eBook piracy, how common is it?

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

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.

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

Because for a lot of us, "wrong" includes "harm." If I download a book I would've otherwise read at the library, without checking it out (I've done this plenty of times), who's harmed? If I make a PDF of a graphic novel that's freely available in JPG format on the author's site, and hand that to someone who can't access the site, who is harmed?

Some of us think "wrong" means "more harmful than the alternatives." Or, "harmful to people I care about." If I download a book from the darknet, and leave $5 in the author's tip jar, and bypass the publisher's cut of the DRM'd ebook fees, I have not harmed the author financially.

Not all of us agree that free exchange of ebooks is wrong. Even if it is illegal. Which not all of us agree on, either, in all cases. Between the insane DMCA and ridiculous copyright lengths, a lot of us think that ignoring some aspects of copyright law is a matter of claiming our free speech rights--and civil rights are rarely gained by politely waiting for laws to change; they are gained by breaking unethical laws until they're no longer socially or economically acceptable.

To sum up:
1) Not everyone agrees that all ebooksharing is illegal.
2) Not everyone agrees that all illegal activities are "wrong."

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

On the copied software front, the issue is this: As a software producer living in the US, I must charge enough money to meet my expenses here in the US market. If I lower my prices in SE Asia, how do I ensure that I still make enough sales in the developed world to make ends meet? Won't the inexpensive SE Asian version simply be re-exported to the developed countries? I could lower my prices world-wide, but I'd have to sell many times more units to bring in the same revenue -- 37x more, in my Prague example above. Alternatively, I can decide that "piracy"* in the SE Asian market doesn't matter to me so long as I can make enough revenue in the developed world. Or, I can try to find some other business model.

But no matter how you slice and dice the business issues, I must still make enough money to support myself and my family. And if widespread copying wipes out my income, I'll wind up supporting myself some other way.

To connect all of the above back to eBooks, consider this: On the one hand, I have no inherent right to make a living in any particular fashion. Not via writing software, or writing books, or whatever. On the other hand, you have no inherent right to the results of my labor whether those results are a physical object, some easily copied patterns of electric charges (i.e. software or eBooks), or some dirty marks on a piece of paper. And if you (collectively) don't pay enough to make it worth my while, I'll stop producing software/eBooks/Literature/whatever and do something else instead. I rather expect that most authors have the same attitude. They might still write for fun (and I would certainly still program for fun), but the time and energy available for that activity will be strictly limited by the need to make a living doing some other thing.

No one in this thread has yet proposed a better model than copyright and monetary payment for managing the competing desires from the above paragraph. I certainly think that the particular implementation of copyright that we have today (in the US) is quite far from achieving its goals as stated in the US Constitution. That's not an indictment of the idea of copyright, but rather of the form it has taken by way of lobbyists and the gang of 535 (a.k.a the US Congress).

Xenophon

* I put "piracy" in quotes because I agree that it's really the wrong description. But I used it anyway, because I don't have a pithy term that fits the facts better. Ideas, anyone?

In the cases you have referred to above *Piracy* is exactly the correct term to use. Organised software/entertainment copying in SE asia is run by criminal gangs and solely for profit. As a business you could lower your prices, set up all kinds of incentives and it still wouldn't make a difference in those instances.

Where 'file-sharing' differs is that profit is not an incentive, nor is it tolerated amongst file-sharers. In point of fact in most releases you will see something along the lines of this added to an .nfo file -- IF YOU LIKE THIS THEN BUY A COPY. Add to this that 'filehsarers' often buy the products they 'share' and we're talking about two very different things. We have plenty of examples of product given away for free and then monetized in some other way. Cory Doctorow being the prime example of digital sharing leading to a rise in pbook sales.

