eBook piracy, how common is it?

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Nothing will completely eliminate file sharing. However, I would think that direct sales from the artist would decrease it. I am assuming that the artists could offer a significantly lower price (and still make more profit for the artist) than the current sales model.

I would love to agree with you, call me cynical, but my guess is that it would do very little to decrease file-sharing. But it would eliminate the, “I download illegally because I simply cannot live with the current business model” excuse – I’m sure another one would pop up in its place.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

But you offered it as a morally superior alternative to purchasing DRM protected material.

Here’s a little fact, given that our lives are finite. we don’t actually “own” anything, up to and including ourselves. At best, nature has allotted us each a brief period of time in which to experience existence, when that time is up, we die, and all the stuff we’ve accumulated stays here. We may pass it on to future generations, but they in turn will expire as well – as will the planet and every recorded human achievement. Why get so hung up on ownership?

But while we’re here, just like anyone else who provides a service, the artists who create and charge for their art deserve to be compensated – DRM or no DRM.

I’ve asked the following question numerous times and I’ve yet to receive a response, if all the middlemen standing between the artist and their customers were removed, so that art was sold directly to the public via the artists website, would it prevent people from visiting file-sharing networks? I keep hearing that DRM is evil, and in some ways, I agree, but I’ve yet to hear how removing it would drastically alter the illegal downloading of copyrighted materials.

It won't, period. Nothing will. Copyright was created by technology - The printing press - and is dying by technology - free digital copying (whether by the internet or sneakernet). You may not like it, I may not like it, but it is. But setting back the clock is not a option, whether to the pre-digital age, or back to hand-illuminated manuscripts and skalds. The only thing, in the long term, copyright holders will have to offer is convenience. People have alway been willing to pay for convenience. If you want to make money through artistic creativity, plan accordingly.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

I was going to respond to your other reply, but after reading this, really, what’s the point?

Awesome. More ad hominem reasoning in order to avoid the arguments themselves. Yes, indeed. The fact that I don't really care about what happens to an industry means my other arguments are invalid as well. Very neatly done. Especially appropriate (or convenient) considering I'm mostly calling you out on your use of loaded language, and other logical fallacies.
Oh, the irony of writing on April First.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

... I’ve asked the following question numerous times and I’ve yet to receive a response, if all the middlemen standing between the artist and their customers were removed, so that art was sold directly to the public via the artists website, would it prevent people from visiting file-sharing networks? I keep hearing that DRM is evil, and in some ways, I agree, but I’ve yet to hear how removing it would drastically alter the illegal downloading of copyrighted materials.

Well, the answer is PRICE, but you and most of the strong DRM defenders seem to ignore it.

Have you heard of iTunes? If the price is right, you get billions of paid for downloads. The target audience is the same one that you accuse being habitual thieves. Frankly, the price should be lower, since there is no physical media and relating costs. But the content providers keep pushing it up, despite Jobs' warnings it will drive piracy up.

Of course, as the price goes up, so does the portion of those who "pirate." Please explain to us, why a file served and sold, and often promoted, by Apple (at about 30% cost), should have the same, or higher price, as a physical track, which carries higher manufacturing, distribution and sales cost?

Remember the content industry's attempts to kill the VCR. After they failed, they made billions from selling tapes.

The business model has changed, but there is still money to be made. It just might not be by the same players as before. DRM is the last gasp of those who can't/refuse to evolve.

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

It won't, period. Nothing will. Copyright was created by technology - The printing press - and is dying by technology - free digital copying (whether by the internet or sneakernet). You may not like it, I may not like it, but it is. But setting back the clock is not a option, whether to the pre-digital age, or back to hand-illuminated manuscripts and skalds. The only thing, in the long term, copyright holders will have to offer is convenience. People have alway been willing to pay for convenience. If you want to make money through artistic creativity, plan accordingly.

I can sign on to Amazon, enter my credit card (or use one click), and then download an entire CD’s worth of material in minutes, in most cases, for under ten dollars.

How much more convenient does it need to get?

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Awesome. More ad hominem reasoning in order to avoid the arguments themselves. Yes, indeed. The fact that I don't really care about what happens to an industry means my other arguments are invalid as well. Very neatly done. Especially appropriate (or convenient) considering I'm mostly calling you out on your use of loaded language, and other logical fallacies.
Oh, the irony of writing on April First.

Unwilling, hell no – I’d be more than willing to engage you in debate, but when you make statements that basically amount to, “I can do pretty much whatever I want because I don’t like the parties involved” you’ve lost me.

[DuneSoldier]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

I keep hearing that DRM is evil, and in some ways, I agree, but I’ve yet to hear how removing it would drastically alter the illegal downloading of copyrighted materials.

