eBook piracy, how common is it?

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

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).

Minor tangent: allowing copyrights to extend beyond death is encouragement to publish in the last years of one's life, in order that one's heirs can benefit. Otherwise, there's no encouragement to publish one's final notes, inventions, art projects, whatever--the author won't get to read the reviews, and his family won't get substantial gain from the publication.

I prefer the idea of copyrights of a limited and specific length of time, rather than "life of author." (Currently, I'm leaning towards a preference of between 20 and 40 years. Plenty long enough to wring major commercial activity out of a work, and short enough to be able to freely share one's favorite childhood works with one's grandchildren and their friends, regardless of what the media corporations would like.)

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

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.

I’m familiar with Albini’s rant, and I agree with it (though, to be fair, Albini may rail against the major labels, he has no problem profiting from records he has recorded with bands on them). But it doesn’t answer (or even address) my question - and it does little to defend the behavior of file-sharers. As I said, sure, many bands get screwed by their labels, but to make matters worse, now they’re getting screwed by the fans as well.

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Minor tangent: allowing copyrights to extend beyond death is encouragement to publish in the last years of one's life, in order that one's heirs can benefit. Otherwise, there's no encouragement to publish one's final notes, inventions, art projects, whatever--the author won't get to read the reviews, and his family won't get substantial gain from the publication.

I prefer the idea of copyrights of a limited and specific length of time, rather than "life of author." (Currently, I'm leaning towards a preference of between 20 and 40 years. Plenty long enough to wring major commercial activity out of a work, and short enough to be able to freely share one's favorite childhood works with one's grandchildren and their friends, regardless of what the media corporations would like.)

As they’re not factories, some writers only have one or two good books in them. Allowing copyright protection for only 20 to 40 years strikes me as a bit on the short side.

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

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.

Remember: nowadays food, water, health and even body organs have become "commercial goods".

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

As they’re not factories, some writers only have one or two good books in them. Allowing copyright protection for only 20 to 40 years strikes me as a bit on the short side.

So, if a car maker sells only a couple of good model, its workers have to be paid for decades even if they no longer work for it...

It's an interesting point, but I wonder where the money come from...

[Moejoe]

Here's a very interesting take by Richard Stallman on the 'right to read':

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

Later on, Dan would learn there was a time when anyone could go to the library and read journal articles, and even books, without having to pay. There were independent scholars who read thousands of pages without government library grants. But in the 1990s, both commercial and nonprofit journal publishers had begun charging fees for access. By 2047, libraries offering free public access to scholarly literature were a dim memory.

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by Sweetpea

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?

You may want to take a peak at your policy, as most pensions can continue to be collected by your spouse – assuming you have one.

[zerospinboson]

Oh, I just got this email, from a mailing list i'm on managed by SoundCopyright.eu

Copyright term extension was dealt another serious blow last week when COREPER, the European Committee representing EU member states and the Council of Ministers, voted against the proposal.

In a surprise move the UK government joined others in a blocking minority, rejecting a compromise deal that would have delivered minimal benefits to performers. As a result a deal on copyright extension may not be reached by EU countries before the European Parliament first reading vote takes place shortly.

John Denham, secretary of state for innovation, said: “It is clear that today’s outcome will not kill off the proposals to extend copyright term, but rather that member states need more time to consider that details of the proposal and reach an agreement”. Reaction to the moves also came from the Featured Artists’ Coalition, a new musicians pressure group including members of Blur and Radiohead, who released a statement supporting the UK government’s position stating that the “compromise” would not be good for performers or fans.
The copyright term extension proposal is a bad deal for European consumers, musicians and follow-on innovators. Full plenary vote will take place soon in the European parliament

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

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

There's an opening here for a story about motes and beams.

Railing against the loss of a few bucks, while blithely accepting the loss of thousands of dollars, seems less like "advocating justice" and more like "screw the customer and their so-called legal rights; they deserve whatever the megacorps give them."

("Legal rights": Fair use allows a certain amount of copying, and even sharing, which DRM prevents. First-sale rights allow someone to resell what they own. Maybe if people could easily resell ebooks, the way they can pbooks, they wouldn't bother sharing the files, because they'd want to get their few bucks from the next reader.)

[Liviu_5]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

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.

Right now as per latest figures out there - Teleread recently - ebook sales are less than half a percent ie less than .005 of the book market here in the US.

