eBook piracy, how common is it?

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by lilac_jive

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.

A few books will actually be downloaded and read, yes.

What I'm really interested in knowing (but I know that I'll never know), is how many books get downloaded, not just for the sake of downloading and having it, but because people actually want to read that book, and then if and for how much those books are available as ebook.

There are some books I'd love to have, but can't find anywhere as they are out of print but not PD. I know I will download them any way I can if I stumble upon them. (I even tell Amazon I'd like those books on Kindle format even though I'll probably never get a kindle!)

[lilac_jive]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

A few books will actually be downloaded and read, yes.

What I'm really interested in knowing (but I know that I'll never know), is how many books get downloaded, not just for the sake of downloading and having it, but because people actually want to read that book, and then if and for how much those books are available as ebook.

There are some books I'd love to have, but can't find anywhere as they are out of print but not PD. I know I will download them any way I can if I stumble upon them. (I even tell Amazon I'd like those books on Kindle format even though I'll probably never get a kindle!)

That's a good question. I wouldn't mind knowing either.

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

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

I apologize if I come across as overly combative or vitriolic. For the record, I have zero stake in the outcome of the piracy wars, I’ve just grown tired of the excuses and justifications folks concoct to justify what I believe amounts to theft.

I could post just as many reports that contradict those provided – all sides of the debate have an agenda.

Insofar as generalizations, you, among others, have floated a few yourself, and in some cases, backed up your assumptions using your own personal feelings and behavior as if they provide proof of something. Unfortunately, humans have a tendency to overlook or ignore generalizations when they support their particular point of view.

The Cost of Free: How File-Sharing Hurts US

This morning on the Today Show, I watched a story about identity theft through file-sharing sites such as Limewire. While users (an alarming number of them children) use such sites to steal copyrighted material, such as music, movies, and more and more frequently, novels, identity thieves are reaching into their computers (as often as not their parents' computers) and downloading personal information. Then, before you can say Chapter 11, the victims' tax returns, college financial aid applications, and banking information are out there in cyberspace, where anyone can steal them... and wreak absolute havoc in your life. Apparently, this problem is nothing new and extends to plenty of other file-sharing sites as well.

I heard a couple of stunned parents find out their tax return had been fraudulently filed before they had the chance to do it, with their $2000 refund wired into some thief's bank account. They seemed stunned because they had no clue that their daughters' file-sharing habits were hurting anybody. Until thieve reached out and hurt the family, taking "everything we've worked for."

Though I feel compassion for the victims of ID theft, this is sort of the way I feel when I see my work coming up as available for "free download" on Internet searches. I even see sites (many of them off-shore, with no contact info offered) claiming to have material that hasn't yet been properly edited or published. I work for nine months to a year on each book, with little guarantee of numeration, only to see it stolen, and its sharing passed off as innocuous "fun" and a "great way to save money." As if downloaders have a god-given right to take whatever can be stolen.

Not long ago, author Stephanie Meyer of the popular Twilight series had the partial rough draft of her work in progress, Midnight Sun, stolen and widely, illegally disseminated over the 'Net. Meyer was mortified, angry, hurt -- as any author would be. In fact, she was so upset, she abandoned the project for a time, unable to handle the pain of having the material out in the world before it was ready. By following the link to her response, you can get an glimpse of the quality of pain this illegal distribution caused her.

The trouble is, many people think of all artists, whether they be authors, musicians, or those in the movie industry as something other than "real people." They believe (with a painful degree of wrongness) that we're all so rich this won't affect us. They also think of the publishers, distributors, and other purveyors of art as faceless corporations, too large to be seriously damaged by the loss of "a few" sales. But the fact is, when theft puts publishers or record labels out of business, they can't go out and find new artists, or pay them for their labors. And less-established, rising stars (the struggling majority) will never get their chance. Nor will the public have the chance to experience their talent, since they'll be forced to go work in fast food jobs.

But if simple decency and fairness aren't enough to stop people from downloading or teach their kids that they won't tolerate it, perhaps the specter of identity theft will do it. Because there's no honor among pirates, nor on the file-sharing websites where they so often weigh anchor.

link - http://boxingoctopus.blogspot.com/20...-hurts-us.html

[Sparrow]

I wonder how things are going to develop in the next few decades as the amount of material in the public domain grows and grows.

There'll be so much wonderful ebook fiction available for free, living authors may struggle to get any paying custom at all.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by lilac_jive

That's a good question. I wouldn't mind knowing either.

It's an almost impossible question to answer. The file-sharing sub-culture does have, in my experience, lots of hoarders. They download as a way to collect, but don't consume the media they download. There's also a significant portion who will grab something due to its popularity, whether that be outside the world of filehsaring, or within, and similarly won't consume. Then you have the casuals, they grab their TV shows and first run movies and after watching, delete. This is all within the public realm of file sharing.

