eBook piracy, how common is it?

[Moejoe]

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...

Baen are a shining beacon of how to do it right, and because of this they are rarely pirated. No self-respecting pirate would dare copy anything by Baen. Those who do are shunned, for the most part.

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

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

Ok, let’s change it a bit.

How would you respond if a famous cartoon character you created were used in a campaign to spread the idea that all races are not created equally, and that this cartoon character, Mr. Jingles, advocated the extermination of all non-whites? Would you seek legal recourse to protect your creation? Or would you consider it this racist group’s right to use a character you created to spread their message?

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Baen are a shining beacon of how to do it right, and because of this they are rarely pirated. No self-respecting pirate would dare copy anything by Baen. Those who do are shunned, for the most part.

Shunned by who and how? Folks download material from the privacy of their homes.

And why is it ok to pirate some material, but not others?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

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.”

And the central counterpoint being raised here is that for every dollar being "stolen" from the creator, 100 more are being "stolen" from the middlemen. The middlemen shreek massively about the one dollar "stolen" from the creator while carefully glossing over the 100 dollars they are taking (and are being "stolen").

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

And the central counterpoint being raised here is that for every dollar being "stolen" from the creator, 100 more are being "stolen" from the middlemen. The middlemen shreek massively about the one dollar "stolen" from the creator while carefully glossing over the 100 dollars they are taking (and are being "stolen").

Certainly seems to be the approach in Sweden:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7978853.stm

"In a study, 80% of people thought we shouldn't go after file-sharers.
"But ask them how they feel about taking money out of the pockets of musicians, authors or artists and that number falls by a significant amount," he said.
"Ultimately we have to change peoples perception on file-sharing."

[zelda_pinwheel]

it's very interesting that although this debate has been discussing copyright and its flaws / benefits / parameters, we don't seem to have touched much on the public domain, which is in the end the key notion here, since the public domain is what copyrighted works are removed from, and where they must ultimately go.

as others have said, a copyright is a limited monopoly granted to creators to profit (for a limited time) exclusively from their works, with the express purpose of encouraging them to produce more works (and this point alone, which is so often "forgotten" although being the sole original justification for the creation of copyright, clearly argues against any extension of copyright beyond the death of the creator ; "spirit writing" aside, i can't think of any way that shakespeare is going to create anything new from the grave). however outside of copyright, all works belong to the public domain, which is the vast repository of our collective (human, global) culture. a work which is copyrighted eventually falls into the public domain (barring the endless prolongations of copyright lobbied for by disney et al.), and a work can be released directly into the public domain if the creator so chooses.

the public domain belongs to all of us, and this collective cultural heritage is responsible in large part for defining who we are, regardless of the degree to which we are aware of it.

the people who are arguing in favor of prolonging copyright near indefinitely seem to forget that the ultimate goal of publication is (should be) to enrich the public domain and our collective culture ; otherwise, keep your writings locked up in a little metal box somewhere buried under a tree and don't share them with anyone.

if this seems to be a shocking idea to some, let's not forget that writers also benefit from the public domain and our shared wealth of references and culture, perhaps more than anyone else ; as so many have said before, there is no completely "new" creation, because we are all influenced by the stories that we previously have read, the music we listen to, etc. someone pointed out that for example the harry potter series follows closely the structure of other preceding works of fantasy (i think it was the Lord of the Rings which was mentioned).

the difference between a copyrighted work and a work in the public domain work, practically, is the the public domain work is available to other creators to enrich their own work in ways that copyrighted works are not. some people may shout "thief !" or "plagiarist !" at this notion, but how many of the themes of works made today were not already present in shakespeare's works, or molière, or homer ?

culture builds upon culture (writers build upon the works of the writers who have written before them, and musical genres are all born of the musical traditions which have preceeded them as well), just as science builds upon the advances of all previous scientific work (as daithi said).

the corporations who would like to lock up creations ad vitam aeternam for their sole benefit and profit are doing a grave disservice to the entire population by deliberately impoverishing our collective culture not only of the specific works they control (mickey mouse) but also of the huge mass of works that are accessorily locked up and as a result more and more falling into obscurity and being (practically speaking) lost because they are no longer in print (because it would not be profitable enough for a publisher to pay for the rights) and are therefore not accessible in any way to the public, whereas a work which is in the public domain (say, Pride and Prejudice) can be distributed freely, allowing countless people the intellectual and cultural benefit of discovering it, building upon it, drawing inspiration from it, adapting it, creating new variations of it...

to me, this is argument enough for a radical reform of copyright laws, and it seems to me highly pertinent to this discussion.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

Ok, let’s change it a bit.