I don't think anyone with a semblance of honesty would argue that real *Piracy* should be tolerated in any form. In nearby Chinatown area of Liverpool, and if you know where to go, you can pick up any number of illegal Blu-Ray copies (AVHCD on Dual Layer DVD that play back in PS3's and Blu-Ray players. Full 1080p and AC3 sound), but this is not the domain of the *filesharer*. This is the domain of organised crime. The two shouldn't be confused.

EDIT: and a lot of filesharers work on the Wimpy Principal. That is "they will gladly pay you Tuesday for a Hamburger today".

EDIT 2: And as to your if I don't get paid enough I'll stop producing line, well there's plenty of people out there who would create if there wasn't ANY money to begin with. Recompense for efforts whether creative or anything else is not only measured in dollars and cents. The Open Source movement, Free Software, CC licensed music, books, movies, games....there are countless examples of creation for creation's sake.

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

Absolutely not. In this scenario GM certainly has not forced you to do any particular thing! All that GM has done is make it really really difficult -- but perhaps not quite completely impossible -- to buy from GM. They certainly have not forced you to buy from Ford; there's no GM representative holding a gun to your head saying "buy that Ford or I'll pull the trigger!" As alternatives, you could:

You misunderstood my point. I was only saying "ford" here to represent an 'only existing alternative', not to say that I specifically felt the need to buy American.

I make no claim that the other options are palatable when considered in terms of your overall preferences. I simply observe that they exist.

again, "for all intents and purposes. Emigrating, or paying enormous import tariffs, is not an option I consider in this marvellously interconnected world.

If I lower my prices in SE Asia, how do I ensure that I still make enough sales in the developed world to make ends meet? Won't the inexpensive SE Asian version simply be re-exported to the developed countries? I could lower my prices world-wide, but I'd have to sell many times more units to bring in the same revenue -- 37x more, in my Prague example above. Alternatively, I can decide that "piracy"* in the SE Asian market doesn't matter to me so long as I can make enough revenue in the developed world. Or, I can try to find some other business model.

Piracy will happen anyway. If you make a localized version (with only SE languages supported) I doubt it would be exported much, and it might lower the need to pirate that same stuff.
Not to generalise, but I imagine poor people generally aren't very interested in hearing they're "too poor to be considered as customers". Especially when they're only poor by international standards, all it will do is offend them. Anyway, there are already ways to punish western retailers when they sell cracked software, why would that suddenly not work anymore if they sold a localized version not meant for the local market? I don't really see the conceptual issue here.

I rather expect that most authors have the same attitude. They might still write for fun (and I would certainly still program for fun), but the time and energy available for that activity will be strictly limited by the need to make a living doing some other thing.

Indubitably.

No one in this thread has yet proposed a better model than copyright and monetary payment for managing the competing desires from the above paragraph. I certainly think that the particular implementation of copyright that we have today (in the US) is quite far from achieving its goals as stated in the US Constitution. That's not an indictment of the idea of copyright, but rather of the form it has taken by way of lobbyists and the gang of 535 (a.k.a the US Congress).

One might argue that the idea+revenues pretty much necessarily leads to a lobby, and the requisite drive to stretch the idea until it breaks..

Otherwise I suspect we are mostly in agreement, other than that you're arguing from the perspective of the individual coder/writer/-er, and I'm a bit more interested in the whole chain/system, as well as the legal ramifications of "copyright" taken to extremes.
I doubt your founding fathers would've imagined needing to trade a little liberty for corporate prosperity when they cooked up their version of the relevant laws.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

