eBook piracy, how common is it?

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

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.

1. "honest"? What does honesty have to do with theorizing about the way selfishness is expressed in humanoids? (and isn't reading what matters, rather than purchasing?)
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. No, i'm mostly trying to point you towards a possible explanation for where that drive to possess comes from, and that in other forms it has done "wonders" for the world of today. And hoping you'll see that you can't seriously say that you disapprove of one without also disapproving of the other.

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)

Actually, he doesn’t. Dennett is very much in the evolutionary psychologist camp.

From wikipedia:

“In Consciousness Explained, Dennett's interest in the ability of evolution to explain some of the content-producing features of consciousness is already apparent, and this has since become an integral part of his program. He defends a theory known by some as Neural Darwinism. He also presents an argument against qualia; he argues that the concept is so confused that it cannot be put to any use or understood in any non-contradictory way, and therefore does not constitute a valid refutation of physicalism. Much of Dennett's work in the 1990s has been concerned with fleshing out his previous ideas by addressing the same topics from an evolutionary standpoint, from what distinguishes human minds from animal minds (Kinds of Minds), to how free will is compatible with a naturalist view of the world (Freedom Evolves). In his 2006 book, Breaking the Spell, Dennett attempts to subject religious belief to the same treatment, explaining possible evolutionary reasons for the phenomenon of religious adherence.”

All humans, to a greater or lesser degree have a desire to accumulate stuff – the degree is attributable, at least, in part, to nurture, but there is a strong evolutionary, adaptive component as well.

Can you name me a culture that does not experience the full gamut of human emotions and behaviors, both negative and positive? Does upbringing influence behavior, absolutely, but take a look at studies of identical twins separated at birth – you might find yourself enlightened.

Another "trait" we have in common, British Colonialism is and was every bit as ruthless and barbaric as anything that occurred in the Americas, it’s history of atrocious behavior is every bit as sordid and depraved.

So, greed as a common human trait is a natural fallacy - really?

Wow.

(and I doubt you'll be able to find even a single evo scientist or ethologist that will disagree with me there)

Really? Now your ignorance is on full display.

Start here, you might learn a thing or two.

Steven Pinker - The Blank Slate

And then when you're done, move on to this list:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._psychologists

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

Actually, he doesn’t. Dennett is very much in the evolutionary psychologist camp.

So, greed as a common human trait is a natural fallacy - really?

NOFI, but you really should learn how to read. The whole point I made there was that there is no necessary connection between the tendency for humans to be competitive/selfish and Consumerism, or the desire to be able to buy whatever you can think of. Yes, most people in most cultures will try to outcompete others, but that is not the same as saying that they will all want to have the biggest house they can get, nor does it mean that everyone who doesn't achieve that "goal" will instantly become unhappy, as they will be able to set other goals for themselves. (link is to a TEDTalks presentation)

Originally Posted by sirbruce

So why not address copyright infringement at both ends?

Because it would put too much strain on the legal systems around the world. Look at the amount of people in jail for "drug-related crimes" as a result of the "War on Drugs". At least 1.5 million in jail, and a total of 7 million people "convicted" for substance abuse. The private prison system has become an entire, flourishing industry. But at least there people believe that offenders are evil. I'm not sure you'll ever be able to sell the same thing to the public when talking about file-sharing, whether you call it piracy or not. With racism there is a clear need for the institution to change, but with a business model?

So it seems to me you're not basing whether or not to attack a problem at both ends not on the size of the problem, but on whether or not you personally believe it to be wrong.

No, I'm basing it on the fact that you'll never be able to find societal support for illegalizing it and prosecuting millions of people for it.
Anyway, do you really believe that there are 5-7x American citizens that deserve to have a criminal record that stays with them the rest of their lives than there were 30 years ago?
In free and/or democratic societies, the nature of the punishment must be proportional and appropriate to the nature of the crime.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Because it would put too much strain on the legal systems around the world. Look at the amount of people in jail for "drug-related crimes" as a result of the "War on Drugs". At least 1.5 million in jail, and a total of 7 million people "convicted" for substance abuse. The private prison system has become an entire, flourishing industry. But "at least" there people believe that offenders are "evil". I'm not sure you'll ever be able to sell the same thing to the public when talking about file-sharing, whether you call it piracy or not. With racism there is a clear need for the institution to change, but with a business model?

