eBook piracy, how common is it?

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by 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?

If they could *ensure* that Mr. B doesn't keep copies of the ebook, publishers might be fine with this. But right now, they can't.

[zelda_pinwheel]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

How? How has our culture suffered as a result of other people’s works not being free? I’m not trying to be a pain in the arse, but it’s one of those frequently made statements that really cannot be qualified – imo.

Sure, why not? How are you, or society in general, harmed by some now sort of obscure author continuing to profit from his or her work 60 years after publication? The work is available for sale, in libraries at no charge, at used books stores, etc – it’s not as if you wont have access to it until the copyright runs out.

well, i actually went into a lot more detail in my post number 441 of this thread about your first paragraph. as to the second, DaleDe has replied what i would have said, precisely ; that in fact, the majority of copyright works are NOT available at all, because they go quickly out of print, are not profitable enough (to the publishers) to justify a reprint, and are not available (very hard to find or even impossible) otherwise. does your public library have an edition of every single copyright work currently available ? does your local used book store ? even online some out of print but in copyright works can be incredibly hard to find and often exorbitantly priced. i was looking for years for a book i loved when a was a child ; i saw one copy (of a children's book !!!) on AbeBooks for over 40$. i finally did get it in an ebay auction with a lot of luck, for an amount i could reasonably pay, but as i said it took me years looking for it and i only found it because i was determined. someone who hadn't heard of it will likely never discover it at all, because they won't spend years looking for it, and it will eventually become completely forgotten.

and by the way, the used copy which i eventually was able to buy didn't profit the author *or* the publisher at all, since it was bought used from an individual.

Originally Posted by Format C:

So do writers, in my country. They have pension, health, schools, and everything like every other citizen.
And they pay taxes, too.

Pension is a total different thing than eternal copyright. And the lack of a Welfare Policy in some countries is not a valid excuse for it.



But, if it's the purpose of copyright, Italian works should not be kept under copyright for such a long time...
Zelda, do French writers have pension and health like other workers have?

i don't know how the authors statute works exactly here but i imagine they are like other artists ; they pay charges into a fund (as i do) which covers health insurance and pension. and everybody pays taxes, as well, which also covers that.

Originally Posted by HarryT

But in effect that is what royalty income is too - income paid later which the writer has already "earned" by writing the book, composing the music, or whatever. Deferred payment for work already done. Very like a pension.

the difference being that i am paid once, a specific amount for the work i do, and i must pay for my pension out of that fixed sum ; i don't continue to earn more and more beyond that no matter how many people view the website i create.

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Consider the fact (that I cannot back up atm) that 30% of all proverbs or idiomatic expressions in the English language come either from the King James Version of the Bible, or shakespeare.
Imagine you could never talk about "taking a pound of flesh" anymore. The (overrated) movie "seven pounds" with W. Smith would instantly be gone. (nothing lost there, you might argue.)
Similarly for Romeo and Juliet: Tchaikovsky wouldn't have been allowed to write his works, Wagner wouldn't have been allowed to write Tristan & Isolde, Bartók wouldn't have been allowed to create his folk-inspired music, and neither would Mozart or Bach, etc. Nobody would've referenced Dante, or Cervantes. Those insipid Disney cartoons wouldn't have had the classical-music-lite background music (Tom & Jerry chasing eachother etc),
Unless, of course, they had paid royalties to the **AA.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Lest we forget that Romeo and Juliet by Shakespeare was lifted almost piecemeal from an earlier piece entitled Mariotto and Gianozza, which in turn was influenced by earlier stories.

exactly the point of the public domain, and the progressive enrichment of our cultural heritage, which abusive copyright thwarts.

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

While that is an interesting exception, I don't see how that would compensate for, let alone negate, the loss we would've experienced if Shakespeare wouldn't have been allowed to write his own version of R&J. (if you forgive my use of hyperbolae)

Provided he didn’t lift it word for word, why? Again, I’m not trying to be a pain, but is there a portion of the copyright law that does not allow artists to influence each others work? It’s not as if Shakespeare simply erased the other author's name, by replacing it with his own.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

Provided he didn’t lift it word for word, why? Again, I’m not trying to be a pain, but is there a portion of the copyright law that does not allow artists to influence each others work? It’s not as if Shakespeare simply erased the other author's name, by replacing it with his own.

Try writing a book about the harry potter universe today, tell someone about it before you start writing, and count the hours until you're sent a Cease & Desist letter or sued by the JK Rowling legal team. I doubt you would be able to count further than you have fingers and toes before they knocked on your door.

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by zelda_pinwheel

well, i actually went into a lot more detail in my post number 441 of this thread about your first paragraph. as to the second, DaleDe has replied what i would have said, precisely ; that in fact, the majority of copyright works are NOT available at all, because they go quickly out of print, are not profitable enough (to the publishers) to justify a reprint, and are not available (very hard to find or even impossible) otherwise. does your public library have an edition of every single copyright work currently available ? does your local used book store ? even online some out of print but in copyright works can be incredibly hard to find and often exorbitantly priced. i was looking for years for a book i loved when a was a child ; i saw one copy (of a children's book !!!) on AbeBooks for over 40$. i finally did get it in an ebay auction with a lot of luck, for an amount i could reasonably pay, but as i said it took me years looking for it and i only found it because i was determined. someone who hadn't heard of it will likely never discover it at all, because they won't spend years looking for it, and it will eventually become completely forgotten.

I agree with you here – and for the record, in many of my posts, I’m sort of acting as Satan’s advocate. I agree with some, but not all of what y’all have opined. I agree that older, out of print books should enter into the public domain, but in principle, I am against file-sharing of copyrighted material – mostly out of respect for the artist and his or her creations.

