eBook piracy, how common is it?

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

Some writers, Ralph Ellison, for example, only publish one major work, in Ellison’s case, Invisible Man, while alive. I see no reason why he should not have been allowed to receive proceeds from its sale at least until the day he died.

In 1870, 42 years was a lifetime.

So, less prolific writers should get more protections for their works? I'm not seeing the logic here. Authors who only produce one work--no matter how great--don't deserve any income than those who produce hundreds of works.

And in 1870, 42 years was not "a lifetime." Lower "average ages" of earlier times were based on high infant mortality; those who lived to see 20, had a very good chance of living to see 65. 85 was unusual, but not remarkable. People didn't live particularly less than they do now; they were just more prone of dying of disease when young or accidents when old.

[HarryT]

Several people here have already mentioned Shakespeare, so it's perhaps worth noting, as anyone who's read a decent biography of him will know, that Shakespeare was the ultimate example of an author who wrote to make a living. He wasn't interesting in creating "great art" - his was the "mass entertainment" of its time; he had to fill a 3000 seat theatre six days a week in order to make a living. You can bet your life that if Shakespeare hadn't been able to make money from it, he wouldn't have done it. There's nothing wrong with the idea of writing to make money, even though some people in this thread have thrown scorn on the idea of anyone daring to want to do so.

Another example of a purely "commercial" writer is that (arguably) greatest of English novelists, Charles Dickens. Dickens was haunted throughout his life by the suffering he went through as a child as a result of his father being sent to a debtor's prison, and as a result, Dickens was utterly obsessed by money. He wrote to make money, and sued anyone who he felt was violating his rights. The "Harlan Ellison" of his day, one might say . He was absolutely furious about the fact that American publishers made fortunes from his work, due to the lack of international copyright protection at the time, and many of his books (eg Nicholas Nickleby, David Copperfield) contain long diatribes about the poor copyright protection granted to authors.

I am the last person in the world to argue in favour of "perpetual copyright", but I am in favour of an author being able to get fair payment for his work.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

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.

But what do you think will be easier to sell to an uninterested public? "Tchaikovsky writes a fantasy-overture to Romeo and Juliet" or "Tchaikovsky writes a fantasy-overture to a story about a boy and a girl, both 13 years old, who have fallen in lust with each other and think they will die if they are ever separated in the future, and who in the end die because of a misunderstanding about their scheme to break free"?
Also, don't you think that story is a bit too specific not to be recognized as "R&J"? Or should Shakespeare's version then have ended happily, in order to preempt an "unoriginality" lawsuit?

Originally Posted by HarryT

But, with respect, the fact that a work is still in copyright simply means that the composer would have to license the rights, just as an author now not-uncommonly licenses movie rights for a book. It's not a "ban" on it being used.

Which would probably mean that only (relatively) rich or established authors can or could let their imagination be inspired by whatever they deem interesting, or vary on a theme, rather than everyone who put his mind to it. Never mind what happens once the author/composer dies, or the rights are in the hands of the publisher. (Like Dostoevsky's the Gambler, for instance)

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

But what do you think will be easier to sell to an uninterested public? "Tchaikovsky writes a fantasy-overture to Romeo and Juliet" or "Tchaikovsky writes a fantasy-overture to a story about a boy and a girl, both 13 years old, who have fallen in lust with each other and think they will die if they are ever separated in the future, and who in the end die because of a misunderstanding about their scheme to break free"?
Also, don't you think that story is a bit too specific not to be recognized as "R&J"? Or should Shakespeare's version then have ended happily, in order to preempt an "unoriginality" lawsuit?

But, with respect, the fact that a work is still in copyright simply means that the composer would have to license the rights, just as an author now not-uncommonly licenses movie rights for a book. It's not a "ban" on it being used.

[gouzos]

I would like to propose another way of looking at the matter.
I find that reading ebooks is pretty awful. The experience is nowhere close to the real thing. I read ebooks out of necessity and I would never pay for it. I download books I can’t find, books I can’t afford and books I want to test before buying. I don’t actually go out and buy the copy of a book I just read, but if I really like the author I will buy the rest as paper books. For me ebooks are like shared mp3s. Shitty but useful. You get to listen to a lot of stuff you would never buy (that Shakira song you think is kind of fun even though you’re a metalhead) and you get to sample new things you wouldn’t risk paying for just yet. However they will never replace the sheer joy of owning an album you love. It’s the mix tape of the digital age. What I am doing is certainly illegal but I don’t consider myself amoral in any way.
I buy a lot of books. I buy all that I can afford (3-4 a month). The rest I have to read by other means. It doesn’t make a difference to me if I download, borrow or buy second hand the rest. I gave money to the publishing industry before ebooks and I still do (the same amount) so I really don’t feel bad about it.
If I borrow a book I get to read the content for free. The downside is I don’t get to keep the actual object once I’m done - and I do consider this a very big deal since I absolutely love books. If I buy the ebook I also get to read the content (a much lesser experience), I also can’t keep the object, but still I have to pay the amount I would if had bought the paper book. This to me is absolute madness. I will not pay for a non-product. I really find it bewildering that people have actually replaced paper books with ebooks.
For a lot of people like me shared mp3s and ebooks offer away to broaden our horizons and share art we love as people have always done and will always continue to do. Furthermore I don’t believe that using these resources in the aforementioned manner actually causes any damage. It is pure naiveté to think that literature cannot adapt and will crumble just because people share. The industry is simply panicking because it is afraid of the changes and wants to cling to the old status quo.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by HarryT

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.