So the time mentioned above will be a long time in coming - and before getting into cd's vs mp3's, there are too many differences for the comparison to be meaningful, eg cd's are as dis-intermediated as mp3's, as opposed to books which require nothing beyond a functional human body, vs ebooks, cd's were a new technology just 30 years old and as opposed as mp3's originally by studios, music is consumed differently, it's one dimensional so "real estate screen/page" is irrelevant....

Asking people to give away their implicit right as publishers do - first sale, sharing... - for the sake of a shining future, well it just does not fly

And my comparison in the (edited post) was specifically with another internet issue - sales tax on goods purchased and the Amazon law - to me that's the perfect example of another mass disobedience phenomenon whatever you think of its validity, it is there and it does not die...And the Amazon law just covers Amazon, check NewEgg eg how they refuse to follow it...

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

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.

actually i consider locking down works which should have entered the public domain for our collective good years ago to be a pretty serious wrong inflicted on *all* of us.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Minor tangent: allowing copyrights to extend beyond death is encouragement to publish in the last years of one's life, in order that one's heirs can benefit. Otherwise, there's no encouragement to publish one's final notes, inventions, art projects, whatever--the author won't get to read the reviews, and his family won't get substantial gain from the publication.

I prefer the idea of copyrights of a limited and specific length of time, rather than "life of author." (Currently, I'm leaning towards a preference of between 20 and 40 years. Plenty long enough to wring major commercial activity out of a work, and short enough to be able to freely share one's favorite childhood works with one's grandchildren and their friends, regardless of what the media corporations would like.)

actually i agree with the idea of a copyright of a limited and specific length of time, and 20 to 40 years sounds about right to me. see also Eric Flint's article : Copyright : how long should it be ?

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

As they’re not factories, some writers only have one or two good books in them. Allowing copyright protection for only 20 to 40 years strikes me as a bit on the short side.

so, a writer should be able to write one book at the age of, say, 20 years old, and continue earning money from it (presumably, enough to live on) even if they never write anything again ? wow, if only that applied to graphic design !! i'd love to make one website and then coast on that till the end of my years as i kept getting paid over and over and over and over for that one site ! (and webdesign is in fact a creative work as well as technical, which requires a lot of study and practice to do well, including ongoing training to keep up with evolving techniques and simply to improve one's craft, so the analogy is not so farfetched...)

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by Format C:

So, if a car maker sells only a couple of good model, its workers have to be paid for decades even if they no longer work for it...

It's an interesting point, but I wonder where the money come from...

You’re confusing an individual with a corporation. I’ve already mentioned pensions, so yes, employees continue to receive income after retirement, until and even after their death.

I have a pension with my current employer, if I were to leave today, and go to work for a competitor, I would still, upon retirement, collect a pension.

[Format C:]

There one thing I don't really understand.
look at this example

Mr. A buys a paperback for 15$, reads it, and the following week gives the book to Mr. C, who also reads it.
Mr. B buys the same book in Mobipocket format for 15$, reads it, strips the DRM, and gives the file to Mr. C without keeping a copy of it.

Now, Mr. A is considered morally acceptable, while Mr. B is actually a delinquent, and he also makes a delinquent of Mr C, too.

But they're doing exactly the same thing!!!!!
Why does it happen?

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

As they’re not factories, some writers only have one or two good books in them. Allowing copyright protection for only 20 to 40 years strikes me as a bit on the short side.

Why? Will they not bother writing if they can only get guaranteed control over income from their works for 30 years? Will bands stop playing music if they don't get royalties for fifty years?

85% of all published works are out of print in 15 years. Why should they continue to have a stranglehold on that material after it's not commercially viable?

Until 1870, copyright was limited to 42 years. Until 1910, it was 56 years. Why should better technology, faster information transmission, and more access to published works, lengthen copyright? It seems it should work the other direction--you have a much better chance of reaching a million paying readers today than you did 150 years ago.

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

You’re confusing an individual with a corporation. I’ve already mentioned pensions, so yes, employees continue to receive income after retirement, until and even after their death.

I have a pension with my current employer, if I were to leave today, and go to work for a competitor, I would still, upon retirement, collect a pension.

the difference being that the pension fund comes at least partially directly from a person's wages, which instead of being paid instantly is set aside to be paid out later. as a freelance webdesigner, i pay "charges" to a government agency which come out of the fees i charge my clients ; these charges go to fund my national health insurance and my retirement fund. if i want a bigger retirement fund, it's up to me to continue paying additional money into this fund, which again comes out of the money i earn on each project. i only get paid once for each project though, rather than getting paid repeatedly for the same work i did once.