It won't. At the end of the day those who wish to illegally download will do so. Regardless of what new type of DRM you come up with someone will always break it and the material will be available illegally. I don't think DRM has any effect on piracy, all it seems to do is deter customers back to paper.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

Unwilling, hell no – I’d be more than willing to engage you in debate, but when you make statements that basically amount to, “I can do pretty much whatever I want because I don’t like the parties involved” you’ve lost me.

No, I said
1. I don't listen to their music,
2. I don't download their music, and, as a consequence,
I neither care about their music nor their livelihood (it comes from being unimpressed by their efforts, you see). What I did say, in my post leading up to that, is that *if* I like something (say, classical music, or Dostoevsky translations, I will happily buy those [within reason]). Academic publishing (excepting textbook publishing) is also something I respect, as it demands at least something from its authors, whereas any Dan Brown can get published in a normal publishing house.

The fact that you don't bother to respond to any of that, claiming I'm too "immature" - or whatever other silly adjective you can come up with - for you to talk to, as well as the whole of my earlier post, as well as the allegations leveled against you in this one only tells me that you have no way of defending yourself against it, as you know that you were indeed stacking the deck in your "favor".

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

I can sign on to Amazon, enter my credit card (or use one click), and then download an entire CD’s worth of material in minutes, in most cases, for under ten dollars.

How much more convenient does it need to get?

And people do! Not everybody, but you couldn't get everybody in the world to whistle the same note, either. Same for Apple I-tunes. The original Warner DVD head wanted to get the old catalog titles down to $5 or less and sell them on racks everywhere, like magazines. The DVD industry got as big as it did by that thinking, rather that the Disney goal of selling them for 50 or more dollars each. On the other hand, I bought a CD. What did I buy? A shiny disc which makes a poor Frisbee? Or the music on it? Or a single user license to the music on it? A bound-to-the-disc single license to the music on the disc? Who decides? I paid my money, don't I get some input here? Why not?

[AnemicOak]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

I keep hearing that DRM is evil, and in some ways, I agree, but I’ve yet to hear how removing it would drastically alter the illegal downloading of copyrighted materials.

It won't really, that's not the point. DRM does nothing to hinder illegal downloading now. All it does is cause problems for folks willing to pay for the stuff they want and in some cases cause them to not buy it causing lost sales. The illegal downloaders are going to download regardless.

[Stringer]

Originally Posted by AnemicOak

It won't really, that's not the point. DRM does nothing to hinder illegal downloading now. All it does is cause problems for folks willing to pay for the stuff they want and in some cases cause them to not buy it causing lost sales. The illegal downloaders are going to download regardless.

The purpose is probably to prevent sharing among friends that don't use p2p or know how to crack. I personally don't think such problem would really exist today on the scale that could justify DRMs. But there are always some business men and women on high places which are exactly the type who would do so because lack of knowledge. It is same as with Flash. Nobody likes it (except for YouTube), some even hate it, but for some very odd reason idiots who build web-sites still use it.

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

No, I said
1. I don't listen to their music,
2. I don't download their music, and, as a consequence,
I neither care about their music nor their livelihood (it comes from being unimpressed by their efforts, you see). What I did say, in my post leading up to that, is that *if* I like something (say, classical music, or Dostoevsky translations, I will happily buy those [within reason]). Academic publishing (excepting textbook publishing) is also something I respect, as it demands at least something from its authors, whereas any Dan Brown can get published in a normal publishing house.

The fact that you don't bother to respond to any of that, claiming I'm too "immature" - or whatever other silly adjective you can come up with - for you to talk to, as well as the whole of my earlier post, as well as the allegations leveled against you in this one only tells me that you have no way of defending yourself against it, as you know that you were indeed stacking the deck in your "favor".

This is what I said – to Moejoe:

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.

Could you please point out where I called you immature?

How is it exactly that you "understand" the cost of piracy, when there are almost no real numbers out there on the effects? Gut feelings? I have yet to see any reliable figures from the **AA (the multibillion figures they spout regularly tend to run all over the map depending on whether you ask them, the IFPI, or yet another sponsored study.), so I'm really curious.

I never said I understand every aspect of the costs associated with piracy, that was not my point. I was responding to this:

MoejoeIf - 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 never claimed to be the be all end all authority on file-sharing.

Going even further than that, I also respect criminals for stealing my wallet because they have families (or addictions) to feed...

That’s great. Should you ever find your entire savings wiped out due to say, identity theft, or a corporation acting illegally, well, I’m sure you’ll find it within you to understand and sympathize with the perp’s point of view.

