eBook piracy, how common is it?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

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?)

About movies, They are a collabortive work, which gets a separate length in the US nowadays (either 95 or 120 years, I forget which).

The old US copyright was based on copyright date. So 56 years after copyright date (28 year x 2) it became public domain. The lifespan of the author/creator didn't figure into it. Canada is currently Life + 50, which is usually longer.

I don't know about legal file-sharing for PD music in Canada. Much of the works would still be under copyright there. All the musicians and composers would have to be dead before 1959 for the music to be PD. I'm suprised that there isn't a classical music download service in Great Britain, for those performances that are past the 60 year performance copyright in Britain. The same performances Naxos sells cheap. They are PD...

Excuse me, PD in Britain. My Bad.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by 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?"

It still doesn't work as an analogy. One is physical, restricted by geography, a part of a service industry and finite. The digital is infinite, unrestricted by geography and limitless. I've already provided a link in an earlier post to show that file-sharing might lead to further sales and has a neglibile effect on lost sales (even if they could measure that accurately). Maybe your analogy should go something like this:

Would you allow someone to ride your transport for free if there was hopes in the future that you might get them to buy a season ticket.

And actually this happens a lot in the physical world through promotions. Buy one get one free, first one is free etc.

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

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.

I understand the costs of file-sharing quite well. Aside from posting articles that can also be refuted, you’ve basically backed up your opinion based on your own personal feelings regarding the free flow of information. Feelings and opinions that, though may work quite well for you, do not work quite as well for those whose responsibilities include not only themselves, but a mortgage and family as well. The post in which you detailed your view regarding everyone just sort of sharing everything and just like, hugging each other:

It fell apart cause I didn't like what they were doing, or what they wanted me to do. Let's chalk it up to my anti-authoritarian nature and leave it at that And I don't think donations would pay the bills, I think I've already stated that. What I do think is that there will be a lot of writers in the future and musicians, and whatever who will create because that is the end product for them. The payment option won't even figure into their minds. My job is pretty flexible, and I have lots of time at home so writing to me is as much relaxation as it is anything else. It's a hobby that I love to do, that I get energy from, rather than need energy to perform. I find it troublesome that the word 'work' comes up so often in relation to writing, as though it was some terribly difficult occupation that wrenches the very last drop of energy from your soul. I think what I'm getting at is that there should be no expectation of payment when it comes to writing; that's just icing on a cake that's already quite delicious to being with.

sounds like the writing of someone who has very few real responsibilities outside of feeding him or herself.

If you truly believe a large majority of file-sharers live by some ethical code (which, in itself is a fallacy if what is being sharing is copyrighted, despite the relative size of the share circle) or download illegally because they simply cannot stomach the current industry business model, well, I have several bridges for sale that might just be of interest to you. Despite what we may wish or choose to believe, the real world does not function on hugs and kisses and goodwill, consumers of commercially available digital media should reward their favorite authors, musicians and artists by helping them sustain themselves so that they may continue to do so.

I’m not a fan of the publishing or music industry, but to try to justify illegal behavior, regardless of its economic impact, simply because one finds them distasteful strikes me as violently immature and irresponsible.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by DuneSoldier

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.

I think use of DRM is highly immoral and I cannot support that by buying something with DRM. To me it is more immoral to support DRM then download something from darknet. That is because supporting DRM is conservative and hinder developments and support a very limited public domain totally against in the ideas that was the basis for copyright.

[pdurrant]

The public domain grows and grows? Well it should, but not everywhere and always.

No more works will enter the public domain in Australia until January 1st 2026. This is because of the change to life+70 in 2005.

No more works will enter the public domain in the US until January 1st 2019. This is because any works published between 1923 and 1964 inclusive are either already public domain, or won't enter the public domain until 95 years after publication.

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.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

No more works will enter the public domain in Australia until January 1st 2026. This is because of the change to life+70 in 2005.

... but Australia already has in the public domain all the material that, for example, in Europe is being added to it year by year. In 2026 Europe will "catch up" with Australia, and they'll be in sync thereafter. I don't think Australia really has too much to complain about - they already have 17 or so years more PD material than most of us do.

[Jellby]

Originally Posted by lilac_jive

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

My cousins were all mad about Harry Potter, they were very proud of having all books in the series at home, and being the first in their school to have them (or similar things, you know how it is)... I don't know if they have read any one of the books now, but back then only my uncle (their father) had read them.

I also remember one of them talking very excited about the Lord of the Rings movie, I asked him if he had read the book, he said he had no intention to do that, because it was too thick a book. "Do you prefer 3-hour movies or 1:30-hour movies?", I asked. "The longer the better, of course", said he. "Then why don't you like thicker books as well?" He then went away to play and run and swim and fight

This all means: a series or story being popular does not mean people are going to read the books, they just want to have them and talk about it.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

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.

How sympathetic you are does not influence the scientific result or the philosophical argument.

[Over]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

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.

And don't forget the big and increasing DDL sites, which use rapidshare, megaupload, netload and many other filesharing sites. Pure leeching (no worry for keeping ratios, fakes/virus are extremely rare, etc).


Anyway, piracy is very common. It doesn't matter talking if it hurts, helps or whatever. We could only talk about morals and ethics, but who cares about that these times? We just have to aknowledge piracy and learn to deal with it.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Over

We could only talk about morals and ethics, but who cares about that these times? We just have to aknowledge piracy and learn to deal with it.

You honestly believe that people today don't have any morals or ethics?

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by tompe

I think use of DRM is highly immoral and I cannot support that by buying something with DRM. To me it is more immoral to support DRM then download something from darknet. That is because supporting DRM is conservative and hinder developments and support a very limited public domain totally against in the ideas that was the basis for copyright.

By that logic, there’s virtually no end to the sorts of illegal behaviors we could justify on account of our distaste for something or other. I could justify stealing due to my hatred of those aspects of capitalism that I personally disagree with.

I might think that, since food and water are basic human necessities, charging for them is immoral, and that I should not be required to pay for them. And it is my moral right to simply walk into the grocers and eat or drink whatever the hell I want.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You honestly believe that people today don't have any morals or ethics?

Well, look at AIG and similar incidents in other countries. Obviously moral or ethics had nothing to do with how people acted.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

I understand the costs of file-sharing quite well.

Really? You must be the only person in the world who does. It's virtually impossible to put any sort of accurate measurement on the costs. Everybody has numbers, but they're all just made up to push one agenda or another.

[Over]

Just a thought... Books, movies and music should be like in a restaurant. We only pay in the end, and if there's a problem with the food, we don't pay.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

By that logic, there’s virtually no end to the sorts of illegal behaviors we could justify on account of our distaste for something or other. I could justify stealing due to my hatred of those aspects of capitalism that I personally disagree with.

I might think that, since food and water are basic human necessities, charging for them is immoral, and that I should not be required to pay for them. And it is my moral right to simply walk into the grocers and eat or drink whatever the hell I want.

What I wrote was not a justfication for any behavour. I did not say that downloading from darknet was morally right.