eBook piracy, how common is it?

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by Format C:

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

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

Why do pirates have a free right to other people’s copyrighted creations?

[Greg Anos]

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.

OK, Harry. For sake of discussion, let's treat it as property (I disagree but...). All real property is taxed in most jusirdictions. It is in most states in the US (property taxes are a state and local level is the US) and it is in Great Britain. Where's the taxes on I.P.? It should be taxed just like a piece of land. Note, a piece of land is taxed whether or not it produces any revenue, and is seized by the state it the taxes are not paid. How much tax? A percent of whatever the state estimates the market value of the I.P. is. Do you like this version of I.P. better?

[Liviu_5]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

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 are several issues here and the question is balance; I completely agree that artists should be able to profit form their work for a while, time-frame which should be *reasonable* and also with some caveats of the *Use it or Lose it* thing since once you release something out there, it *will* enter public domain sooner or later, there is no question about not entering, so already society has a claim on the work as opposed to something kept private.

The question is how to strike the balance and how to ensure creators and their families benefit while keeping the profit motive of the enablers (publishers, bookstores...) in mind too since otherwise the works in questions would be harder to find.

Many of us perceive the balance has been skewed - at least officially, legally - in the favor of Big Media and against both creators and the public and that is the issue here, how to re-strike a balance that worked ok for a long time

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

There are lots of other dictionary definitions of "theft" which make it clear that it does not apply to IP. Just because Sequence Publishing says it does, does not make it so. Not to mention the legal definition clearly says they are different.

The word "theft" can be applied to a lot of things...
Think about the USA: it's a bit of land that have been "stolen" from its native inhabitants. After that, it's been "stolen" from the British Empire (actually, given the large use of weapons and murder in the process, "robbery" would be a better word).

Is Bruce Springsteen a "thief" because he's born in the U.S.A.?



In the late 1800s the Apache who took the horses from the ranch illegally founded on his own land was called "thief"....

Can somebody remind me who won the war between American and Natives?
And who's called "thief" now?

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by Liviu_5

There are several issues here and the question is balance; I completely agree that artists should be able to profit form their work for a while, time-frame which should be *reasonable* and also with some caveats of the *Use it or Lose it* thing since once you release something out there, it *will* enter public domain sooner or later, there is no question about not entering, so already society has a claim on the work as opposed to something kept private.

The question is how to strike the balance and how to ensure creators and their families benefit while keeping the profit motive of the enablers (publishers, bookstores...) in mind too since otherwise the works in questions would be harder to find.

Many of us perceive the balance has been skewed - at least officially, legally - in the favor of Big Media and against both creators and the public and that is the issue here, how to re-strike a balance that worked ok for a long time

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

I guess my next question would be, how is it skewed against the creators?

I’m (obviously) not a copyright expert, but let’s take….Mickey Mouse for example. If his image were to pass into the public domain, would that then allow other companies and individuals other than Disney to profit from his image? And if so, would that then allow, and I’ll use an extreme example, ummmm…the KKK or some other equally repugnant racist organization from co-opting his image for use in promotional materials?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

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).

Copyright is a time limited monopol granted by the state t0 encourage production. It is not a natural right to earn money on what you do. The monetary value on it is only there because of the time limited monopol given by the state. The thing is that is that copyright have bad effects that we do not want. So we want to minimize that harm that is done by copyright and still keep the encouragement to produce.

[zerospinboson]

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.

There are already limitations in place on where electronics are sold (even within the EU, and usually counter to the "free trade" laws that exist, so it would hardly be the exception. that said, I have no idea how easily those export rules could or would be circumvented.

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

I’m (obviously) not a copyright expert, but let’s take….Mickey Mouse for example. If his image were to pass into the public domain, would that then allow other companies and individuals other than Disney to profit from his image? And if so, would that then allow, and I’ll use an extreme example, ummmm…the KKK or some other equally repugnant racist organization from co-opting his image for use in promotional materials?

Huh? you're advocating copyright to limit free speech? Isn't that antithetical to everything the USA holds dear? It doesn't seem at all pertinent to this discussion.

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

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).