If GM doesn't sell any cars in my country, but Ford does, GM also forces me to buy from Ford.
If the government forces you to go to a drug dealer to get your marijuana, and you like smoking marijuana and think there is nothing wrong with it, contrary to the govt's opinion, you will.
Similarly here, they are forcing people to go to the "competition"; while it's all well and good that that competition isn't legally offering those titles matters little.
Black markets spring up in times of war, prohibition, trade barriers, etc.
I'm not talking about forcing to want, I'm talking about forcing to go to. Sure, teens probably overdo it slightly more than others, but that doesn't meant that they're always being overly 'greedy'. Nobody forces you to want electricity either, after all. We just consider it necessary, as opposed to people living in the Sahara, or in Amish country.
While you could try to prosecute everyone just like the US is already doing to people doing marijuana, I think I can safely say that this doesn't work. Southeast Asia is rife with copied software just because the prices companies charge for their products are way out of the league of the people living there, not because they're all criminals (convenient though that may sound). Their demand for that software, however, is still legitimate, and will not go away just because it's not being sold to them at their idea of a right price.
In the west, people are supposed to buy stuff because we're all assumed to be really, really rich. And if we aren't, we should know when to stop asking for stuff.
What makes us so different?

So if Beretta guns weren't sold where you live and Colt were, am I to assume you own a Colt, having been forced by Beretta to go out and buy a Colt made gun?

Do you see that as Xenephon mentions, there are other options available? That you may not like the options does not mean they do not exist.

If all these publishing companies are forcing you to go out and illegally download books(and does that include forcing you to download books you don't even want??) I sure hope you have a mighty big dard drive!

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by taosaur

A lot of people are just not that concerned with the ethicality, because they attach so little moral weight to the issue. They're as likely to wrestle with themselves over the moral ambiguities of jaywalking.

Quite obviously.

Wonder if the ethics would be of more interest if it was their time and effort being taken advantage of?? My guess would be probably so.

Originally Posted by taosaur

The deprivation of artists and the death of industries is not a concern because it's not a remotely likely outcome. The only industry that ever suffered significant harm from filesharing was the RIAA, and they are still alive and well, not because they killed P2P, but because they're adapting their business model to the new reality. That reality is not defined by fiesharing itself, but by the new distribution channels and consumer expectations that P2P forced them to address.

I agree the death of industries is not very likely. They will adapt just like the music industy did.

On the other hand, the deprivation of artists is happening every time someone gains illegal access to a book. Regardless of whether the person would have bought the book in the first place or not. Please note, I specifically chose the term gains illegal access. I'm not talking about someone borrowing a book from a friend or a library as that is perfectly legal.

Now, I agree that file sharing is likely to increase a budding artists exposure and thereby increase their eventual compensation. However, that method of exposure should be at the discretion of the artist. If they do not wish to partake of that then no one has the constitutional right(as is seemingly suggested by some) to pirate a copy for themselves simply because they don't like the publishing company or the way business is done or for any other reason.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

The more practical debate is not whether filesharing is good or bad, but what are its actual effects, what does it mean for the future, and what action if any is warranted on the part of media companies, creators, and/or the law.

Totally agree, that is the more practical debate. However, what is practical is not always what is right.

Hopefully a solution can be worked out that is both practical and does the "right" thing by all concerned.

Originally Posted by Taosaur

Well no, no it's not. Referring to for-profit bootlegging as piracy is a bit of a stretch, and filesharing bears only an associative connection to bootlegging. "It's just bad" is no argument at all. Filesharing media against the authors' wishes is obviously not a perfectly wholesome activity, but in terms of moral outrages it falls somewhere south of littering. Most network peers are not "pirates," as if it were a lifestyle, but media consumers who take advantage of both licit and illicit means.

I did say I did not put piracy for personal use on par with many other morally questionable activities didn't I?

However, if you take the logic that "it isn't wrong because it isn't as bad as x, y or z" then you can almost always find something worse. Where do you draw the line?

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Quite obviously.

On the other hand, the deprivation of artists is happening every time someone gains illegal access to a book. Regardless of whether the person would have bought the book in the first place or not.

Please back this claim up. And please state what you mean by 'deprivation'. Monetary deprivation? Deprivation of control? The statement you made is vague at best, and based upon what? Your own personal feelings? If you care to look at the countless examples of the benefits of file-sharing I posted earlier in this thread, you would see that not only is there negligible effects on sales because of file sharing, but in many cases file-sharing is a boon to sales.

