eBook piracy, how common is it?

[deltop]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

I like how many in the pro-filing sharing camp continue to claim that sharing has very little to no impact on the bottom-line of publishers, etc, but then go on to say that if they don’t evolve, their bottom-lines will suffer as a result of file-sharing (though of course they continue to claim folks will be forced into doing so) – the sheer amount of cognitive dissonance that results from harboring such contradictions must be deafening.

It's not that the publishers bottom line will be hit directly by illegal file-sharing and by people not paying for what they want. Although I'm sure that it does have some effect, just much much smaller than what the pr people say.

As newer and better business models evolve and take advantage of p2p file sharing and other net based technologies publishers (as they exist now) will become increasingly irrelevant. At least they will if they don't also change and evolve. If they cling to the past, as some seem to be doing, rather than adapting and changing then people will simply spend their money elsewhere. And this is how they will lose out.

It's why I've recently started buying Baen books rather than going to the trouble of removing drm and reformatting for my PRS-505.

That's how I see things anyway. Although this kind of change will more than likely take many many years to come about.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

I like how many in the pro-filing sharing camp continue to claim that sharing has very little to no impact on the bottom-line of publishers, etc, but then go on to say that if they don’t evolve, their bottom-lines will suffer as a result of file-sharing (though of course they continue to claim folks will be forced into doing so) – the sheer amount of cognitive dissonance that results from harboring such contradictions must be deafening.

Well "is" is now. Evolve to something is in the future. What is the problem?

[igorsk]

Originally Posted by taosaur

All the mentions of Baen got me over there, and if you read Eric Flint's Introduction to their free library, he's arguing the same points I've been making and then some, from a professional writer's perspective and with the blessing of his publisher.

And even more in his Baen's Universe editorials.
http://baens-universe.com/columns/Sa...st_Big_Brother

[sirbruce]

Sure, but the Flint/Baen position has the same flaws as many other positions that have been discussed here:

1. It doesn't claim that copyright infringement by copying and sharing ebooks is moral. Just the opposite; it's still wrong, just not a big enough deal to engage in something like DRM. So if you're anti-DRM, you might support the Baen position, but if you're a pirate, there's nothing in the Baen position that should make you feel justified. Just happy that you won't have to deal with DRM.

2. It admits that this position is only tenable since ebook piracy is not a larger problem yet, and has no answers for what to do when ebooks become more popular and ebook piracy becomes a far larger problem financially. It's like the music industry considering the problem of music piracy in 1990, without any clue what the Internet was about to become.

3. Baen's free library giveaway focuses primarily on giving away first books of series. It's not surprising in this case that the resulting impact is more positive than negative; these are older books that aren't selling a lot anyway, and it's stimulating interest in a new series that translates into many new sales. But if offering for free was ALWAYS a positive, since it would prompt a lot of people to buy anyway, why do we not see any COMPLETE series being offered for free? Or offer every book in two forms: free, and a pay version? If customers are so eager to "do the right thing" and will pay for what they like, then this should be no problem for Baen, right? But you won't see them do that.

I'm not criticizing the Baen approach. Not at all; it's quite progressive. But while it does it's best to work in spite of ebook piracy, it's hardly a blueprint for supporting or even accepting the practice.

[Xenophon]

sirbruce: It's worth noting that the essays at the Baen Free Library are some of Eric Flint's early musings on the subject. Your point number one is spot on: they certainly aren't supporting the idea of piracy -- they're solidly against it. They just don't consider it worth the fuss caused by DRM.

With respect to point 2: Their current position seems to be that reasonable pricing plus convenience and respect for their customers is the appropriate antidote to piracy. Sell a good product at a fair (and low!) price; make it easier to purchase than to "pirate"; respect your customers and assume that they are generally honest. These things seem to be keeping the pirates away... enough.

