eBook piracy, how common is it?

[Greg Anos]

This is a transistional period. By the time today's 25 year olds are 60, copyright will be gone. It will be gone because the populace by then simply won't believe in it and will have voted it out of existance. I don't like saying these words, but it is "my visualization of the Cosmic All". The next 20 years wil be the most nasty of the transition, probably with lots of people in jail, for reason later considered as trivial as buying a beer today....

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

Not really, libraries loaning out books is entirely legal. It would be more like file-sharing if a library received one copy, printed up millions of copies and then made them freely available for the taking. All it takes is one file-sharer to post one copy of a book on the web and then bam, it’s available anywhere and everywhere at no charge.

And so what? What does that have to do with the moral argument here? What is the moral argument making it OK for libraries to lend books against a specific authors wishes? And why is that argument not applicable to the situation where we freely can copy a book we borrow from the library without cost and doing it very fast?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

This is a transistional period. By the time today's 25 year olds are 60, copyright will be gone. It will be gone because the populace by then simply won't believe in it and will have voted it out of existance.

I think that is vanishingly unlikely. There are lots of things that people "don't like" - eg taxes - but you have to have them. What I think is more likely is that sooner over later the technology will catch up with the criminals, and that we'll get effective DRM once again.

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by tompe

And so what? What does that have to do with the moral argument here? What is the moral argument making it OK for libraries to lend books against a specific authors wishes? And why is that argument not applicable to the situation where we freely can copy a book we borrow from the library without cost and doing it very fast?

Please provide evidence in which authors, or a single author, have/has banded together in an attempt to have their works removed from libraries. Writers are typically the most vocal PROPONENTS of libraries.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

Please provide evidence in which authors, or a single author, have/has banded together in an attempt to have their works removed from libraries. Writers are typically the most vocal PROPONENTS of libraries.

This is totally irrelevant to the moral argument. Please state the moral argument that you use to motivate libraries to lend books and that also in cases were it is against the copyright holders wishes.

I seem to remember cases were copyright holder wants to retract a book.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by gouzos

So what if they don't delete it? It's not an actual book anyway.

Well, that's part of the problem right there. You don't think of it as an "actual" book, so it's no wonder you don't mind giving an author "less" than what he'd get for an "actual" book. Which in turn is why many authors are reluctant to get into ebooks.

Originally Posted by gouzos

What you are saying would be like forbidding loaning books to friends or ever buying a book and destroying it after you read it.

Either you're being deliberately silly or you're not understand the analogy at all. I'm not saying either of those things. If you think *loaning* books to friends in RL is okay, then the equivalent is *loaning* an ebook to a friend. And to do that, while they have*your* file, *your* copy must be deleted. Otherwise, it's just like *copying* the real book before you loan it to a friend... and not a photocopy, but a whole reproduction of the cover, binding, etc.

Originally Posted by gouzos

That's actually the problem. Books(content) continue to be considered by the law be just like books(objects) but they are not. In this age they will have to be considered different entities there will have to be new ways to reap benefits once the distinction has been made.

The law isn't clear. Many authors and publishers would of course *like* them to be treated just like books, because they know how to make money that way. They are less sure how to make money if ebooks are freely copied and redistributed by anyone.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I think that is vanishingly unlikely. There are lots of things that people "don't like" - eg taxes - but you have to have them. What I think is more likely is that sooner over later the technology will catch up with the criminals, and that we'll get effective DRM once again.

I didn't say "don't like", I said "didn't believe in", which is completely different. When the vast majority of the populace don't believe in a law, any law, it gets either repealed, or "dead lettered". That was the hard-nosed lesson of American alcohol Prohibition (1920-1933). A well-funded, very vocal minority, got a major legal change passed to abolish alcohol, because of all of it's well known ills. The problem was that the majority of Americans "didn't believe in" the idea an occasional beer was evil. The result was massive civil disobedience, and the rise of a violent organized crime infrastructure to supply the demand. After 13 years, it was repealed, never to arise again. When the vast majority of voters have grown up downloading, they aren't going to vote for politicians backing draconian laws for a few major corporation's existence. Now people like me and you can keep the "cork in" for a time, youth will eventually triumph over age...

Technology hasn't been able to put a "cork in" copying technology since 1947, I don't see it happening in the next 20 years. By then we'll be in the voting minority...

