eBook piracy, how common is it?

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

...Let us, for the sake of argument, assume there is book out there that is self published, thereby assuring all profits go to the author, it is DRM free, it is reasonably priced and easily obtainable legally and one can sample the first 5 chapters free of charge to see if they like it or not.

In this case, would "file-sharing" the full text of the ebook through a mechanism such as p2p to unknown persons be considered wrong? Would obtaining a copy of said book through such a mechanism as p2p be wrong?
...

Yes, it would be wrong.

But more importantly for the author, he or she will capture a considerably larger portion of paying readers, and make more $$$$$$. Piracy will still be there, but most will pay.

Think of it this way: if bread cost $300 per loaf, most will start baking at home, and you'll start seeing bread-van robberies.

[PKFFW]

Any other views? Anyone?

[zerospinboson]

"Meanwhile, the CRIA is preparing a grassroots campaign in support of new copyright laws, even claiming that the current rules are costing jobs to truck drivers delivering CDs and DVDs."

..Awesome. Lord knows I'd forgotten about them before.

[zerospinboson]

Statutory Damages in Copyright Law: A Remedy in Need of Reform:

Abstract:
U.S. copyright law gives successful plaintiffs who promptly registered their works the ability to elect to receive an award of statutory damages, which can be granted in any amount between $750 and $150,000 per infringed work. This provision gives scant guidance about where in that range awards should be made, other than to say that the award should be in amount the court "considers just," and that the upper end of the spectrum, from $30,000 to $150,000 per infringed work, is reserved for awards against "willful" infringers. Courts have largely failed to develop a jurisprudence to guide decision-making about compensatory statutory damage awards in ordinary infringement cases or about strong deterrent or punitive damage awards in willful infringement cases. As a result, awards of statutory damages are frequently arbitrary, inconsistent, unprincipled, and sometimes grossly excessive.

This Article argues that such awards are not only inconsistent with Congressional intent in establishing the statutory damage regime, but also with principles of due process articulated in the Supreme Court's jurisprudence on punitive damage awards. Drawing upon some cases in which statutory damage awards have been consistent with Congressional intent and with the due process jurisprudence, this Article articulates principles upon which a sound jurisprudence for copyright statutory damage awards could be built. Nevertheless, legislative reform of the U.S. statutory damage rules may be desirable.

[PKFFW]

Since no others seem willing to reply.........

Originally Posted by Sonist

Yes, it would be wrong.

So in a nut shell you(and I imagine the others arguing that "file sharing" is not wrong but who refuse to respond to my question) are admitting that fundamentally, at it's core,"file sharing" is indeed wrong. You simply think it is justified due to the arguments put forward. Kind of like an "ends justifies the means" argument. Glad that is cleared up.

Originally Posted by Sonist

But more importantly for the author, he or she will capture a considerably larger portion of paying readers, and make more $$$$$$. Piracy will still be there, but most will pay.

Think of it this way: if bread cost $300 per loaf, most will start baking at home, and you'll start seeing bread-van robberies.

Totally different point and not one I am interested in discussing. I will say you are most likely correct, however, that has nothing to do with the fundamental wrongness or otherwise of "file sharing".

Cheers,
PKFFW

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Since no others seem willing to reply.........

So in a nut shell you(and I imagine the others arguing that "file sharing" is not wrong but who refuse to respond to my question) are admitting that fundamentally, at it's core,"file sharing" is indeed wrong. You simply think it is justified due to the arguments put forward. Kind of like an "ends justifies the means" argument. Glad that is cleared up.

Yes, assent by one person coupled with silence from the rest indeed is the same as unanimous consent. Glad we could clear that up too.

Totally different point and not one I am interested in discussing. I will say you are most likely correct, however, that has nothing to do with the fundamental wrongness or otherwise of "file sharing".

Nothing? I call BS. If the books/music made nobody any money, there wouldn't be any supposed moral issues either.
Similarly if authors only got a lump sum payment for producing a book, and corporations made the rest. Would you still care? Or would you say "sorry, guys, your business model is outdated. Evolve or die."
Because subsidizing industries that don't keep up with the times is not in the interest of the people, just in the interest of politicians, lobbyists and the corporations themselves.