A phantom sale is not a sale, you cannot deprive an artist of something when there is nothing taken away.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Because for a lot of us, "wrong" includes "harm." If I download a book I would've otherwise read at the library, without checking it out (I've done this plenty of times), who's harmed? If I make a PDF of a graphic novel that's freely available in JPG format on the author's site, and hand that to someone who can't access the site, who is harmed?

Why is it that the rationalists always liken piracy to some form of legally obtaining a copy of an ebook.

Authors, when they publish, knowingly enter into an agreement to allow copies of their books to be borrowed from a library. If a pdf is freely available on an authors website and someone can't access the internet so you download/scan/in some other way give them a copy of the material then of course no harm is done.

Those examples are not even remotely like someone seeing a book in a bookshop and thinking "I want it but I don't want to pay for it so I will go download it from the net".

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Some of us think "wrong" means "more harmful than the alternatives." Or, "harmful to people I care about." If I download a book from the darknet, and leave $5 in the author's tip jar, and bypass the publisher's cut of the DRM'd ebook fees, I have not harmed the author financially.

There is always a more harmful alternative to something. If that is truly how you judge wrong from right then where do you draw the line? If I break into your house and only steal your DVD player and not your TV is that ok because I did less harm than the alternative?

As for leaving a donation in the author's tip jar, that is fine for the author if they are self published and no other input has gone into the book. However, what about the publisher, editor, proof reader, computer tech that maintains the servers where the official copy of the ebook is located etc etc etc if the author is not self published. That you don't value these people's efforts doesn't mean you have the right to deprive them of compensation for those efforts.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

Not all of us agree that free exchange of ebooks is wrong. Even if it is illegal. Which not all of us agree on, either, in all cases. Between the insane DMCA and ridiculous copyright lengths, a lot of us think that ignoring some aspects of copyright law is a matter of claiming our free speech rights--and civil rights are rarely gained by politely waiting for laws to change; they are gained by breaking unethical laws until they're no longer socially or economically acceptable.

Are you seriously suggesting file-sharing is a way of claiming your right to free speech?? Seriously?

You already have the right to freely express your displeasure at publishing companies, big business, pompous authors who think they deserve some compensation for writing the book in the first place and anything else you don't like.

Of course with rights come those often forgotten and almost always dreaded responsibilities. To continue to enjoy those rights you are quick to defend by file-sharing you must act responsibly. Maybe the responsible way of ensuring you continue to enjoy the right to free speech would be to actively work to change the current business models, write letters to your congress encouraging action, write letters to your newspapers provoking discussion, enter into dialogue with publishing companies to express your ideas, form action groups to lobby the industry to get its act together and move with the times.

Of course that would mean you wouldn't get free ebooks by file-sharing and as that is the goal of file-sharing I guess all those suggestions aren't very helpful really.

All the above assumes that file-sharing actually has anything to do with the right to free speech in the first place. Frankly I don't see the connection at all.

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

To sum up:
1) Not everyone agrees that all ebooksharing is illegal.
2) Not everyone agrees that all illegal activities are "wrong."

Whether you agree that ebooksharing is illegal doesn't really matter. If the local law where you reside states that it is, then it is. Maybe you mean not everyone agrees that it should be illegal.

As for agreeing it is wrong, I'll just say again, in my humble opinion, if the rationalists really truly believed there was nothing wrong with it at all they wouldn't feel the need to rationalise it in the first place. I do not see anything wrong with eating meat even though some people do. I can't even comprehend the idea that it is wrong and as such the need to rationalise it simply doesn't exist.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Please back this claim up. And please state what you mean by 'deprivation'. Monetary deprivation? Deprivation of control? The statement you made is vague at best, and based upon what? Your own personal feelings? If you care to look at the countless examples of the benefits of file-sharing I posted earlier in this thread, you would see that not only is there negligible effects on sales because of file sharing, but in many cases file-sharing is a boon to sales.

