eBook piracy, how common is it?

[RobbieClarken]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

That's a very good point.

It's a shame prices for ebooks don't reflect the cost to people of purchasing them - so those in poor countries are continually disadvantaged.

How about a model where I buy a book at European prices, and part of that money goes into a pot to subsidise the purchases of customers in developing countries?

I'd get a buzz out of knowing some of my money was helping someone out, promoting ebooks globally, and making the system fairer.

A nice idea but what is to stop European customers from importing from developing countries? Especially with ebooks, this would require laws enforcing geographic market segmentation which is most commonly used to reduce competition and hike prices and has the even worse consequence that some countries are denied access to certain books entirely. Your idea also ignores the fact that there is a large discrepancy of incomes within a nation. Why should poor people in wealthy countries pay more than wealthy people in poor countries? I think a more sensible option is just to give money directly to charities.

DRM doesn't matter. The people who will take eBooks and share them on the net already know how to strip the DRM or have a source of DRM stripped eBooks. So in that case, only the people trying to do things right are getting hurt.

I don't entirely agree with this argument. Most people I know would have no qualms about sharing ebooks with friends if it took little effort and no technical knowledge. I was recently surprised to learn my grandparents who struggle with most new technology are copying their VHS's to DVDs for all their friends. DRM would stop people like them sharing ebooks. A case can be made that the level of "piracy" by your average user is pretty negligible compared to the mass sharing done by people with the technological knowledge and determination to circumvent DRM. However with P2P systems it only takes one person to share a book on LimeWire (or whatever the kids are using these days) and it is accessible to the world. I suspect that if Amazon went DRM-free there would be a lot more books popping up on the 'darknet' than there are now.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

He does have a point... Why should that money keep trickling in when you're dead?

One could equally ask "why should it not"? If you build a house, and let it out to tenants, should those tenants stop paying rent when you die? A reasonable person would say "no"; your descendants inherit the house and carry on receiving the rent money.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

One could equally ask "why should it not"? If you build a house, and let it out to tenants, should those tenants stop paying rent when you die? A reasonable person would say "no"; your descendants inherit the house and carry on receiving the rent money.

Presumably the descendants will continue to repair and improve the property, in order to keep it habitable.

I think their continuing added value distinguishes them from the heirs of artists.

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by Nate the great

Next, we need to go after those who check books out of the library. The damn filthy pirates use the book without paying.

Actually, few years ago they tried to pass a bill to close public libraries, in my country.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by HarryT

One could equally ask "why should it not"? If you build a house, and let it out to tenants, should those tenants stop paying rent when you die? A reasonable person would say "no"; your descendants inherit the house and carry on receiving the rent money.

That anology is faulty...

Your descendants must still pay for the house, one way or the other. There is maintanance, taxes, etc... Also, I don't rent the book. And thirdly, there is only one house to sell. While a book is a, what should I call it... non-material thing. Only once I buy a book, it becomes an object. So, the same non-material thing is sold over and over and over.

What you describe is buying a book, and renting it out to other people. And those other people will have to keep paying rent for that book even if I die and that book will become my descendant's property.

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

If you're expecting an unbiased discussion about copyright from Harry, you're wasting your time.

If you're expecting an unbiased discussion about copyright from everyone on Earth, you're wasting your time.

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by Format C:

If I was your employee and demanded to be paid again and again for 98 years after my death for the same work I did once, how would you call me?

(In the States, I cannot speak for other countries) Many working artists who’s primarily income is derived from the sale of their art do not posses health insurance, or pensions, or 401k’s or many of the benefits that most working folks take for granted.

And, yes, through pension plans, most employers continue to (at least partially) support their workers until the day they take their least breath – and surviving spouses continue to receive benefits as well.

At the very least, artists should be allowed to continue to profit from the sale of their works while they’re still here with us.

The great majority of artists never acheive the sort of success that we attribute to the successful.

[HarryT]

Sure, I have a viewpoint on copyright, and so does everyone else involved in this discussion. The fact that those viewpoints may differ does not mean that any one of them is a less valid perspective on the issue than any other. It's a multi-faceted situation.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

(In the States, I cannot speak for other countries) Many working artists who’s primarily income is derived from the sale of their art do not posses health insurance, or pensions, or 401k’s or many of the benefits that most working folks take for granted.

You have a bad health system in the US and that should motivate that other countries has to suffer from global copyright laws?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Sure, I have a viewpoint on copyright, and so does everyone else involved in this discussion. The fact that those viewpoints may differ does not mean that any one of them is a less valid perspective on the issue than any other. It's a multi-faceted situation.

The fact that viewpoints differ is no evidence for them not being valid. But a viewpoint can still be not valid (invalid?) because it is wrong or because it purposefully omit known facts.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by epiphany

A nice idea but what is to stop European customers from importing from developing countries? Especially with ebooks, this would require laws enforcing geographic market segmentation which is most commonly used to reduce competition and hike prices and has the even worse consequence that some countries are denied access to certain books entirely. Your idea also ignores the fact that there is a large discrepancy of incomes within a nation. Why should poor people in wealthy countries pay more than wealthy people in poor countries? I think a more sensible option is just to give money directly to charities.

What you say is true - I had in mind possibly some form of registration for user/groups in genuine need. But that probably wouldn't work either.

Giving directly to charities is ok, but I'm not sure there are any for the propagation of ebooks.

It's just that it seems to me there is a lack of trust and respect between ebook publishers and ebook readers (in both directions).
I wonder if forging a partnership between the two parties for some 'altruisic' purpose (e.g. spreading ebooks among disadvantaged groups) might restore some mutual regard.

We're all book lovers; people might be less likely to take illicit copies from the catalogue of a publisher who is seen to be doing 'good' to fellow book lovers who are disadvantaged in some way.
The disadvantaged would benefit.
We'd benefit from ebooks getting a greater global profile.

It wouldn't solve the problem, but it might help a bit.

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

....
I don’t care if we call it Shirley, the bottom-line is, you’re taking, for free, something that has a real monetary value.

In these days, even body parts have monetary value...

[Liviu_5]

Originally Posted by epiphany

I suspect that if Amazon went DRM-free there would be a lot more books popping up on the 'darknet' than there are now.

Nope; there are tons of drm free mf ebooks from Fictionwise - good luck finding most on p2p; it's all about popularity, drm has nothing to do with it as exemplified by the multitude of books available on p2p and not available in commercial ebook format of any kind, drm'ed or not.

Most people sharing books with their friends are not going to go put the book on p2p, but if they *cannot* share with friends, they may just go there to get a copy they *can* share. One more reason drm is evil since it induces mass legal disobedience and any law/practice that does so is *evil*

Note that popularity may not mean bestseller only - though definitely those qualify - but popularity in certain circles.

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by tompe

You have a bad health system in the US and that should motivate that other countries has to suffer from global copyright laws?

Though I agree our current health system is embarrassing, we could reverse your question, and ask why living artists residing in the States should see part of all of their income sacrificed to appease the wants of say, you?

I just don’t understand why some folks feel that artists are not entitled to continue to profit from their works at least until they die, or for a period of time thereafter (the thereafter meaning their estate of course).

There’s an irony here, in that some of those who claim artists should have limited ownership of their own works, are the same folks who are fighting to claim ownership of those works as well. How and why are you (not you necessarily) more or equally entitled to ownership as the materials creator?

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by Stringer

You are taking away their right to sell the stuff they have produced by using the product without paying it.

And they're taking away the pirate's right to have it for free.

so, who's right?
whose "right" is the most important?