Look at what the protectionism (through artificially keeping gasoline costs low) did for the US automaker industry. Stagnation that will cost tens of billions now to correct, as they probably won't be allowed to die.

Supporting Copyright is not the same as supporting a business model, nor should it be confused to be.

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Something occurred to me so I thought I'd ask for clarification.....

Most of the arguments used by "file-sharers"(as opposed to copiers or pirates I suppose) to argue that "file-sharing" is not wrong, seem to stem from one or more of the following.....

1: The old method is outdated. Big corporations are trying to protect their profits at the expense of authors, the consumers etc. This is bad.
2: The price is too high. Ebooks really should be alot cheaper to produce and market than pbooks. Therefore, charging the same or more for an ebook just isn't right.
3: DRM is like a license and not like owning the book. If one is to purchase the book, one should own the book and not a license.
4: They use "file-sharing" as a way to sample a product and have every intention of purchasing a legitimate copy if they like it.(seems to contradict point number 2 but whatever)

So, what I wanted clarified was..........

Let us, for the sake of argument, assume there is book out there that is self published, thereby assuring all profits go to the author, it is DRM free, it is reasonably priced and easily obtainable legally and one can sample the first 5 chapters free of charge to see if they like it or not.

In this case, would "file-sharing" the full text of the ebook through a mechanism such as p2p to unknown persons be considered wrong? Would obtaining a copy of said book through such a mechanism as p2p be wrong?

Cheers,
PKFFW

A little late, but what the hey, I'd like to take a stab at this one.

Okay, this is not wrong, and I'll make my arguments why it isn't.

1. It's highly unlikely to happen. Authors who give away their material and are without DRM are not popular on file sharing sites. There is no point in copying a product that is reasonably priced and without DRM, so the file sharers wouldn't be interested to begin with.

2. Nothing is lost if it is shared. If it was shared (again, highly unlikely) those who shared it would not have bought it. Zero sum game. A lost sale cannot be quantified when the someone sharing the copy would not have paid for it in the first place. Whereas you might gain sales if it is available to a larger audience.

3. The author should want it shared. Authors need readers, the file sharing community is millions strong and growing every day. You make a splash in file-sharing, you will gain a market that with DRM and restrictions you wouldn't otherwise get. Even without DRM and a reasonable price, an author ignores file-sharing at his own peril.

CASE STUDY: Best-selling author Paul Cohelo (The Alchemist) has given away his works on the Piratebay and seen nothing but benefits and an increased readership from this endeavour.

What I would suggest to this hypothetical author is that he move with the times, ditch the ancient "taster" marketing and adopt the Creative Commons Share-Alike license. If he wants an audience, he better start understanding that he can't do it "the old way".

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Since no others seem willing to reply.........

So in a nut shell you(and I imagine the others arguing that "file sharing" is not wrong but who refuse to respond to my question) are admitting that fundamentally, at it's core,"file sharing" is indeed wrong....

You live in strange world of absolutes.

And, I did answer your question. It's just that you refuse to accept it as an answer, since it's not black and white.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by zerospinboson

Yes, assent by one person coupled with silence from the rest indeed is the same as unanimous consent. Glad we could clear that up too.

Not sure of how the latin goes but the translation is something like..."He who is silent is taken to consent". Another way of saying if you disagree with something you should speak up, otherwise how is anyone to know?

Nothing? I call BS. If the books/music made nobody any money, there wouldn't be any supposed moral issues either.
Similarly if authors only got a lump sum payment for producing a book, and corporations made the rest. Would you still care? Or would you say "sorry, guys, your business model is outdated. Evolve or die."
Because subsidizing industries that don't keep up with the times is not in the interest of the people, just in the interest of politicians, lobbyists and the corporations themselves.

Look at what the protectionism (through artificially keeping gasoline costs low) did for the US automaker industry. Stagnation that will cost tens of billions now to correct, as they probably won't be allowed to die.

Supporting Copyright is not the same as supporting a business model, nor should it be confused to be.

Yep, nothing at all. Sorry to say.

