eBook piracy, how common is it?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

You're missing an important factor: authors usually can only get published via *exclusive* deals with publishers, at least for a given country. If the copyright is allowed to go into public domain, the publisher loses his monopoly on distribution. Thus, regardless of the value of the bibliography, publishers would like to lock up that copyright as long as possible. A writer who is about to expire is in a good position to bargain greater royalties (for his old family) from a publisher by agreeing to marry a young bride before it's too late.

But only if the creator's copyrights are still producing returns ("the endowment"). If they are "out of print" (or it's audio/video equivalent) and have been for years, (which is the vast majority of copyright by that time, then why would the publisher do anything that cost him/her time and/or money? Athrur C. Clarke, for example, yes, but Joseph Greene? Not likely...

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

It’s this sort of perverted logic that drives me batty. At one time, if a person couldn’t afford something, and money was tight, they’d save up until they had enough to purchase whatever it was they wanted. You cannot justify taking something just because your purse might be a little light..

Don't be silly. You're from the country with the highest per capita debt in the world, both when looking at personal and when looking at government debt.
The irrational need to have whatever you desire - which really is just another manifestation of the once-in-vogue this-is-what-makes-america-great consumerism - is utterly ingrained in the way you are raised, and what you are taught through watching TV, "success stories" in the papers or in book form, etc. "Keeping up with the joneses", getting mortgages for houses that are oodles above what you can comfortably pay for, but which doesn't matter because mortgages aren't personal debt, so you can just turn in the key and move on once you run out of cash, needing new cars every year or two years, all of it are just different sides of the same die.
Being a consumer and the need for instant gratification of desires is a large part of what the USA is about (note: I'm talking about the cultural myths that you share and are so taught, and not so much about specific people), and your saying that you don't like some of the behavior that follows from being that way probably won't really fix that, unless your "opinion" somehow becomes the norm.
If you don't like this fact, hey, I agree.. But I'm not sure it's very productive to blame others for believing in a cultural myth that is so wide-spread, and one that you statistically also believe(d) in, at least until recently.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

But only if the creator's copyrights are still producing returns ("the endowment"). If they are "out of print" (or it's audio/video equivalent) and have been for years, (which is the vast majority of copyright by that time, then why would the publisher do anything that cost him/her time and/or money? Athrur C. Clarke, for example, yes, but Joseph Greene? Not likely...

I see your point, but one of the strengths of ebooks and POD is that maintaining a back catalogue is no longer a burden on publishers. And don't forget ancillary rights; who knew that 60 years later someone would want to make a movie version of "Mimsy Were The Borogoves"?

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

I see your point, but one of the strengths of ebooks and POD is that maintaining a back catalogue is no longer a burden on publishers. And don't forget ancillary rights; who knew that 60 years later someone would want to make a movie version of "Mimsy Were The Borogoves"?

You might be suprised. Orson Wells bought the movie rights to Asimov's Nightfall in 1941. He paid $250...


I tell you what, for that kind of fringe benefit, I'd publish Red officially!

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

If you don't like this fact, hey, I agree.. But I'm not sure it's very productive to blame others for believing in a cultural myth that is so wide-spread, and one that you probably also believe(d) in, at least until recently.

While I can appreciate a rant against consumerist culture, aren't you missing the point? You're saying "Hey, because of your culture, you can't help that people steal copyrighted stuff, so if you want to stop that, you should change other aspects of the culture." Would you say the same thing about racism in America, which is surely a product of its culture more than anything? Sure, yes, tackling the cultural roots of racism is essential for future generations... but that doesn't mean you also don't take action to combat racism itself in its current forms, rather than simply accept them.

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Don't be silly. You're from the country with the highest per capita debt in the world, both when looking at personal and when looking at government debt.
The irrational need to have whatever you desire - which really is just another manifestation of the once-in-vogue this-is-what-makes-america-great consumerism - is utterly ingrained in the way you are raised, and what you are taught through watching TV, "success stories" in the papers or in book form, etc. "Keeping up with the joneses", getting mortgages for houses that are oodles above what you can comfortably pay for, but which doesn't matter because mortgages aren't personal debt, so you can just turn in the key and move on once you run out of cash, needing new cars every year or two years, all of it are just different sides of the same die.
Being a consumer and the need for instant gratification of desires is a large part of what the USA is about (note: I'm talking about the cultural myths that you share and are so taught, and not so much about specific people), and your saying that you don't like some of the behavior that follows from being that way probably won't really fix that, unless your "opinion" somehow becomes the norm.
If you don't like this fact, hey, I agree.. But I'm not sure it's very productive to blame others for believing in a cultural myth that is so wide-spread, and one that you statistically also believe(d) in, at least until recently.