A phantom sale is not a sale, you cannot deprive an artist of something when there is nothing taken away.

Deprivation of control for starters. Deprivation of money for seconds.

Yes, a phantom sale is not a sale but saying it is not depriving an author because "I would never have bought the book anyway" is, again, a specious argument. If you would never have bought the book anyway then why did you download it? Obviously you did want it, you just didn't want to pay for it. So if you were completely unable to file-share it then you may have bought it. You claim you would "never have bought it anyway" simply because it is so easy to acquire it without paying. I guess it's not wrong to go steal a ferrari because I would never buy one to begin with so I'm not really depriving them of a sale am I? And before you say that I'm depriving them of physical materials etc, there are costs involved in ebook publishing, so illegally downloading a copy is depriving the publishers and author of something.

As for file-sharing leading to more sales, I did say that I agreed it very well might lead to an increase in exposure and eventual sales for the author. However the decision to partake of this method of marketing(for want of a better word) should be left in the authors hands. If they want to give away their first book and let everyone file-share to their hearts content then that is their perogative. On the other hand, if they want to go the more traditional route then disrepecting their choice by file-sharing, whether it leads to an eventual rise in sales or not, is, in my opinion, wrong.

While on that topic, lets be perfectly honest, the percentage of file-sharers that go and donate money to the author after file-sharing a book is extremely small. The ones that go and legally obtain a copy of the book or another book by the same author is a little bigger but not much. The type of file sharing that leads to increased sales is small time sharing between friends or by legit copies being distributed by the author/publisher and not by people jumping on the net and downloading a book through a torrent. The vast vast vast majority that do that have no intention of ever paying for something they can get for free.

Where things might change in the future is if the publishing world goes the way of the music world and makes it easy and cost effective to download legal copies. Then maybe people who file share as a way of sampling something might be encouraged to simply buy the book to begin with.

All my 2 cent of course.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Deprivation of control for starters. Deprivation of money for seconds.

Yes, a phantom sale is not a sale but saying it is not depriving an author because "I would never have bought the book anyway" is, again, a specious argument. If you would never have bought the book anyway then why did you download it? Obviously you did want it, you just didn't want to pay for it. So if you were completely unable to file-share it then you may have bought it. You claim you would "never have bought it anyway" simply because it is so easy to acquire it without paying. I guess it's not wrong to go steal a ferrari because I would never buy one to begin with so I'm not really depriving them of a sale am I? And before you say that I'm depriving them of physical materials etc, there are costs involved in ebook publishing, so illegally downloading a copy is depriving the publishers and author of something.

As for file-sharing leading to more sales, I did say that I agreed it very well might lead to an increase in exposure and eventual sales for the author. However the decision to partake of this method of marketing(for want of a better word) should be left in the authors hands. If they want to give away their first book and let everyone file-share to their hearts content then that is their perogative. On the other hand, if they want to go the more traditional route then disrepecting their choice by file-sharing, whether it leads to an eventual rise in sales or not, is, in my opinion, wrong.

While on that topic, lets be perfectly honest, the percentage of file-sharers that go and donate money to the author after file-sharing a book is extremely small. The ones that go and legally obtain a copy of the book or another book by the same author is a little bigger but not much. The type of file sharing that leads to increased sales is small time sharing between friends or by legit copies being distributed by the author/publisher and not by people jumping on the net and downloading a book through a torrent. The vast vast vast majority that do that have no intention of ever paying for something they can get for free.

Where things might change in the future is if the publishing world goes the way of the music world and makes it easy and cost effective to download legal copies. Then maybe people who file share as a way of sampling something might be encouraged to simply buy the book to begin with.

All my 2 cent of course.

Cheers,
PKFFW

What is specious is your assumption that someone who downloads won't buy the product, or that their motivation is because of 'not wanting to pay'. There are countless reasons to download that range from geographical unavailability to protesting the system. Assuming that somehow every downloaded copy equals an product not purchased is specious. It does not, and has not worked that way for a long time. Study upon study shows that downloaders purchase more on an average than a non-downloader.