Firstly, how much money is made from a work is not the deciding factor in whether one has the moral right to take that work without fair recompense. For example if I patent a new invention but do not make any money from it that does not give you the right to take that patent and use it without my permission and without payment and I would argue that to do so would be wrong.

Secondly, I did say your assertion that file sharing will lead to more sales is most likely correct. That is not the point though. I think we all agree on here that the industry must evolve or die.

My example was to clarify if those who support the moral right of the individual to "file share" other peoples work due to the arguments put forward actually think it is right or if it is justified(which is completely different). Obviously, by your own admission, you do believe the act of "file sharing"(got to love that euphemism by the way) to be wrong.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Moejoe]

File-sharing is not a euphemism, it describes exactly the process of what happens. Files are shared, that's it, it's the most apt description available. Here's a handy pictoral guide to it:

[zerospinboson]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Not sure of how the latin goes but the translation is something like..."He who is silent is taken to consent". Another way of saying if you disagree with something you should speak up, otherwise how is anyone to know?

OTOH, if you know the other side isn't listening anyway, why bother arguing.
Not a "saying" (well, not in this form; i'm sure someone's made a saying out of it though. would it help if I looked one up?), but much more true than "gee, you couldn't be bothered responding. I win. woohoo."


perhaps look up "quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur"?

Nope. Nothing at all. etc.

Sorry, but there are no moral absolutes. They were abolished right about when god died.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

A little late, but what the hey, I'd like to take a stab at this one.

Okay, this is not wrong, and I'll make my arguments why it isn't.

1. It's highly unlikely to happen. Authors who give away their material and are without DRM are not popular on file sharing sites. There is no point in copying a product that is reasonably priced and without DRM, so the file sharers wouldn't be interested to begin with.

I am highly unlikely to murder someone, does that mean it is not wrong to do so?

And before you suggest I am likening "file sharing" to murder, I am not. I am simply pointing out that something being highly unlikely to happen does not in any way mean that it is not wrong to do that thing.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

2. Nothing is lost if it is shared. If it was shared (again, highly unlikely) those who shared it would not have bought it. Zero sum game. A lost sale cannot be quantified when the someone sharing the copy would not have paid for it in the first place. Whereas you might gain sales if it is available to a larger audience.

Again, I am not talking about lost sales, revenue or anything of that nature.

Simple question, in the example where none of the usual arguments for "file sharing" hold true, is it wrong or not to "file share"?

Your point above is simply putting up the argument that it is not wrong because no sale has been lost and is not actually answering my question at all.

Originally Posted by Moejoe

3. The author should want it shared. Authors need readers, the file sharing community is millions strong and growing every day. You make a splash in file-sharing, you will gain a market that with DRM and restrictions you wouldn't otherwise get. Even without DRM and a reasonable price, an author ignores file-sharing at his own peril.

CASE STUDY: Best-selling author Paul Cohelo (The Alchemist) has given away his works on the Piratebay and seen nothing but benefits and an increased readership from this endeavour.

What you believe the author should want is not the issue I was asking about.

Again, simple question, in the example where none of the usual arguments for "file sharing" hold true, is it wrong or not to "file share"?

So far you have claimed it is not wrong and then used all the usual arguments in an attempt to show why it is not wrong. I am asking you to set aside those arguments, assume the example is the case in point, all those barriers(high price, old model, authors and consumers not taken care of, DRM free etc etc etc) have been set aside and it is easy, cost effective and convenient to fairly, legally and honestly obtain a copy of the work. Is it wrong to obtain a copy through "file shareing"?(meaning specifically torrenting, web download etc, obtaining a copy from some anonymous person who has shared it with possibly thousands of other people and not borrowing a copy from a mate)

Originally Posted by Moejoe

What I would suggest to this hypothetical author is that he move with the times, ditch the ancient "taster" marketing and adopt the Creative Commons Share-Alike license. If he wants an audience, he better start understanding that he can't do it "the old way".

So your final argument seems to be saying that it is not wrong if the author chooses to do things any way that you personally do not like. Is that it? In essesnce things are done your way or you feel you have the moral right to take the work in question without fair recompense?

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

I am highly unlikely to murder someone, does that mean it is not wrong to do so?