Yes, greed is only endemic to the US. I’d recommend purchasing a few books by say, evolutionary psychologists such as Steven Pinker or Daniel Dennett – then, after having done so, we can have an honest discussion w/r/t human behavior as it relates to greed and selfishness.

But if you want to use the current financial collapse and what you perceive a special brand of greed homegrown in the US as an excuse to justify file-sharing, well, you go right ahead, you’re certainly entitled to your ignorance.

The irony, is that you’re defending the very greed you rail against, the, I’ll take what I want and to hell with everyone else attitude all American’s apparently share.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

While I can appreciate a rant against consumerist culture, aren't you missing the point? You're saying "Hey, because of your culture, you can't help that people steal copyrighted stuff, so if you want to stop that, you should change other aspects of the culture." Would you say the same thing about racism in America, which is surely a product of its culture more than anything? Sure, yes, tackling the cultural roots of racism is essential for future generations... but that doesn't mean you also don't take action to combat racism itself in its current forms, rather than simply accept them.

Perhaps, if the consequences of file-sharing were as dire and disgusting as those of racism, but (obviously) I'm not really sure the analogy works.
Despite what authors or content creators might want you to believe, they're not quite slaves doing menial labor yet (although there is something to be said for that if you look at the contracts they sign :P), nor does alienation of labor compare to the effects that systematic discrimination has on people (never mind what you read from Marx's hand).

[Patricia]

Incidentally, not all writers actually get to hold copyright in their work.
I have contributed to a number of textbooks, encyclopedias and done some very occasional journalism. In these cases I was paid a single lump sum, which included the surrender of the copyright to the publisher. My most profitable piece was a book chapter, which took two weeks to write. I was paid £1200. This worked out at £900 after the taxman had taken his share.
Oddly enough, my partner has yet to make that much on one of his books, even though they take much longer to write, and need trips to foreign archives, for which he pays. (He's a historian.)
So don't assume that all writers get royalties. A lot of the US pulp writers were also paid single lump sums.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Don't be silly. You're from the country with the highest per capita debt in the world, both when looking at personal and when looking at government debt.
The irrational need to have whatever you desire - which really is just another manifestation of the once-in-vogue this-is-what-makes-america-great consumerism - is utterly ingrained in the way you are raised, and what you are taught through watching TV, "success stories" in the papers or in book form, etc.

I don't think that's all of it. America was also founded on "nobody's using it, so it's yours if you can make something productive of it"--the homesteading acts were a way to encourage people to develop land and explore new territory. (And they were horrifically abusive to the people already living in those lands, but the justification wasn't "I want it and the price is too high so I'll take it;" that's a different meme.)

The pioneer heritage in the US gives us an aversion to waste, and a desire to find new ways to use what we have. This means if I scan a book to make it searchable for research purposes (which I've done), why shouldn't I hand it to someone else for the same reason, instead of requiring them to go to the additional effort of scanning and OCR'ing and correcting and formatting the same book? The work's already been done; why is it more moral to make it be repeated?

Scarcity economics no longer make sense when applied to digital works. And while I agree that authors need to get paid, and to some extent publishers who find them, edit their works and promote them need to get paid, the eventual method for that payment isn't going to be "let's make digital works even harder to share than physical ones."

Quoting Doctorow: "Just as the industrial economy wasn't based on making it harder to get access to machines, the information economy won't be based on making it harder to get access to information."

It's not a matter of "we grew up thinking that if you want it, you should have it." We grew up thinking that what is desirable and easy to distribute, should be spread as widely as possible so it can do the most good. And this isn't a perfect philosophy for all situations, but it does explain why so many people are offended by DRM and are perfectly willing to distribute digital content of all sorts on P2P networks.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Perhaps, if the consequences of file-sharing were as dire and disgusting as those of racism, but (obviously) I'm not really sure the analogy works.

So we're back to "it's not that big of a problem", which is a fine position to take, but it seems one that's merely temporary. The problem became so large for music and television that they had to adapt; there's no reason to think that books won't have to do the same. But just because the impacts are minimal doesn't mean it's not wrong; I recognize I've wronged some authors in minor ways. I understand why they are trying to defend themselves from copyright infringement. There may be better methods than DRM, and I do think copyright laws need reform as well, and I think the publishing industry needs to adjust, but none of these equate to simply accepting the scourge of piracy.

[Patricia]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

Yes, greed is only endemic to the US. I’d recommend purchasing a few books by say, evolutionary psychologists such as Steven Pinker or Daniel Dennett – then, after having done so, we can have an honest discussion w/r/t human behavior as it relates to greed and selfishness.

In my opinion, evolutionary biology and paychology is deeply flawed. Most non-human animals do not have much choice about their behaviour. We have the capacity for reflection and, arguably, can make a choice.