On #3: Yes. the free library is mostly beginnings of series. But they put complete series on the CDs they bind into many of their hardcovers. And those CDs are easily found on the net. Free. With the publisher's blessing. Even as those same books are available for sale at WebScriptions.net.

And when one of those CDs comes out, sales at WebScriptions go up. Go figure.

Xenophon

[taosaur]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

I like how many in the pro-filing sharing camp continue to claim that sharing has very little to no impact on the bottom-line of publishers, etc, but then go on to say that if they don’t evolve, their bottom-lines will suffer as a result of file-sharing (though of course they continue to claim folks will be forced into doing so) – the sheer amount of cognitive dissonance that results from harboring such contradictions must be deafening.

Yes, it would be such a contradiction, if your absurd caricature bore any resemblance to what people here are saying or that pesky nuisance, reality.

From Baen's site:

Originally Posted by author Eric Flint

1. Online piracy — while it is definitely illegal and immoral — is, as a practical problem, nothing more than (at most) a nuisance. We're talking brats stealing chewing gum, here, not the Barbary Pirates.

2. Losses any author suffers from piracy are almost certainly offset by the additional publicity which, in practice, any kind of free copies of a book usually engender. Whatever the moral difference, which certainly exists, the practical effect of online piracy is no different from that of any existing method by which readers may obtain books for free or at reduced cost: public libraries, friends borrowing and loaning each other books, used book stores, promotional copies, etc.

3. Any cure which relies on tighter regulation of the market — especially the kind of extreme measures being advocated by some people — is far worse than the disease. As a widespread phenomenon rather than a nuisance, piracy occurs when artificial restrictions in the market jack up prices beyond what people think are reasonable. The "regulation-enforcement-more regulation" strategy is a bottomless pit which continually recreates (on a larger scale) the problem it supposedly solves. And that commercial effect is often compounded by the more general damage done to social and political freedom.

Publishers' bottom lines will suffer from misallocation of resources and PR damage. If P2P is taking any significant share of your revenue--hell, in publishing if P2P is not making you money by word of mouth--that's a symptom that your house is not in order.

[phenomshel]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

sirbruce: It's worth noting that the essays at the Baen Free Library are some of Eric Flint's early musings on the subject. Your point number one is spot on: they certainly aren't supporting the idea of piracy -- they're solidly against it. They just don't consider it worth the fuss caused by DRM.

With respect to point 2: Their current position seems to be that reasonable pricing plus convenience and respect for their customers is the appropriate antidote to piracy. Sell a good product at a fair (and low!) price; make it easier to purchase than to "pirate"; respect your customers and assume that they are generally honest. These things seem to be keeping the pirates away... enough.

On #3: Yes. the free library is mostly beginnings of series. But they put complete series on the CDs they bind into many of their hardcovers. And those CDs are easily found on the net. Free. With the publisher's blessing. Even as those same books are available for sale at WebScriptions.net.

And when one of those CDs comes out, sales at WebScriptions go up. Go figure.

Xenophon

Xenophon, I think you've nailed it. "Sell a good product at a fair and low price; make it easier to purchase than to pirate; respect your customers and assume that they are basically honest." I might add one more thing: Make sure the product people want is available.
That's the thing I'm running into. Books I want are simply not available through any legitimate means. Of course, that mostly means they aren't available through illegitimate means either.

[sirbruce]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

On #3: Yes. the free library is mostly beginnings of series. But they put complete series on the CDs they bind into many of their hardcovers. And those CDs are easily found on the net. Free. With the publisher's blessing. Even as those same books are available for sale at WebScriptions.net.

I got the CDs. I wouldn't say they're "complete" series, although some have a lot more books than others. The bigger the series, the more books they offer for free. This makes sense; it's even more daunting to get a new reader hooked on a series they're 7 or 8 books "behind" in than 2 or 3. However, I do point out that not all the books on the CD are in the Baen library, nor do they make a point to advertise where you can get the CDs online. It's not something the casual consumer would discover. But my main point remains: it's not simply that giving away books or allowing piracy is good for business. Rather, giving away *certain* free books and allowing a *certain level* of piracy can be good for business. In the end, it's not a clarion call of "Let Pirates be Pirates!"

