eBook piracy, how common is it?

[taosaur]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

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.

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.

This world of what "should be" and "would be probably so" strikes me as pure fiction. It's a fact that artists are notoriously neglectful of copyright, handing off its maintenance to third parties or selling it outright, often with little concern for what follows so long as their income persists. Those who wish to manage and assert copyright in every instance remain free to do so with regard to peer networks, but they might consider carefully how those networks have changed the terrain before they decide the best course of action for keeping their copyrights (and their incomes) intact.

Originally Posted by PKFFW

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.

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?

In all likelihood, no solution will be "worked out." Some creators and publishers will find strategies that leverage the new media and others will find themselves in a corner muttering, "T'ain't right."

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Harmon

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

Firstly, it was a quote from a movie not my own assertion.

Secondly, having water is more important than sex. Does that mean I am better at drinking water than at having sex?

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by taosaur

This world of what "should be" and "would be probably so" strikes me as pure fiction. It's a fact that artists are notoriously neglectful of copyright, handing off its maintenance to third parties or selling it outright, often with little concern for what follows so long as their income persists. Those who wish to manage and assert copyright in every instance remain free to do so with regard to peer networks, but they might consider carefully how those networks have changed the terrain before they decide the best course of action for keeping their copyrights (and their incomes) intact.

So again you seem to be arguing that the choices of another over their own work somehow bestows on you the right to take advantage of that work without any regard to the originators time and effort and compensation for such?

As for a world of fiction, your entire premise seems based on a fiction of how publishers and authors should be working so as to best benefit you and your desires and if they are not doing so then you have the right to do what you please without compensation to them.

Originally Posted by taosaur

In all likelihood, no solution will be "worked out." Some creators and publishers will find strategies that leverage the new media and others will find themselves in a corner muttering, "T'ain't right."

Well obviously for those wanting something for nothing no solution will be worked out. They don't need one anyway because they will simply continue to obtain free access to whatever digital media they want via the net without any regard for the author.

For the rest, as you say, some creators and publishers will find ways to market their works that encourage people to compensate them fairly for their efforts rather than obtain free copies. I'm sure whatever is eventually worked out will be a "solution" that benefits both the authors/publishers and the end consumer otherwise another solution will be needed.

In the mean time, those not happy with the current circumstances will choose to continue accessing others work without regard for their time and effort and will continue to rationalise it by whatever means necessary.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Does three out of four count?

All you need is one. Three is a blessing.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Secondly, having water is more important than sex. Does that mean I am better at drinking water than at having sex?

Now where did I put my ten foot pole...?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Now where did I put my ten foot pole...?

With a ten foot pole I think it's obvious which one you'd be better at.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

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.

There is no law in my state against "ebook file sharing."

There are laws against copyright infringement. There is no absolute, simple, cut-and-dried test for copyright infringement. The civil aspects are a tangled mess of conflicting precedents, and the criminal side involves copies *for profit.*

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

There is no law in my state against "ebook file sharing."

There are laws against copyright infringement. There is no absolute, simple, cut-and-dried test for copyright infringement. The civil aspects are a tangled mess of conflicting precedents, and the criminal side involves copies *for profit.*

Hence why I said if the law states it is illegal then it is.

As for the rest, like with any law, there are loopholes, ways around it, dumb juries, dumber lawyers and even dumber judges(no offence to any of those here) that makes it a mine field. In some cases people get away with murder but I wouldn't exactly say it isn't illegal based on that fact.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

With a ten foot pole I think it's obvious which one you'd be better at.

One must be modest about one's gifts, however great.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

dumb juries, dumber lawyers and even dumber judges

Yeah, I'd say your sequence accurately reflects the hierarchy in the land of the legally dumb.

Required Read: The Peter Principle by Dr. Laurence J. Peter

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Hence why I said if the law states it is illegal then it is.

As for the rest, like with any law, there are loopholes, ways around it, dumb juries, dumber lawyers and even dumber judges(no offence to any of those here) that makes it a mine field. In some cases people get away with murder but I wouldn't exactly say it isn't illegal based on that fact.

Hm. I could be mistaken, but isn't it the job of the legislators to fix loopholes, rather than juries/judges etc.?
Because I can assure you that as soon as judges, juries, etc. start interpreting the law 'liberally', there will be people whining about "judicial activism", and how that is even worse than "dumbness"; never mind the fact that the case will be dismissed by a judge on appeal because of technical improprieties.

It's all well and good (and above all oh so very convenient) to rail against "dumb" <something>, but it really helps if you at least get the group you want to be railing against straight.

[Xenophon]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Hm. I could be mistaken, but isn't it the job of the legislators to fix loopholes, rather than juries/judges etc.?
Because I can assure you that as soon as judges, juries, etc. start interpreting the law 'liberally', there will be people whining about "judicial activism", and how that is even worse than "dumbness"; never mind the fact that the case will be dismissed by a judge on appeal because of technical improprieties.