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by Patricia

In my opinion, evolutionary biology and paychology is deeply flawed. Most non-human animals do not have much choice about their behaviour. We have the capacity for reflection and, arguably, can make a choice.

We most certainly can, but my point had more to do with the universality of certain human behaviors and characteristics, in this case, greed.

[Daithi]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

With a 20 year initial term, 10 additional years for each renewal, a $10 fee for the first renewal, and a 10x fee increase for each subsequent renewal it would cost $1110 to hold copyright on a work for 50 years, and a bit more than $100,000,000 to hold copyright on a work for the maximum period of 100 years.

What do you folks think?

I like it Xenophon.

Along the lines of your thought process, I'd add that the only individuals allowed to extend a copyright should be the artist, or in the event of the artist's death, the spouse and/or dependants of the artist at the time of the creation of the copyrighted work. (If the copyright died with the artist I'd be fine with that too.) [edit]Once dependents are over 21 they lose the write to extend copyrights.[:edit]

It would be nice to see something like your proposal get made into law. I know most nations follow the Berne convention (treaty?) on copyright law, which sets death+50 as a minimum. I wonder if renewable copyrights with an initial term less than 50 years are allowed by this agreement. (I think 50 years is way too long for an initial term. I much prefer 10 or 20 years with the option to prepay.)

I'd also probably vote to revise the formula for fees. Fifty years for $1110 seems really cheap and $100,000,000 for 100 years seems really expensive. I'd suggest the following formula:

First 10 years are free
10-20 years costs $100
20-30 years costs $1,000
30-40 years costs $10,000
40-50 years costs $100,000
50-60 years costs $200,000
60-70 years costs $400,000
70-80 years costs $800,000
80-90 years costs $1,600,000
90-100 years costs $3,200,000

i.e. increase by a factor of 10 until year 50 then double thereafter until max 100 years is reached.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

So we're back to "it's not that big of a problem", which is a fine position to take, but it seems one that's merely temporary. The problem became so large for music and television that they had to adapt; there's no reason to think that books won't have to do the same.

I guess.. Although it's mostly just because comparing it with racism is sort of like invoking Godwin. Anyway, what I really wanted to say: Change is not necessarily bad, even if most people dislike having to do so.

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

1. Yes, greed is only endemic to the US. I’d recommend purchasing a few books by say, evolutionary psychologists such as Steven Pinker or Daniel Dennett – then, after having done so, we can have an honest discussion w/r/t human behavior as it relates to greed and selfishness.
2. what you perceive a special brand of greed homegrown in the US
3. The irony, is that you’re defending the very greed you rail against, the, I’ll take what I want and to hell with everyone else attitude all American’s apparently share.

1. "honest"? What does honesty have to do with theorizing about the way selfishness is expressed in humanoids? (and isn't reading them what's important, rather than purchasing their books?)
2. No, I was mostly talking about consumerism, not about greed. That said, I do think that this obsession with having stuff is something that came from capitalism, and the staunchest defender of that is certainly the USA. I know of few other countries that have people living there that directly equate income to perceived or subjective happiness. While in Europe it's rude to ask how much you make per year (especially in casual conversation), I have heard Americans asking this from their European acquaintances on numerous occasions.
Anyway, i'm not trying to make this in to a USA hate-fest, I'm just pointing out that we seem to believe different things are important.
3. It has nothing to do with irony, as I'm mostly trying to point you towards a possible explanation for where that drive to possess comes from, which in other forms it has done "wonders" for the world of today. And as a consequence hoping that you'll see that you can't seriously say that you disapprove of one without also disapproving of the other, as they're something of a package deal. Also, I'm not saying that "need" leads to "right," I'm just saying that this perceived need is just a consequence of something else.

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

We most certainly can, but my point had more to do with the universality of certain human behaviors and characteristics, in this case, greed.

If this indeed was as universal and "natural" as you claim, why wouldn't it express itself in the same way in every person everywhere? Naturalistic fallacies are boring; culture and upbringing have way more to do with that than anything else. (and I doubt you'll be able to find even a single evo scientist or ethologist that will disagree with me there)

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

I guess.. Although it's mostly just because comparing it with racism is sort of like invoking Godwin.

Comparison doesn't mean they're equal; it just means we're establishing the limits of equivalency. Racism and copyright infringement are both wrong. Both have underlying root causes. Racism must be addressed at both the overt end and the root causes. So why not address copyright infringement at both ends? Your disinction seems to be because copyright infringement is not that big a problem, at least for books. I posit that condition is only temporary.

I also don't necessarily buy into the logic that "If a problem is not that great, fight it only at the root cause" but it's certainly a common pragmatic solution so I don't quibble with it.