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I think that is vanishingly unlikely. There are lots of things that people "don't like" - eg taxes - but you have to have them. What I think is more likely is that sooner over later the technology will catch up with the criminals, and that we'll get effective DRM once again.

Criminals? Well I'd like to see the court that manages to prosecute countless millions for their actions. And that number is growing every single day.

"The Internet, and downloading, are here to stay... Anyone who thinks otherwise should prepare themselves to end up on the slagheap of history."

(Janis Ian during a live European radio interview, 9-1-98)

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by tompe

This is totally irrelevant to the moral argument. Please state the moral argument that you use to motivate libraries to lend books and that also in cases were it is against the copyright holders wishes.

I seem to remember cases were copyright holder wants to retract a book.

If you’re not willing to concede, in the very least, that there are very real, demonstrable differences between the civic function libraries provide and the actions of a file-sharer, well, I see no point in continuing this discussion.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

This is a transistional period. By the time today's 25 year olds are 60, copyright will be gone. It will be gone because the populace by then simply won't believe in it and will have voted it out of existance.

No, it won't, because the reasons copyright were created for, still exist.

Copyrights weren't created to keep you from copying a book longhand and giving it--or selling it--to someone else. They were created to keep publishing houses from grabbing their competitors' books and undercutting the original publisher, thus (1) preventing the author from being paid and (2) getting profit without the hassle of finding a good book, editing it, and promoting it.

Those reasons are still plenty valid, and apply to many marketplaces.

The problems started happening when end users became able to make cheap copies; the laws, which were aimed at being able to punish corporations for million-dollar scams, seem draconian when applied to an individual customer.

That's the part that needs fixing. Copyright laws don't need to end, but they do need to be re-written to address both new technologies, and the difference between corporate poaching and individual user sharing.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

If you’re not willing to concede, in the very least, that there are very real, demonstrable differences between the civic function libraries provide and the actions of a file-sharer, well, I see no point in continuing this discussion.

There are differences, but the moral foundation is the same: one purchase, many readers who don't pay for the book.

[gouzos]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

No, it won't, because the reasons copyright were created for, still exist.

Copyrights weren't created to keep you from copying a book longhand and giving it--or selling it--to someone else. They were created to keep publishing houses from grabbing their competitors' books and undercutting the original publisher, thus (1) preventing the author from being paid and (2) getting profit without the hassle of finding a good book, editing it, and promoting it.

Those reasons are still plenty valid, and apply to many marketplaces.

The problems started happening when end users became able to make cheap copies; the laws, which were aimed at being able to punish corporations for million-dollar scams, seem draconian when applied to an individual customer.

That's the part that needs fixing. Copyright laws don't need to end, but they do need to be re-written to address both new technologies, and the difference between corporate poaching and individual user sharing.

I must agree wholeheartedly.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

If you’re not willing to concede, in the very least, that there are very real, demonstrable differences between the civic function libraries provide and the actions of a file-sharer, well, I see no point in continuing this discussion.

This is stupid. There are a lot of differences. But depending on what moral argument you use to motivate lending books different aspects become important. You made the claim that people were "stupid" that brought up the library example. I wanted to see if you had any argument for this and therefore asked for clarifications. My conclusions now can only be that you do not have any arguments.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by HarryT

...What I think is more likely is that sooner over later the technology will catch up with the criminals, and that we'll get effective DRM once again.

Aren't most pirated ebooks sourced from pbooks?

[Good Old Neon]

Originally Posted by tompe

This is stupid. There are a lot of differences. But depending on what moral argument you use to motivate lending books different aspects become important. You made the claim that people were "stupid" that brought up the library example. I wanted to see if you had any argument for this and therefore asked for clarifications. My conclusions now can only be that you do not have any arguments.

Libraries are given permission to loan books (among other media) in their possession to the public. As such, they provide an important function in most communities. They do not function as a gateway for the distribution of materials obtained through, what amount to, illegal channels.

Individuals can purchase books, however, current copyright laws, where they exist, do not permit the copying and distribution of said books without the consent of the copyright holder. The uploading and distribution of copyrighted materials is, where laws apply, illegal. Folks who visit illegal P2P sites do so for one reason, to obtain, for free, illegally uploaded media.

In most societies, it is considered immoral to take what one does not own – which amounts to, for lack of a better word, stealing.

Again, you’ve yet to cite an example in which an author denied library access to his or her book or books. You mentioned that you remembered a case, but memory is faulty, and not an acceptable example of actual evidence to support your argument.