Filesharing and ebooks

[Demented]

There are different levels of piracy though. I personally own over 1000 paper back books and maybe 150 ebooks. Once, I realized that I couldn't get most of the ebooks I wanted through legitimate means, I began investigating file sharing and then eventually darknets. There is a much much wider variety of e-book material in the 'dark market' than the actual one. I replaced almost my entire paper back collection in one swoop. I've also directly donate to authors who I think do good work and really have an interest in making their fans happy. I actually tracked Michelle West down, she published her personal email address to anyone who wanted to discuss her books and I found a way to send her a donation. I'd do the same for any author I like who is willing to reach out to their fans on the internet.

[folecr]

Originally Posted by Moejoe

Why pay? Well, why not pay?

Indeed, why not?

(1) Let us suppose I am a blatant consumer. Then, it is in my best interests as a consumer to pay.

Now, the only impediment to the author of the work I purchase receiving the money I want to give is the distribution system. If I torrent some work and if there is some means to compensate the author of said work, then I will do so.

Yay.

(2) On the other hand, if you are not a consumer of this work, then it doesn't matter... either you won't purchase it at all or will obtain it in a manner that denies the author of this work compensation. In either case, the author will make no money off of you.

(3) - Someone wants to pay, but can't afford to.

(4) - Someone consumes the work, but decides it's not worth the money.

Leaving aside the morality of (3) and (4), in practice the author will never ever make any real money from these people, DRM or otherwise. The best case is of course that eventually the people in (3) will get rich enough to pay.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by folecr

Indeed, why not?

(1) Let us suppose I am a blatant consumer. Then, it is in my best interests as a consumer to pay.

Is it? Speaking strictly as a consumer and setting aside the morality and legality of it?

1: You can obtain a book by paying the author.
2: You can obtain the same book by "file-sharing" it via the internet from some unknown uploader for free.

As has been pointed out, often the "file-shared" version is better proofed and formatted than the "legitimate" copy.

Further, as Moejoe has contended all along, authors will continue to write and publish, regardless of any monetary gain or otherwise, because that is what a creative artist/writer does.

So how is it in your best interest to pay rather than acquire it for free?

Cheers,
PKFFW

[mores]

Originally Posted by Vesper

Of course it is available... It just requires a bit of a digging

My post was more of a comic one - asking for a pirated version of a book that discusses pirated books. I don't really want to read it.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Further, as Moejoe has contended all along, authors will continue to write and publish, regardless of any monetary gain or otherwise, because that is what a creative artist/writer does.
So how is it in your best interest to pay rather than acquire it for free?

The idea that *all* artists would produce art for free seems doubtful. Some of the greatest works of art we have were commissioned - the artist wouldn't have created them if they weren't paid to do so.
If you pay, and thereby help free the artist from having to do other work to support themselves, they'd have the time to produce more for us to enjoy.

[Sweetpea]

Originally Posted by K-Thom

Nope. Forget it. Naive concept. Silly notion. If they can get in on torrent eventually why pay for it at all?

Leechers don't pay. They suck.

Don' you love when somebody puts everybody in boxes? I'm a leecher, so I suck.

No matter that I've bought several books after reading a leeched version, either in pbook or ebook format. I've also leeched some books I already have in pbook but was too lazy to scan myself (as there is no ebook version available).

Another thing: most leecher are hoarders. They download, but do not consume. Back at the start of my ereading days (somewhere in 2002, 2003), I downloaded a lot of books (didn't even look at what I downloaded). I don't think I ever read 99% of those.

What Bob Butler said, is an interesting hypothesis. I own a book, but don't want to scan it myself (either because I don't have a scanner, or I don't have the time). So, I give that book to somebody else to scan for me. Is that legal?
Or I get a scanned copy from somebody else, who also has that book. Is that legal?

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

The idea that *all* artists would produce art for free seems doubtful. Some of the greatest works of art we have were commissioned - the artist wouldn't have created them if they weren't paid to do so.
If you pay, and thereby help free the artist from having to do other work to support themselves, they'd have the time to produce more for us to enjoy.

Exactly!

Cheers,
PKFFW

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

The idea that *all* artists would produce art for free seems doubtful. Some of the greatest works of art we have were commissioned - the artist wouldn't have created them if they weren't paid to do so.
If you pay, and thereby help free the artist from having to do other work to support themselves, they'd have the time to produce more for us to enjoy.

Agree.

[Krystian Galaj]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

The idea that *all* artists would produce art for free seems doubtful. Some of the greatest works of art we have were commissioned - the artist wouldn't have created them if they weren't paid to do so.
If you pay, and thereby help free the artist from having to do other work to support themselves, they'd have the time to produce more for us to enjoy.

That seems to me not a good reason. There are so many good books already in existence that we won't be able to read all the ones we like in our lifetimes. So what gain is it that more are produced?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

That seems to me not a good reason. There are so many good books already in existence that we won't be able to read all the ones we like in our lifetimes. So what gain is it that more are produced?

Ah, the old - "Everything has already been discovered" theory....

[bill_mchale]

Originally Posted by Krystian Galaj

That seems to me not a good reason. There are so many good books already in existence that we won't be able to read all the ones we like in our lifetimes. So what gain is it that more are produced?

I have stayed out of this thread in general, but I have to respond to this post...

More books produced, at least more good books is a benefit to everyone. When J.K. Rowling first tried to sell Harry Potter, the publisher might have said there are enough Young Adult fantasy novels out there, we don't need any more. I doubt that her readers would have been grateful in retrospect.

The simple fact of the matter is that the best books often have something to say and that something to say might be most relevant to the generation in which the book was written. Sometimes that something is said by a first time author who is just pleased to be published and to have readers, but often enough it is said by pro's who live o write and write to live.

Whatever system of content distribution we evolve towards, I will oppose it unless it finds a way to compensate authors and unless it maximizes the amount of good books that are written and published.

--
Bill

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by bill_mchale

...

Whatever system of content distribution we evolve towards, I will oppose it unless it finds a way to compensate authors and unless it maximizes the amount of good books that are written and published.

--
Bill

And Bill this is the key, the crux of the matter. Yes some people are going to write regardless -- look at the blog obsession that is currently happening.

The question is whether the writing produced is worth reading.

My summation is that without a system the rewards the art of writing there will be very little worth reading and the impossible task will be finding that needle in the haystack. The web in general is already much in this vein.

[Blue Tyson]

Current (major) publishing doesn't maximise the number of good books published. It attempts to maximise those they think will sell a lot.

[ahi]

Originally Posted by kennyc

And Bill this is the key, the crux of the matter. Yes some people are going to write regardless -- look at the blog obsession that is currently happening.

The question is whether the writing produced is worth reading.

My summation is that without a system the rewards the art of writing there will be very little worth reading and the impossible task will be finding that needle in the haystack. The web in general is already much in this vein.

Oh, for heaven's sake...

Are you completely unaware about the writing that took place over the course of the overwhelming majority of human history that did not have the benefit of a massive middle class and computer equipment?

- Ahi

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

The idea that *all* artists would produce art for free seems doubtful. Some of the greatest works of art we have were commissioned - the artist wouldn't have created them if they weren't paid to do so.
If you pay, and thereby help free the artist from having to do other work to support themselves, they'd have the time to produce more for us to enjoy.

Precisely. A very large proportion of "great literature" was written for crass commercial gain. Shakespeare, Dickens, Hardy, etc - they all wrote to make money and earn a living. Not for some "higher" purpose.