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

I guess my next question would be, how is it skewed against the creators?

Because we're (or at least I and my friends are) becoming increasingly aware of the fact that authors (although more poignantly musicians) receive almost nothing of the money we spend on the works. While book authors usually at least keep the copyright over their own works, most musicians do not, and especially when those record companies are lobbying for things like "life+70", and then saying "but think of that unkown guitar player in the beatles back in the '60s who would otherwise not get any money", this tends to make people sceptical about whether authors/musicians stand to gain anything at all from those increases. (for an interesting read, see this worked out example of what might happen to a band that signed on a few years ago.)

Look at Britain, for instance, where this debate is currently being held: (although it's not much of a debate, since it seems that the govt/parliament could care less about what the side contra has to say) dozens if not hundreds of leading academics who research the effects of copyright from across Europe have co-signed a letter/report in which they state that an extension would be useless for the musicians, and would only benefit the record companies. Why is it that parliament seems to be ignoring them, rather than taking their arguments seriously?
While I'm sure this is not something that interests most downloaders, this in my mind casts a veil of distrustworthiness over the whole concept and purpose of copyright, seeing how only 4 big corporations would stand gain from it.
And while I'm not sure the same applies to publishing houses, it does say something for (or against) the institution of "copyright" as a whole.

We seem to have begun thinking that music is somehow essential to our lives, and constitutive of us, even though free access to recorded music is something that has existed (on this scale) for less than 30 years. This development puzzles me somewhat. While music is certainly fun to listen to, I can't say I really miss it if I can't listen to it for a day, nor would I call it an insult to my personal autonomy decreasing Quality of Life for me, like so many youngsters seem to think these days.

[Daithi]

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.

Let's apply this same analogy to science and mathematics. If anyone wants to use calculus, or teach the theory of evolution, or teach relativity, or manufacture ANY modern convience then using your analogy we would have to pay a fee to the decendants of Newton, Darwin, Einstein, and the relatives of thousands of other dead scientist. Do you think this might hamper the progess of science and society? Most reasonable people believe that paying individuals who have not created the advancements in science and math is not justifiable. Paying a fee to the relatives of dead artist, who had nothing to do with the creation of the art, is equally unjustifiable.

Intellectual property is not the same as physical property. But if it were, perhaps your analogy of people that have not earned propery, but inherited it, is the morally weaker position. Perhaps society would be stronger if we had to earn our own property through our own merit. Maybe a fairer form of taxation would be a large death tax and little tax during a persons lifetime.

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

Why stop there, wouldn’t it be grand if my mechanic, rather than receive payment for his services, accepted a big ole hug?

[....]

Ok, and so but back here in the reality based community…

If you pay your mechanic for one single operation every time you use your car, and pay more for every other driver, and continue to pay for 98 (or 70) years after his death, I will repair your car, next time!

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Huh? you're advocating copyright to limit free speech? Isn't that antithetical to everything the USA holds dear? It doesn't seem at all pertinent to this discussion.

No, that’s not what I’m saying. However, I wonder how you would respond if, upon becoming famous, a self-painted self-portrait of yourself were used in a campaign to spread the idea that all races are not created equally, and that you, Mr. Famous so an so advocated extermination of all non-whites? Would you seek legal recourse to protect your image? Or would you consider it this racist group’s right to use you to spread their message?

As we’re discussing copyrighted works and images, I feel as though it is pertinent.

[Liviu_5]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

I guess my next question would be, how is it skewed against the creators?

I am interested primarily in books so I do not follow that closely similar discussion about music or Mickey and I would leave others to answer that.

But in books, well check the latest contracts that big houses try to impose demanding that authors take even less in royalties for ebooks than for p-books which is so ridiculous from all points of view; check all the examples of books being skipped by bookstores on the distribution side...

The examples of digital "hate" among major publishers - maybe "hate" is the wrong word but that's the impression they give in so many little and big ways whatever their words say - are too numerous to count.