As to control, well we live in an age of zero's and ones. If the writer wants full control, then he better lock his manuscript away in a box and never show it to anyone ever again. Once it's out there he can hope, he can pray, he can do a little voodoo dance but it's just a grand illusion. The audience is now the distributor, it is they who have the control.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

What is specious is your assumption that someone who downloads won't buy the product, or that their motivation is because of 'not wanting to pay'. There are countless reasons to download that range from geographical unavailability to protesting the system. Assuming that somehow every downloaded copy equals an product not purchased is specious. It does not, and has not worked that way for a long time. Study upon study shows that downloaders purchase more on an average than a non-downloader.

I never said every downloaded copy equals a product not purchased. I said the vast majority do and that is true when it comes to ebooks.

The studies have all been done in areas where the market place has adapted to the digital age. Yes, music downloaders very likely go out and buy some music after downloading because the market place has adapted and made buying downloaded music cheap and easily accomplished. The ebook market place, for good or ill, has not, so to suggest that most ebook downloaders go out and buy a legit copy is ridiculous when the number one reason most often given for downloading illegal copies of ebooks is because they cost too much to buy legitamately.

As for the reason for downloading, I only make the claim most do it because they don't want to pay for it because that is the number one reason given. Most people freely admit they would be happy to legally purchase a copy of an ebook if they were cheaper. Ergo, their reason for not purchasing it is because they do not want to pay the asking price. Not to mention the fact that whatever the reason(and I doubt the majority do it to "protest the system" or geographical unavailability) the end result is the same.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

As to control, well we live in an age of zero's and ones. If the writer wants full control, then he better lock his manuscript away in a box and never show it to anyone ever again. Once it's out there he can hope, he can pray, he can do a little voodoo dance but it's just a grand illusion. The audience is now the distributor, it is they who have the control.

So what you are saying is once a book is published the author has no rights and shouldn't expect any? If he chooses to publish only in paper form then who cares, it is your god given right to go and scan a copy and upload it to a server so anyone who wants a copy can have it and the author should just accept that? Or if he epublishes he should just accept the fact that again it is your god given right to upload it to a server so many thousands of people around the world can have a copy without any sort of compensation to the author? What about changing the book? Not fan-fiction mind you but actually changing the book and then distributing it? Is that ok too? What about simple plagarism? It's up to the audience to do what they like isn't it? And on a moral scale plagarism probably falls below grand theft auto, assault and battery and many other things so I guess it's ok by some people's logic. Should I be able to simply put my name to it? Where do you draw the line?

Again I wonder if your thoughts will change should you ever be published?

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

I never said every downloaded copy equals a product not purchased. I said the vast majority do and that is true when it comes to ebooks.

The studies have all been done in areas where the market place has adapted to the digital age. Yes, music downloaders very likely go out and buy some music after downloading because the market place has adapted and made buying downloaded music cheap and easily accomplished. The ebook market place, for good or ill, has not, so to suggest that most ebook downloaders go out and buy a legit copy is ridiculous when the number one reason most often given for downloading illegal copies of ebooks is because they cost too much to buy legitamately.

As for the reason for downloading, I only make the claim most do it because they don't want to pay for it because that is the number one reason given. Most people freely admit they would be happy to legally purchase a copy of an ebook if they were cheaper. Ergo, their reason for not purchasing it is because they do not want to pay the asking price. Not to mention the fact that whatever the reason(and I doubt the majority do it to "protest the system" or geographical unavailability) the end result is the same.