And before you suggest I am likening "file sharing" to murder, I am not. I am simply pointing out that something being highly unlikely to happen does not in any way mean that it is not wrong to do that thing.

Again, I am not talking about lost sales, revenue or anything of that nature.

Simple question, in the example where none of the usual arguments for "file sharing" hold true, is it wrong or not to "file share"?

Your point above is simply putting up the argument that it is not wrong because no sale has been lost and is not actually answering my question at all.

What you believe the author should want is not the issue I was asking about.

Again, simple question, in the example where none of the usual arguments for "file sharing" hold true, is it wrong or not to "file share"?

So far you have claimed it is not wrong and then used all the usual arguments in an attempt to show why it is not wrong. I am asking you to set aside those arguments, assume the example is the case in point, all those barriers(high price, old model, authors and consumers not taken care of, DRM free etc etc etc) have been set aside and it is easy, cost effective and convenient to fairly, legally and honestly obtain a copy of the work. Is it wrong to obtain a copy through "file shareing"?(meaning specifically torrenting, web download etc, obtaining a copy from some anonymous person who has shared it with possibly thousands of other people and not borrowing a copy from a mate)

So your final argument seems to be saying that it is not wrong if the author chooses to do things any way that you personally do not like. Is that it? In essesnce things are done your way or you feel you have the moral right to take the work in question without fair recompense?

Cheers,
PKFFW

What I'm saying is that although I personally don't share any artist's work when I find them reasonable in their approach (that's a holdout because of the generation in which I was raised), I don't see anything wrong with other people sharing their works. In fact, I see only benefits, born out by the example I posted of Paul Cohelo, and there are plenty more if you would like them listed.

It's not "MY WAY" it's the way that is most respected and most tolerated by the growing audience that is out there. Creative Commons has become the defacto standard of authors and creatives who wish to gain an audience and promote culture. It allows you to craft an agreement with the audience that is fair and balanced (unlike earlier copyright).

The old copyright agreement is basically THIS IS MY WORK = PAY ME TO GAIN ACCESS

The creative commons (at least the one I use is this)

THIS IS MY WORK > PLEASE ENJOY AND SHARE IT FREELY > MAYBE YOU'D LIKE TO PATRONISE ME WITH YOUR READERSHIP OR SOME FORM OF MONETARY RECOMPENSE IN THE FUTURE?

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

File-sharing is not a euphemism, it describes exactly the process of what happens. Files are shared, that's it, it's the most apt description available. Here's a handy pictoral guide to it:

Euphemism: A euphemism is a substitution of an agreeable or less offensive expression in place of one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant to the listener.

File sharing is not really sharing at all, it is copying, as your picture clearly shows. If I share something with you, I willingly give it to you. In the case of a "copyable" thing(think idea for example) the definitive distinction between "sharing" and "copying" is that I willingly give it to you for you to use. If I have not done that, then you have copied me, not shared in my idea. Piracy is a bit harsh I agree. "File Copying", would be the words that describes exactly the process of what happens though.

So why not use the words "file copying"? Could it be because that is a little less palatable? Makes it feel that little bit "wrong"?

So yes, it is a euphemism.

Cheers,
PKFFW

[Moejoe]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Euphemism: A euphemism is a substitution of an agreeable or less offensive expression in place of one that may offend or suggest something unpleasant to the listener.

File sharing is not really sharing at all, it is copying, as your picture clearly shows. If I share something with you, I willingly give it to you. In the case of a "copyable" thing(think idea for example) the definitive distinction between "sharing" and "copying" is that I willingly give it to you for you to use. If I have not done that, then you have copied me, not shared in my idea. Piracy is a bit harsh I agree. "File Copying", would be the words that describes exactly the process of what happens though.

So why not use the words "file copying"? Could it be because that is a little less palatable? Makes it feel that little bit "wrong"?

So yes, it is a euphemism.

Cheers,
PKFFW

Again, you're wrong, especially in the realm of Bittorrent - you ARE sharing, because as you download, you upload at the same time. It's not a straight one-to-one copy. File sharing is a description of the most popular process, which is Bittorrent. P2P is the blanket definition, or Person to Person, which covers other methods that are more traditionally seen as 'copying'... Limewire etc.