eBook piracy, how common is it?

[amgoforth]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Nope, I'm English. Whatever gave you the idea I was from the former colonies?

Touche, but you hurt me with that pizza hut comment. At least you didn't say Little Caesar"s, that would be blaspheme.

[DuneSoldier]

Originally Posted by 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.

What if the work became dual licensed? Say after 20-30 years the work would be released under something like creative commons for non-commercial use with the copyright holder reserving the commercial rights for 100 years or life + 70?

Then the public gets to benefit from the work being available like it was public domain, while protecting the author's right to any commercial activity with their work.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Really? In this country, the widow/widower carries on receiving the pension for their lifetime.

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

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.

It used to be like that here. But for everybody that was born after 1972, the rules have been changed. As everybody these days (should have) has the same possibility of building up a career (and thus a pension), the pension of a spouse will no longer go to you if your spouse dies. Unless you pay for a spousal insurance, with which you can make sure your whole pension or half or your pension goes to your spouse in case of your passing away. But, that isn't the default anymore and you must pay extra for it.

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.

Yes, I agree with this, and that's why a copyright should always be as long as the author lives. But not beyond that. Especially not 50/80/or even longer years...

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

I'd love it if my company would continue to send a paycheck to my wife and kids after I die. Unfortunately that's not how the real world works... unless you're part of the copyright scam.

What country are you in, Shaggy? In the UK, pretty much every employer would pay your wife a widow's pension if you were to die.

[HarryT]

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.

VERY well said, Neon. It seems that the concept of simply accepting that you can't afford to buy something is "alien" to many of today's youngsters.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

VERY well said, Neon. It seems that the concept of simply accepting that you can't afford to buy something is "alien" to many of today's youngsters.

Getting stuff on the 'never-never' has been a British habit for decades.

The concept of simply accepting that you can't afford to buy something is "alien" to many people of all ages - as are ageist opinions.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by HarryT

VERY well said, Neon. It seems that the concept of simply accepting that you can't afford to buy something is "alien" to many of today's youngsters.

Yes, this truly is a problem that only "the young" have. They've somehow not been raised right by their parents, whom I presume all were cheeky buggers from the hippie generation, thus allowing you to construct a facile explanation for what went wrong, and why today's young are so morally corrupt, whereas older people aren't (or weren't). Ugh.
Your cheap populism disappoints me, Harry. Blaming it all on the young is as old as the bible, and it proves nothing, other than that the generation that raised them either collectively failed as parents - which seems rather unlikely - or that the younger generation just grew up in a different environment, and was raised differently, with parents that got them everything they ask for without ever telling them that they'd still be happy if they "wanted" a little bit less, because they could just afford it, or because they were willing to go into debt themselves.
Sure, you can call that expectation unrealistic, but to issue a blanket "sua culpa" and stopping there is just intellectual laziness.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

The concept of simply accepting that you can't afford to buy something is "alien" to many people of all ages - as are ageist opinions.

Sorry, Sparrow, but when I was a teenager in the 1970s, we all used to save up our pocketmoney to buy "45" records; we didn't expect to be able to get it "for free". There really IS a different attitude towards it these days. I don't know whose "fault" it is, but the fact that the attitude exists is undeniable.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Sorry, Sparrow, but when I was a teenager in the 1970s, we all used to save up our pocketmoney to buy "45" records; we didn't expect to be able to get it "for free". There really IS a different attitude towards it these days. I don't know whose "fault" it is, but the fact that the attitude exists is undeniable.

You're wrong in extrapolating your experience from your teenage cohort onto all teenagers of your generation; and compound the error by dragging in today's teenagers as well.

There have always been a spectrum of attitudes in all generations.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Your cheap populism disappoints me, Harry. Blaming it all on the young is as old as the bible, and it proves nothing, other than that the generation that raised them either collectively failed as parents - which seems rather unlikely - or that the younger generation just grew up in a different environment, and was raised differently, with parents that got them everything they ask for without ever telling them that they'd still be happy if they "wanted" a little bit less, because they could just afford it, or because they were willing to go into debt themselves.
Sure, you can call that expectation unrealistic, but to issue a blanket "sua culpa" and stopping there is just intellectual laziness.