Now, if you have any experience with the private, invite-only sites then you're talking about a very different kettle of fish altogether. These private sites are very pro-buying and have strict ethical codes and rules about what must be uploaded and the ratios kept. These private sites usually specialise in certain media types -- high-quality music files in FLAC, foreign and rare movies, textbooks etc. These sites also have a fair share of industry insiders, original creators of the music, and other creative types who are fed up of the industry's they belong to. One prominent example is Trent Reznor of NIN, who belonged to Oink before it was closed down. He uploaded all of his bands material, including rare videos and other 'for sale' products over the life of that site. These are some of the modern venues of the file sharing world.

Top sites
Usenet
Private BT Sites
Public BT
Centralised P2P applications.
IRC

The Top Sites are very secretive and closed off and belong to the SCENE. They have no intention of spreading the material to anybody but within their own closed circle. They pirate for the 'Reputation' of who's the first and who's the fastest to release. There are lots of rules and lots of in-fighting. No SCENER wants their material to go beyond the SCENE itself. They are not interested in Sharing and despise BT and P2P.

Private BT sites have a mixture of user-generated content and trickle down from the TOP-SITES. They, for the most part, do not allow their content to go out beyond their own site. They rely heavily on ratios and standards. They have a sizeable population of original creators and industry insiders who are fed up of the industry and release their material here.

Usenet is one of the oldest methods and has a mixture of SCENE, Private rips and public rips. Quite anonymous, no strict rules overall, some groups have rules but nothing like the SCENE or the private BT sites.

Public BT - Mixture of SCENE and personal rips. Lots of ripping groups who release material like TV shows, and personal rippers who have gained reputation for their rips. Ratios are not enforced. Quality is variable.

Centralised P2P apps. Flooded with fakes, viruses, porn and very low quality releases. These are used by newbs who have no idea what they're doing, and also a big portion of teenagers who are new to file-sharing. There's only one in this whole group that still has any credibility, but I won't mention it, as I'm not here to promote, but point out what's going on.

IRC - also vying for the oldest form of sharing with Usenet. No ratios, files are a mixture of SCENE and other personal rips. Some reputation in this, but it's not something I've investigated too heavily.

[DuneSoldier]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

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.

The problem with DRM is that it hurts the legitimate consumers more than the pirates. It's also causing enough headaches in the game industry that EA just released a DRM Removal tool. They have also decided to not add DRM to the upcoming Sims 3 game.

[DaleDe]

Originally Posted by ficbot

Sure they can, and many do. It's called a 'book tour.'

Can they make money charging for admission on the book tour? I think not, it still comes down to selling the books themselves.

Dale

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

I apologize if I come across as overly combative or vitriolic. For the record, I have zero stake in the outcome of the piracy wars, I’ve just grown tired of the excuses and justifications folks concoct to justify what I believe amounts to theft.

I could post just as many reports that contradict those provided – all sides of the debate have an agenda.

Insofar as generalizations, you, among others, have floated a few yourself, and in some cases, backed up your assumptions using your own personal feelings and behavior as if they provide proof of something. Unfortunately, humans have a tendency to overlook or ignore generalizations when they support their particular point of view.

The Cost of Free: How File-Sharing Hurts US

This morning on the Today Show, I watched a story about identity theft through file-sharing sites such as Limewire. While users (an alarming number of them children) use such sites to steal copyrighted material, such as music, movies, and more and more frequently, novels, identity thieves are reaching into their computers (as often as not their parents' computers) and downloading personal information. Then, before you can say Chapter 11, the victims' tax returns, college financial aid applications, and banking information are out there in cyberspace, where anyone can steal them... and wreak absolute havoc in your life. Apparently, this problem is nothing new and extends to plenty of other file-sharing sites as well.

I heard a couple of stunned parents find out their tax return had been fraudulently filed before they had the chance to do it, with their $2000 refund wired into some thief's bank account. They seemed stunned because they had no clue that their daughters' file-sharing habits were hurting anybody. Until thieve reached out and hurt the family, taking "everything we've worked for."

Though I feel compassion for the victims of ID theft, this is sort of the way I feel when I see my work coming up as available for "free download" on Internet searches. I even see sites (many of them off-shore, with no contact info offered) claiming to have material that hasn't yet been properly edited or published. I work for nine months to a year on each book, with little guarantee of numeration, only to see it stolen, and its sharing passed off as innocuous "fun" and a "great way to save money." As if downloaders have a god-given right to take whatever can be stolen.

Not long ago, author Stephanie Meyer of the popular Twilight series had the partial rough draft of her work in progress, Midnight Sun, stolen and widely, illegally disseminated over the 'Net. Meyer was mortified, angry, hurt -- as any author would be. In fact, she was so upset, she abandoned the project for a time, unable to handle the pain of having the material out in the world before it was ready. By following the link to her response, you can get an glimpse of the quality of pain this illegal distribution caused her.

The trouble is, many people think of all artists, whether they be authors, musicians, or those in the movie industry as something other than "real people." They believe (with a painful degree of wrongness) that we're all so rich this won't affect us. They also think of the publishers, distributors, and other purveyors of art as faceless corporations, too large to be seriously damaged by the loss of "a few" sales. But the fact is, when theft puts publishers or record labels out of business, they can't go out and find new artists, or pay them for their labors. And less-established, rising stars (the struggling majority) will never get their chance. Nor will the public have the chance to experience their talent, since they'll be forced to go work in fast food jobs.