So what you are saying is once a book is published the author has no rights and shouldn't expect any? If he chooses to publish only in paper form then who cares, it is your god given right to go and scan a copy and upload it to a server so anyone who wants a copy can have it and the author should just accept that? Or if he epublishes he should just accept the fact that again it is your god given right to upload it to a server so many thousands of people around the world can have a copy without any sort of compensation to the author? What about changing the book? Not fan-fiction mind you but actually changing the book and then distributing it? Is that ok too? What about simple plagarism? It's up to the audience to do what they like isn't it? And on a moral scale plagarism probably falls below grand theft auto, assault and battery and many other things so I guess it's ok by some people's logic. Should I be able to simply put my name to it? Where do you draw the line?

Again I wonder if your thoughts will change should you ever be published?

Cheers,
PKFFW

Well I'll answer your last question first, if I may. I no longer seek publication by the old and frankly, unfair, methods. Any control I have over the product will be granted by the public if they adhere to the lenient Creative Commons license I chose to publish myself under. What they then do with it, is up to them. I'd hope that nobody would try to make money off my work, as that's not my intention, and I trust the public to adhere to the Creative Commons licensing which allows them to freely share, redistribute, and even create derivative works from my original. My motivation is not for-profit, but because I have a desire and a want to write. If I had to pay a monthly fee to be allowed to write, I would do so.

I don't doubt that we'll see, in time, fan-edited versions of books as we have seen fan edited versions of Star Wars (Lucas didn't bother suing over this by the way). What I'm actually saying is that it's a futile endeavour to try and control your work after publication. Of course you can pursue those trying to make money off your work, I don't think there's any questions about that. But when it comes to file-sharing then you'd be cutting your own throat if you try and restrict the work with such archaic and useless schemes as DRM. That is why the old system is in such dire need of fixing. You can no more restrict a digital copy than you can retrieve a stick of hay out of a massive stack of needles. Ignoring that reality is a sure-fire way to disappointment.

If the product costs too much, as you say, then the price must come down to attract a market. Or, as a lot of authors are doing, you pay what 'you think' the product is worth, therefore cutting out the middlemen altogether and giving the author maximum profit from his work. Of course some people won't pay, but they wouldn't pay anyway, so nothing is lost, but a reader might be gained. It's a trade off. You either accept what's happening and join the people, or try to force the old methods into the new digital age and lose readers, money and everything else in the process.

I suppose I have more trust in people than you, but I think authors are going to come out of this age a lot better off than they've ever been before. I believe we're going to see more people reading, and reading more diversely because their culture is no longer shackled and locked by the old ways.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Well I'll answer your last question first, if I may. I no longer seek publication by the old and frankly, unfair, methods. Any control I have over the product will be granted by the public if they adhere to the lenient Creative Commons license I chose to publish myself under. What they then do with it, is up to them. I'd hope that nobody would try to make money off my work, as that's not my intention, and I trust the public to adhere to the Creative Commons licensing which allows them to freely share, redistribute, and even create derivative works from my original. My motivation is not for-profit, but because I have a desire and a want to write. If I had to pay a monthly fee to be allowed to write, I would do so.

Ok, fair enough. But lets say you did want to make a buck from writing. You were good enough to do so, people wanted to read your work(not suggesting they don't already mind you, just hypothesising), you put in the time and effort to produce it.

Don't you think people should be willing to pay for the priviledge of reading your work if that is what you ask?(and lets be clear, it is a priviledge to read anothers work and not a god given right as seems to be suggested) Or should people have the right to say "nope, I don't care about the time, effort etc that you have put into it, I want to read it but I don't want to pay so I'm going to illegally download it".

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I don't doubt that we'll see, in time, fan-edited versions of books as we have seen fan edited versions of Star Wars (Lucas didn't bother suing over this by the way). What I'm actually saying is that it's a futile endeavour to try and control your work after publication. Of course you can pursue those trying to make money off your work, I don't think there's any questions about that. But when it comes to file-sharing then you'd be cutting your own throat if you try and restrict the work with such archaic and useless schemes as DRM. That is why the old system is in such dire need of fixing. You can no more restrict a digital copy than you can retrieve a stick of hay out of a massive stack of needles. Ignoring that reality is a sure-fire way to disappointment.