My parents were of the generation who were children during WWII, and they grew up with rationing, etc (there was rationing of most things in the UK until the mid 1950s). Consequently, people of my generation (ie born in the late 50s/early 60s) most definitely did NOT have the "you can have everything that you want NOW" attitude that I get the impression is commonplace today - we were taught to wait until we could afford to buy it. I don't know whose "fault" it is that the "I can have anything I want now" attitude came to exist, but the fact that is DOES exist is undeniable, and personally I think it's a very bad attitude to have - it leads people into debt.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

You're wrong in extrapolating your experience from your teenage cohort onto all teenagers of your generation; and compound the error by dragging in today's teenagers as well.

There have always been a spectrum of attitudes in all generations.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, Sparrow, but I have to say that I disagree with you.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You are of course entitled to your opinion, Sparrow, but I have to say that I disagree with you.

Apologies if I'm misremembering; but didn't you say in a long-ago thread that you taped music off the radio when you were a teenager?

That was certainly a common practice when I was a nipper (did it myself ).

Update: Sorry, I did misremember, you didn't tape music as I alleged.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Apologies if I'm misremembering; but didn't you say in a long-ago thread that you taped music off the radio when you were a teenager?

That was certainly a common practice when I was a nipper (did it myself ).

As you say, it was a common practice, although I don't particularly remember doing it myself, but the quality was awful. You had to buy records to get stuff that was worth listening to. As I say, certainly everyone that I knew (and you may be right in saying that it wasn't a universal practice, I wouldn't know) bought records.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

As you say, it was a common practice, although I don't particularly remember doing it myself, but the quality was awful. You had to buy records to get stuff that was worth listening to. As I say, certainly everyone that I knew (and you may be right in saying that it wasn't a universal practice, I wouldn't know) bought records.

Everyone I knew did both - bought records, and taped off the radio.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by HarryT

My parents were of the generation who were children during WWII, and they grew up with rationing, etc (there was rationing of most things in the UK until the mid 1950s). Consequently, people of my generation (ie born in the late 50s/early 60s) most definitely did NOT have the "you can have everything that you want NOW" attitude that I get the impression is commonplace today - we were taught to wait until we could afford to buy it.

How is that even remotely an answer? So it wasn't when your generation was "the young ones" but it started the generation after?
What do you think happens when people grow up in a time when access to goods is relatively hard to obtain, and then start working (and become fairly affluent fairly quickly compared to their parents)? Don't you think that they will (just like Mr. Dickens whom you told an anecdote about a while back) disproportionately care about having lots of stuff? And don't you think that they will say to themselves something like: "I will never put my children through what we had to go through because of the war," and give them lots of shiny things to play with? And that, that way, whole slews of people will either care too much about good appropriation or just "grow up with the thought that they can have anything they want"?
This used to be what the "old rich" had against the "nouveau riche", specifically because the latter "lacked refinement", but to a lesser degree this also applies to most of western society today. While individuals might not care about acquiring 'more', most do, which is then also implicitly shown through making tv shows about "middle class" people, and so on.

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don't know whose "fault" it is that the "I can have anything I want now" attitude came to exist, but the fact that is DOES exist is undeniable, and personally I think it's a very bad attitude to have - it leads people into debt.

Sure, but the way to change that is not by decrying "the corruption of the youth;" instead, try writing a book about someone who is happy with, say, owning only PD works, and PD music (although that will be hard to find, as pretty much everything recorded after 1950 is still in copyright). Write it so that every Dan Brown reader will lap it up, and you will have found a way to influence the thinking of the "majority", which I'm sure will effect changes throughout society. (and I'm only being partially cheeky here)

PS. a book that deals with this (although it wasn't his book that convinced me of the point he was trying to make) is Anthony Cunningham's "The Heart of what Matters".