Last I heard, it was not granted a perpetual copyright in toto; just an exception for performances in the UK.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by gouzos

I find that reading ebooks is pretty awful. The experience is nowhere close to the real thing.

I think it is fair to say that your views are not shared by the overwhelming majority of people on this site .

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

Last I heard, it was not granted a perpetual copyright in toto; just an exception for performances in the UK.

It is certainly possible that I am wrong, but my belief is that every copy of "Peter Pan" (ie the book) sold in the UK pays royalties to Great Ormand Street Childrens' Hospital. J.M. Barry left the "rights" to the book to the hospital in his will, and it was made "perpetual" by a special act of Parliament.

It is of course in the public domain in many other countries.

[Format C:]

Originally Posted by HarryT

[....]

I am the last person in the world to argue in favour of "perpetual copyright", but I am in favour of an author being able to get fair payment for his work.

The whole point is in that word.
How much is "fair"?

1000$?
1.000.000?
All the money in the world?

I think there is no such thing as a "fair" amount.
There is just a "how much can I get with my brute force".

Right now pirates have enough power to get millions of free copies. when major publishers will get - lobbying - enough power to control Internet connections, it will be very difficult to get ebooks for free.
And when we'll have a policeman in every house, it'll be forbidden to lend a book o to read it aloud without paying a special license.

It's not "right", nor "wrong".
And it's not "fair".

Or better, "fair" and "right" are where the largest gun is.

[gouzos]

HarryT, I own an ebook reader I am perfectly happy with and find the experience adequate. But just that-adequate. Compared to the real thing, yes awful. As I said, I love actual books.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It is certainly possible that I am wrong, but my belief is that every copy of "Peter Pan" (ie the book) sold in the UK pays royalties to Great Ormand Street Childrens' Hospital. J.M. Barry left the "rights" to the book to the hospital in his will, and it was made "perpetual" by a special act of Parliament.

It is of course in the public domain in many other countries.

Yes, I think that's right.
http://www.gosh.org/about-us/peter-p...pan-copyright/

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Yes, I think that's right.
http://www.gosh.org/about-us/peter-p...pan-copyright/

Ahh, okay, so in the UK they get royalties from stage performances *and* books, but that's all. I knew it was limited; just not all the details.

But just to clarify, it's now public domain in the US, despite some attempted lawsuits:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_P...pyright_status

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Yes, I think that's right.
http://www.gosh.org/about-us/peter-p...pan-copyright/

Thank, Sparrow - excellent reference. I wasn't aware of the details until I read that.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Format C:

The whole point is in that word.
How much is "fair"?

1000$?
1.000.000?
All the money in the world?

I think there is no such thing as a "fair" amount.
There is just a "how much can I get with my brute force".

Well, that's the thing about writing, isn't it? When you write a work of fiction you generally don't know how well it's going to sell. It could be a complete flop; it could be a huge commercial success. That's part of the risk that the publisher takes! I think, however, that the author should be permitted to profit from his work certainly for life, and a short time (perhaps 25 years) thereafter to provide income for dependants. I think the current "life + 70" copyright term is way too long.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by gouzos

I find that reading ebooks is pretty awful. The experience is nowhere close to the real thing. I read ebooks out of necessity and I would never pay for it.

And I find reading ebooks is about the only way I can get through more than 50 pages of content anymore. Pbooks are bulky, take two hands, and the print doesn't lie flat. I only buy pbooks when I not only can't get them as ebooks, but they're on a tiny handful of topics that are crucially important to me... and even then, sometimes I chop the spines off, scan them & convert to ebook, because I'm more likely to read them that way.

You are welcome to dislike ebooks, but most of the members of these forums are not here because they think ebooks are a necessary evil.

For me ebooks are like shared mp3s. Shitty but useful.

And I think pbooks are an archaic method of data transmission, useful for situations where technology is limited. Oh, and sometimes nice for artistic reasons.

If I buy the ebook I also get to read the content (a much lesser experience), I also can’t keep the object, but still I have to pay the amount I would if had bought the paper book.

If I buy the pbook, I can't search it, can't copy-and-paste excerpts for reviews, can't zoom in to show it to friends who have trouble reading small print. Oh, and I'm stuck with this half-pound brick of paper cluttering up my house.

You are in the wrong place to argue that pbooks are better than ebooks, and that that's part of the problems with ebook industries and copyright laws.