I'm sorry, but there's little doubt that drugs ARE a big problem. Perhaps not as big as racism, but certainly far larger than book copyright infringement. Now, I agree with you on the War on Drugs, but not because I don't think it's not a big problem; it's because I don't think it's *wrong* to use illegal drugs. And I suspect you feel the same way.

So it seems to me you're not basing whether or not to attack a problem at both ends not on the size of the problem, but on whether or not you personally believe it to be wrong. And that undermines the reasoning of your argument. But I'm really not looking to argue over this particular point further.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

I'm sorry, but there's little doubt that drugs ARE a big problem. Perhaps not as big as racism, but certainly far larger than book copyright infringement. Now, I agree with you on the War on Drugs, but not because I don't think it's not a big problem; it's because I don't think it's *wrong* to use illegal drugs. And I suspect you feel the same way.

So it seems to me you're not basing whether or not to attack a problem at both ends not on the size of the problem, but on whether or not you personally believe it to be wrong. And that undermines the reasoning of your argument. But I'm really not looking to argue over this particular point further.

I'm well out of this argument I think, as my opinions on 'illegal' drugs are even more radical than publishing. I believe they should be completely legalised.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

Really, I do some IT work on the side, and I’ve yet to run into a single DRM related problem. When problems do arise, it’s usually because the end user is attempting to circumvent it.

I’ve purchased dozens of DRM protected books from Amazon, and I’ve yet to run into a single issue. Would it be great if Amazon allowed users to read on any and all devices, hells yeah, but they don’t, and I understood and accepted that fact when I purchased my Kindle.

Let's say your Kindle breaks and you decide to replace it with a reader that is not a Kindle. Say goodbye to all your DRM infected Kindle eBooks.

[Liviu_5]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Let's say your Kindle breaks and you decide to replace it with a reader that is not a Kindle. Say goodbye to all your DRM infected Kindle eBooks.

Actually the first part is not "let's say" since all devices break sooner rather than later and eink ones are fragile so I expect a Kindle to have a 2-3 year average life.

The second part - maybe there will be Kindle 3 in 2 years, but what in 10 years?
Of course *Amazon* wants you to keep buying Kindle 3, Kindle 4...

The whole "never encountered a problem" with drm works only if you regard books as disposable the way magazines are. That of course is anyone's prerogative, but most people do not regard books so

[phenomshel]

Well, there is a partial solution in the works,(for me, and those with my point of view) hopefully. I hadn't paid much attention to the news about Google settling the lawsuits, and what this would mean for works that are in copyright but out of print. But after searching all over the internet (NOT the darknet) to find copies of an out of print author's works, I stumbled on the Google Books site and their explanation. In time, then, this means I willhave access to those works, online. I expect by then they'll probably come up with a scheme to allow them to be downloaded as well, even if DRM'd.

Oh, and I'm sure you're asking why this is a solution? Because if something I want is available, I have no need to go to the dark net to find it. When it's not is where I run into temptation.

Perpetually hopeful,

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

So how, exactly, does free file-sharing of their music benefit them? It would appear to me as though your adding insult to injury, further depriving them of any profits they may receive, however small.

A lot of groups make a lot more money touring then they do selling CDs. So if they can get more fans, they can make more money from more tour dates.

[taosaur]

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. Can’t afford a book, why not save until you can, or, if possible, stop by your local library?

But I guess it’s ok because those damn publishers are so damned evil, and your selfish desires supersede not only the law, but basic human decency as well.

You make it sound as though you simply have no other choice but to take what you want, and cannot or should not be held accountable because you don’t like the way publishers do business. Lot’s of things, hell, most things are moderately to grossly over-priced, but that doesn’t justify what amounts to a modern version of frontier justice.

Whoa, take a step back and read what was written. I didn't use any logic to justify my behavior, I just provided an observation of said behavior relevant to the original question in this thread.

The logic I did present was:

where legitimate channels do not meet demand at a bearable price, black markets will emerge. Trying to quash those markets without addressing the shortcomings of the official channels only breeds ill will and diverts resources.

and

With books in particular, though, today's torrent will very likely be tomorrow's hardcover. Media companies would be better off ceding filesharing to Fair Use and leveraging it for promotional value.

Publishers aren't evil, but they do have to adapt to the new media. It's perfectly laudable to support their stumbling efforts in the transition, and while I'm just starting into ebooks, I have availed myself of several music and video market sites to that end. I have no doubt I'll purchase ebooks, too.