I'm not arguing that the old way doesn't need to move with the times and change. I'm not arguing that pursuing every file-sharer is a waste of time and money and is likely to drive many people away from reading an authors work. I'm not arguing that all ebooks should be crippled with DRM.

I'm arguing that all that aside, no one has the god given right to access someone elses work, to take advantage of their time and effort, without first agreeing to the terms under which said work, time and effort is offered. If the author says "you can read my book so long as you pay $10 for a copy of the ebook" then you have the god given right to pay the $10 or to choose not to read the book. You don't have the god given right to say "nope, sorry, not gonna play by your rules. Thanks for all the time, effort, work and money you have put into it but I'm off to the torrent site to get my free copy."

Originally Posted by Moejoe

If the product costs too much, as you say, then the price must come down to attract a market. Or, as a lot of authors are doing, you pay what 'you think' the product is worth, therefore cutting out the middlemen altogether and giving the author maximum profit from his work. Of course some people won't pay, but they wouldn't pay anyway, so nothing is lost, but a reader might be gained. It's a trade off. You either accept what's happening and join the people, or try to force the old methods into the new digital age and lose readers, money and everything else in the process.

I totally agree that if the market place is charging too much for a product then it is incumbent upon the market place to drop the price until buyers are willing to pay the price asked.

Once again I agree that authors and publishers should come to the party and move with the times. However, using the fact they have chosen not to do so as yet to justify downloading a free copy(as opposed to pirating a copy which apparently is totally different) is just another rationalisation.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

I suppose I have more trust in people than you, but I think authors are going to come out of this age a lot better off than they've ever been before. I believe we're going to see more people reading, and reading more diversely because their culture is no longer shackled and locked by the old ways.

Actually I have alot of faith in people. I think the vast majority of people will be quite willing to pay a reasonable fee for an ebook. I am also aware of what the reality is right now. Right now most people who download free copies of ebooks do so because they do not want to pay the asking price. Further, most people who download free copies of ebooks have no intention of afterwards going out and paying the full asking price for that ebook. If they intended to do that, they would simply go and do it in the first place.

Once the market place changes, and it will eventually, I have no doubt that ebooks will be much like music. Many people will choose to download free copies as a way of sampling with the intention of buying a legit copy or at least legit copies of other books by the same author. This, in all likelihood, will lead to an increase in sales to the author. Win-win.

Whatever the reason though, it's still basically putting your own wants and desires ahead of the other persons. You want the book, you don't want to pay(at least to begin with) so you are happy to go obtain a free copy and to heck with the other person. Sure, it's not as bad as murder, assault, straight out theft, having an affair etc etc etc but it's still wrong.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

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

Well, if you think that rationalization is more important than sex, you are clearly better at the wrong one.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

My motivation is not for-profit, but because I have a desire and a want to write. If I had to pay a monthly fee to be allowed to write, I would do so.

You are fortunate to have a vocation. That is one of the four things that can give life a purpose - the other three are family, community, and faith.

A couple of years ago, I had a conversation with one of my sons. He is in college, & was thinking about what he wanted to study. He's very smart, and quite capable of doing anything he wants. He said that he wanted to be a writer.

I pointed out to him that if he really wanted to be a writer, he'd be writing.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by Harmon

You are fortunate to have a vocation. That is one of the four things that can give life a purpose - the other three are family, community, and faith.

A couple of years ago, I had a conversation with one of my sons. He is in college, & was thinking about what he wanted to study. He's very smart, and quite capable of doing anything he wants. He said that he wanted to be a writer.

I pointed out to him that if he really wanted to be a writer, he'd be writing.

Does three out of four count?

On a more serious note, I think anybody getting into writing for profit is on a losing track already. You have to find enjoyment in the writing itself, and everything that comes after is just gravy.