It's all well and good (and above all oh so very convenient) to rail against "dumb" <something>, but it really helps if you at least get the group you want to be railing against straight.

As far as I can tell, when a judge makes a decision that's a bit of a stretch from the letter of the statute/precedent it's "good sound legal reasoning" if I/you/he like it, "possibly troubling" if I'm/you're/he's not sure, and "judicial activism" if I/you/he disagree.

A simple matter of grammar.

The problem arises because each of us has different ideas of which decisions fall in which categories.

Xenophon

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Hm. I could be mistaken, but isn't it the job of the legislators to fix loopholes, rather than juries/judges etc.?
Because I can assure you that as soon as judges, juries, etc. start interpreting the law 'liberally', there will be people whining about "judicial activism", and how that is even worse than "dumbness"; never mind the fact that the case will be dismissed by a judge on appeal because of technical improprieties.

It's all well and good (and above all oh so very convenient) to rail against "dumb" <something>, but it really helps if you at least get the group you want to be railing against straight.

Firstly, my comment about dumb juries etc was done with tounge mostly poked in cheek. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Secondly, the loopholes will never ever be fixed. Why? Because the law is an idea that must be expressed. Laws must be written and the written word can always be interpretted, debated, changed and manipulated.

There is the spirit of the law and there is the letter of the law. In many instances the latter is used to twist the former. Hence why mega wealthy people rarely ever pay much tax, often times legally minimising their tax and just as often illegally doing so, and why the tax department rarely bothers going after them. They have the lawyers who are experts in twisting the letter of the law to get around the spirit of the law.

So in short, when I see lawyers knowingly twist the letter of the law in order to abrogate their clients responsibilities under the spirit of the law, and I see judges and juries falling for that crap then yes, I will say they collectively bear some responsibility for the situation.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Xenophon

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).

Well, here's a thought: maybe the problem is that copyright itself is beginning to fail. It could be that copyright is technologically unsustainable.

If this is true, perhaps we are falling back into the pre-copyright environment. But the rub is that the entry costs to the publishing business - the ones that used to exist, like buying a printing press & needing physical inventory & a sales force or distribtion network - have themselves been eliminated by technology. So maybe the pre-copyright environment itself has been destroyed by technology.

So whatever better model there might be could well be something that cuts loose entirely from the concept of copyright.

Not that I have such a model to propose. I do think that the model would involve branding. Another aspect of the model would be some kind of added value. The question is, whether any of that would show up on the hardware side, the software side, or the content side of the product.

It could be that the economic environment would grow different models if copyright were off the scene. Perhaps at this point, copyright is not only obsolete, but a barrier to a better system.

BTW, your description of the "region problem" struck me as exactly the problem faced by the pharmaceutical industry. And the parallel is the patent system.

[tirsales]

Well - the sad truth is, that copyright, patents, etc all stem from a pre-internet world. Selling one product (e.g. a book) is not the same as selling content (e.g. an ebook). Trying to uphold the same business models (like the music industrie failed to do for some time) is prone to fail (like it does). The music industry is slowly (oh so slowly) learning (see DRMfree music), the book industry will do so as well. Perhaps it will take longer for them - music had to adopt to quite a number of changes in the past (paper -> vinyl -> lp -> tape -> cd -> mp3), books only did once (handwritten -> printed). It didn't work for years - it worked for centuries.. It never was an innovation-rich industry (hey, some of them never ever managed to achieve an integrated workflow... still using print-outs and retyping text in each stage).

Long speech, no sense at all: We need new business models. I don't know whether some kind of "culture flatrate" would be practical, or some "pay per view", or whatever else - but a new model must (and will) evolve.
And those models will exist until a true "wireless world" is achieved (internet wherever you are - free of charge - will change business models. (Or perhaps will exist as soon as a wireless world exists). Point of fact: True "pay per view" would be possible, as would be "server based content". This would give some interesting possibilities - those possibilities are so interesting, that I really do not understand, why the content industry isn't forcing the telecom industry into new standards...)

(Please remember that "pay per view" does not necessarily mean that you pay x $ per view, but perhaps "x$ for the first ten views, x/2$ for the next 20, etc till 0$ after you have paid y$ in total.)

--edit:
Of course, other models are feasible as well - like selling service, additional products (shirts, cups, whatever), etc
I don't know how "book service" could look like (selling autographed books? ) - but then again I am not a publisher, so it's not my part to develop their business model (and if I had one, I would probably try to start it on my own ...)
And in response to the thread-question: Less common then music piracy, more common then common piracy. Less common then software piracy (and believe me - software industry is earning much money).

Perhaps focusing on service (high quality, easy to use, fast download speed, easy to search, abo-services, etc) would be the way to go. Perhaps with some brick-and-mortar stores selling eBooks and coffee? I'd love them (make that hot chocolate instead of coffee...).