[DuneSoldier]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

Provided he didn’t lift it word for word, why? Again, I’m not trying to be a pain, but is there a portion of the copyright law that does not allow artists to influence each others work? It’s not as if Shakespeare simply erased the other author's name, by replacing it with his own.

Derivative works are covered by copyright. Movies based on fairy tales would be illegal if the fairy tales weren't in public domain. Or they'd have to buy the rights from the estate of the original authors.

[DuneSoldier]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

If they could *ensure* that Mr. B doesn't keep copies of the ebook, publishers might be fine with this. But right now, they can't.

Publishers aren't fine with what Mr. A is doing, they just can't do anything about it.

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

Provided he didn’t lift it word for word, why? Again, I’m not trying to be a pain, but is there a portion of the copyright law that does not allow artists to influence each others work? It’s not as if Shakespeare simply erased the other author's name, by replacing it with his own.

Try to publish a book about a young mage called "Harry Potter"....

And count how many books feature a knight called "King Arthur"

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Try writing a book about the harry potter universe today, tell someone about it before you start writing, and count the hours until you're sent a Cease & Desist letter or sued by the JK Rowling legal team. I doubt you would be able to count further than you have fingers and toes before they knocked on your door.

But that would not prevent you or anyone else from writing a story involving a boy wizard, provided you’re not simply plagiarizing Rowling’s work. You might be charged with being unoriginal, but little else.

[Format C:]

Ooops, sorry zero.
I didn't want to copy your reply.

I hope you won't sue me for it.

[sirbruce]

Better examples might be the derivatives of Shakespeare's work in modern times to create new art; i.e. Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, or even Hamlet II. Of course, this is centuries later, but if copyright keeps getting extended such works may never be made in the future. One could point to the League of Extraordinary Gentleman, I suppose, for a more recent example. Or Peter Pan, after some controversy, has now been established to be in the public domain.

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by DuneSoldier

Publishers aren't fine with what Mr. A is doing, they just can't do anything about it.

That's the real intent of DRM schemes. And that's why it actually works.
Pirates just ignore it, like they have always been.
Regular customers will pay twice.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Format C:

Ooops, sorry zero.
I didn't want to copy your reply.

I hope you won't sue me for it.

Somebody call up Harlan Ellison, I heard he's good at that kind of thing

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

Or Peter Pan, after some controversy, has now been established to be in the public domain.

In the UK again, Peter Pan has a perpetual copyright, held by the Great Ormand Street Childrens' Hospital in London. The income from it continues to be a major source of funding for that most worthy of institutions.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

How? How has our culture suffered as a result of other people’s works not being free? I’m not trying to be a pain in the arse, but it’s one of those frequently made statements that really cannot be qualified – imo.

Great new movies are being suppressed. This movie uses a soundtrack from a 1920's composer, and the company that owns the rights won't release them without fees that an indie film company can't afford. (Note: the composer's heirs don't own the rights, so this isn't about rewarding the artist.)

Math You Can't Use is a book about patented & copyrighted software, and the IP protection laws that are used to stifle competition and increase consumer costs by allowing easy lawsuits for frivolous prosecutions.

Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig mentions:
"Do you remember when Dan Quayle was interacting with Murphy Brown? Remember that back and forth surreal experience of a politician interacting with a fictional television character? If you were a graduate student wanting to study that, and you wanted to get those original back and forth exchanges between the two, the /60 Minutes/ episode that came out after it ... it would be almost impossible.... Those materials are almost unfindable...."

-------
For most of the history of film, the costs of restoring film were very high; digital technology has lowered these costs substantially. While it cost more than $10,000 to restore a ninety-minute black-and-white film in 1993, it can now cost as little as $100 to digitize one hour of 8 mm film. ... In addition to preserving the film, a distributor needs to secure the rights. And to secure the rights for a film that is under copyright, you need to locate the copyright owner. Or more accurately, /owners/. As we've seen, there isn't only a single copyright associated with a film; there are many. There isn't a single person whom you can contact about those copyrights; there are as many as can hold the rights, which turns out to be an extremely large number. Thus the costs of clearing the rights to these films is exceptionally high. "But can't you just restore the film, distribute it, and then pay the copyright owner when she shows up?" Sure, if you want to commit a felony. And even if you're not worried about committing a felony, when she does show up, she'll have the right to sue you for all the profits you have made. So, if you're successful, you can be fairly confident you'll be getting a call from someone's lawyer. And if you're not successful, you won't make enough to cover the costs of your own lawyer. Either way, you have to talk to a lawyer. And as is too often the case, saying you have to talk to a lawyer is the same as saying you won't make any money. For some films, the benefit of releasing the film may well exceed these costs. But for the vast majority of them, there is no way the benefit would outweigh the legal costs. Thus, for the vast majority of old films, Agee argued, the film will not be restored and distributed until the copyright expires. But by the time the copyright for these films expires, the film will have expired. These films were produced on nitrate-based stock, and nitrate stock dissolves over time. They will be gone, and the metal canisters in which they are now stored will be filled with nothing more than dust.

Sure, why not? How are you, or society in general, harmed by some now sort of obscure author continuing to profit from his or her work 60 years after publication? The work is available for sale, in libraries at no charge, at used books stores, etc – it’s not as if you wont have access to it until the copyright runs out.

BOOKS are often available. Movies, tv shows, and radio broadcasts often are not. Copyright owners are not even required to keep a copy of movies on file anymore.