My point is that responding to filesharing on the basis of "OHMYGODITSBADSTEALING!!!" is not useful, and media companies are only now beginning to see that fact. What do you think had a more positive influence on the RIAA's bottom line, prosecuting single moms or actually making their catalogues available online?

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I'm well out of this argument I think, as my opinions on 'illegal' drugs are even more radical than publishing. I believe they should be completely legalised.

Well, as a small-'l" libertarian I happily argue that the war on drugs is a much larger problem than the drugs themselves. And that we'd be far far better off legalizing those drugs, saving a bundle on law enforcement costs and then spending a modest fraction of that savings on treatment and support for those who get in trouble over drug use.

And while we're at it, we could even recognize that so-called victimless crimes aren't really crimes at all. And we'd all hold hands and sing Kum-By-Yah around the fire, and everything would be wonderful, and... (Why are those guys bringing that white coat with the arms that buckle in the back? Wait a minute! Hey!)



Xenophon

[whitearrow]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

Given all the posting while I was writing the above blatherings, here's the short version:

For the downloaders: If it's worth your time to read it, watch it, or listen to it, it's worth paying for. On the other hand, if you sample it and hate it, just delete and be happy. Think of it as "voluntary small-scale patronage of the arts."

Sadly this doesn't address pretty much the only time I download -- when the book isn't available legally in ebook form. I would *happily* pay, if only they would let me.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by Daithi

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.

There are lots of possible formulas. The basic idea I was shooting for was that absolutely anything is automatically in copyright for 20 years; and anything with even trivial economic value can be renewed for an additional decade. This would mean that most works would enter the public domain after 20 years, and most of the rest after 30.

I also intended that a book that sells very consistently and very well might stay under copyright for as long as 50 years or so. But only the most outrageously valuable works would remain under copyright thereafter.

How many movies pre-1959 are still big sellers? Some Bogart. The Wizard of Oz. Some Disney films. Casablanca. Not a whole lot else.

The only reason I even bothered putting a price on years beyond 50 is that I expect that Disney would pay for Mickey & Donald etc. and the public fisc might as well benefit from that.

Xenophon

[Xenophon]

When I wrote this

There are lots of possible formulas. The basic idea I was shooting for was that absolutely anything is automatically in copyright for 20 years; and anything with even trivial economic value can be renewed for an additional decade. This would mean that most works would enter the public domain after 20 years, and most of the rest after 30.

I failed to elaborate quite enough.

Nearly all works protected by copyright have realized essentially their entire value in their first 20 years of existence. Thus, no one would bother renewing the copyright even once, and they'd enter the public domain 20 years after creation.

Of the few works that have any significant value after 20 years, most are not worth renewing sometime in years 30-50. Exactly when is not so important as the realization that waaaay more than 99% of all creative works would hit the public domain somewhere between 20 and 50 years after their creation.

The increasing price beyond that point is simply intended to extract some more public value from the tiny fraction of works that are valuable enough to continue renewing after that 50 year period. And also to have an 'out' for Disney and a few other big players in order to have even the faintest hope that a scheme like this might possibly stand a chance of enactment.

Xenophon

[sirbruce]

I don't like the scheme. Let's say I'm a moderate successful author and I've got an old backlist title that's selling a few hundred to 1,000 copies a year. The 20 year renewel is a no brainer, even though it's cutting into my earnings. A 30 year renewal may be difficult if my yearly income can't handle that sort of hit all at once. A 40 year renewal is going to be cost-prohibitive; I won't earn back what it cost me to renew the copyright.

But Hollywood can then turn right around and make a movie of my 40 year old book and not pay me a cent. And Hollywood can afford to wait that long. Why pay me a percentage when they can wait a few years and get the movie rights for free? Of course, then they're in a race to see who can make the movie first. Sure, the hot new books will get locked up quick, but with all the new titles entering into the public domain every year most authors won't stand a chance at a big payday.

I think copyrights need a set period of time... maybe 50 years, or maybe life of the author plus 10. But I don't like an every-increasing scale of renewals; it punishes the less successful while giving the others another decade or two of profits.

[amgoforth]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I don't see how the consumer can say "it's not worth that much to me", since it is impossible for them to know what it's worth until they've consumed it.

I agreed, until I saw a set of books in PDF for 700 dollars. I still agree with Harry that an author can charge what they want too. Even if that set was 7,000 dollars. Trouble is that probably does encourage piracy. It is still morally wrong in any case.