See Tor and free ebooks for a recent one that was so uncalled for considering the publisher started it all

Maybe I am spoiled, but I started in ebooks essentially because Baen was doing them and offered webscriptions before print date and later e-arcs way before print date, and they are doing it just perfectly in terms of samples, terms, prices, the way they treat their authors who make good royalties on ebooks. And they do well financially too, just had a NYT bestseller

So starting with that I came to expect this kind of ebook treatment and some years ago when I was an ebook newbie still, and an author claimed on his website that the publisher *contractually* had forbidden him to display more than a page or two from his latest book which got skipped by a major chain too btw, I was first shocked and then it just disgusted me.

Baen does roughly 25% of the book for free on their site, 3 months before pub date, gives out snippets way before pub date, and this guy could not put more than 2 pages from his book? WTF???? And is not as the publisher would offer samples anywhere...

Since then, well I found out that Baen is an outlier and the example above is just common if not worse...

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Because we're (or at least I and my friends are) becoming increasingly aware of the fact that authors (although more poignantly musicians) receive almost nothing of the money we spend on the works. While book authors usually at least keep the copyright over their own works, most musicians do not, and especially when those record companies are lobbying for things like "life+70", and then saying "but think of that unkown guitar player in the beatles back in the '60s who would otherwise not get any money", this tends to make people sceptical about whether authors/musicians stand to gain anything at all from those increases

So how, exactly, does free file-sharing of their music benefit them? It would appear to me as though your adding insult to injury, further depriving them of any profits they may recieve, however small.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

So how, exactly, does free file-sharing of their music benefit them exactly? It would appear to me as though your adding insult to injury, further depriving them of any profits they may recieve, however small.

Please have a look at that article first, as the questions that raises are far more interesting than the question about what other way there is or could be in order to reimburse them.

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

No, that’s not what I’m saying. However, I wonder how you would respond if, upon becoming famous, a self-painted self-portrait of yourself were used in a campaign to spread the idea that all races are not created equally, and that you, Mr. Famous so an so advocated extermination of all non-whites? Would you seek legal recourse to protect your image? Or would you consider it this racist group’s right to use you to spread their message?

As we’re discussing copyrighted works and images, I feel as though it is pertinent.

Actually, this is not pertinent, as it falls under (existing) legislation concerned with defamation/slander. Mickey Mouse never existed, while I do.

[Sparrow]

oops - please ignore.

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by Liviu_5

I am interested primarily in books so I do not follow that closely similar discussion about music or Mickey and I would leave others to answer that.

But in books, well check the latest contracts that big houses try to impose demanding that authors take even less in royalties for ebooks than for p-books which is so ridiculous from all points of view; check all the examples of books being skipped by bookstores on the distribution side...

The examples of digital "hate" among major publishers - maybe "hate" is the wrong word but that's the impression they give in so many little and big ways whatever their words say - are too numerous to count.

See Tor and free ebooks for a recent one that was so uncalled for considering the publisher started it all

Maybe I am spoiled, but I started in ebooks essentially because Baen was doing them and offered webscriptions before print date and later e-arcs way before print date, and they are doing it just perfectly in terms of samples, terms, prices, the way they treat their authors who make good royalties on ebooks. And they do well financially too, just had a NYT bestseller

So starting with that I came to expect this kind of ebook treatment and some years ago when I was an ebook newbie still, and an author claimed on his website that the publisher *contractually* had forbidden him to display more than a page or two from his latest book which got skipped by a major chain too btw, I was first shocked and then it just disgusted me.

Baen does roughly 25% of the book for free on their site, 3 months before pub date, gives out snippets way before pub date, and this guy could not put more than 2 pages from his book? WTF???? And is not as the publisher would offer samples anywhere...

Since then, well I found out that Baen is an outlier and the example above is just common if not worse...

I am 110% in favor of artists receiving a much larger portion of the proceeds from the sale of their works, absolutely. I would take it a step further and say I would love to see the death of the publishing industry in its current form, followed by artists taking a more DIY approach to the sale of their art.

But the issue of illegal file-sharing still exists, as shortly after release, their works will still find their way into the hands of folks who have not paid for their work.

I guess my central point is the defense of the artist, from both predatory publishers, and predatory “customers.”