But if simple decency and fairness aren't enough to stop people from downloading or teach their kids that they won't tolerate it, perhaps the specter of identity theft will do it. Because there's no honor among pirates, nor on the file-sharing websites where they so often weigh anchor.

link - http://boxingoctopus.blogspot.com/20...-hurts-us.html

I post links to Ars Technica, one of the most respected and unbiased technological news sources on the internet, and you post a personal blog opinion? I'd have taken it seriously if you'd posted one of the Industry's paid-for reports, I might have even argued with you. But not this. This does not advance the argument one jot.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I wonder how things are going to develop in the next few decades as the amount of material in the public domain grows and grows.

There'll be so much wonderful ebook fiction available for free, living authors may struggle to get any paying custom at all.

Sparrow, they already are. Anybody who's reading P.D. works is ipso facto not reading a "for pay" (still in copyright) work. That's one of the hidden reasons for the copyright extensions. If I'm reading Dicken or Twain or Wells, I'm not reading Niven or Steinbeck et al. There's only so much time.

Imagine that here is the US, we had never passed the 1976 copyright extension and its later add-ons. The PD date would be 1953. Think of all the movies books and music that would be in the P.D. You could read all the golden age S/F. Think of all the classic movie titles that would be available. You could listen to all the early jazz, for free, legally. That's some tough competition for new creators.

(Plug time.) Read my chapter on Hemmingway Redux in And The World Changed available here at MR for free, for a more in-depth discussion.

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I post links to Ars Technica, one of the most respected and unbiased technological news sources on the internet, and you post a personal blog opinion? I'd have taken it seriously if you'd posted one of the Industry's paid-for reports, I might have even argued with you. But not this. This does not advance the argument one jot.

I posted an actual writer’s response to file-sharing – the person who, at the end of the day, takes the largest hit when the results of their labor become freely and illegally available on the web five minutes after publication.

Again, I could find and post just as many counter articles contradicting the ones you’ve posted. Everyone has their agendas and biases – including those who support file sharing.

My guess, if your livelihood depended on the fruits of your labor, you might be a little more sympathetic to the plight of people who have chosen to make a career out creating art. They do not have a right to, nor are they entitled to success, but they do deserve a fair and honest playing field – one that does not include selfish narcissists who feel they are entitled to obtain what they want, when they want it, at no cost.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

I posted an actual writer’s response to file-sharing – the person who, at the end of the day, takes the largest hit when the results of their labor become freely and illegally available on the web five minutes after publication.

Again, I could find and post just as many counter articles contradicting the ones you’ve posted. Everyone has their agendas and biases – including those who support file sharing.

My guess, if your livelihood depended on the fruits of your labor, you might be a little more sympathetic to the plight of people who have chosen to make a career out creating art. They do not have a right to, nor are they entitled to success, but they do deserve a fair and honest playing field – one that does not include selfish narcissists who feel they are entitled to obtain what they want, when they want it, at no cost.

Please do post these reports, and I'll find a hundred more non-industry reports that show file sharing has a negligible, if not a positive effect on the income of creators. Opinion is fine, gut reaction also cannot be discounted, but the article you pointed toward has zero facts in it, just another 'the sky is falling' reaction when the sky is still there. There's no evidence, no metric to measure these 'phantom' losses, only a feeling. I have provided links to well-received articles that discount almost all of your assumptions about motivation, effect and consequences of file-sharing. I have also detailed my own experiences within the file sharing world, going so far as to explain its structure and some of the habits contained within so as to show you the greater structure at play here.

If you willingly discount what's happening without trying to understand, then that is your want, but don't expect anybody to take your opinions as anything more than reactionary and ignorant.

[HarryT]

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.

Do you see riding the subway without a ticket as a sign of dissatisfaction with the ticketing system? I see if as cheapskates who don't want to pay for the service they are receiving.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

Imagine that here is the US, we had never passed the 1976 copyright extension and its later add-ons. The PD date would be 1953. Think of all the movies books and music that would be in the P.D. You could read all the golden age S/F. Think of all the classic movie titles that would be available. You could listen to all the early jazz, for free, legally. That's some tough competition for new creators.

Is file sharing non-existant in Canada, where all that material (and more) is now in the public domain? (I'm not sure about movies? What is the copyright term for movies?)

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Do you see riding the subway without a ticket as a sign of dissatisfaction with the ticketing system? I see if as cheapskates who don't want to pay for the service they are receiving.

You mean like OAP's who ride the buses for free, or the handicapped, or the police who can ride public transport anywhere for free in the UK? Should they also pay? Are they cheapskates? As long as you're making ridiculous real-world analogies, I thought I'd throw a few in myself.

[HarryT]

Apologies for being unclear, Moejoe: permit me to rephrase it: "People who should buy a ticket but instead choose not to do so". Hope that clarifies my meaning. I think it's a rather apt analogy, personally. Doubtless the freeloaders will claim "but the subway train is running anyway, so who's lost out it I don't buy a ticket?"