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Good Old Neon

I like how many in the pro-filing sharing camp continue to claim that sharing has very little to no impact on the bottom-line of publishers, etc, but then go on to say that if they don’t evolve, their bottom-lines will suffer as a result of file-sharing (though of course they continue to claim folks will be forced into doing so) – the sheer amount of cognitive dissonance that results from harboring such contradictions must be deafening.

It's obviously not that black and white. I think what most people in the pro-file sharing camp really mean is that the publisher's bottom-line does not suffer nearly as much as they want everyone to believe it does, and if they don't evolve it will continue.

[PKFFW]

A great quote from the movie "The big Chill" comes to mind after skimming this thread.

It goes something like.....

"Rationalisations are more important than sex. You can go a day without sex but just try to make it through the day without a rationalisation!"

Likening illegal downloads to borrowing a book from the library or a friend is a bit specious. In each case one is obtaining legal access to the book, illegal downloading of a book is not gaining legal access to the book. The fact that you see no difference is beside the point really. Most other arguments that I read(and I only skimmed the thread after the first 15 pages) such as the big corporations sticking it to the authors and consumers etc, are just as specious. Nice little rationalisations that make people feel better about what they are doing and nothing else.

Why not just man up and admit you know what you are doing is wrong and you are ok with it?

I'll put my hand up and admit I have pirated ebooks. I know it is wrong regardless of how I dress it up. Somebody has gone to the time and effort to produce the book and I have obtained illegal access to it. Simple. Instead of rationalising it, I make myself feel better by going out and buying another book or two by the same author if I liked the book. If I didn't like it, I don't.

It's usually the ones that are rationlising the strongest that have no intention of ever buying a legitimate copy of any ebooks because they don't feel the need to pay for something they can get for free.

All in my humble opinion of course.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[sirbruce]

Intentionally doing something you knowingly believe is wrong is pretty close to insantiy. At best, it murders one's own conscience.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Totally agree. It is pure sophistry to try to pretend that taking away an author's income is anything other than theft, regardless of what the law might choose to call it.

I doubt that there is [I]anyone[I] on this board who doesn't agree that the writer is entitled to get paid for his or her book. Most of us will pay, if we are allowed to.

Under the current setup, the publishers and sellers are unwilling to participate in the marketplace for books in a fashion that will give us all access to books that we can pay for.

I have a 505 and a Macintosh. I can't buy books from Amazon, because they have a closed system with the Kindle. I can't buy books from Sony, because there is no way to access the Sony store without running a Windows program. When I go to buy books from some other source, I frequently find that DRM and format combine to prevent me from buying a book I am willing to pay for.

Explain this to me: if no one will sell me a book, why should I care about their right to be paid?

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

A great quote from the movie "The big Chill" comes to mind after skimming this thread.

It goes something like.....

"Rationalisations are more important than sex. You can go a day without sex but just try to make it through the day without a rationalisation!"

I have rationalized, and I have had sex. Sex is better.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by sirbruce

Intentionally doing something you knowingly believe is wrong is pretty close to insantiy. At best, it murders one's own conscience.

People do it every day.

Maybe a better way to put it would be "Intentionally doing something you knowlingly believe to be wrong and you can't rationalise away is pretty close to insantiy."

Most people have no problem doing something they know is wrong if they attach no importance to the wrongness or rightness of what they are doing. Take speeding for example. Most people have no problem going 5 or 10 km/h over the speed limit because they don't think this amount is of any importance. They will quite easily rationalise it by claiming they are competant enough drivers to do so or they are in a hurry or in some other way. Of course they will quite happily complain if they are given a speeding ticket.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Harmon

I have rationalized, and I have had sex. Sex is better.

Better yes, but the quote is about which is more important.