exist to prevent or deter theft.

Take game developers for instance, prior to the internet and rampant piracy, the security on most games simply required one to input a long encryption key prior to installing the game, or required that the disk remain in the drive. Over time, hackers and pirates found ways around this, the result, developers had to ratchet up security further still. Small developers were literally run out of business because they were not profiting from their investments.

Don’t blame the industry for DRM, blame those who attempt to circumvent it. Does it suck? Yes – but unfortunately, those who feel as though they are entitled to free software are to blame, while honest folks have to suffer the consequences.

DRM may not stop piracy, but it does deter some folks who might otherwise download illegally.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

Bollocks, again, please find me a large sampling of teens (or anyone else for that matter) that download pirated media because they are dissatisfied with the current business model. People download pirated media because access to it is nearly universal, it’s easily accessible, free, carries very little to no consequences and the damage it causes is hidden from view.

Please, and I ask you this in all friendliness, but stop spitting vitriol and generalisations without backing them up. You make assumptions but don't have anything but the chip on your shoulder to show as evidence. Here are just a few articles that prove your assumptions are incorrect:

Study: P2P users buy more music; apathy, not piracy, the problem

A $13 billion fantasy: latest music piracy study overstates effect of P2P

Forecast: Legal P2P uses growing 10x faster than illegal ones

P2P not hurting DVD, Blu-ray sales as revenues up from 2007

TPB trial witness: file-sharing not bad for music business