How would you respond if a famous cartoon character you created were used in a campaign to spread the idea that all races are not created equally, and that this cartoon character, Mr. Jingles, advocated the extermination of all non-whites? Would you seek legal recourse to protect your creation? Or would you consider it this racist group’s right to use a character you created to spread their message?

If it were 80 years after the creation, (like M. Mouse is atm), the copyright would have already expired, and more importantly, I would already be dead.
So I really doubt I would care. That said, if copyright were abolished (which I think rather unlikely), there would be fairly little I would be able to do about it, yes. Although I'm not really sure why I would care either.
Anyway, chartering dead people (specifically folk heroes) for whatever ideological point you want to make is something that has been happening since the invention of mythology. Look at the things the church say "jesus would've done", the crusades, the institution of poor houses, schools, condoning people who excommunicate whole families for choosing for abortion, etc. (apologies for the politicization)
All this in the name of the same fellow or faith, and never mind the contradictory uses the mythical person (or my creation "mickey mouse") is put to.

Appropriation of cultural icons is nothing new.

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

However outside of copyright, all works belong to the public domain, which is the vast repository of our collective (human, global) culture. a work which is copyrighted eventually falls into the public domain (barring the endless prolongations of copyright lobbied for by disney et al.), and a work can be released directly into the public domain if the creator so chooses.

the public domain belongs to all of us, and this collective cultural heritage is responsible in large part for defining who we are, regardless of the degree to which we are aware of it.

the people who are arguing in favor of prolonging copyright near indefinitely seem to forget that the ultimate goal of publication is (should be) to enrich the public domain and our collective culture ; otherwise, keep your writings locked up in a little metal box somewhere buried under a tree and don't share them with anyone.

if this seems to be a shocking idea to some, let's not forget that writers also benefit from the public domain and our shared wealth of references and culture, perhaps more than anyone else ; as so many have said before, there is no completely "new" creation, because we are all influenced by the stories that we previously have read, the music we listen to, etc. someone pointed out that for example the harry potter series follows closely the structure of other preceding works of fantasy (i think it was the Lord of the Rings which was mentioned).

the difference between a copyrighted work and a work in the public domain work, practically, is the the public domain work is available to other creators to enrich their own work in ways that copyrighted works are not. some people may shout "thief !" or "plagiarist !" at this notion, but how many of the themes of works made today were not already present in shakespeare's works, or molière, or homer ?

culture builds upon culture (writers build upon the works of the writers who have written before them, and musical genres are all born of the musical traditions which have preceeded them as well), just as science builds upon the advances of all previous scientific work (as daithi said).

the corporations who would like to lock up creations ad vitam aeternam for their sole benefit and profit are doing a grave disservice to the entire population by deliberately impoverishing our collective culture not only of the specific works they control (mickey mouse) but also of the huge mass of works that are accessorily locked up and as a result more and more falling into obscurity and being (practically speaking) lost because they are no longer in print (because it would not be profitable enough for a publisher to pay for the rights) and are therefore not accessible in any way to the public, whereas a work which is in the public domain (say, Pride and Prejudice) can be distributed freely, allowing countless people the intellectual and cultural benefit of discovering it, building upon it, drawing inspiration from it, adapting it, creating new variations of it...

to me, this is argument enough for a radical reform of copyright laws, and it seems to me highly pertinent to this discussion.

Hmm.. better put

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

And the central counterpoint being raised here is that for every dollar being "stolen" from the creator, 100 more are being "stolen" from the middlemen. The middlemen shreek massively about the one dollar "stolen" from the creator while carefully glossing over the 100 dollars they are taking (and are being "stolen").

So because the publisher steals from the writer, it’s ok for his or her fans to do it at as well?

As I mentioned earlier, writers sign contracts, if they do not agree to the stipulations of the contract, they can either choose to not sign it, look for another publisher, renegotiate the contract, or self-publish. In most regards, writers are autonomous agents who can think and act for themselves.