In other words, I'm not required to care about other people, whether you call me narcissistic or not. But sure, put people who don't care about others in neat little boxes, like "hippy" and "irresponsible adolescent". I'm sure it helps you feel better.

No, you’re not, but at one time, it was more or less expected of an educated adult, a.k.a. an responsible citizen — at least that's what I got taught. Your results may vary.

I love fallacies. Really. Which is why it pains me to see you type "illegal". downloading copyrighted works (games/software excluded) is legal in a fair number of countries around the world, including most or all of the EU. This is because current law compares it to making copies in libraries. You are allowed to photocopy books, after all. Apart from scale and ease, downloading is no different. [uploading being another matter]

Perhaps you should have shared your love for partial “fallacies” cause, in many countries, including the States, to which I am referring, it is illegal to download illegally uploaded, copyrighted works.

Again the big words. Violently immature, irresponsible, illegal.. And all that even though I've yet to see you support any of those adjectives.
In point of fact, it's not illegal, it's not "regardless of economic impact," (that is, if there was no impact, there would be no laws, and that goes both ways. Secondly the actual impact is wholly unknown, especially in the case of book downloads) and most of all, how in the devil's name is it "immature" to oppose things you disagree with in a lawful way?
"Illegal" is a legal term, not a moral one, and if you privately prefer to conflate the two, that's fine, but don't try to stack the deck with them to make your point. It's lame.

In fact, in some countries it is illegal regardless of economic impact. You attack my use of generalizations, with one of your own. It is immature to skirt the law simply because you do not agree with it. The mature way to handle such situations is through legal channels, write your congressperson, the publisher or the fucking president for christ’s sake – but you cannot just decide to pick and choose among a list of laws you with to follow. GW did that, and where did that land us?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

I love fallacies. Really. Which is why it pains me to see you type "illegal". downloading copyrighted works (games/software excluded) is legal in a fair number of countries around the world, including most or all of the EU.

That is itself a "fallacy". It is most certainly NOT legal in many EU countries - eg the UK.

This is because current law compares it to making copies in libraries. You are allowed to photocopy books, after all.

You are not allowed to copy the whole of a book in most countries. "Fair use" permits you to copy a portion of one (one chapter, in the UK) for certain purposes (eg study), but you are restricted in what you can do with it; you're not allowed to re-sell it, for example.

Apart from scale and ease, downloading is no different. [uploading being another matter]

I'm glad that you believe that uploading is "another matter", but how can it be acceptable to download material that has been illegally uploaded?

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by Sonist

Well, the answer is PRICE, but you and most of the strong DRM defenders seem to ignore it.

Have you heard of iTunes? If the price is right, you get billions of paid for downloads. The target audience is the same one that you accuse being habitual thieves. Frankly, the price should be lower, since there is no physical media and relating costs. But the content providers keep pushing it up, despite Jobs' warnings it will drive piracy up.

Of course, as the price goes up, so does the portion of those who "pirate." Please explain to us, why a file served and sold, and often promoted, by Apple (at about 30% cost), should have the same, or higher price, as a physical track, which carries higher manufacturing, distribution and sales cost?

Remember the content industry's attempts to kill the VCR. After they failed, they made billions from selling tapes.

The business model has changed, but there is still money to be made. It just might not be by the same players as before. DRM is the last gasp of those who can't/refuse to evolve.

I’m not a fan of DRM, I just believe its “evilness” is grossly overstated. And I also hold file-sharers (at least) partially responsible for contributing to its creation. I view the DRM issue as over-reaction by an industry that found itself both caught off guard and hemorrhaging – a result of mismanagement and shortsightedness.

And I’m certainly not defending the over-inflated cost of digital media, I totally agree that prices should come down, but I’m not willing to use current costs as yet another excuse to pirate.

As a Kindle owner, I’d love to see prices drop below $9.99 – somewhere in the five dollar range. But again, I will not accept cost as an excuse to pirate.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

... The mature way to handle such situations is through legal channels, write your congressperson, the publisher or the fucking president for christ’s sake – but you cannot just decide to pick and choose among a list of laws you with to follow. GW did that, and where did that land us?

Heh, in your world, these congresspersons and presidents must pay real attention to the letters from people opposed to parking meters, stop signs, "dogs on leash" ordinances, and so on. When the majority of the population ignores a law, it may simply mean that the law is wrong.

I'll repeat: P-R-I-C-E.

Amazon sells a lot of books, legally available all over the internet for FREE. Heck, Mein Kampf was on their best-seller list, and all it takes to get it on your Kindle, is a free Google search.

But at $2, the price was right for enough buyers.

It's the same for the rest. Price an ebook right, and most interested parties will buy it. DRM is simply an (ineffective) tool to try to gouge the market.