I think the dire “evilness” of most publishers is being grossly overstated. Many published writers have enjoyed long, mutually beneficial relationships with both your editor and publisher. You can’t take a few horror stories and then say all publishers are out to screw their clients – those that do, don’t last very long.

[Sweetpea]

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).

Why would the the estate of a deceased writer profit from the work done by that writer? I can understand copyright continuing while the writer is alive. It is his pension, and it gives him time to write more books (as Zelda nicely worded). But, as soon as the writer dies, he can't write more books and doesn't need the money anymore.

I work. I pay for a pension for when I'm done working (in a multitude of years). That money is taking from my pay, which I get for working.

But, as soon as I die, that pension stops. Even though I might have children and a husband. Why would this be different from writers?

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

I was not referring to myself, but the courts - where copyright disputes are challenged.

In the US, there is not a single standing conviction for file sharing. There is no law against "file sharing." There are laws against copyright infringement--which many people believe includes some kinds of file sharing (anything released on creative commons, and public domain works, are certainly okay to transfer through any networks). However, for all their belief, and the thousands of lawsuits filed by the RIAA, there has been exactly one conviction--and it was overturned by a higher court.

If it's so obviously illegal, why hasn't it been successfully prosecuted?

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

If it were 80 years after the creation, (like M. Mouse is atm), the copyright would have already expired, and more importantly, I would already be dead.
So I really doubt I would care. That said, if copyright were abolished (which I think rather unlikely), there would be fairly little I would be able to do about it, yes. Although I'm not really sure why I would care either.
Anyway, chartering dead people (specifically folk heroes) for whatever ideological point you want to make is something that has been happening since the invention of mythology. Look at the things the church say "jesus would've done", the crusades, the institution of poor houses, schools, condoning people who excommunicate whole families for choosing for abortion, etc. (apologies for the politicization)
All this in the name of the same fellow or faith, and never mind the contradictory uses the mythical person (or my creation "mickey mouse") is put to.

Appropriation of cultural icons is nothing new.

But you seem to be in favor of weakening, and shortening copyright law. If this were the case, you might still be alive. How do you think you would handle it?

[Liviu_5]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

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.”

There always has been leakage - think libraries and used books

To my mind used books are a much more of a threat to authors income than ebooks right now.

But it's easy to rally against p2p instead of thinking how ebooks could be used to improve author's revenue...

The "pay me every time you read my book, not pay once and read the book whenever you want" that at least publishers push with ebooks, drm and such ain't going to fly and p2p is just a defense against that; and before we go into "congress, democracy and laws", well others pointed out mass disobedience instances across the years so would not want to rehash that

Edit later: and we do not need to go into big causes and such, think of taxes on Internet goods and the NYS Amazon law, to see an instance of such mass disobedience recent and pertinent to our discussion

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

But you seem to be in favor of weakening, and shortening copyright law. If this were the case, you might still be alive. How do you think you would handle it?

With equanimity. Also, I believe I already answered that question in the post you quoted there. Seriously, read this instead.

Edit: Ah, yes.. that's what her name was. Thanks, Mojo.

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by Liviu_5

There always has been leakage - think libraries and used books

To my mind used books are a much more of a threat to authors income than ebooks right now.

But it's easy to rally against p2p instead of thinking how ebooks could be used to improve author's revenue...

The "pay me every time you read my book, not pay once and read the book whenever you want" that at least publishers push with ebooks, drm and such ain't going to fly and p2p is just a defense against that; and before we go into "congress, democracy and laws", well others pointed out mass disobedience instances across the years so would not want to rehash that

Edit later: and we do not need to go into big causes and such, think of taxes on Internet goods and the NYS Amazon law, to see an instance of such mass disobedience recent and pertinent to our discussion

Sure, for now, but that may change dramatically if and when eBook sales begin to eclipse hardcopies.

I agree with civil disobedience in times of war and the other examples given, but I feel it is a long, long stretch to compare file-sharing with civil rights. I’m sorry, but it strikes me as absurd and sort of insulting - as if a person's human rights are being trampled upon because they do not have free access to commercial goods.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

With equanimity. Seriously, read this instead.

Great essay, I remember reading that as one of my first stops of figuring out what piracy was all about. There's a similar one, I think, by Courtney Love. YMMV with that one

EDIT: Found the Courtney Love one http://archive.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/06/14/love/